5lab - thats the issue - it is not a contribution to the pensions at all. The teachers one is especially blatant
I was under the impression that public pensions come from 'the big pot'. If after this change the pensions are still taking more out of 'the big pot' than those drawing the pensions are putting in, surely its still a subsidised pension, just the drawees are paying more towards their share?
I acknowledge the 'pot' is shared with other things, but if it was entirely seperated off and the government simply matched the public service employee's input into the pot, it'd probably run dry pretty quickly
A nurse is what I am. Its far more than just a job. Even when not at work I reamin a nurse legally bound by my professional ethics and judged by the standards of being a nurse not a lay person
What characteristics make me good at my job?
Empathy, strong stomach, counselling skills, understanding of dementia, knowledge of anatomy and physiology, skills in performing complex mechanical tasks, abilty to set priorities, multitasking.
Few of my real skills are transferable elsewhere. Where do other jobs needs someone who can recognise when someone is distressed about their partner having dementia and find the right way to help them gain some understanding and acceptance of this?
Where does the ability to calm and soothe an agiatated person with dementia fit in outside of nursing?
you can aliken that to a brickie though. A brickie will be good at surveying a site, good at mixing mortar, good at climbing ladders/scaffolding, good at laying bricks. The vast majority of those skills are useless outside of bricklaying as well, but I don't see many 60+year old brickies
Where does the ability to calm and soothe an agiatated person with dementia fit in outside of nursing?
You could ask an Engineer where material property data for a composite shaft could be required outside of composite engineering?
Or a lawyer where expert working knowledge of divorce law is required outside of that practice.
Or you could not focus on the details, and look at transferable skills, rather than non-transferable!
[i]Hands in the pockets, hmph, don't want to change so you can't make me.[/i]People move jobs, re-train, gain additional training to keep employed. Its a matter of looking at your skills and applying yourself. You're not entitled to a job you know?
That's not my point. If the suggested follow-on career paths have bugger all to do with a nurse's skillset, then the suggestion might as well have been lion tamer, professional downhill MTBer or forex trader.
That it Konabuynny./
hing is the people suggesting that I should leave nursing simply show they have no understanding of my skills set and what the job requires.
That it Konabuynny./
hing is the people suggesting that I should leave nursing simply show they have no understanding of my skills set and what the job requires.
Different take on things, looking at TJ'S figures a qualified Nurse in the Forces earns significantly more than their counterparts in the NHS. When not on operations many work effectively for the NHS, but can be argued are doing 2 jobs and at present have less job security.
What characteristics make me good at my job?Empathy, strong stomach, counselling skills, understanding of dementia, knowledge of anatomy and physiology, skills in performing complex mechanical tasks, abilty to set priorities, multitasking.
There you go. Plenty of those are valid in all kinds of areas.
Few of my real skills are transferable elsewhere.
Most jobs require little in the way of specific skill but rely on the soft-skills you listed above.
Where do other jobs needs someone who can recognise when someone is distressed about their partner having dementia and find the right way to help them gain some understanding and acceptance of this?
Not many I'd imagine, but the soft-skills behind that practical application are valid in other areas.
Where does the ability to calm and soothe an agiatated person with dementia fit in outside of nursing?
The exact opposite of what you do in helmet threads? 😯
If you want to be a nurse that's great. If you want to apply your skills to something else then you certainly have them.
LHS,
You have a particularly short sighted attitude.
Our health service and education systems benefit hugely from having time served, experienced staff who understand the system and can keep it running under the onslaught of new initiatives from central Govt.
These people are hard to replace because the system is complicated and relies on lots of personal interactions - knowledge and experience are often as important as "skills"
It's much easier to replace one brickie with another as they don't need so much to "fit in" with a large team.
It is probably unreasonable to suggest that someone who is good at nursing would also be good at managing nurses. The knowledge would be useful but the skills different. It certainly wouldn't be the case for all nurses that they could make the transition. I have first hand experience of people who were technically good at their job (chemists) then promoted to management (of me) and turned out to be thoroughly useless, they eventually improve though.
We have guys in our factory who do a very physical job, they are now having to retire at 68? I'm fairly certain this will be the case amongst many other jobs in the public and private sector. But generally are people not getting healthier and living longer lives and remaining active for longer, so perhaps they could continue to work for longer. Could they have done the job at 65 ten years ago?
This is something society and government is going to have to tackle. Not sure of the answer but having more pensioners isn't the answer unless we find a way to fund them. I was under the impression that traditionally the retirement age was set up at the average life expectancy. Probably done to manage the number of pensions that had to be paid. To expect to have a 20 year retirement is quite a luxury.
We have guys in our factory who do a very physical job, they are now having to retire at 68?
Not sure of the answer but having more pensioners isn't the answer unless we find a way to fund them.
The current answer seems to be doing a few years in semi-retirement at Homebase once you're too knackered to be of further use in your primary career.
LHS,You have a particularly short sighted attitude.
Our health service and education systems benefit hugely from having time served, experienced staff who understand the system and can keep it running under the onslaught of new initiatives from central Govt.
These people are not only essential, but hard to replace because the system is complicated and relies on lots of personal interactions - knowledge and experience are often as important as "skills"
It's much easier to replace one brickie with another as they don't need so much to "fit in" with a large team.
I don't disagree wth what you're saying, I fully understand the value of experienced staff. My point is that people are saying they can't leave their current profession because there is nothing in the private sector that they could transfer in to. Which is rubbish and short sighted.
I'm not suggesting people leave, but if they choose to then look past the end of their nose!
Nice comparison with a "brickie" to highlight your point! 🙄
It is probably unreasonable to suggest that someone who is good at nursing would also be good at managing nurses.
No, no, no, no. You'll never make it as a politician if you're going to say that.
You're supposed to say that you'll fire "NHS bureaucrats" and you'll "give more power back to ward sisters and matrons" (to distract them from the job of patient care and manage massively complex procurement, IT, construction and financing projects).
The current answer seems to be doing a few years in semi-retirement at Homebase once you're too knackered to be of further use in your primary career.
When did retiring become a good thing?
Mandatory retirement devastated my grandparents. My grandmother (a nurse) made a career of writing indignant letters to politicians asking for her job back for 20-odd years after she retired.
KHS -you fail to understand just how specialised my skill set and those of others in a similar position is. Really I have looked into this. Its not short sighted its reality
My grandmother (a nurse) made a career of writing indignant letters to politicians asking for her job back for 20-odd years after she retired.
You should have insisted she retrained and got into private Sector nursing, care home work, private home help management, occupational health or Health & Safety.
would the better way be to set the retirement age (for both the state pension, and public pensions - I don't see why they'd be any different) at '85% of life expectancy' for that year? so if one year, life expectancy is 80, you retire at 68. if a couple of years later, it's 85, you retire at 71, and so on. Then you have a rolling target and don't need to have reforms which cause these conflicts
KHS -you fail to understand just how specialised my skill set and those of others in a similar position is. Really I have looked into this. Its not short sighted its reality
I disagree, you are no different from any other skilled worker.
My point is that people are saying they can't leave their current profession because there is nothing in the private sector that they could transfer in to.
My point is "thank goodness for that" - otherwise we might be seeing people that we NEED disappearing in droves, because even with a vocation to particular work, at some point you can no longer afford to carry on.
IMHO all of this pensions strife isn't really about money - it's about security.
Lots of people who go into the public sector have done so, not expecting to get rich, and probably without great prospects or the option of transferring easily into another job should they feel like a change - but in return what they did expect and trust in was some security for later life.
This whole episode isn't just about the Govt taking away money, it's about taking away trust that they will do the right thing by public sector workers.
You should have insisted she retrained and got into private Sector nursing, care home work, private home help management, occupational health or Health & Safety.
She tried. Literally couldn't get a job over 60 back then.
would the better way be to set the retirement age (for both the state pension, and public pensions - I don't see why they'd be any different) at '85% of life expectancy' for that year? so if one year, life expectancy is 80, you retire at 68. if a couple of years later, it's 85, you retire at 71, and so on. Then you have a rolling target and don't need to have reforms which cause these conflicts
Wasn't the state pension age set 2 years [b]before[/b] the average age of death when it was introduced?
My point is that people are saying they can't leave their current profession because there is nothing in the private sector that they could transfer in to. Which is rubbish and short sighted.
so what you are saying is that the public and private sector do exactly the same thing and all roles are the same so swapping between them is very easy?....so teachers, nurses, firepeople etc could just swap to private providers [ all of them obviously].
Perhaps you are saying that in the current economic climate it would be esy to use my transferable skills to change areas I work in .....given I work in the field of the unemployed I would question this as every area has skilled people with experience currently unemployed - why would they train me to do the job someone else can already do?
certainly a few could transfer but to think even a sizable minority could is not accurate.
It is not impossible for some to do [ say an accountant], it is very very hard for most to do and impossible for everyone to do it.
you are no different from any other skilled worker.
so highly skilled offshore oil engineer would do what in the public sector exactly? a highly skilled industrial chemist would od what in the public sector.
I am a careers adviser and you are just talking out your rear here.Skills and knowledge are generally specific to industries/occupations [ unless of course you wish to argue experience counts for nothing] you cannot just change careers because you have skills an are bright [ in either direction]. You certainly cannot do it when the economy and recruitment is on its arse just because you have communications skills and are good with people.
Yes some occupations exist in both sectors but not all.
When did retiring become a good thing?
About the same time as we did away with the poor house?
But it's not as if all of those public sector workers ARE going to be retiring on their current £6 k pensions as it stands is it?
This isn't a question of whether public sector workers will be taking slightly shorter cruises in their retirement you know?
Personally I have no expectation of ever "retiring", but it would be nice to have some choice about how one manages one's decline.
JY/TJ - why adopt such a self limiting approach?
TJ - you list a combination of admirable skills/experience - some are job specific, some are applicable in a wide areas. If (and I am not saying that you are BTW) you define yourself by your recent role ie, A nurse is what I am, then you are making it harder for yourself. If however, you define yourself as an individual with a wide skills set then you may find more opportunities, including in surprising areas. However, you demonstrate a passion and pride in your role, so perhaps the best thing is to wish you well in finding a vacant role to fill.
JY - its not easy, no, but equally not impossible. There are plenty of private sector jobs dealing with UN people - especially now!
Its interesting in teaching, that the private sector has more flexibility in hiring. So people who have wider experience in business can become teachers much faster in the independent sector. From experience, a relative's best teachers are biased towards those with wider (non-teaching) experience. Few of them, would be able to transfer quickly into the state sector, so guess where they go?
would the better way be to set the retirement age...at '85% of life expectancy' for that year?
Whose life expectancy - a Glasgow man's (70.7) or a Chelsea woman's (88.9)? A labourer's or a surgeon's?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8317986.stm
So people who have wider experience in business can become teachers much faster in the independent sector.
Because they don't have to learn all the crowd control (behaviour management) stuff - it really is as simple as that.
edit (and fewer policy hoops to jump through)
Its interesting in teaching, that the private sector has more flexibility in hiring.
In this context, does "flexibility in hiring" teachers in UK private schools still mean people without any academic or professional qualification beyond a working with children check can be hired?
would the better way be to set the retirement age (for both the state pension, and public pensions - I don't see why they'd be any different) at '85% of life expectancy' for that year? so if one year, life expectancy is 80, you retire at 68. if a couple of years later, it's 85, you retire at 71, and so on. Then you have a rolling target and don't need to have reforms which cause these conflicts
Life expectancy varies so much around the country. For example it is less than 71 for Glasgow, compared to about 77 for the national average. 71 is bad enough but there are some districts within the city when it is about 54. It might not get quite that bad elsewhere in the UK, but there will still be a huge disparity in life expectancy based based on social and economic circumstances.
moved from the yes/no thread ashere is for 'discussion'
The moneys not there because of the Bankers nothing to do with the Public Sector
but the general public was complicit in over leveraging on depreciating goods (cars/plasma-tv's etc) and overpriced fixed assets (houses) the banks lent but the public borrowed as did the ever expanding public sector. the U.K. has some of the highest levels of public and private debt. it's only the ability to print £'s that stops us being in the same situation as ireland/greece/spain/italy
striking is just protectionism, we all have to take a dose of the medicine whether we like it or not.
2%? plenty of private sector wages have down not up (especially at the sharp end not director level)
I can see TJ being a replacement for the late Jimmy Saville and help resurrect prime-time Saturday Evening entertainment. The nemesis of Simon Cowell
Jezza'll Fix It!!!
I'd watch that. Kids right in with the stuff they've always dreamed of doing. Uncle Jezza gets them in to inform them that they're wrong, they don't really want to do that, they want to do something much more worthwhile and rewarding. He sends them away to lead much fuller lives 😀
From the New Statesman. Do you consider that to be an unbiased source? I give you one example..CharlieMungus - Member
> http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/11/public-sector-strikeSome mythbusting
That "triple crunch" is affecting everyone, not just public sector. The NS is as complicit in the them/us viewpoint as the Daily MailWe can debate the merits of industrial action as a form of protest. But with[b] public sector[/b] workers facing a triple crunch - higher contributions, a tougher inflation index and lower benefits
Where does the ability to calm and soothe an agiatated person with dementia fit in outside of nursing?
Advisor to the House of Lords?
🙁
Nothing like a bit of orchestrated 'us' vs 'them' tension to cover up the fact that we're all being shafted at the end of the day...
[quote> http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/11/public-sector-strike
Some mythbusting
Trouble is - you can't trust them to be unbiased any more than the others, they have their bias and spin it accordingly
Because they don't have to learn all the crowd control (behaviour management) stuff - it really is as simple as that.
RPRT - I guess from the edit, that this was a joke (at least the bit after the hyphen)
edit (and fewer policy hoops to jump through)
For sure!
In this context, does "flexibility in hiring" teachers in UK private schools still mean people without any academic or professional qualification beyond a working with children check can be hired?
I don't know in general, but in my limited experience, of course not!! Indeed some bring a breadth of academic and professional experience and qualification and the schools in question demand it!!
JY/TJ - why adopt such a self limiting approach?
Post grad qualified Careers adviser working daily with the unemployed ...you think I need your advice [ no offence intended with thart as it reads ruder than it is meant] ?
JY - its not easy, no, but equally not impossible. There are plenty of private sector jobs dealing with UN people - especially now!
Pretty close to impossible currently I would say. Re my role they put them out to tender then pay you on results...do you want to be paid on how many unemployed people you can get into work in the current economic climate? none are achieving 50% of their targets- that would still be govt funded by taxes but we would now just have a private company making profit as well.
It would not be impossible for an investment banker to get a job in the public sector but if 1000 tried how many would succeed? I would not advise anyone to have this as their sole career goal as it is at best uncertain. The same would apply form me going to the private sector ..it might happen but it is more likely it wont.
No offence this is not really an area i wish to discuss on STW as its my job and I am happy I know the most , for once 😀
You cannot use this rule with economics obviously 😉
Now its sunny o'clock and I am off to ride as i have done my picketing for today
The staggers does give a good evidence based counterpoint to teh myth of unaffordable public sector pensions
For now, here are two myths that deserve to be rebutted again. The first is that public sector pensions, in their current form, are "unaffordable". David Cameron, for instance, has frequently claimed that the system is "broke". But as the graph below from the government-commissioned Hutton Report shows, public sector pension payments peaked at 1.9 per cent of GDP in 2010-11 and will gradually fall over the next fifty years to 1.4 per cent in 2059-60. The government's plan to ask employees to work longer and pay more is a political choice, not an economic necessity.
[img]
[/img]
JY - I wasn't meaning to question your professional expertise either - merely the mindset (again that sounds ruder than I mean). But while the correlation between positive thinking and positive results is not perfect, the one between negative (limited) thinking and negative (limited) results is!!
Enjoy the ride - wrap up warm!
I know I was partly taking the piss as I argue in areas where you clearly know more than me.
Ye syou are right but positivity alone does not control the outcome....Despite the cynicism i do say stuff like that above at work
Sunny here but putting my hat on I hate cold ears
I'm not going to argue with you about transferable skills or not. You either believe you have them or you don't. There are thousands of people who switch careers throughout their life, its not an uncommon thing and you're not unique.
I can't help but think that the unions are again failing to think things through, they're so flaming linear.
So you have an issue that you feel very strongly about so you want to make the government feel some pain - you call a strike and the only people that actually feel any pain are the strikers and the rest of the public.
It won't hurt the government one bit but may well lose you some more support from outside of the sector.
It's the public sector that does the government's work, collects it's taxes and polices its laws.
Surely you can you up with something far more effective and painful for the government?
Does anyone here actually think the strike will produce anything? - come on, think outside of the box a bit, you could really squeeze their balls a bit.
LHS - its a pity that you have so little understanding.
I have seriously looked into doing this and there is nothing beyond unsklilled work I could do without complete retraining. You have been unable to suggest anything, I have been to professional careers advisors who were unable to do so. junkyard who is a professional inthe feild is unable to do so.
LHS - its a pity that you have so little understanding.
As I said I am not going to argue with you about it, thats your interpretation of what you are capable of doing.
Some good advice for you:
http://www.prospects.ac.uk/options_nursing_your_skills.htm
Nothing like a bit of orchestrated 'us' vs 'them' tension to cover up the fact that we're all being shafted at the end of the day...
This really.
Pay rises in the private sector are averaging 3% at the moment. Won't be long now before companies start saying to employees 'well the private sector are having a 15% reduction in real terms over 5 years, what makes you think you're a special case?'.
Well, the NS is biased*, but given that there are no unbiased sourcesnaround, it is usefult to read something from the other side.
In fact the NS has writers from a wide range of political views, previously Amanda Platell, now writing for the Daily Mail. Also, the data presented is not biased and the presentation is not misleading.
Pay rises in the private sector are averaging 3% at the moment.
Well I can only speak for my own company but ........
2009 0%
2010 - 0%
2011 - 1.5%
EDIT: some mates have had reductions too so I sort of feel lucky to have had 1.5% rise since June 2008
No LHS - its the truth from a position of knowledge. You have shown how little you know about my profession and skills set.
They are the official figures, apparently, hence my belief that private sector workers will be getting screwed even more in the near future.
Well I can only speak for my own company but ........2009 0%
2010 - 0%
2011 - 1.5%
Perhaps, but anecdote is not the singular of evidence
i think i'm going to do abit of devil's advocacy for lhs here because i find i'm in disagreement with tj in principle if not detail.
now, as an example, let's take a fellow who's worked fpr the nhs for some 30 years. now this chap, far from being non-transferable, as tj says has had quite some number of private sector jobs, albeit mainly health related - those that weren't for whoever it was thought that nursing and H&S are transferable, meant he had to go off and do a bit of training. all of that made him a sight employable when he was in occ health. not only that. while he was in the p[rivate sector the joy that was monday to friday working allowed him to do another degree and thus provide another string to his bow should the nhs go tits up.
unfortunately this attitude seems to be fairly alien to the nhs culture. while there's a regular trickle of people coming into the service from other professions there doesn't seem to be quite the same in the case of people exiting.
quite why this should be i can't say beyond tj's attitude of once a nurse, always a nurse which seems to me astonishing self limiting. that coupled with a nursing mindset that appears, to me at least, that any training or additional support should not be self generated but should be provided and paid for by someone else. true, there are many cultural factors that contribute to this. to usea bit of management speak, in my eyes, the nhs is remarkably non-empowering in this respect no matter what they claim (for example, was the chap to make this claim on a blog/facebook etc he'd be staring right down the barrel of a disciplinary - there are some things the nhs is quick about)
it seems an oddly insulated mindset that sees itself as still having a job for life. this would be great but in terms of workforce planning simply isn't realistic - staff of 60+ on acute medical takes? - i don't think so - aside from the physical aspect, the cognitive ability, or diminishment thereof, is fully supported in the literature.
in short then, i see this attitude that nurses can't do anything else as idealistic at best and unimaginative and blinkered at worst. certainly it isn't helpful for the individual. but a malleable work population who doesn;t think they can do anythiong else? just the way management likes them...
*i'd point out it's not my intention to have a go at tj here, more soem opinions on the organsiation culture that produces some of the attitudes above.
No LHS - its the truth from a position of knowledge. You have shown how little you know about my profession and skills set.
As I said I am not going to argue with you about it, thats your interpretation of what you are capable of doing.
THM,
Not (alas) a joke at all.
Private schools are full of relatively well behaved kids in small classes with few or no SEN kids + parents with high expectations of them.
Generally speaking that makes them a much easier bunch to teach than kids in your average state school - therefore it's much easier for someone with less *experience* (i.e. someone coming in from another profession) to teach them because there are fewer behavioural issues.
edit: in other words even if the barriers to entry were the same, those teachers from outside of the education system would probably find it much tougher to move into the state system anyway.
If you want some more camparison
My company:
2009 3.5%
2010 nil
2011 nil
My wifes
2009 -5% to avoid redundancies
2010 2.5%
2011 2.5%
My brother
2009 nil
2010 redundant
2011 agency worker on less than he was before redundancy
My youngest brother
2009 2.4%
2010 2.25%
2011 ?
Not prepared to scan payslips for your evidence though
craigxxl,
Was that everyone in each company, from the MD down?
Right
I have done a degree in my own time and at my own cost.
I have looked into this extensivly and there is simply nothing other than unskilled work outside of my profession I can do unless I do significant further training.
It show such ignorance of my profession that people think its easy and is simply a set of basic transferable skills. Its patronising. I have spent decades building these skills.
All those who think specialist nursing skills could be transferred to other jobs please tell me the jobs - I would be delighted to know
Proof, TJ?
I suppose some of it is about your intent of career. For example many friends went into financial services or IT at a relatively low level in order to progress within a career with the intention of moving up the career ladder.
This has also been the case for many colleagues within health and allied professions that I know. They wanted to be high fliers and being a bog standard Band 5 for a year or two was the door in.
Others, such as myself, want to be the best Nurse possible for my patients and provide that one to one hands on care. Progression in most directions would mean losing those opportunities and that skillset. Hence my choice of career progression and development is very specific and leaves me less employable outside of my profession - I have specialised myself out of wider opportunities.
My wife is moving in the other direction and will have a much wider range of transferable skills than most.
It is, however, my firm belief that both types of nurse are needed within health care for it to function effectively. Too much one way or the other and the system will fail.
Caveat - I appreciate that this is true in many other professions but I can only speak from what i know.
rightplacerighttime - Member
craigxxl,Was that everyone in each company, from the MD down?
My Company, No management took no pay increase in 2009
My Wifes, no the management took a 10% reduction
My youngest brother, doubtful he's a porter for the NHS.
It show such ignorance of my profession that people think its easy and is simply a set of basic transferable skills. Its patronising. I have spent decades building these skills.
Nobody is patronising you. Quite the opposite.
All those who think specialist nursing skills could be transferred to other jobs please tell me the jobs - I would be delighted to know
Everyone has been pointing out you have a wealth of non-specialised skills applicable to all kinds of roles.
If you're looking for a job that isn't nursing that has exactly the same specialist skills as a nurse you won't find one.
If you're looking for another role you'd be good at there will be plenty.
The official figure touted for FTSE bosses in 2010 and 2011 were 55% and, IIRC, 49%.
Which suggests to me that we (down here, whether private or public sector) are all in it together.
Which is why I can't understand falling for divide and rule.
Personally, if the Govt were making the changes to our pay and pensions with the intention of pension redistribution to private sector workers I would find it much more paletable.
However, I suspect we (at the bottom end) will all be sat here with naff all in a few years whilst the 'real them' are laughing and sunning it up elsewhere.
((current salary - salary 5 years ago) / current salary) = 6.15%
Can you tell I'm not public sector?
If you're looking for another role you'd be good at there will be plenty.
This is like something from Lewis Carroll.
What 5thelephant - please - I would like a change of direction. I have looked and beyond coming in at the ground floor in hosptality / tourism / retail I can see nothing nor can the professional advisors I have consulted
Everyone has been pointing out you have a wealth of non-specialised skills applicable to all kinds of roles.
a couple of people have claimed this
This is like something from Lewis Carroll.
Are you suggesting it's some kind of fantasy that someone could be good at more than one job?
I've always found good people are good at all kinds of jobs. That's who you try and recruit.
I can see nothing nor can the professional advisors I have consulted
What about your acting career?
[img] 
[/img]
my aunt became a doctor by studying through the OU whilst she was a nurse and had 3 kids to look after. so thats at least one career path
I am 50 - that would take 4 years full time study. I think I would get i yrs credit for the skills Ihave
CharlieMungus - Member
> http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/11/public-sector-strikeSome mythbusting
Worth reading in combination with:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/8923446/Why-my-school-will-stay-open-during-the-strike.html
Out of interest, why didn't Wallace (or is it Grommit?) respond to Cameron's jibe at lunchtime about being, "left-wing" with the reply, "yes, I am"?
And going back to the NS:
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/11/spending-review-union-trade
There is, of course, a specific dispute at the heart of today's action - the government's proposals to reform public sector pensions. There is also, within that specific dispute, a detail that is often lost in reporting, which is the distinction between reforms set out in the report by Lord Hutton, subsequently watered down in negotiations, and changes introduced in last autumn's spending review. The Hutton proposals are the basis of the deal that has been offered to -- and rejected by -- unions. But many public sector workers are just as aggrieved by a mandatory surcharge on their employee pension contributions averaging 3.2 per cent that was in the small print of the spending review. That was seen by many as a pre-emptive attack on pensions rushed through before negotiations on a long-term settlement even got under way.
Labour is keen to emphasise the surcharge for precisely that reason. It was imposed by the Treasury without discussion and looks and feels like a smash-and-grab raid. There is some disappointment at the top of the party that unions have not pushed this point further. [i]But privately unions say they see no point going after the 3 per cent charge as they know this is a battle they cannot win. They are right.[/i] I was told recently by a cabinet minister with good knowledge of the pension negotiations with unions that the surcharge is non-negotiable. It isn't even on the table. That is precisely because it is contained in the spending review. That document has acquired hallowed status in the government - it is the agreement on which the coalition's whole commitment to fiscal discipline is based. Ministers from both governing parties see it as the measure that, more than anything else, bought the country long-term respite from any pressure from financial markets that have punished other indebted governments in Europe. (Whether or not this is a real danger -- or was a danger in autumn last year -- is an entirely different point.) The fact is, whatever disputes might arise within the coalition, there is absolute agreement that the spending review is closed and must not be re-opened. It is the emblem of fiscal credibility.
Teamhurtmore - that telegraph piece is long on opinion and devoid of facts unlike the staggers piece which has a bit of both - nfact the torygraph piece simply regurgitates a lie
Someone has to pay for public sector pensions – we’re all living longer, the economy is stagnating, and teachers ought to understand these facts.
They do. the teachers pension fund was reformed a couple of years ago precisely for this reason and now has a binding cap on taxpayer contributions - so teachers are paying for teachers pensions. any shortfall will come from teachers
Nay prob's TJ - the article was written by a Head Teacher. Stupidly thought he might provide some insight.
Lets stick to a chief political commentators stuff in future - much more likely to be clued-in.
Actually re-reading some of the DT stuff makes me wonder whether this Head should be allowed anywhere near kids:
This is the paradox about the unions: on the one hand, they’re very Left-wing and want money poured into deprived areas, but, on the other, they reject the measures that do some good for children in poor communities. Sadly, some unionised teachers have lost sight of why they came into teaching. Trying to improve failing schools, I have faced obstruction from militant teachers who have become so bound up in ideology that they have forgotten the children. Very often, the unions won’t tolerate anything that threatens their beloved “work-life balance”.
Bl@@dy scandal, what people get away with these days!
Swiss01....if the reality is that deep down everybody knows that 65 year old DRs, paramedics and nurses isnt going to happen and that front line medical roles are jobs for younger people then there needs to widespread reform being led by the government, not nonsense about making the NHS retirement age 68 years old.
Pay employees significantly higher wages and do away with pensions altogether, then people have the option to spend the extra money on qualifications for a second career once their front line medical career is over or make their own investments re. pensions, property etc etc....because realistically there arent that many people in any role in the NHS over 55....and the government must be paying out a fair amount in medically retiring people before the age of retirement, this will happen more and more in the future unfortunately.
I could find you a head teachers opinion that contradicts that - he is not a head teacher anyway as he is the manager for more than one school.
His ideology is clear and clearly biased - and he is not in step with the majority of his profession
For the past 10 years, I have been head teacher at Woodberry Down primary school in Hackney, and I am executive head of four schools in total.
I wonder if there is any link between that and...
he is not in step with the majority of his profession
?
And his ideology:
I trained as a teacher because I wanted to improve people’s lives. This is what we try to do in our federation of schools. I love teaching. In fact, I’m looking forward to going into work today. By coming to school I will have helped to make a positive impact on children’s lives, and on their chances of finding fulfilment and reaching their potential – something I would not be able to do standing on Victoria Embankment waving banners.
Again its a bl@@dy scandal!!
deviant, i don't think there's any acceptance, let alone recognition, esp form nhs management that an ageing staff group in a pressure area is going to work, nor as far as i know is there any skill mix work going on that would support such an approach, which is a shame. i would contrast this with what i experienced in the states in that, if you wanted to be a manager, or work in a non frontline role, you got paid less so that experienced staff stayed in the acute areas until it got too much for them (or they got too expensive in which case the management machinated a sacking).
somebody somewhere suggested a pensions cap so that you couldn't get a pension of more than twenty five grand. this seems fair to me. some form of salary ceiling seems reasonable also, particularly for those managers who seem, to me, to get paid an awful lot to go to an awful lot of meetings and spend little, if any time, actually in the place of work - and heaven forbid that they should actually appear in anything like an out of hours period!
[i]His ideology is clear and clearly biased[/i]
hmmm, someone's not been looking up tautology in the dictionary....
Swiss01....i would agree with the idea behind keeping good frontline staff in operational roles and paying managers less, this would see an end to the careerist managers in the NHS who just want to climb the greasy pole and keep managerial job vacancies for frontline staff who want to take a step back and have excellent previous experience to bring to a supervisory role.
Good plan that.
To give an example of some of the nonsense going on in the NHS where i work, a Paramedic friend of mine has just qualified....literally just qualified....i'm talking mere weeks since he was a student.
He has been a good student and will make an excellent Paramedic, here's to many years good service and the Trust recouping the money back that they spent on his training....oh hang on, thats not going to happen because the service (in its infinite wisdom) has already made him a manager!....thats right folks, they have identified him as such a good Paramedic that they are prepared to remove him from that role almost immediately and put him behind a desk!
You couldnt make it up, of course he has accepted the promotion as its more money and he has some student debts to pay off but if anybody wanted an example of how barmy things are in the NHS then that is a great example.
i would agree with the idea behind keeping good frontline staff in operational roles and paying managers less, this would see an end to the careerist managers in the NHS who just want to climb the greasy pole and keep managerial job vacancies for frontline staff who want to take a step back and have excellent previous experience to bring to a supervisory role.
+1 - would the NHS/public sector have the foresight/flexibility to implement this? Not meant to be a biased question, but really a genuine one.
It takes special management to pay their top performers more than them (although this may be more extreme than you are suggestion).