Max Power Posted May 3 Author Share Posted May 3 Okay, point taken, let them get on with it then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted May 3 Author Share Posted May 3 Okay, point taken, let them get on with it then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopek Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 Max opened up the argument that supply teachers on agency rates as opposed to regular teachers rates maybe bleeding the Govt of cash outlay, especially in view of the agency rates being somewhat above the wage rates? That seems to be a reasonable debate to have??? Not any need for a 'pile on' shirley? 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted May 3 Author Share Posted May 3 3 minutes ago, Kopek said: Max opened up the argument that supply teachers on agency rates as opposed to regular teachers rates maybe bleeding the Govt of cash outlay, especially in view of the agency rates being somewhat above the wage rates? That seems to be a reasonable debate to have??? Not any need for a 'pile on' shirley? I think it touched a raw nerve amongst the PS Mafia? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt_Mainwaring Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Kopek said: Max opened up the argument that supply teachers on agency rates as opposed to regular teachers rates maybe bleeding the Govt of cash outlay, especially in view of the agency rates being somewhat above the wage rates? That seems to be a reasonable debate to have??? Not any need for a 'pile on' shirley? Agency rates are bound to be more than salary. And not a pile on from me, just trying to counter an argument based on pub talk. Edited May 3 by Capt_Mainwaring Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopek Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 (edited) No they're not! If a teacher or a Nurse decides to resign their employed job and go for an agency role for more hourly rate, it may be that they don't get the yearly salary that they had but this is the risk they are willing to take for the freedom of their hours, maybe fewer hours, more pay equals same salary??? Edited May 3 by Kopek Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt_Mainwaring Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 1 minute ago, Kopek said: No they're not Why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopek Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 As above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt_Mainwaring Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 2 minutes ago, Kopek said: As above. I think we might be saying the same thing. Agency rates (hourly / per day) are more than the equivalent hourly rate of someone on a full time contract....... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Ingham Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 (edited) 33 minutes ago, Kopek said: Max opened up the argument that supply teachers on agency rates as opposed to regular teachers rates maybe bleeding the Govt of cash outlay, especially in view of the agency rates being somewhat above the wage rates? That seems to be a reasonable debate to have??? Not any need for a 'pile on' shirley? A supply teacher for a year costs less than a full time teacher, so what’s to debate? Edited May 3 by Anthony Ingham Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopek Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 You wouldn't understand Dave? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted May 3 Author Share Posted May 3 1 minute ago, Anthony Ingham said: A supply teacher for a year costs less than a full. Time tracker, so what’s to debate? Also paying for the absent full time teacher and the shortage of both. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Ingham Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 Just now, Kopek said: You wouldn't understand Dave? What are you on about? It’s much better and cheaper to have people on supply contracts than it is to have full time teachers who float about. For loads of reasons. Instead of just dismissing that with a stupid remark explain to me why it isn’t. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Ingham Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 2 minutes ago, Max Power said: Also paying for the absent full time teacher and the shortage of both. Applies in any role in any profession where you need cover. Bank or supply staff are the cheapest and most flexible option for cover Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopek Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 They don't 'float around', they are on a contract! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.