In addition to the ongoing issue of increasing public spending, there is concern at the moment about class sizes.
My rock the boat proposal to address both issues is to reduce teachers pay by 20% and increase the number of teachers by 15%. This would improve the quality of education received by our children, reduce the pressure on teachers, (it is much more difficult to teach 28 children than 24 in a class), and improve the public finances.
What's not to love.
I also believe that this idea could have wider application in the public services. We need more nurses, nurses need more nurses, to reduce the pressure they are presently working under.
In addition to the ongoing issue of increasing public spending, there is concern at the moment about class sizes.
My rock the boat proposal to address both issues is to reduce teachers pay by 20% and increase the number of teachers by 15%. This would improve the quality of education received by our children, reduce the pressure on teachers, (it is much more difficult to teach 28 children than 24 in a class), and improve the public finances.
What's not to love.
I also believe that this idea could have wider application in the public services. We need more nurses, nurses need more nurses, to reduce the pressure they are presently working under.
Would we not need a massive school building programme as well?
In general though, the idea of introducing job sharing or reduced hours into the public service (and private sector) would be a good way of reducing unemployment or distributing it more evenly.
A novel idea , reducing pay by 20% will reduce the pressure on teachers , nurses & the wider public service !
a blanket cut of 20% would be economically damaging and socially disastrous.
We've more than enough nurses, they are just badly utilised. By the way, nurses are just as overpaid as teachers by international standards but then again so are most of us.
Entry level teaching salaries, already 10% lower than they were a few years back, would mean that many teachers would still be entitled to welfare payments such as FIS. None of them would pay any income tax so they state would be worse off; paying salaries instead of dole but no net tax increase.Why would it be economically damaging? Remember we would employ 15% more teachers and take those people off the dole. This should more than compensate for the reduced spending power of the existing teachers.
It would be socially disastrous because of the impact it would have on the thousands of teachers who would lose their homes, default of loans etc. Teachers are members of society as well. It’s agreed by most that they got pay increases that were way ahead of inflation and that the state couldn’t afford but that’s history and it’s not possible to wind back the clock.When you say socially disastrous, I presume you mean that existing teachers, would strike. I believe that with good political leadership and an economy wide programme involving all sectors not just teachers, that the proposal could be accepted.
Bad management and self-serving unions that stymie change and progress to the detriment of the country and their own members long term interests because of their ignorant bias and adherence to their bankrupt and morally reprehensible socialist ideology.I am not really in a position to comment. But I am intrigued to hear this. Why are they so badly utilised.
My suggestion was that increasing teacher numbers by 15% would reduce pressure on teachers
Presumably as your idea is to reduce pay thereby increasing the capacity to employ more people then you propose that such an idea should also apply equally to the private sector ? - after all the same principle applies .
Hey, have you suggested that for your own job too?? To relieve the pressure there??I'm sure whatever your job is it would be 'wonderful' there too! After all "What's not to love"
I dont see this as any type of principle, just a pragmatic suggestion.
Would it be useful in the private sector. Probably in some areas.
However there are two issues to consider in looking at an idea like this in the private sector.
1. My taxes don't pay private sector workers, so it is not my responsibility as a taxpayer to have any opinion as to how private sector businesses organise themselves.
2. If private sector organisations get their employment and wage policies seriously wrong, they go out of business. When public organisations do the same, they can increase taxes and borrow money for our children to pay back.
You were the one who broadened your proposal of a 20% cut to all sectors when you stated that such a proposal " could be accepted " if there was " an economy wide programme involving all sectors not just teachers " .
Do you really think that it's a pragmatic solution to further cut multi sectoral pay by 20% given the financial & industrial mayhem that would follow ?
My rock the boat proposal to address both issues is to reduce teachers pay by 20%
And what about the businesses that aren't understaffed and/or can't find the people they are looking for to fill existing open positions?
Sorry Purple but I don't know what your point is ?
Where there is a recognised shortage and there is a pool of suitably skilled labour available then it can work but where there's no shortage and/or no available labour then it's a daft idea.
There are also 400,000 people unemployed at present so that is a large pool of available labour. Training maybe needed to qualify them to work in other areas of labour shortage, but I strongly suspect such areas exist.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?