To wonder theoretically if...

[Cain]

all the unemployed private sector workers with relevant skills swapped places with the dissatisfied public sector workers, could it avert the economic crisis the strikes will cause... ?

AIBU?

lol,your keep it real skills are enough to cut it in education?
aye just like diagnosis murder is great basis for medicine
so really your a bit of heckler at sidelines without willingness to train.indeed as you said "why the fuck should you"

WhereYouLeftItSun 19-Jun-11 01:19:59

Scottishmummy, I don't think she has a PhD, it was more of an expression. I think it stems from her posting -
"I am a mother of a child with SEN and can say with absolute confidence that where his teachers have a PGCE I have the PHD in teaching."
which I took to be her way of saying that her child's teachers are qualified but she knows more about teaching her child than they do.

Which, when you think about it, is much-of-a-muchness with the general anger and sneeriness she is displaying.

Spot on until your last sentence, I am neither angry nor sneery! lol
I am just looking for a satisfactory response to my OP but all I am getting is anger and sneeryness. Pure projection.

I am logging off now. Hopefull to see something constructive tomorrow.

the only projection is your rattle flying out pram.
cut the psychobabble
youre uncomfortable getting challenged.
and suddenly its all widdle poor misunderstood you

scottishmummySun 19-Jun-11 01:29:39

the only projection is your rattle flying out pram.
cut the psychobabble
youre uncomfortable getting challenged.
and suddenly its all widdle poor misunderstood you

Hahaha! In a word 'bollocks'. Night SM, I hope you can give some better insight than that or my opinion of you will dip.

So, your basis of being better at educating your child than his teachers is yunoyurbubson?
Funnily enough, I too know my children better than their teachers do.

If a teacher is made redundant, they will be replaced by one on the bottom of the scale. How much experience of SEN do you expect they will have?

Sorry, didn't make myself clear on part b); I meant it's not exactly going to help any economic crisis if we suddenly have millions of unemployed to look after is it?

"Do you really think this is personal? this is the entire economy in crisis. Striking just adds to the problem."

Yes I do. I suppose this is the ideological crux of the argument. The economy is in crisis but it's how you tackle it, I would say it's completely unfair to go after public sector pensions when we spend (IMO) too much on 'defence'. Others will take issue with other aspects of government spending. My issue is, why public sector pensions? Why aren't we having a holistic debate about what to cut instead of going straight for workers?

The other point re providing for yourself, I don't dispute that people should contribute when they can, but as others have pointed out the government can't have it both ways, it can't pay public sector workers relatively low wages AND give them little or no benefits. If a worker on a low wage has to put say 5% of their income into pension funds (what I believe someone above said they did) then they will have less disposable income to spend on goods and services, and this ALSO has a negative impact on the economy, depriving businesses of the stimulus needed to keep the economy growing. Workers on a low wage have little voice about where they put their money, if they can afford to save at all it either won't be enough to cover their whole pension costs, meaning the government still has to fork out later on in the day, or it will swallow up most of their income so they can't spend and thus boost the economy. I'm sure you're aware of how concerned the Chinese are about their citizens saving habits, and how this negatively influences the economy. It's not as extreme as China obviously, but a similar principle.

I think Swanker's point about whether it causes economic crisis needs exploring too. How big would this crisis be, if it existed?

youre over personalising and being avoidant again
i suspect folk have you rumbled,and you no likey

i have absolutely no idea who you are so your online opinion of me is of no relevance. i dont reacll or note any names on mn.its all about the pst not the poster.words ona screen and all that.so the soooo disappointed in you sm routine isnt relevant

i more wondering why you aren't volunteering or training given you keep it real skills

scottishmummySun 19-Jun-11 01:40:05

i more wondering why you aren't volunteering or training given you keep it real skills

Why should I? Just because I have the skills doesn't mean I am obliged to retrain again just so that I can spend my days with other peoples badly behaved urchins. No thank you.

noncuroSun 19-Jun-11 01:35:50

Sorry, didn't make myself clear on part b); I meant it's not exactly going to help any economic crisis if we suddenly have millions of unemployed to look after is it?

My OP asked a theoretical question about the unemployed with relevant skills swapping places with the dissatisfied workers - there would be no sudden increase in unemployed would there?

"Do you really think this is personal? this is the entire economy in crisis. Striking just adds to the problem."

Yes I do. I suppose this is the ideological crux of the argument. The economy is in crisis but it's how you tackle it, I would say it's completely unfair to go after public sector pensions when we spend (IMO) too much on 'defence'. Others will take issue with other aspects of government spending. My issue is, why public sector pensions? Why aren't we having a holistic debate about what to cut instead of going straight for workers?

I too agree that defence money should be cut but not as an either/or, two wrongs don't make a right.

The other point re providing for yourself, I don't dispute that people should contribute when they can, but as others have pointed out the government can't have it both ways, it can't pay public sector workers relatively low wages AND give them little or no benefits.

Why not? Life isn't fair so the sense of entitlement is misplaced imo.

I think Swanker's point about whether it causes economic crisis needs exploring too. How big would this crisis be, if it existed?

Just to give you the heads up; we are already in an economic crisis and have been since ooo about 2008...
this strike threat is being used as a strong arm tactic to add weight during negotiations and the unions are already talking about sustained strikes in the autumn.
Are you telling me you think that will have no impact on economic recovery?

swankerSun 19-Jun-11 01:34:16

So, your basis of being better at educating your child than his teachers is yunoyurbubson?
Funnily enough, I too know my children better than their teachers do.

If a teacher is made redundant, they will be replaced by one on the bottom of the scale. How much experience of SEN do you expect they will have?

My theoretical question again - 'the relevant skills'...I suggest they would have more relevant experience than many existing teachers.

"Just to give you the heads up; we are already in an economic crisis and have been since ooo about 2008..."

Your OP says the strikes will cause an economic crisis though, not exacerbate one. Do you mean it'll just cost the economy? I don't think anyone will argue that the strikes won't cost the economy, that's part of the point of a strike, to disrupt, but I can't really see how they will cause a new crisis on their own. But what you mean by "crisis" might be different to what others are imagining you mean so, what in your view is a "crisis"? Recession? Growth slowed? And what sort of scale? for one quarter? For a year?

"Why not? Life isn't fair so the sense of entitlement is misplaced imo."

It's not just about fairness, it will also hurt the economy whatever the government does, like I said in that post. Caring for the elderly is always going to cost the government money, if they're not giving people they employ on low pay adequate wages and pension contributions this either a) means people won't be able to save enough now, and so will still need to rely on the government further down the line (this is particularly true of older public sector workers who thought they had made good plans for retirement, but have now had the goalposts changed) or b) will manage to save enough, but it will cripple them and so will spend less money on goods and services, which also harms the economy. Undoubtedly there are some very highly paid public sector workers who this won't affect much, but they're by no means the majority.

The point I made about defence wasn't really a defence v pensions argument, it's more wondering why the coalition has decided to go for pensions, when that money is inextricably linked to our own economy whether they spend it or not. There are lots of other areas of spending which don't cost us to cut (defence being just one example) they have bizarrely left untouched, so we can gather this is ideological, rather than a serious attempt to tackle the problem.

Apologies in advance if I've missed some of the more ahem nuanced aspects of this debate, I've skimmed through some of it.

I get irate at the suggestion that public sector workers are lazy, unskilled, and living a gold plated life. For the record the average 'gold plated' pension in the civil service is £4k a year. For which someone will have earnt minimum wage or thereabouts while doing a thankless task, often in support of the most vulnerable in society, and often facing daily abuse. I would not be a front line worker in a social services department or a housing office for all the 'benefits' in the world, and am thankful for those that are.

At the other end of the scale, 'the professions' in the publc sector earn less than market rate, and without bonuses for the most part, or other perks like conferences, subsidised staff events, healthcare or gyms. They earn a reasonable salary, but not in coparison with hte private sector. And they do so for a number of reasons; in part because of the pension, yes, but also the greater respect for life balance, and gasp some of us actually believe in public service.

I get that things are tough in the private sector; but things are tough in the public sector too. I lived for 8 months last year with huge uncertainty over the future of my team and my role, it was honestly the worst time of my career.

Surely, the key is not to make public sector rewards as shit as they are elsewhere, but to improve pension provision for all. A dive for the bottom while kicking nurses, teachers and social workers (skills not readily available in teh private sector) is not the answer.

Oh, and one more thing

If the public sector really adds no value to the economy, soshould be cut back, how will a strike harm the economy? Seems a curiously contradictory arguement from Mr O...

I completely agree, if only all the nurses and bankers had swaped positions before 2008, Im sure the entire economic crisis could have been completely averted.

However having medical treatment would have become very risky.

Hmm.. On second thoughts, maybe I prefer the nurses to be in nursing..

My public sector department is struggling to recruit at the moment. Where are all the private sector SWs wanting to work in the cushy public sector?

C'mon , roll up, roll up, £20k a year and all the blame you want! We will give you the opportunity to drive all over the north west, paying for as much parking as you want and getting as many threats as you will ever need.We offer flexi-time with as much you can accrue but don't expect to ever take any!

HarrietJ do you need a degree for that? How much do I get paid to train?

HJ - sounds amazing - t'is a wonder that you're not over run, what with it being so cushy and all...

It's not my job actually , I'm below that ( less money/same hassle/buck doesn't entirely stop with me).
You'll need a degree, post grad ones are coming in ( people are doing them while working atm) There was a bursary for the initial degree but it's stopping AFAIK. You must be able to drive /own a car/ business insurance and breakdown cover ( all in our contracts.

Would I also get debts of about £45,000 and no wage for 3 years before I can start? Wohoo!
And if I crash my car, I have to pay for it? Hmm..

Or shall I go be a wbanker, gamble other peoples money and get paid x10 that amount?
And if I crash the entire economy, someone else pays for it? Oh go on then!

Yes you'll be lucky enough to work f/t on placements whilst on the course and of course if you are really lucky the placement won't be anywhere near your home!

Or you could be a nurse. 3 years at university paying for the privilege and then take life or death responsibilities for £22k? How much is the golden plated salary of a nurse nowadays? Working unsociable shifts, getting abused by members of the public and being responsible for a whole ward ( going off the starved by the nhs thread) .

cain you opine vociferously on jobs you couldn't do (not qualified) but do have PhD in told you so but are contemptuous of other folks "brats"?

are you a wee bitty frustrated or jealous that you arent using your PhD level skills.you protest too much

cut and paste that

Scottishmummy, think youve hot the nail on the head with the "frustrated and jealous" bit. Reminds me of a few Nursing Assistants who I had the misfortune to come across when I was a student Nurse who treated me with contempt, derision, nastiness and out and out bulyying on a few occasions. All because they thought they could do the job of a Registered Staff Nurse better than the Nurses - of which I was training to be 1. (disclaimer -I also met a lot of nice Nursing Assistants to!)

My thoughts were simple - if you think you can do it - go ahead! Survive on a meagre bursary for 3 years and work afor an agency in your spare time, cramming in seeing your children when you can and doing all the course work (I was a single parent to at that point) To be met with the "real nursing is in the wards and not University" claptrap - but you still need the qualification folks, and you gained plenty of experience practically to.

So OP if you think you can teach better than your childs teachers go ahead and get the qualification - but you dont want to as evidenced by the "other peoples badly behaved urchins" comment - so just let yourself be consumed by bitterness instead. Nice.

in relation to my specific public sector role, which is all i know enough to have an opinion on, your idea would not work op. Mainly because there are very few unemployed people with the private sector version of my job. Those who are not employed by the public sector tend to work freelance for a a very lucrative hourly rate ( I have a friend who earns the same as me by working two days a week rather than five plus on-call).

I also agree with a point further up - if public sector jobs are so excellent, good benefits and improving wages, then why were the currently unemployed so keen to work in the private sector?

scottishmummySun 19-Jun-11 21:07:33

cain you opine vociferously on jobs you couldn't do (not qualified) but do have PhD in told you so but are contemptuous of other folks "brats"?

are you a wee bitty frustrated or jealous that you arent using your PhD level skills.you protest too much

cut and paste that

Ok. As you asked so nicely!
'Brats' was your word I think you'll find, perhaps you should discover your C&P function so you can quote accurately also...

I love my job, yet you opine vociferously that I ought to give that up and retrain for a job I'm sensible enough to realise I probably wouldn't enjoy.
Where is the sense in that? So I too could join the resentful and dissatisfied ranks?

More interesting reading from others, thank you.

Cain- sorry I've taken so long to get back to you, I was busy having a life...Yes my dear, Sonography Does exist outside of the NHS. In order to get to this promised land of the private sector though you have to be NHS trained- GCSEs, A-levels, 3 years of Radiography degree, find a job, then most hospitals like you to do a couple of years of general Radiography before you go any further....
Then... 2-3 years of Ultrasound masters...Oh what fun! All in the NHS...When you have all this under your belt, only then- Yes! you can work in the private sector! For better terms and conditions and pay...Sorry- I'm totally missing your point here?!