Do we all have an indisputable right to inflationary or higher annual pay raises? And if we don't get them...

[AtheneNoctua]

is striking a just response?

I'm of course thinking of Thursday's teachers' strike. But, really they are not the only ones to go on stirke because their pay rises are not in line with inflation.

So what do you think?
Do you always get an inflationary pay rise?
What would you do if you didn't?

I'm undecided on whether or not I think the teachers' strike is an appropriate response to their pay rises. I do appreciate they don't make a lot of money. But, then they knew that when they decided to become teachers.

Discuss please...

athene - see what Marina and Laurie said.

Really? You need qualifications for a state school that you don't need for a private school?

I am obviously ignorant.

Surely teachers should be getting danger money now. Once I could see an argument for paying the police more to reflect the level of violence they have to deal with, but given that assaults by kids have gone through the roof teachers should get that reflected in their pay.
As should all public sector workers who have to deal with violence, IMO.

Oho, Laurie, have you seen the recent figures for the explosion of non-qualified teaching staff in the state sector - especially in London? Huge hike. Due mainly to overseas supply staff filling urgent gaps.
Most independent schools with a good reputation use exactly the same criteria as the state sector - QTS

Yup, you need a PGCE or Cert ED to teach in a state school - for private you just need to be a subject graduate, usually.

I think Public Sector jobs should keep pace with inflation, yes.

They are not in an environment where they can control the income or expenditure, do not get bonusses or commission etc. If theeir pay decreases in real terms, the savings won't be used to invest to make thier situation better in the long run - as it would in a commercial environment.

We can't afford for them to leave and seek alternative careers.

Yes you need a PGCE to teach in a secondary school, you don't need anything to teach in a private school - of course lots of them do have qualifications.

The pay isn't markedly better though.

Well, you can be an unqualified teacher/instructor. But you get paid less.

Kathy, my professional association now offers about ten different courses on dealing with hostile and aggressive behaviour from the "clientele". Most college and university libraries have uniformed security staff at the entrance and panic buttons for the staff. As do all public libraries. There is a real culture of treating public sector staff as punchbags in this country - perhaps with an underlying rationale that they are all overpaid slackers so they get what they deserve, who knows.
Huw, do you feel the enhanced pay is sufficient compensation for the increased workload, out of interest?

I know Marina, and it's the kids who are suffering.

I saw something about this in the press just yesterday. It is a shocker isn't it
Wonder why there is such a shortage of teachers in London

i don't know if it is still the case but teachers used to be able to retire early (at 55 I think, like nurses and police officers). This was perhaps a reflection of the exhausting nature of their profession, as others have said.

I hope they get it. I want the people looking after my children and teaching them stuff to be as happy, chilled, rewarded and enthusiastic as they can be.

No. Early retirement gone.

I think teachers pay is shocking. My dad taught up until taking (early, ill health) retirement (like pretty much all his burnt out colleagues). At retirement, 4 years ago, he was earning slightly less than I do now as a trainee in my field. And about 3K more than I was earning as a university researcher with 10 years experience and sod-all responsibility, at the time he went off sick. I wouldn't do it for the money, and that's my litmus test.

And no, he never had anything LIKE 13 weeks off a year - 4 tops. Otherwise he was in school, working or at home, working. He is now very regretful and sad about missing out on my and my brother's childhoods in such a big way.

I do think I am forming the opinion that teachers are underpaid. And, if we want quality teachers, we have to pay them more.

But... I'm not sure I support the strike as a just response. Childcare is hard enough to manage with schools closing for the day on short notice. Some people who are put out by the strike are less fortunate than teachers. And I think I have more sympathy for them.

That doesn't mean teachers don't have a valid point, it just means I'm not sure I support the approach. (especially since the other teacher unions declined to join NUT)

If they're going to keep recruiting decent quality teachers as well, esp. in shortage subjects, pay has to change

many graduates like me when I qualify will be 20K in debt

not ahrd to see why many people would dismiss the poorer paid career they might excel at (eg teaching, social worker, HCP) in order to pay that off

what should they do instead, athene?

I don't know much at all about teacher's salaries to comment. I do think, however that there is a perception by some that private sector salaries are always better. Definitely not the case, not any more.

Also, it depends what bit of the private sector you are comparing to. There's the City, with health insurance, gym membership and all that palaver, and at the other end there are millions of private sector employees who have low salaries, no contributory pension, statutory sick pay only, statutory maternity pay only, statutory holiday entitlement only. Plus a whole range of people with something in between.

With teachers, who do they feel they should be compared to? It's a genuine question. If it's, say, lawyers, should it be city law firms or weeny struggling high street ones? Pay and benefits in the private sector vary so much by area, size of the business, how successful or not the business is, so many factors which don't come into it in the public sector as a rule.

A detailed comparison would be interesting, but I think such a comparison should take into account total package. Even leaving aside the arguments about how much of the 13 weeks not in school is actually holiday, it's impossible to argue that teacher's benefits aren't fantastic. People in the private sector can only dream of final salary pension schemes, and the teachers' one is incredibly good, plus take into account all the other benefits you get in the public sector. Not as glamorous as a gym membership or company car, but often worth much more financially and also more important personally to the individual.

And in answer to the OP, no we don't have the right to pay increases. Another point to make is that I've never worked anywhere that had an automatic cost of living increase. Pay rises where I've been have been dependent on performance - you perform well, you get a raise, either a weeny one, or a bit more if you are outstanding. If you don't perform you don't get a raise. No increases just for sitting there for a year.

I want to avoid sounding bitter - there is absolutely no way I would work in the public sector and I admire anyone who does, it definitely wouldn't suit me and I don't begrudge anyone their lovely benefits. But I think there is a tendency not to look at the whole picture sometimes.

they have that flowery - they don't get over 'threshold' (pay rise) if they don't perform so they can't sit there year on year and get a payrise without performing.

I compared a teacher to a police officer earlier - a fair public sector comparison I think.

Oh really Laurie? Shows how much I know! So when they are talking about 2.5% or whatever it is, that's only for people reaching a certain standard in their appraisals or whatever?

No, sorry I misunderstood you - they all get it, it's a national pay deal. If they didn't get it then it would be in effect a pay cut (as cost of living rises).

What I was saying is that an underperforming teacher doesn't get to automatically go up the scale.

Thanks for clarifying Laurie.

I am interested - if a teacher (or similar) is performing well, they would move up the scale then? Does that happen every year? How much difference is there between scale points? So they'd get the nationally agreed 2.5% for cost of living plus a higher point on the scale if they are performing well enough?

Yes, you up a scale point every year til you get to the top of that scale only if you complete your agreed perfomance tasks.

You then go over to the next scale (threshold) if you prepare a very comprehensive portfolio of work and achievements and complete all your targets year on year.

Shit teachers mostly go nowhere (obviously some manage to sit around on arse - there are loafers in every profession)

Approx £1500 before tax between scale points

Thanks Laurie. Interesting to hear a bit more detail. I think a lot of people would hear those being interviewed on telly talking about 2.5% being an effective pay cut (which of course it is) and would assume that's all teachers are getting, not realising that most of them are getting a performance-based increase as well. As I say, I've never worked anywhere which had an across the board cost of living increase- it would be interesting to know whether the private sector rates they are comparing with in the media are like-for-like on that basis.