...to think teachers DO get paid over the holidays?

[MasterBeth]

It doesn't make sense to me.

Some people say teachers don't get paid over the holidays. They are paid, they say, for 40 weeks, but their money is aggregated over 52 weeks and paid monthly.

What does that even mean? How is it (practically) any different to being paid (less per week) for 52 weeks?

Yep. It’s also why I think talking about holidays as unpaid and all the extra hours as unpaid is unhelpful. It gives the impression that it’s all totally voluntary and out of the goodness of our hearts. It isn’t a choice, it is contracted and some schools stretch that elastic clause a lot further than others.

It absolutely has been said to me as a point of complaint. I am trying to establish what that complaint is, why this way of payment exists and whether a more regular way of payment would be better.

@Takoneko and @PeggyPiglet are making a good stab at exploring the confusion and contradictions. It's interesting that @soupmaker has a directly contradictory view to @Takoneko - they can't both be right.

I am trying to establish what that complaint is, why this way of payment exists and whether a more regular way of payment would be better.

Why?

It absolutely has been said to me as a point of complaint. I am trying to establish what that complaint is, why this way of payment exists and whether a more regular way of payment would be better

If you've been told it's been a point of complaint by teachers, why do you need to establish what it is? You've been told.

Regular doesn't exist in teaching. Every school, every class, every head teacher, every year group, every role are different.

Because I don't understand what the complaint is, and my friend couldn't really tell me. He was adamant that it was a bad thing that he was only paid for 40 (?) weeks, spread over 52, but he couldn't tell me what practical difference it made.

If you re-read the thread, you will notice this was my question on page one. If someone would care to answer it, I would still be grateful.

Because of this ^^ conversation with my friend, because it's interesting and because I"m curious. Why does anyone want to know anything?

It has been answered. However now, having your answer, you've decided that you also want to establish whether restructuring teacher contracts would be any better.

Why? This isn't an area you have any particular insight into, or experience of.

You've got a thread of teachers jumping through hoops to try to justify themselves, the usual shitheads going on about final salary pensions and saying teachers claim they work harder than anyone else.

Why should teachers bother talking about restructuring teacher contracts with you? What exactly is in it for us?

Nothing needs re-structuring or changing except for the phrase "teachers don't get paid for holidays, etc".

That's all, no biggie really, it's just an archaic phrase that needs consigning to 'history' because obviously teachers get holiday pay as part of their 12 monthly payments; the T&Cs surrounding how and when they can take their holidays might be more job specific than some other jobs, but that's all factored into the pay.

Simples.

I don't believe anyone is forcing you to continue the conversation if you don't want to.

I don't think many people have really answered or really explored why being paid for 40 weeks is even a thing, or is a bad thing, but I'll happily be corrected if you can point me to those posts. ("Shroedinger's holiday" seems to be the best non-explanation.) Instead, as you rightly say, others (including many teachers) have moved the conversation onto teachers' hours, workloads and remuneration.

They ger paid in 12 payments. They are paid for 195 days. So that payment is spread over but they are only paid for 190 days work

This makes absolute sense to me, and yet many teachers on this thread will argue the exact opposite - that they don't get paid for the holidays.

Hence the confusion. Hence the discussion.

The point I made upthread still stands. If teachers were paid for the holidays, they could be compelled to be on the premises. But they're not. It's an administrative convenience. That is all.

What needs to get in the bin is people making teachers jump through hoops to justify themselves by feigning interest in historical vagaries of the teaching contract.

No one gives that much of a shit.

Your persecution complex is misplaced. I think teachers should be paid more. Pointing out/exploring why you don't get paid for three months of the year doesn't seem to be asking you to justify yourself.

No one makes 'teachers' do anything, except the teaching SLT, ergo it's 'teachers' that make teachers do 'extra' stuff.

This thread is about if Teachers get 'holiday pay'/paid for holidays and the consensus here is that they do.

Only if there was an increase in their directed hours, surely?

Teachers get paid 12 monthly instalments of an annual salary in the UK. Teachers are only actually paid for their contracted hours but in reality they work waaaay beyond their contracted hours so it's a moot point. It's a way to justify teachers' comparatively lower salaries. So if they were paid for the full year (and contracts were changed to include something like summer school) then teachers would need a decent whack added. There was a lot of fuss about this post COVID when lots of parents were saying teachers should just work over the summer holidays to help kids catch up but the general public had no idea about teachers' pay and conditions and that they are only contracted to work 190 days a year.

Hourly/daily rates are needed for many reasons...eg calculating part-time salaries, maternity pay, sick leave, time owed in lieu, overtime payment(rare!)
Hope that makes sense!

Teacher contracts are archaic and unlike standard job ones. There are no fixed working hours in them other than 1265 hours per year over 195 days when they can be directed to be in a particular place (ie school). It’s not 1265 hours of work - it’s a contract with a specific number of hours when the boss (head teacher) can tell them where they physically must be and what they must do. Teachers work many hours over this to fulfil their roles and this varies between schools, roles, individual teachers…

Now here is the evidence that teachers are not paid for all of the holidays.
The archaic teacher contract contains no contractual right to annual leave or holiday pay. However the 2007 working time directive gives a statutory right to 28 days annual leave.
Looking at the non-accrual of annual leave to tag on to maternity leave really lays this all out.

You can see some examples:
https://www.st-josephs.slough.sch.uk/assets/Documents/Attachments/Maternity-Leave-and-Pay-Policy-for-Teachers-.pdf

https://www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2022-02/2018%2006%2014%20-%20Maternity%20Policy%20for%20Teaching%20Staff%20%20-%20FV2.0%20-%20June%202018.doc

https://pitcheroak.worcs.sch.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/49-Maternity-Leave-for-Teachers-Jan-2015-updtd-June-2020.pdf

Plenty examples of teacher maternity policies via google.

My point is about not being paid for the holidays.

Those 5 days are inset days (non-pupil days used for training.

Quite. The OP is a case in point, as their irrelevant and unwarranted psychological assessment of you demonstrates.

It has been explained to you over and over OP. You're just not getting the answers you want.

It just is this way. We are paid for the days we work with the kids (plus 5 and extra hours).

195 days + standard holiday pay.
The rest of the time there are no kids there so no teaching. It's like a hotel that shuts out of season and gets rid of its seasonal workers. They are not paid as the purpose of their job is removed.

In order to maintain a steady income the pay is split over 12 months for teachers. It didn't used to be like this but someone somewhere changed it years ago.