Forum menu
That makes my point - the threat of the sack is being used to motivate teachers. surely they should be being offered bonuses as according to you guys that is the only way to motivate staff?
It's not so much the fact that the money is given as a bonus, so much as the fact that many executives/bankers are paid an obscene amount of money.
If you happen to think that growing inequality is a bad thing (I do) then big bonuses are bad.
If you think that bonuses mean [url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/mar/09/john-lewis-staff-share-200m-pound-bonuses ]this[/url] then I guess they aren't too bad.
That makes my point - the threat of the sack is being used to motivate teachers. surely they should be being offered bonuses as according to you guys that is the only way to motivate staff?
Because they are not motivated by money, are they? If teachers were motivated by money and bonuses we'd be seeing calls for more privately run schools managing their own budgets, more privately run health centres and hospitals, wouldn't we?
[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8949399/Michael-Gove-plans-elite-Master-Teacher-grade-to-lure-top-talent.html ]There are plans for there to be a carrot as well [/url]
Isn't this like the pensions debate those who haven't want the others brought down to their level instead of striving to get that themselves.
It's also like the pensions debate in that people focus on the extremes (bankers bonuses and council leader final salary schemes) and not general schemes most applicable employees are on.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2004/mar/16/schools.uk3
The National Union of Teachers (NUT) rejected the government's proposals to extend the existing pay scale by introducing a new Excellent Teachers Scheme, which relies heavily on performance-related pay
"The extension of performance related pay based on pupil progress to the main scale will further demoralise and demotivate teachers and make the profession less attractive."
What do you think TJ - were the unions looking to reward the excellent teachers, or protect the crap ones?
One has to wonder what they were afraid of?
😉
That makes my point - the threat of the sack is being used to motivate teachers. surely they should be being offered bonuses as according to you guys that is the only way to motivate staff?
Answers TJ, please? Low risk and low rewards provided by the public sector or high risk with high rewards, with the added bonus of public scrutiny in the private sector?
If you want the bonuses, I personally don't see any problem in privatising the health and education services, do you?
So in the hypothetical situation where teachers were given identical basic salaries and offered discretionary bonuses to be based on pre-arranged and agreed (sensible) performance targets, what do you think would be the outcome for (a) teachers, (b) pupils, (c) schools?
DS, some services are just that, not revenue generators.
Profit based bonuses in Care for example would lead to corners being cut, to the detriment of the Service Users.
Safeguards and regulation just don't work where the ethos of profit replaces the fundamentals of care.
That makes my point - the threat of the sack is being used to motivate teachers
That does not make your point, your point was that UNLESS teachers did their BEST they would be sacked. That's not true. If teachers are average, or even slightly below average they're fine, as has been the case for decades. If they are complete tripe, then they will be sacked. Which is sensible.
On the other hand if someone in the banking industry is just average, they will be sacked. If they work their nuts off to achieve greatness, they will be rewarded.
Profit based bonuses in Care for example would lead to corners being cut, to the detriment of the Service Users.
Or they could lead to services being delivered more efficiently with no consequence to Service Users other than a reduction in cost. The difficult bit is working out which has happened and that is where the failure of such systems often occurs in both the private and the public sector.
If you happen to think that growing inequality is a bad thing (I do) then big bonuses are bad.If you think that bonuses mean this then I guess they aren't too bad.
This sums up the main issues, for me...
If the company is doing well, based on the [u]collective[/u] input of the workforce, then it is reasonable that a bonus is widely distributed - the JL model.
FWIW, from many of the business I have worked with (directly and as a consultant) it is the collaborative effort that makes a business profitable. The posts above about intellectual based organisations are interesting because that is the sort of area I have knowledge of, and the research fits well with my views on this.
On the other hand, for businesses that [i]do[/i] arrive at success through outstanding individual effort, then it is right to recognise and reward that effort.
The common mistake is to (financially) recognise and incentivise individual achievement in a team oriented setting / culture - you do need to motivate, but the whole team.
Profit based bonuses in Care for example would lead to corners being cut, to the detriment of the Service Users.
TJ seems to think that it would increase productivity and motivation and would be a good idea. I don't see why it should lead to corners being cut, except if it run by sloppy employees.
Rusty, I do happen to understand what I'm talking about here and would just like TJ to answer the question about being willing to accept the higher risks involved as a way of obtaining the bonuses he wants.
Isn't this like the pensions debate those who haven't want the others brought down to their level instead of striving to get that themselves.
No. This is TJ banging his drum until we all agree with him that there is an unjust difference between teachers and bankers. He has a view and we must all bow down and see the world from his POV otherwise he will consume all of the internet with his arguements.
Or at least that's how I see it 🙁
TJ seems to think that it would increase productivity and motivation and would be a good idea.
Really - where did I say that?
I am still awaiting some sort of rational explanation why some groups of employees have to have large sums of money dangled in front of them to be motivated to do their best and it is considered acceptable that they will not perform at their best unless this is done when other groups of employees will apparently perform of their best without any incentives but they are threatened with the sack if they do not perform of their best.
tootall - its exposing the hypocrisy of the bonus culture.
The company owners reduce the time available for calls and squeeze more clients in - care is spread too thinly.
People genuinely suffer because of this.
It's not rocket science, surely you can see this?
Teaching is a real can of worms - the pay structure needs a root and branch review as it is set up to cause stagnation and disatisfaction.
mrs rkk01 changed career about 4-5 yrs ago, and is doing very well. Repeated "outstanding" inspection results, developing a resource base that is recognised throughout the county, and is highly in demand due to her methods and approach. Has networked and developed excellent relationships with other staff, parents and outside supporting professionals....
She brings with her previous professional management experience and a good knowledge of social interaction / behavioural psychology.
[b]She is one of the lowest paid teachers in the school 👿 [/b]
Why? - because teachers are paid on a "time served" basis.
Good, experienced, teachers in her school CANNOT progress to other, more rewarding senior roles (which would meet their aspirations), because "they are too expensive"
So, you can move schools when you are cheap, and inexperienced...
You are cheap when you are inexperienced (in teaching terms, other expertise counts for jack) - irrespective of your performance???
The whole thing seems set up to frustrate and demotivate.
Scrap the salary increase by time served nonsense. promotion and pay should be based on performance / achievement
TandemJeremy - MemberThat makes my point - the threat of the sack is being used to motivate teachers. surely they should be being offered bonuses as according to you guys that is the only way to motivate staff?
Posted 42 minutes ago # Report-Post
I'm only agreeing with your suggestion that offering bonuses should be applied to everyone as a way of motivating. Now you're backtracking as usual AND falling back on the no-one is responding to my ever so important question strategy.
Yes I agree that bonuses are a valid for of motivation and should be applied to teachers, health workers and civil servant after these organisations are privatised. As it's your idea TJ, you have no problem with this, do you?
There will always be sloppy employees though.
Anyway, is it not the case that the bonus simply represents a portion of the total package that could be withdrawn in an extreme case much more easily than paying half someone's wage..?
I don't think it matters that half their salary is expressed in terms of bonus. It's only a word.
TandemJeremy - Member
That makes my point - the threat of the sack is being used to motivate teachers. surely they should be being offered bonuses as according to you guys that is the only way to motivate staff?
Hah if only that were true. The reason we need Academies and Free Schools is precicely so that teachers can made accountable to the headmasters and parents. There hasnt been ANY threat of the sack in LEA run comprehensives. That will remain the case in unreformed Scotland.
Bonuses are good, they can make you work harder and better and promote innovation. In banking they grew too much and became something that people felt the were entitled too. That is no longer the case, believe me.
TJ you choose to work in the public sector, some of us work in business. Take off your hairshirt and stop being so bloody patronising.
tootall - its exposing the hypocrisy of the bonus culture.
To whom? Get a blog.
Errmmm- academies and free schools perform worse at higher cost than LEA schools so that shows the paucity of that arguement.
So why do the private sector need bonuses for motivation but the public sector do not?
does anyone actually have an answer to this?
TooTall, +1 and 😆
As this now looks like it's going to turn into a 'Lets have a go at TJ' thread I'll leave it there.
Shame, some interesting points raised.
teachers are paid on a "time served" basis
I've always wondered why teachers get a bonus for just being there another year. Anyone care to explain that one? Does it happen elsewhere in the public sector?
Right.....I can just FEEL the motivation oozing from the friendly staff at Haringey Council each and every time I deal with them.
Jeremy your world view appears to be
Public Sector = Good, verging on sainthood.
Private Sector = Downright evil/deluded Daily Mail reading fools.
Which is why you work in healthcare in never-reformed Scotland, and I left my homeland to seek my fortune.
does anyone actually have an answer to this?
I'm not talking about academies, I'm talking about private. You choose your price to the public, you choose your payscale you live and die by your abilities.
Jeremy your world view appears to bePublic Sector = Good, verging on sainthood.
Private Sector = Downright evil/deluded Daily Mail reading fools.(Except when I need them to manage my pension!!!)
😉
Just different ways of doing things isn't it. Easier to give a bonus when you have a kpi to base it on (such as profit/money which is what most are based on). Harder in the public sector. Pay structure is different in the public sector. Motication comes from more job security, pensions pay increases based on time served (it would seem).
Different people are motivated by different things based on what they place value on. There are many ways to engage and motivate your employees. This is one tool in a large box.
As is always spouted in these threads, if you don't like it move.
FWIW, I don't get a bonus. Provided it was attainable and worthwhile it may motivate me more. Having said that, I currently don't get a bonus, my motivation is based on potential payrises and promotions. I'm fairly mercanary in my attitude to work and my motivation is not at all altruistic, I will do a good job but I will not work for free.
Just different ways of doing things isn't it.
Some people don't have the ability to see it like that though. 😆
Different people are motivated by different things based on what they place value on. There are many ways to engage and motivate your employees. This is one tool in a large box.
And so say all of us
TJ, if you had a bonus maybe you would spend less time on here?
[i]So why do the private sector need bonuses for motivation but the public sector do not?
does anyone actually have an answer to this?[/i]
They don't. It is all on an individual basis. Some people work in the public sector because they are motivated to do that particular job/career/vocation regardless of the reward. Others will do is as it is a safe, lifelong job, with little danger of being sacked, hence you get poor performing staff that are very hard to get rid of.
In private sector, much the same. Plenty of bad staff there too, they are probably treated badly and get quite poor rewards. The there are some that are motivated by money in the same way that the public sector are motivated by doing a great job.
It takes all sorts and there is no "answer"
Personally I think the bonus culture in banking got well out of hand about 10 years ago. 25 years ago, a career in Banking was no more rewarding looking than any other job. Things have changed big time. The base pay is much better, but the Bonus culture is just so wrong now.
I am still awaiting some sort of rational explanation why some groups of employees have to have large sums of money dangled in front of them to be motivated to do their best and it is considered acceptable that they will not perform at their best unless this is done when other groups of employees will apparently perform of their best without any incentives but they are threatened with the sack if they do not perform of their best.
I agree - why should tube drivers get a bonus?
I agree that tube drivers are overpaid (OTOH, I wouldn't' want to do it!)
But all of this stuff about teachers and tube drivers is a diversion - both of those jobs are not out of the ordinary as they are broadly similar to average wages.
What is really corrosive in society are salaries/bonuses that are 100s of times what ordinary people make.
What is really corrosive in society are salaries/bonuses that are 100s of times what ordinary people make.
And this completes the circle in that these people are doing jobs that ordinary people can not do. I've had discussions with directors regarding mass redundancies, 50% of a sales force in one case- 120+ people. Could you do that?
I've had discussions with directors regarding mass redundancies, 50% of a sales force in one case- 120+ people. Could you do that?
No - but I'd argue that being able to do so isn't necessarily a positive personality trait!
question of numbers innit
if someones hard work/exceptional effort brings in, say, 20% more business than you had budgeted for, then maybe giving him one percent of that extra back as a thankyou isn't a bad deal at all for the company/shareholders/country.
There are some companies where that one percent bonus could be a few hundred quid
There are others where that one percent bonus could be millions.
1% would still be a fair deal to reward exceptional performance, just the size of that 1% changes with the size of the profits being brought in.
No - but I'd argue that being able to do so isn't necessarily a positive personality trait!
Agreed, but life isn't a bed of roses, but also indirectly we are all making these decisions on a day to day basis. By going to CRC we're closing the LBSs, etc.
There are others where that one percent bonus could be millions.
Typically in industries where exceptional performance is more a matter of luck than judgement 👿
And this completes the circle in that these people are doing jobs that ordinary people can not do.
Rubbish.
1% would still be a fair deal to reward exceptional performance, just the size of that 1% changes with the size of the profits being brought in.
Also rubbish.
Rubbish.
That's what I like, good constuctive discussion. 🙄
That's for your contribution, it's being repeated so it must be right.
So nurses are getting a 15% effective cut in wages ( pay freeze / inflation / increased pension contributions) over the next couple of years. Then also a cut in deferred benefits ( reduced pensions). do you expect this to improve the healthservice?
So nurses are getting a 15% effective cut in wages ( pay freeze / inflation / increased pension contributions) over the next couple of years. Then also a cut in deferred benefits ( reduced pensions). do you expect this to improve the healthservice?
I think that the current salary levels should be maintained, the only problem with this is that 15% of the workforce will have to be cut in order to pay for it.
Stop whinging and start providing real world solutions TJ.
In just about every large organisation I've ever dealt with there have been people in the management below board level who I've thought to be equally, or more competent than their bosses.
Think about it for one second and you must surely know in your guts that that is true.
The reason that most CEOs get to where they are is a combination of luck/who they know or just hanging around long enough.
I'm not saying that they're not good at their jobs, but most of them are just people with the same mix of skills and talents as a whole raft of others who don't quite make the top of the pile and they are eminently replaceable.
If ever there was a company that was made in the image of one brilliant man it is Apple, and what has happened to Apple now that the irreplaceable genius has gone?