You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Teachers' union lies about numbers who quit
April 24 2024 12.24pm

Teachers' union lies about numbers who quit

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 7 of 8 < 3 4 5 6 7 8 >

 

View elgrande's Profile elgrande Flag bedford 01 Jun 15 7.45pm Send a Private Message to elgrande Add elgrande as a friend

Quote nickgusset at 01 Jun 2015 4.08pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 01 Jun 2015 2.01pm

Quote elgrande at 01 Jun 2015 1.31pm

Quote nickgusset at 01 Jun 2015 12.33pm

Quote chris123 at 01 Jun 2015 12.32pm

Quote nickgusset at 26 May 2015 5.02pm

Quote dannyh at 26 May 2015 2.06pm

Quote hookoffthejab at 25 May 2015 9.37pm

My wife has been a teacher for 15 years. I also know a lot of teachers socially. A full time teacher is working probably in excess of 50 hours per week for a Mickey Mouse salary. The issue is not really how many teachers may or may not be leaving but how many are off with stress. In my experience teachers don't actually moan that much but they have more reason to complain than bankers bleating about bonus caps. If teachers go on strike I'll be on the picket line with them and not just for my wife's sake but also the sake if her pupils


I'm calling bullsh1t on that one.

[Link]

You will note the title of the DoE web page begins competitive salary and great benefits, not a mention of a mouse, Mickey or otherwise.

Secondly leave and get a better job if there is one ? No one is forcing her to be teacher and have twelvty million paid holidays a year plus a nice salary.

Another food for thought, when your buddies in the teaching profession go on strike, do they stop to think about the cost of childcare for working parents, or those that lose a days pay for having to stay at home. I’m guessing the answer is DILLIGAF.

Finally the basic salary of a qualified teacher is according the link £36000 P.A. just as a comparison, how would you like to spend 6 months in a desert getting shot at, constantly going down with Diarrhoea and vomiting due to the sh1thole your working in. Having no time off, working from 0600 until midnight, getting s*** food (when you can eat) and the only contact with friends and family or loved ones is via a dodgy internet connection or sat phone, and all for the princley sum of £21,000 P.A.

Because that’s what a Pte soldier in the British Army is paid, so next time your bleating about £36000 a year for sitting in a cushy school office think about it for a while, it’s not so bad is it ?

Sorry Hoof just seen your link same as mine, but it makes my piss boil when teachers whinge about working conditions and stuff.


Edited by dannyh (26 May 2015 2.08pm)

Average starting salasy for a teacher is circa £24K, takes ages to get up to £36K.


I thought it was 5 or 6 years for outer London teachers.


Used to be, but pay progression is no longer automatic


Surely that's a good thing.

Provided the replacement is more meritocratic. Usually when automatic payrises are suspended, its usually corporate speak for no pay rises.


Got it in one.

But if someone is crap at their job,Do they deserve a payrise.
That was my point,People should earn their increases not expect them.

 


always a Norwood boy, where ever I live.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 01 Jun 15 9.22pm

Quote elgrande at 01 Jun 2015 7.45pm

Quote nickgusset at 01 Jun 2015 4.08pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 01 Jun 2015 2.01pm

Quote elgrande at 01 Jun 2015 1.31pm

Quote nickgusset at 01 Jun 2015 12.33pm

Quote chris123 at 01 Jun 2015 12.32pm

Quote nickgusset at 26 May 2015 5.02pm

Quote dannyh at 26 May 2015 2.06pm

Quote hookoffthejab at 25 May 2015 9.37pm

My wife has been a teacher for 15 years. I also know a lot of teachers socially. A full time teacher is working probably in excess of 50 hours per week for a Mickey Mouse salary. The issue is not really how many teachers may or may not be leaving but how many are off with stress. In my experience teachers don't actually moan that much but they have more reason to complain than bankers bleating about bonus caps. If teachers go on strike I'll be on the picket line with them and not just for my wife's sake but also the sake if her pupils


I'm calling bullsh1t on that one.

[Link]

You will note the title of the DoE web page begins competitive salary and great benefits, not a mention of a mouse, Mickey or otherwise.

Secondly leave and get a better job if there is one ? No one is forcing her to be teacher and have twelvty million paid holidays a year plus a nice salary.

Another food for thought, when your buddies in the teaching profession go on strike, do they stop to think about the cost of childcare for working parents, or those that lose a days pay for having to stay at home. I’m guessing the answer is DILLIGAF.

Finally the basic salary of a qualified teacher is according the link £36000 P.A. just as a comparison, how would you like to spend 6 months in a desert getting shot at, constantly going down with Diarrhoea and vomiting due to the sh1thole your working in. Having no time off, working from 0600 until midnight, getting s*** food (when you can eat) and the only contact with friends and family or loved ones is via a dodgy internet connection or sat phone, and all for the princley sum of £21,000 P.A.

Because that’s what a Pte soldier in the British Army is paid, so next time your bleating about £36000 a year for sitting in a cushy school office think about it for a while, it’s not so bad is it ?

Sorry Hoof just seen your link same as mine, but it makes my piss boil when teachers whinge about working conditions and stuff.


Edited by dannyh (26 May 2015 2.08pm)

Average starting salasy for a teacher is circa £24K, takes ages to get up to £36K.


I thought it was 5 or 6 years for outer London teachers.


Used to be, but pay progression is no longer automatic


Surely that's a good thing.

Provided the replacement is more meritocratic. Usually when automatic payrises are suspended, its usually corporate speak for no pay rises.


Got it in one.

But if someone is crap at their job,Do they deserve a payrise.
That was my point,People should earn their increases not expect them.


Many schools are using the 'sorry can't give you a rise this year as our budget has been slashed' line to all and sundry...

Worth noting that when I was representing teachers who'd been put on a capability procedure, most were experienced teachers with previous outstanding lesson observations. Too expensive when cheaper NQT's can be brought in for 2 or 3 years until they burn out (I jest but have seen it happen).


As for stress in teaching. Depends a lot on the school and what they expect. Those that demand too much (mainly because of the pressures of impending 'inspections' ) have a high staff turnover and in my humble, are actually losing out on great teachers as a result.

Edited by nickgusset (01 Jun 2015 9.23pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View npn's Profile npn Flag Crowborough 02 Jun 15 7.57am Send a Private Message to npn Add npn as a friend

Quote ghosteagle at 01 Jun 2015 5.34pm

Quote npn at 01 Jun 2015 5.30pm

Quote Superfly at 01 Jun 2015 5.25pm

Course it's not true! If any employer told you to man up when you've got any illness then they wouldn't be an employer for very long.

We're not in the 70's!


Legally, yes. I'm also fairly sure the company guidebook would contain some platitudes.

But you could kiss goodbye to any hope of pay increases / promotion / good performance reviews.

I know one guy who is a recovering alcoholic - good guy, and doing well - the company have been very supportive, but he will never move beyond his current position (as he "can't take the pressure" - of course they won't say it in those words, but the effect is the same).

All I know is, as much as the law may be designed to protect you, if I were signed of with stress (I was offered time off by my doctor for depression some time ago) my career at this place would effectively be over

Edited by npn (01 Jun 2015 5.32pm)

So your problem isn't with teachers then, its with the nasty company you work for. I feel for you.


When did I say I had a problem with teachers?

I merely pointed out that the fact that teachers have a high instance of stress related time off doesn't necessarily correlate with the amount of stress in the job

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View ghosteagle's Profile ghosteagle Flag 02 Jun 15 12.17pm Send a Private Message to ghosteagle Add ghosteagle as a friend

Quote npn at 02 Jun 2015 7.57am

Quote ghosteagle at 01 Jun 2015 5.34pm

Quote npn at 01 Jun 2015 5.30pm

Quote Superfly at 01 Jun 2015 5.25pm

Course it's not true! If any employer told you to man up when you've got any illness then they wouldn't be an employer for very long.

We're not in the 70's!


Legally, yes. I'm also fairly sure the company guidebook would contain some platitudes.

But you could kiss goodbye to any hope of pay increases / promotion / good performance reviews.

I know one guy who is a recovering alcoholic - good guy, and doing well - the company have been very supportive, but he will never move beyond his current position (as he "can't take the pressure" - of course they won't say it in those words, but the effect is the same).

All I know is, as much as the law may be designed to protect you, if I were signed of with stress (I was offered time off by my doctor for depression some time ago) my career at this place would effectively be over

Edited by npn (01 Jun 2015 5.32pm)

So your problem isn't with teachers then, its with the nasty company you work for. I feel for you.


When did I say I had a problem with teachers?

I merely pointed out that the fact that teachers have a high instance of stress related time off doesn't necessarily correlate with the amount of stress in the job


Oh i'm sorry, all that banging on about them having to 'man up' led me to the assumption that you had something against them. Crazy logic eh?

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View npn's Profile npn Flag Crowborough 02 Jun 15 12.39pm Send a Private Message to npn Add npn as a friend

Quote ghosteagle at 02 Jun 2015 12.17pm

Quote npn at 02 Jun 2015 7.57am

Quote ghosteagle at 01 Jun 2015 5.34pm

Quote npn at 01 Jun 2015 5.30pm

Quote Superfly at 01 Jun 2015 5.25pm

Course it's not true! If any employer told you to man up when you've got any illness then they wouldn't be an employer for very long.

We're not in the 70's!


Legally, yes. I'm also fairly sure the company guidebook would contain some platitudes.

But you could kiss goodbye to any hope of pay increases / promotion / good performance reviews.

I know one guy who is a recovering alcoholic - good guy, and doing well - the company have been very supportive, but he will never move beyond his current position (as he "can't take the pressure" - of course they won't say it in those words, but the effect is the same).

All I know is, as much as the law may be designed to protect you, if I were signed of with stress (I was offered time off by my doctor for depression some time ago) my career at this place would effectively be over

Edited by npn (01 Jun 2015 5.32pm)

So your problem isn't with teachers then, its with the nasty company you work for. I feel for you.


When did I say I had a problem with teachers?

I merely pointed out that the fact that teachers have a high instance of stress related time off doesn't necessarily correlate with the amount of stress in the job


Oh i'm sorry, all that banging on about them having to 'man up' led me to the assumption that you had something against them. Crazy logic eh?


Not so much crazy as plain wrong.

What I said was "if I rang in sick with 'stress' I think they'd laugh at me and tell me to man up."

So, aside from the fact that you extrapolated the meaning you wanted to see from my comment that didn't say any such thing, and aside from the fact that you exaggerated 'banging on' from this one comment which didn't say that anyway, then yes, your logic is spot on.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 02 Jun 15 12.48pm

Quote elgrande at 01 Jun 2015 7.45pm

Quote nickgusset at 01 Jun 2015 4.08pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 01 Jun 2015 2.01pm

Quote elgrande at 01 Jun 2015 1.31pm

Quote nickgusset at 01 Jun 2015 12.33pm

Quote chris123 at 01 Jun 2015 12.32pm

Quote nickgusset at 26 May 2015 5.02pm

Quote dannyh at 26 May 2015 2.06pm

Quote hookoffthejab at 25 May 2015 9.37pm

My wife has been a teacher for 15 years. I also know a lot of teachers socially. A full time teacher is working probably in excess of 50 hours per week for a Mickey Mouse salary. The issue is not really how many teachers may or may not be leaving but how many are off with stress. In my experience teachers don't actually moan that much but they have more reason to complain than bankers bleating about bonus caps. If teachers go on strike I'll be on the picket line with them and not just for my wife's sake but also the sake if her pupils


I'm calling bullsh1t on that one.

[Link]

You will note the title of the DoE web page begins competitive salary and great benefits, not a mention of a mouse, Mickey or otherwise.

Secondly leave and get a better job if there is one ? No one is forcing her to be teacher and have twelvty million paid holidays a year plus a nice salary.

Another food for thought, when your buddies in the teaching profession go on strike, do they stop to think about the cost of childcare for working parents, or those that lose a days pay for having to stay at home. I’m guessing the answer is DILLIGAF.

Finally the basic salary of a qualified teacher is according the link £36000 P.A. just as a comparison, how would you like to spend 6 months in a desert getting shot at, constantly going down with Diarrhoea and vomiting due to the sh1thole your working in. Having no time off, working from 0600 until midnight, getting s*** food (when you can eat) and the only contact with friends and family or loved ones is via a dodgy internet connection or sat phone, and all for the princley sum of £21,000 P.A.

Because that’s what a Pte soldier in the British Army is paid, so next time your bleating about £36000 a year for sitting in a cushy school office think about it for a while, it’s not so bad is it ?

Sorry Hoof just seen your link same as mine, but it makes my piss boil when teachers whinge about working conditions and stuff.


Edited by dannyh (26 May 2015 2.08pm)

Average starting salasy for a teacher is circa £24K, takes ages to get up to £36K.


I thought it was 5 or 6 years for outer London teachers.


Used to be, but pay progression is no longer automatic


Surely that's a good thing.

Provided the replacement is more meritocratic. Usually when automatic payrises are suspended, its usually corporate speak for no pay rises.


Got it in one.

But if someone is crap at their job,Do they deserve a payrise.
That was my point,People should earn their increases not expect them.

In my experience though you don't get pay rises based on achievements either, or by achievement of objectives.

Every company I've ever worked at was more interested in incoming staff, than existing staff wages.

You get really only get pay rises when you leave or try to leave (when they'll suddenly find money to make you an offer to stay).

 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 02 Jun 15 1.01pm

Quote npn at 02 Jun 2015 12.39pm

Quote ghosteagle at 02 Jun 2015 12.17pm

Quote npn at 02 Jun 2015 7.57am

Quote ghosteagle at 01 Jun 2015 5.34pm

Quote npn at 01 Jun 2015 5.30pm

Quote Superfly at 01 Jun 2015 5.25pm

Course it's not true! If any employer told you to man up when you've got any illness then they wouldn't be an employer for very long.

We're not in the 70's!


Legally, yes. I'm also fairly sure the company guidebook would contain some platitudes.

But you could kiss goodbye to any hope of pay increases / promotion / good performance reviews.

I know one guy who is a recovering alcoholic - good guy, and doing well - the company have been very supportive, but he will never move beyond his current position (as he "can't take the pressure" - of course they won't say it in those words, but the effect is the same).

All I know is, as much as the law may be designed to protect you, if I were signed of with stress (I was offered time off by my doctor for depression some time ago) my career at this place would effectively be over

Edited by npn (01 Jun 2015 5.32pm)

So your problem isn't with teachers then, its with the nasty company you work for. I feel for you.


When did I say I had a problem with teachers?

I merely pointed out that the fact that teachers have a high instance of stress related time off doesn't necessarily correlate with the amount of stress in the job


Oh i'm sorry, all that banging on about them having to 'man up' led me to the assumption that you had something against them. Crazy logic eh?


Not so much crazy as plain wrong.

What I said was "if I rang in sick with 'stress' I think they'd laugh at me and tell me to man up."

So, aside from the fact that you extrapolated the meaning you wanted to see from my comment that didn't say any such thing, and aside from the fact that you exaggerated 'banging on' from this one comment which didn't say that anyway, then yes, your logic is spot on.

You must surely work in IT, because its full of idiots who despite being quite well educated somehow manage to remain remarkably ignorant. I have to say of every industry I've worked in, only IT and enginnering seems to actively employ ignorant people who think they're special (defense Engineering and IT is worse, as its full of keyboard soldiers).

Stress manifests as illnesses and causes illness through a number of factors. You're never ill with stress per se. Stress can cause actual physiological illnesses as the result of stress is a reduction of the immune system. The problem of stress lies with maladaption of the flight or fight response (essentially we respond to environmental stressors as threats, in the same way our primal ancestors would have).

Short term, this isn't a real problem. But long term exposure to stress results in a long term activity of flight or fight responses (both physiological and neurological) and this creates very real health problems.

Any number of very real physical and mental health problems have their origin in exposure to stress, or periods of long term stress. My fathers long term back pains, assumed to be from damage caused by physical labour, actually vanished after he switched jobs. The job wasn't less demanding, it just paid more and was a more relaxing environment.


 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View npn's Profile npn Flag Crowborough 02 Jun 15 1.25pm Send a Private Message to npn Add npn as a friend

Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Jun 2015 1.01pm

Quote npn at 02 Jun 2015 12.39pm

Quote ghosteagle at 02 Jun 2015 12.17pm

Quote npn at 02 Jun 2015 7.57am

Quote ghosteagle at 01 Jun 2015 5.34pm

Quote npn at 01 Jun 2015 5.30pm

Quote Superfly at 01 Jun 2015 5.25pm

Course it's not true! If any employer told you to man up when you've got any illness then they wouldn't be an employer for very long.

We're not in the 70's!


Legally, yes. I'm also fairly sure the company guidebook would contain some platitudes.

But you could kiss goodbye to any hope of pay increases / promotion / good performance reviews.

I know one guy who is a recovering alcoholic - good guy, and doing well - the company have been very supportive, but he will never move beyond his current position (as he "can't take the pressure" - of course they won't say it in those words, but the effect is the same).

All I know is, as much as the law may be designed to protect you, if I were signed of with stress (I was offered time off by my doctor for depression some time ago) my career at this place would effectively be over

Edited by npn (01 Jun 2015 5.32pm)

So your problem isn't with teachers then, its with the nasty company you work for. I feel for you.


When did I say I had a problem with teachers?

I merely pointed out that the fact that teachers have a high instance of stress related time off doesn't necessarily correlate with the amount of stress in the job


Oh i'm sorry, all that banging on about them having to 'man up' led me to the assumption that you had something against them. Crazy logic eh?


Not so much crazy as plain wrong.

What I said was "if I rang in sick with 'stress' I think they'd laugh at me and tell me to man up."

So, aside from the fact that you extrapolated the meaning you wanted to see from my comment that didn't say any such thing, and aside from the fact that you exaggerated 'banging on' from this one comment which didn't say that anyway, then yes, your logic is spot on.

You must surely work in IT, because its full of idiots who despite being quite well educated somehow manage to remain remarkably ignorant. I have to say of every industry I've worked in, only IT and enginnering seems to actively employ ignorant people who think they're special (defense Engineering and IT is worse, as its full of keyboard soldiers).

Stress manifests as illnesses and causes illness through a number of factors. You're never ill with stress per se. Stress can cause actual physiological illnesses as the result of stress is a reduction of the immune system. The problem of stress lies with maladaption of the flight or fight response (essentially we respond to environmental stressors as threats, in the same way our primal ancestors would have).

Short term, this isn't a real problem. But long term exposure to stress results in a long term activity of flight or fight responses (both physiological and neurological) and this creates very real health problems.

Any number of very real physical and mental health problems have their origin in exposure to stress, or periods of long term stress. My fathers long term back pains, assumed to be from damage caused by physical labour, actually vanished after he switched jobs. The job wasn't less demanding, it just paid more and was a more relaxing environment.



Ooh, someone's p*ssed on your conflakes.

Another one extrapolating what they want to see rather than reading what's written.

I'll try typing this slowly so you can keep up:

1. I have never denied the existence of stress

2. I have never attempted to minimalise its effects on the individual

3. I have never claimed you should not be allowed time off if you suffer

4. I have merely pointed out that in certain working environments, admitting to suffering from stress is tantamount to declaring your wish to stagnate in your career and/or be engineered out.

5. The whole argument stemmed from my, very real and correct, assertion that an industry having a high incidence of stress-related sickness does not automatically mean that the industry in question is more stressful than others. One of the factors of how much stress related absence you have is how you will be received on your return to work. If you will have support an an arm round the shoulder you're far more likely to take that time.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View ghosteagle's Profile ghosteagle Flag 02 Jun 15 1.33pm Send a Private Message to ghosteagle Add ghosteagle as a friend

Quote npn at 02 Jun 2015 1.25pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Jun 2015 1.01pm

Quote npn at 02 Jun 2015 12.39pm

Quote ghosteagle at 02 Jun 2015 12.17pm

Quote npn at 02 Jun 2015 7.57am

Quote ghosteagle at 01 Jun 2015 5.34pm

Quote npn at 01 Jun 2015 5.30pm

Quote Superfly at 01 Jun 2015 5.25pm

Course it's not true! If any employer told you to man up when you've got any illness then they wouldn't be an employer for very long.

We're not in the 70's!


Legally, yes. I'm also fairly sure the company guidebook would contain some platitudes.

But you could kiss goodbye to any hope of pay increases / promotion / good performance reviews.

I know one guy who is a recovering alcoholic - good guy, and doing well - the company have been very supportive, but he will never move beyond his current position (as he "can't take the pressure" - of course they won't say it in those words, but the effect is the same).

All I know is, as much as the law may be designed to protect you, if I were signed of with stress (I was offered time off by my doctor for depression some time ago) my career at this place would effectively be over

Edited by npn (01 Jun 2015 5.32pm)

So your problem isn't with teachers then, its with the nasty company you work for. I feel for you.


When did I say I had a problem with teachers?

I merely pointed out that the fact that teachers have a high instance of stress related time off doesn't necessarily correlate with the amount of stress in the job


Oh i'm sorry, all that banging on about them having to 'man up' led me to the assumption that you had something against them. Crazy logic eh?


Not so much crazy as plain wrong.

What I said was "if I rang in sick with 'stress' I think they'd laugh at me and tell me to man up."

So, aside from the fact that you extrapolated the meaning you wanted to see from my comment that didn't say any such thing, and aside from the fact that you exaggerated 'banging on' from this one comment which didn't say that anyway, then yes, your logic is spot on.

You must surely work in IT, because its full of idiots who despite being quite well educated somehow manage to remain remarkably ignorant. I have to say of every industry I've worked in, only IT and enginnering seems to actively employ ignorant people who think they're special (defense Engineering and IT is worse, as its full of keyboard soldiers).

Stress manifests as illnesses and causes illness through a number of factors. You're never ill with stress per se. Stress can cause actual physiological illnesses as the result of stress is a reduction of the immune system. The problem of stress lies with maladaption of the flight or fight response (essentially we respond to environmental stressors as threats, in the same way our primal ancestors would have).

Short term, this isn't a real problem. But long term exposure to stress results in a long term activity of flight or fight responses (both physiological and neurological) and this creates very real health problems.

Any number of very real physical and mental health problems have their origin in exposure to stress, or periods of long term stress. My fathers long term back pains, assumed to be from damage caused by physical labour, actually vanished after he switched jobs. The job wasn't less demanding, it just paid more and was a more relaxing environment.



Ooh, someone's p*ssed on your conflakes.

Another one extrapolating what they want to see rather than reading what's written.

I'll try typing this slowly so you can keep up:

1. I have never denied the existence of stress

2. I have never attempted to minimalise its effects on the individual

3. I have never claimed you should not be allowed time off if you suffer

4. I have merely pointed out that in certain working environments, admitting to suffering from stress is tantamount to declaring your wish to stagnate in your career and/or be engineered out.

5. The whole argument stemmed from my, very real and correct, assertion that an industry having a high incidence of stress-related sickness does not automatically mean that the industry in question is more stressful than others. One of the factors of how much stress related absence you have is how you will be received on your return to work. If you will have support an an arm round the shoulder you're far more likely to take that time.

So, just to be clear, you really have it in for teachers then?

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View npn's Profile npn Flag Crowborough 02 Jun 15 1.39pm Send a Private Message to npn Add npn as a friend

Quote ghosteagle at 02 Jun 2015 1.33pm

Quote npn at 02 Jun 2015 1.25pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Jun 2015 1.01pm

Quote npn at 02 Jun 2015 12.39pm

Quote ghosteagle at 02 Jun 2015 12.17pm

Quote npn at 02 Jun 2015 7.57am

Quote ghosteagle at 01 Jun 2015 5.34pm

Quote npn at 01 Jun 2015 5.30pm

Quote Superfly at 01 Jun 2015 5.25pm

Course it's not true! If any employer told you to man up when you've got any illness then they wouldn't be an employer for very long.

We're not in the 70's!


Legally, yes. I'm also fairly sure the company guidebook would contain some platitudes.

But you could kiss goodbye to any hope of pay increases / promotion / good performance reviews.

I know one guy who is a recovering alcoholic - good guy, and doing well - the company have been very supportive, but he will never move beyond his current position (as he "can't take the pressure" - of course they won't say it in those words, but the effect is the same).

All I know is, as much as the law may be designed to protect you, if I were signed of with stress (I was offered time off by my doctor for depression some time ago) my career at this place would effectively be over

Edited by npn (01 Jun 2015 5.32pm)

So your problem isn't with teachers then, its with the nasty company you work for. I feel for you.


When did I say I had a problem with teachers?

I merely pointed out that the fact that teachers have a high instance of stress related time off doesn't necessarily correlate with the amount of stress in the job


Oh i'm sorry, all that banging on about them having to 'man up' led me to the assumption that you had something against them. Crazy logic eh?


Not so much crazy as plain wrong.

What I said was "if I rang in sick with 'stress' I think they'd laugh at me and tell me to man up."

So, aside from the fact that you extrapolated the meaning you wanted to see from my comment that didn't say any such thing, and aside from the fact that you exaggerated 'banging on' from this one comment which didn't say that anyway, then yes, your logic is spot on.

You must surely work in IT, because its full of idiots who despite being quite well educated somehow manage to remain remarkably ignorant. I have to say of every industry I've worked in, only IT and enginnering seems to actively employ ignorant people who think they're special (defense Engineering and IT is worse, as its full of keyboard soldiers).

Stress manifests as illnesses and causes illness through a number of factors. You're never ill with stress per se. Stress can cause actual physiological illnesses as the result of stress is a reduction of the immune system. The problem of stress lies with maladaption of the flight or fight response (essentially we respond to environmental stressors as threats, in the same way our primal ancestors would have).

Short term, this isn't a real problem. But long term exposure to stress results in a long term activity of flight or fight responses (both physiological and neurological) and this creates very real health problems.

Any number of very real physical and mental health problems have their origin in exposure to stress, or periods of long term stress. My fathers long term back pains, assumed to be from damage caused by physical labour, actually vanished after he switched jobs. The job wasn't less demanding, it just paid more and was a more relaxing environment.



Ooh, someone's p*ssed on your conflakes.

Another one extrapolating what they want to see rather than reading what's written.

I'll try typing this slowly so you can keep up:

1. I have never denied the existence of stress

2. I have never attempted to minimalise its effects on the individual

3. I have never claimed you should not be allowed time off if you suffer

4. I have merely pointed out that in certain working environments, admitting to suffering from stress is tantamount to declaring your wish to stagnate in your career and/or be engineered out.

5. The whole argument stemmed from my, very real and correct, assertion that an industry having a high incidence of stress-related sickness does not automatically mean that the industry in question is more stressful than others. One of the factors of how much stress related absence you have is how you will be received on your return to work. If you will have support an an arm round the shoulder you're far more likely to take that time.

So, just to be clear, you really have it in for teachers then?


I'm not sure whether that deserves a smiley or a f**k you, so I'll play nice:

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 02 Jun 15 2.51pm

Quote npn at 02 Jun 2015 1.25pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Jun 2015 1.01pm

Quote npn at 02 Jun 2015 12.39pm

Quote ghosteagle at 02 Jun 2015 12.17pm

Quote npn at 02 Jun 2015 7.57am

Quote ghosteagle at 01 Jun 2015 5.34pm

Quote npn at 01 Jun 2015 5.30pm

Quote Superfly at 01 Jun 2015 5.25pm

Course it's not true! If any employer told you to man up when you've got any illness then they wouldn't be an employer for very long.

We're not in the 70's!


Legally, yes. I'm also fairly sure the company guidebook would contain some platitudes.

But you could kiss goodbye to any hope of pay increases / promotion / good performance reviews.

I know one guy who is a recovering alcoholic - good guy, and doing well - the company have been very supportive, but he will never move beyond his current position (as he "can't take the pressure" - of course they won't say it in those words, but the effect is the same).

All I know is, as much as the law may be designed to protect you, if I were signed of with stress (I was offered time off by my doctor for depression some time ago) my career at this place would effectively be over

Edited by npn (01 Jun 2015 5.32pm)

So your problem isn't with teachers then, its with the nasty company you work for. I feel for you.


When did I say I had a problem with teachers?

I merely pointed out that the fact that teachers have a high instance of stress related time off doesn't necessarily correlate with the amount of stress in the job


Oh i'm sorry, all that banging on about them having to 'man up' led me to the assumption that you had something against them. Crazy logic eh?


Not so much crazy as plain wrong.

What I said was "if I rang in sick with 'stress' I think they'd laugh at me and tell me to man up."

So, aside from the fact that you extrapolated the meaning you wanted to see from my comment that didn't say any such thing, and aside from the fact that you exaggerated 'banging on' from this one comment which didn't say that anyway, then yes, your logic is spot on.

You must surely work in IT, because its full of idiots who despite being quite well educated somehow manage to remain remarkably ignorant. I have to say of every industry I've worked in, only IT and enginnering seems to actively employ ignorant people who think they're special (defense Engineering and IT is worse, as its full of keyboard soldiers).

Stress manifests as illnesses and causes illness through a number of factors. You're never ill with stress per se. Stress can cause actual physiological illnesses as the result of stress is a reduction of the immune system. The problem of stress lies with maladaption of the flight or fight response (essentially we respond to environmental stressors as threats, in the same way our primal ancestors would have).

Short term, this isn't a real problem. But long term exposure to stress results in a long term activity of flight or fight responses (both physiological and neurological) and this creates very real health problems.

Any number of very real physical and mental health problems have their origin in exposure to stress, or periods of long term stress. My fathers long term back pains, assumed to be from damage caused by physical labour, actually vanished after he switched jobs. The job wasn't less demanding, it just paid more and was a more relaxing environment.



Ooh, someone's p*ssed on your conflakes.

Another one extrapolating what they want to see rather than reading what's written.

I'll try typing this slowly so you can keep up:

1. I have never denied the existence of stress

2. I have never attempted to minimalise its effects on the individual

3. I have never claimed you should not be allowed time off if you suffer

4. I have merely pointed out that in certain working environments, admitting to suffering from stress is tantamount to declaring your wish to stagnate in your career and/or be engineered out.

5. The whole argument stemmed from my, very real and correct, assertion that an industry having a high incidence of stress-related sickness does not automatically mean that the industry in question is more stressful than others. One of the factors of how much stress related absence you have is how you will be received on your return to work. If you will have support an an arm round the shoulder you're far more likely to take that time.


Sorry chap -

 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View Jimenez's Profile Jimenez Flag SELHURSTPARKCHESTER,DA BRONX 02 Jun 15 2.59pm Send a Private Message to Jimenez Add Jimenez as a friend

Quote npn at 02 Jun 2015 12.39pm

Quote ghosteagle at 02 Jun 2015 12.17pm

Quote npn at 02 Jun 2015 7.57am

Quote ghosteagle at 01 Jun 2015 5.34pm

Quote npn at 01 Jun 2015 5.30pm

Quote Superfly at 01 Jun 2015 5.25pm

Course it's not true! If any employer told you to man up when you've got any illness then they wouldn't be an employer for very long.

We're not in the 70's!


Legally, yes. I'm also fairly sure the company guidebook would contain some platitudes.

But you could kiss goodbye to any hope of pay increases / promotion / good performance reviews.

I know one guy who is a recovering alcoholic - good guy, and doing well - the company have been very supportive, but he will never move beyond his current position (as he "can't take the pressure" - of course they won't say it in those words, but the effect is the same).

All I know is, as much as the law may be designed to protect you, if I were signed of with stress (I was offered time off by my doctor for depression some time ago) my career at this place would effectively be over

Edited by npn (01 Jun 2015 5.32pm)

So your problem isn't with teachers then, its with the nasty company you work for. I feel for you.


When did I say I had a problem with teachers?

I merely pointed out that the fact that teachers have a high instance of stress related time off doesn't necessarily correlate with the amount of stress in the job


Oh i'm sorry, all that banging on about them having to 'man up' led me to the assumption that you had something against them. Crazy logic eh?


Not so much crazy as plain wrong.

What I said was "if I rang in sick with 'stress' I think they'd laugh at me and tell me to man up."

So, aside from the fact that you extrapolated the meaning you wanted to see from my comment that didn't say any such thing, and aside from the fact that you exaggerated 'banging on' from this one comment which didn't say that anyway, then yes, your logic is spot on.

Stress!! Is and I'm paraphrasing he great Cliff Thorburn, 'Is playing for $20-000 when you only have $200-00 in your pocket' not teaching 6/7 year old kids about William the Conqueror....

 


Pro USA & Israel

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 7 of 8 < 3 4 5 6 7 8 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Teachers' union lies about numbers who quit