Sponsored Links
Interesting discussion. I have no problem with people earning large salaries in excess of £100k if they are worth it. The question is do they add value? The other thing that seems to be lacking is responsibility. If you take the job then you take the responsibility. If something goes wrong in your organisation then ultimately you are responsible. So many examples these days appear to show that people in responsible positions simply ignore the responsibility that goes with a job.
I too work with people who earn in excess of £250k/pa and some are worth it and some aren't IMHO. I earn £70k pa and have had to look at my team (around 40 people) for people in that team who could be brought on to take my position as my boss does not allow progression until you find a successor. It's suprising how many of the people who moan wouldn't go near my job when asked.
I also used to be a copper some years ago and some earn their money and some don't right through the organisation, but responsibility is clear in this type of setup hence I never had a problem with the senior officers salaries.
I too work with people who earn in excess of £250k/pa and some are worth it and some aren't IMHO. I earn £70k pa and have had to look at my team (around 40 people) for people in that team who could be brought on to take my position as my boss does not allow progression until you find a successor. It's suprising how many of the people who moan wouldn't go near my job when asked.
I also used to be a copper some years ago and some earn their money and some don't right through the organisation, but responsibility is clear in this type of setup hence I never had a problem with the senior officers salaries.
D
david and julie
The big difference between the pay of footballers and plumbers, and the public servants is obvious. One is paid out of public funds(taxes) the others out of private funds. If you object to the former don't go to the match or buy the sponsors or plumbers product. What do you do though if you object to the latter?
The other aspect is the ignored value of a job for life with guaranteed pensions. The plumber and footballer don't get this.
By comparison this salary is more than an NHS GP or consultant who are responsible for peoples health or even their lives.
As regards responsibility, if most senior people cock up big style, the worst they can expect is a golden handshake and early retirement.
The other aspect is the ignored value of a job for life with guaranteed pensions. The plumber and footballer don't get this.
By comparison this salary is more than an NHS GP or consultant who are responsible for peoples health or even their lives.
As regards responsibility, if most senior people cock up big style, the worst they can expect is a golden handshake and early retirement.
D
david and julie
Adam said
Are you saying he grappled with people and took these weapons of them, or were they handed to him by the teachers?
Whilst talking responsibility, how responsible is it for these things to be left unattended in an unlocked draw?
Whilst I admit I don't know a lot about consultant headmasters am I right in thinking most are self employed. Paying thier own costs etc, and only used for short terms. Don't they sort problems where other heads have failed and yet are still employed by the LEA?
Are you saying he grappled with people and took these weapons of them, or were they handed to him by the teachers?
Whilst talking responsibility, how responsible is it for these things to be left unattended in an unlocked draw?
Whilst I admit I don't know a lot about consultant headmasters am I right in thinking most are self employed. Paying thier own costs etc, and only used for short terms. Don't they sort problems where other heads have failed and yet are still employed by the LEA?
Sponsored Links
Porker said:
This is one of the key aspects to all senior jobs. Taking the headteacher as the example, sure he is commanding £100K a year, but he will earn that money. If he isn't worth it, the school governors will reassess his position. My father's current contract is with a school where the governors kicked the old head to the kerb. He thought he had a job for life and didn't have to work too hard, the governors proved him wrong by firing him. He wasn't earning his money.
See the above! And that wasn't even cocking up big style, that was just being a bit lazy.
Seriously, if this new head does not perform, he will not be paid much longer. This is why when a school finds a good head they will do their best to hang onto them.
I don't mean this in a bad way, but pretty much anyone with a bit of common sense and intelligence can train to be a plumber. However there are very few people who would make a good headteacher, and many of those decide to go into other professions where they can earn better money earlier. I considered teaching, but realised that by going into industry I would be earning at the age of 22 what I would have worked my way up to by the age of 30 in teaching.
david and julie said:
One of the tools a headteacher uses is authority. Usually they can get pupils to hand things over through shouting and shaming. Grappling has occurred, but as far as I know it has never been where the air pistol is primed or the knife drawn. There is a difference between authority and stupidity!
You get some real scum in schools, especially in run-down areas. The rules say you aren't allowed to touch pupils, in order to protect the pupils from improper activities and the teachers from allegations of improper activities. But if you think there is a good chance that they are a danger then you can ignore this rule. The police usually know the kids who bring weapons into school because they are usually in trouble outside of school too. When I was at school I witnessed a couple of occasions where an unruly pupil would try to lash out at a teacher, and the teacher would hit them back. And that was a 'nice' school!
Well, the office was normally locked when no-one was in there, and to get to the office door they had to go through another locked "staff only" door.
Entirely correct, except they claim expenses for travel. They usually work on a subcontractor basis. Each owns a limited company, these are then "pimped" to the LEA's by a consultancy firm. They are intended for short-term use and get paid on a daily rate, however my dad's current contract has been running for 11 months so far and it looks like he will be the one who ends it! On occasion he has worked alongside an existing head, working as more of a troubleshooter who brings the school around whilst training the head.
D
david and julie
Adam... can you just clarify this in my head please.
BTW I am not talking your dad and don't want you to take it that way.
A consultant head is a troubleshooter subbing for a consultancy firm to the LEA to sort out specific problems in schools, usually on a short term basis. They need years of experience and certain qualifications, that they probably got whilst in the public employ. Right?
So the head from M/cr who is retiring on circa £92K salary, would seem to be the sort who would probably meet these requirements.
We then have a consultancy company who supplies troubleshooters to the LEA on a profit basis, who subs this work out to the above.
Therefore the retiree could get £46K pension + lump sum, then another job at £120K, making £166K plus expenses. This is for sorting problems left by bad headmasters or governors.
Have I got that right?
BTW I am not talking your dad and don't want you to take it that way.
A consultant head is a troubleshooter subbing for a consultancy firm to the LEA to sort out specific problems in schools, usually on a short term basis. They need years of experience and certain qualifications, that they probably got whilst in the public employ. Right?
So the head from M/cr who is retiring on circa £92K salary, would seem to be the sort who would probably meet these requirements.
We then have a consultancy company who supplies troubleshooters to the LEA on a profit basis, who subs this work out to the above.
Therefore the retiree could get £46K pension + lump sum, then another job at £120K, making £166K plus expenses. This is for sorting problems left by bad headmasters or governors.
Have I got that right?
david and julie said:
To be honest, I have absolutely no idea on pensions other than what gets taken off my paycheque each month (although I do plan to take more interest in the next financial year
)But if you are right, sounds like nice work if you can get it!
However, I'm not sure if early retirement brings the same benefits as retiring at 65... Would you really get 50% final salary, plus lumpsum? And do you get taxed on that £46K pension? I'll have to ask my dad what he did about it all.
david and julie said:
To be honest it never crossed my mind!
The whole subject of public expenditure is of interest to all of us taxpayers, people all have different views on where overspend and underspend is occuring. We see our tax bills going through the roof, then we are told of public employees earning large sums of money and can't help but wonder "what if they earned a lower salary?". Or "Should this service be paid for by public money?".I used to work with a right old sourpuss who begrudged any expenditure on society's children (including education) because he didn't have children. He was the only person who refused to sponsor me when I did the Three Peaks Challenge, because the sponsorship money was going to a children's hospice. Mean old s*d. Not even a quid. I wouldn't have minded so much if he hadn't given his reasoning. Not entirely on topic but every time I think of him I just wonder how anyone can be such a miserable g*t.
NHS, education, Police, Fire service, Judicary etc, etc most probably have a set age below 65 when retirement can be taken ( soon to be raised I believe ), with no reduction in accrued benefits at that age.
That does not mean a maximum pension, this will only be achieved by 'putting in the time' and if lucky, buying back missed years at a reduced rate.
NHS = 40 yrs service buys max pension of 40/80ths, half pay.
P
That does not mean a maximum pension, this will only be achieved by 'putting in the time' and if lucky, buying back missed years at a reduced rate.
NHS = 40 yrs service buys max pension of 40/80ths, half pay.
P
D
david and julie
Bit off topic, but talking consultants I was just reading this about the Gov spending our money.
http://www.cipfa.org.uk/publicfinance/news_details.cfm?News_id=21760
Thought it might cheer up pipme's afternoon!
http://www.cipfa.org.uk/publicfinance/news_details.cfm?News_id=21760
Thought it might cheer up pipme's afternoon!
£2K a DAY?! Nice! Thing is, if I earned that much I would be loathe to take a holiday, thinking that would be £20K potential earnings lost over 2 weeks
Pip, like the signature! I was recently reading some creationist websites (as a scientist it is important to view different theories), and a lot of them focus on "The Ark"... Other than the obvious "Where did all the water come from and where did it go?" I have one question that none of the websites even attempted to answer: sure the herbivorous creatures ate hay for 40 days, but what did the carnivores eat? If there are any creationists here, please can you give me an answer on this one?
Pip, like the signature! I was recently reading some creationist websites (as a scientist it is important to view different theories), and a lot of them focus on "The Ark"... Other than the obvious "Where did all the water come from and where did it go?" I have one question that none of the websites even attempted to answer: sure the herbivorous creatures ate hay for 40 days, but what did the carnivores eat? If there are any creationists here, please can you give me an answer on this one?
Sponsored Links
Similar threads
- Locked
