Anyone here on strike tomorrow?

[Defiance]

At the heart of all of this is the fact that previous pension assumptions are no longer correct due to our population living longer and to a degree the poorer than expected returns on financial investments undervaluing pension funds. This has been recognised by the government, the ONS, and the actuaries of private pensions - they cannot all be wrong and it is unlikely to be any kind of conspiracy.

Whether you are in the private sector or the public sector and have a pension plan you are affected.

Inside of fighting each other we have to wake up and find a workable solution but this has to apply to everyone not just public and not just private sector workers.

The only solutions are:

1. We pay more.

2. We pay the same but get less.

3. The government or companies inject money into pension schemes.

4. The economy rebounds, investment values rise, and the country earns more so that wealth is created to plug the gap.

1. and 2. are self explanatory but naturally nobody wants to do that.

3. has been tried by private companies but found to be unaffordable with many closing their own pension schemes. That said, some of these companies are trying to support other pension routes e.g. stakeholder pensions.

3. could be achieved by government by many means e.g. paying money into funds, reversing the pension fund earnings raid etc. However, they can't rob Peter to pay Paul. If they do this, they have to withdraw money from something else with knock on implications as there is not an infinite pool of money available. For example, we could cut military spending but that would affects soldiers, sailors, airmen and all of the suppliers to them and their jobs. There would also be more people on benefits and less money to spend in the economy, affecting the suppliers of consumer goods and service with a further effect on jobs and thus the downward spiral continues. The government would also have to cut public sector funding which would reduce jobs and increase the risk of privatisation.

3. could also be achieved by raising taxes but in reality that is the same as option 1 and would have to be done in a way that public and private sector workers can equally benefit (so one doesn't pay for the other).

4. is not a realistic consideration for a good few years yet while the world pays down its debts.


There is no easy or painless solution and it affects everyone whether they like it or not. Keeping everything the same will not work.

Striking is not the answer as it pitches us against each other as demonstrated by this thread. It becomes public vs. private too easily.

The only truly palatable answer is to generate more wealth in the nation but we are a long way from doing that in the amounts needed.

The sad reality is that we all have to pay more if we want to plug the gap and keep what we have or accept less.

 

[barneyrubble]

was the question, "how would I solve it?"

The issue: There's a gap in what the country has and what it needs to pay out, so they need a solution to fill the gap.

their proposal: cut the public sectors salary and use that money to fill a gap. (i realise that's simplifying it, but essentially that's the proposal)

Thats a small part of how they're trying to raise the money.

So, one of the reasons the pension fund is in jeopardy is due to dwindling stock markets. So it stands to reason that careful plans need to occur worldwide to bring public spending back to a good level and get the world out of the rescission it's in. Steer the country out of recession and as stocks increase the pension fund will start to recover. I think thats where the work should be focussed.

But the stock markets dont go up just because there's more money being spent. Individual stocks may do, but overall the markets are very very jittery. there's no logic to it at the moment, you may see an overreaction one day followed by a correction the next. Not many people are making money in the markets at the moment. Steering our country out of recession may be beyond individual leaders ability.

For example, if the euro breaks up, our markets will dive again, as will the rest of europe. Nothing that our government can do to avoid it. In fact, you really only need one governement to default and down go the markets. We've had Greece, then Italy, now its looking like spain and portugal, maybe France are next. So no-one knows whats going to happen and its all outside of this countries control.I would predict another 2 years at least of market turmoil.

In fact i'd look into lot of the benefit this country provides, I don't have a lot of sympathy for families that get benefit when they are capable of earning a living so I'd be keen to employ a better system of assessors to decide whether someone needs it or not.

I agree with this. I also think that anyone on benefits can work for them (if physically possible). Anyone on unemployment is effectively being employed by the government, so do 10 hours a week community work (or even more)

I'd bring back more trade to the UK for products we currently ship in, I'd give tax benefits for large companies who agreed to keep business in this country, much like the tax cuts the film crew filming up in glasgow received compared to philly. More incentives to keep business here.

The problem with this is two fold. Firstly, to give things away at the moment is difficult as the cupboard is bare.
Secondly - our workforce is too expensive compared to many other countries (manufacturing essentially) mainly due to the cost of living

I agree with the sentiment of what you are saying, but looking at the figures i psoted previously on the NHS pensions, the employers contributions have risen from 1/2 billion to 5.3 billion in 15 years. That cant continue to riselike that year after year and so the employers contributions have to change.

 

[EOS_JD]

It's not. It's the most unfair way possible. Higher rate taxpayer is £35k plus which is far too low to be taxed at 40% IMO. So, couple a both work and earn 32k pa each. Household income of 64k and they get benefit. Couple b has one wage earner on 37k pa. household income of 37k and no benefit. Explain to me how that is fair?

In order to pay the higher tax rate you need to be earning a total income greater than £42,476 (that is if you have the single person's allowance). It's above £35k of taxable income.

Taxable income is different from total income. Taxable income is that amount above your tax free income so taxable income of £35001 would put you into the 40% bracket but that does not account for the £7475 tax free amount (single person's allowance).

Complicated but simple when you understand.

 

[EOS_JD]

Please direct me to where I said this was different to a lot of private sector jobs.

Eos_jd posted the hours a teacher did and I corrected him.

No I think you added hours that YOU did! THere's a difference.

 

[EOS_JD]

It doesn't work like that though!

Just noticed his post and he's right. 40% tax rate is above £35k of TAXABLE income. You already have a tax free element to take into account and then the taxable is only on top of that.

 

[joescrivens]

No I think you added hours that YOU did! THere's a difference.

And all the teachers I worked with, and all the teachers that are good friends of mine and now that I am still in the education space with my current job, all the teachers I currently am in contact with.

Everyone is in the same boat when it comes to teaching. It's a lot more hours than you wrote, that's just the teaching hours, you have given no consideration to all the other roles in the teaching profession to get the job done.

Teacher burnout rate is massive, it's right up there with the statistics for the highest work related stress levels and illnesses.

All of what I say is directed at challenging a misconception that teachers have it easy. I know that plenty of other jobs carry the same level of difficulty and I'm not demeaning those.

 

[Splog]

Just noticed his post and he's right. 40% tax rate is above £35k of TAXABLE income. You already have a tax free element to take into account and then the taxable is only on top of that.

I guess you didn't notice my follow up post either?

I stand corrected

 

[EOS_JD]

And all the teachers I worked with, and all the teachers that are good friends of mine and now that I am still in the education space with my current job, all the teachers I currently am in contact with.

Everyone is in the same boat when it comes to teaching. It's a lot more hours than you wrote, that's just the teaching hours, you have given no consideration to all the other roles in the teaching profession to get the job done.

Teacher burnout rate is massive, it's right up there with the statistics for the highest work related stress levels and illnesses.

All of what I say is directed at challenging a misconception that teachers have it easy. I know that plenty of other jobs carry the same level of difficulty and I'm not demeaning those.

They do their marking in the free periods through the day!

I do appreciate that they do more however. I was exaggerating using the standard hours -I appreciate there's much more BUT still a LOT less than your standard 9-5 person with 20 days annual leave and 10 public holidays

 

[Splog]

Teacher burnout rate is massive, it's right up there with the statistics for the highest work related stress levels and illnesses.

All of what I say is directed at challenging a misconception that teachers have it easy. I know that plenty of other jobs carry the same level of difficulty and I'm not demeaning those.

Perhaps? but many private sector workers don't get paid for being off sick and hardly any would be tolerated for long term sickness.

Perhaps teachers are abusing their position by playing up the stress and illness thing? Lets face it if they are paid for sickies then some will abuse it! Doesn't make it real though, does it?

 

[Defiance]

The whole teacher working hours debate is ridiculous, i'm sorry.

For teachers to work more hours and have less holidays, schools would have to be open for longer days and over longer periods. As a parent, I know my children would not be able to withstand that without burning out or losing the balance between education and being allowed to just be kids.

I dont think there are many education systems in the world where children only have 20 days holiday per year and 10 public holidays.

 

[barneyrubble]

Getting back to the original point, the socialist workers party placards have really ****ed me off - what planet are they on??

Not one cut not one job loss!!!!

How to end up like Greece :bang:

If they think we've got it bad- at least our country is trying to sort itself out - rather than having the Germans dictate their terms to them? So glad we stayed out of the euro - that could've been it for the country.

 

[Splog]

The whole teacher working hours debate is ridiculous, i'm sorry.

For teachers to work more hours and have less holidays, schools would have to be open for longer days and over longer periods. As a parent, I know my children would not be able to withstand that without burning out or losing the balance between education and being allowed to just be kids.

I dont think there are many education systems in the world where children only have 20 days holiday per year and 10 public holidays.

What?

 

[EOS_JD]

The whole teacher working hours debate is ridiculous, i'm sorry.

For teachers to work more hours and have less holidays, schools would have to be open for longer days and over longer periods. As a parent, I know my children would not be able to withstand that without burning out or losing the balance between education and being allowed to just be kids.

I dont think there are many education systems in the world where children only have 20 days holiday per year and 10 public holidays.

Joe says he worked through his holidays. the teachers could easily be working in school through that current holiday period for at least 4 of the weeks they are off in a year say in a 9-5 capacity like the rest of the country.

I am certainly not advocating that schools remain open longer for kids to be working.

 

[Defiance]

Joe says he worked through his holidays. the teachers could easily be working in school through that current holiday period for at least 4 of the weeks they are off in a year say in a 9-5 capacity like the rest of the country.

I am certainly not advocating that schools remain open longer for kids to be working.

It's not about what Joe said specifically, its the whole undercurrent in this thread about their hours and holidays.

Like any other job it's a package of pay, holiday and benefits. It has been like that for as long as any of us can remember, so where's the problem ?

 

[EOS_JD]

It's not about what Joe said specifically, its the whole undercurrent in this thread about their hours and holidays.

Like any other job it's a package of pay, holiday and benefits. It has been like that for as long as any of us can remember, so where's the problem ?

Holidays rarely come into it as there's a standard minimum which most get - some a little more. So most jobs it's pay and benefits....

For teachers to get paid to sit and do nothing for weeks on end is disgraceful in my opinion - BUT it's been like that forever and won't change.

 

[barneyrubble]

Personally i see it as a perk of the job, but what really ****** me off is when they come on here all holier than thou and say how hard they work during those holidays.

Whenever I speak to my teacher friends they are always saying how much time they get off during the holidays, not how much work they have to do.

Its fine that they get all these holidays, its part of the job - but dont expect people to believe that they spend all the holidays working - they dont.

 

[Jez2011]

These private sector workers have got the right idea, voting to strike, instead of whingeing about how the public sector has got it better:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/11/29/uk-unilever-strikes-idUKTRE7AS08920111129

 

[nilagin]

The public sectors deliberately strike to cause inconvenience to the public, that's the whole point.

Why should we be the ones to be inconvenienced, just because there is something you don't like about your job. There's probably lots of other ways you could take action without an effect on the innocent. A public sector strike has little effect on the government, will it be a deciding factor in how people vote in the next election, probably not. If 99% of private sector workers striked it will effect their employer directly and have a miniscule effect on any customers of that employer, but the employer will likely lose money. Last time we went on strike (over pay), it was costing my employer $1Million per day, what effect did that have on the public, a few people around the world would have had the delivery date on their new car put back slightly but with no financial loss to them. OK I may have got an extra 0.25% wage increase, but I'd have lost at least a days money which I can make up for in, oh I don't know, probably over the next 10 years when subsequent rises are effected by that extra 0.25%, big deal.

 

[barneyrubble]

These private sector workers have got the right idea, voting to strike, instead of whingeing about how the public sector has got it better:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/11/29/uk-unilever-strikes-idUKTRE7AS08920111129

Good for them. At least they will only inconvenience the company they work for and their customers, along with their shareholders if it goes on for a while, meaning the comapny makes job cuts and some of them wont have a pension at all due to redundancy

 

[barneyrubble]

Why should we be the ones to be inconvenienced, just because there is something you don't like about your job. There's probably lots of other ways you could take action without an effect on the innocent. A public sector strike has little effect on the government, will it be a deciding factor in how people vote in the next election, probably not.

All they're going to do is alienate the general public, and make the government heroes for standing up to them if they carry it on.

 

[Jez2011]

All they're going to do is alienate the general public, and make the government heroes for standing up to them if they carry it on.

This poll would seem to suggest otherwise:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15910621

 

[barneyrubble]

This poll would seem to suggest otherwise:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15910621

As i said -if they carry this on they will lose public support. Have another poll after another couple of strikes and see what you end up with.

Guarantee they will lose public support as people continue to be affected. Public opinion is very fickle, and once the real arguments come out from the unions and all their Spin (the government is not the only one at this) then the tide will turn.

And 61% is certainly not overwhelmig support - for that survey sample its only 100 people off not having the majority support. 1005 people surveyed is not enough to show overwhelming support. It also depends how the questions were asked.

Like most surveys, not worth the paper its on.

 

[nilagin]

All they're going to do is alienate the general public, and make the government heroes for standing up to them if they carry it on.

Not sure about the government being seen as heroes, but it certainly isn't them being alienated over this, not sure how the strikers ever thought it would or could add to their cause.
My employer wanted to change the way in which it would increase pensions yearly once an employee retired. As I wrote in a previous post, I stood to lose £65-80k in a 25 year period should I live that long on retirement. As a result any meetings which were held on a regular basis between workers and management at all levels ceased. This prevented business from running smoothly and made things difficult for them but did not effect customers or anyone outside of the company. As a result the company, whilst still making future increases in the same way they wanted, has made amends in other ways, it will probably still save them money in the long run but we don't stand to lose the large sums after retirement.

 

[joescrivens]

As i said -if they carry this on they will lose public support.

so would you say that the action up until now has been right, given that the majority of the public are supporting it?

 

[barneyrubble]

so would you say that the action up until now has been right, given that the majority of the public are supporting it?

personally no i dont.

I'm in the 39% that dont think its right.

Things have to change, and the pensions are only part of it. Savings have to be made in other areas as well.

 

[nilagin]

so would you say that the action up until now has been right, given that the majority of the public are supporting it?

I'd say no and that is the majority of those polled in support not the public as a whole which is a huge difference. Interesting that there was a higher proportion of women in support of men. I wonder how many of those women were actually working and if not probably, not effected by the strike, whilst some of the men may well have been effected. Also how do we know some of that public that were polled weren't private sector workers anyway. Also the poll was held before the strike before the majority of people would have any idea of how much of an effect it would have on them personally. Hardly representative is it. We could have a poll on here, but it would still only be a limited sample.

 

[onona]

Why should we be the ones to be inconvenienced, just because there is something you don't like about your job.

I tend to feel this way too. I resent being used as a bargaining chip for someone else to get a better deal in their job. I guess I also feel somewhat disinclined to feel too much sympathy for many public sector workers, because compared to my own work, they have a pretty good deal. As a fixed term employee, benefits and a pension are nonexistent in my line of work, so I can't help but scratch my head over people who strike and demand more when, from my perspective, they should be grateful for what they have.

I realise I'm oversimplifying this matter, but these are nevertheless my honest feelings when I see the crowds marching. It's not that I think people should always just settle for what they've got, but when you're a public sector worker, then surely you realise that budget cuts come with the territory?

 

[Ceejay]

This poll would seem to suggest otherwise:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15910621

When was the poll comissioned ?

One week before the BBC announcement on the 28th Nov.

What day was the strike on ?

Wonder if the result would be the same.

 

[joescrivens]

They do their marking in the free periods through the day!

what free periods?

no seriously, what free periods?

I don't know what a free period is, i've heard of it, but not seen one. Free periods are largely taken up by cover. Also, ask a primary school teacher what a free period is.

I do appreciate that they do more however. I was exaggerating using the standard hours -I appreciate there's much more BUT still a LOT less than your standard 9-5 person with 20 days annual leave and 10 public holidays

really?

37.5 hours a week on a general 9-5 job right. which is 1950 hours in a year. Minus their holidays of 30 days including the public holidays (225 hours) gives the average 9 to 5 person a yearly total of 1,725 hours.

My working year as I already spelled out was 2250 hours (see post 343). My maths isn't great but I'm pretty sure that 2250 is more hours than 1725

granted I was at the start of my career and I acknowledge that the further into your career you get IF you stay just a classroom teacher those hours go down.

My good friend who is head of history right now works 8 till 5pm every day during the working week (works lunchtime) and lets say he does nothing in the evening (he does, but lets say for the sake or argument he doesn't) he does maybe 2 hours on a weekend and lets say for the sake of argument he does nothing through the holidays so we are talking a 47 hour week for 40 weeks of the year = 1880 hours in a year.

So where are these teachers that do "a LOT less than your standard 9-5 person with 20 days annual leave and 10 public holidays"

 

[joescrivens]

Perhaps? but many private sector workers don't get paid for being off sick and hardly any would be tolerated for long term sickness.

Perhaps teachers are abusing their position by playing up the stress and illness thing? Lets face it if they are paid for sickies then some will abuse it! Doesn't make it real though, does it?

but it's not all about teachers going off long term sick, it's about them quitting the profession. 1/3rd of new teachers quit in the first 2 years and half quit in the first 5 years.

Personally that statistic scares me especially as I'm one of them. We're sending our children to school to be taught by teachers that have a 50% chance of only ever having a maximum of 5 years experience in the job.

Making the job better for the teacher = more likely they will stay in the job = my 2 children getting a better education.

SIGN ME UP!!!!

 

[Dale_tem]

what free periods?

no seriously, what free periods?

I don't know what a free period is, i've heard of it, but not seen one. Free periods are largely taken up by cover. Also, ask a primary school teacher what a free period is.

Do you mean their legal 10% non contact they are entitled to by law?

How nieve are you to think people only work 9-5?

My friend worked in London as an accountant, was expected to be at his desk by 8am and it was frowned upon if he left before 6. So that's 10 hours a day, which works out at 2300 hours a year after holiday etc. This is expected of all the people in the building not just the high paid.

For every good teacher arguement Joe, I can give an example of a bad teacher. The teacher I know who complains how hard her job is, but is away every halfterm, away for easter and a nice long holiday in the summer. Is often on Facebook at 4pm saying she is home for the day and how tired she is.

A nice quote from the TES forum....

Our timetable is over 2 weeks with 25 teaching hours per week - a normal teacher has a workload of 43 hours over the 2 weeks.

I am going to work 0.8 of a timetable from september and I have been told that my workload should be 32 hours.

If I have worked it out properly, it means that I get an additional 2 hours for being HoD.

I have an NQT starting in September. NQTs have 2 hours of mentor meetings over the 2 week timetable. This means that my 2 additional non-contact time will then be spend mentoring my NQT.

I wonder if there is a mistake somewhere. Do HoD oget additional non-contact time when they have NQT to mentor? How much non-contact do HoD officially get?

Many thanks

Another thread on the TES forum....

http://community.tes.co.uk/forums/p/273734/4104035.aspx#4104035

 

[cambsno]

I tend to feel this way too. I resent being used as a bargaining chip for someone else to get a better deal in their job. I guess I also feel somewhat disinclined to feel too much sympathy for many public sector workers, because compared to my own work, they have a pretty good deal. As a fixed term employee, benefits and a pension are nonexistent in my line of work, so I can't help but scratch my head over people who strike and demand more when, from my perspective, they should be grateful for what they have.

I realise I'm oversimplifying this matter, but these are nevertheless my honest feelings when I see the crowds marching. It's not that I think people should always just settle for what they've got, but when you're a public sector worker, then surely you realise that budget cuts come with the territory?

Unfortunately the public sector see people like you, and me, as one of the Private sector 'fat cats' who earn far more than they can.

 

[Dale_tem]

but it's not all about teachers going off long term sick, it's about them quitting the profession. 1/3rd of new teachers quit in the first 2 years and half quit in the first 5 years.

Personally that statistic scares me especially as I'm one of them. We're sending our children to school to be taught by teachers that have a 50% chance of only ever having a maximum of 5 years experience in the job.

Making the job better for the teacher = more likely they will stay in the job = my 2 children getting a better education.

SIGN ME UP!!!!

You mean people who didn't really want the job took the job for the £1000 payout from the government to do the PGCE and then left as the job didn't suit them?

That has nothing to do with pay and more to do with the sort of people the government are encouraging to become teachers.

 

[cambsno]

what free periods?

no seriously, what free periods?

I don't know what a free period is, i've heard of it, but not seen one. Free periods are largely taken up by cover. Also, ask a primary school teacher what a free period is.



really?

37.5 hours a week on a general 9-5 job right. which is 1950 hours in a year. Minus their holidays of 30 days including the public holidays (225 hours) gives the average 9 to 5 person a yearly total of 1,725 hours.

My working year as I already spelled out was 2250 hours (see post 343). My maths isn't great but I'm pretty sure that 2250 is more hours than 1725

granted I was at the start of my career and I acknowledge that the further into your career you get IF you stay just a classroom teacher those hours go down.

My good friend who is head of history right now works 8 till 5pm every day during the working week (works lunchtime) and lets say he does nothing in the evening (he does, but lets say for the sake or argument he doesn't) he does maybe 2 hours on a weekend and lets say for the sake of argument he does nothing through the holidays so we are talking a 47 hour week for 40 weeks of the year = 1880 hours in a year.

So where are these teachers that do "a LOT less than your standard 9-5 person with 20 days annual leave and 10 public holidays"

Thats the big myth from the public sector. My mate is a primary school teacher and has been doing it for about 8 years, earns around late 30s to 40k. If you look people working in an office on 15,18,23k they will often have the 9-5 you suggest (my wife for example, although some may well work late). If you look at private sector jobs paying similar to a teacher, say a salesman or manager, they will often work longer days than 9-5 too, and weekends. My other friend works as on Operations Manager, paid (underpaid imo) around mid to late 20s. He will normally be in work by 8, and not leave till close to 6 many days. And lunch-hours... many private sector workers dont get one either!

Sure, they may well be some cushy private sector roles out there, but remember that we are at far higher risk of redundancy and dismissal than a teacher.

 

[Byker28i]

but it's not all about teachers going off long term sick, it's about them quitting the profession. 1/3rd of new teachers quit in the first 2 years and half quit in the first 5 years.

Personally that statistic scares me especially as I'm one of them. We're sending our children to school to be taught by teachers that have a 50% chance of only ever having a maximum of 5 years experience in the job.

Making the job better for the teacher = more likely they will stay in the job = my 2 children getting a better education.

SIGN ME UP!!!!

Joe - it's far worse than that. Have you seen the qualifications need to get onto a teaching degree. GCSE grade c at english, maths and a science.

 

[Byker28i]

If you look at private sector jobs paying similar to a teacher, say a salesman or manager, they will often work longer days than 9-5 too, and weekends.

Just for perspective, I leave home at 7am, return around 6pm. I'm required to work out of hours as work requires and I'm on call every other week. We've experienced over 50% reduction in staff over the last 3 years, taken pay cuts to keep our jobs and had no pay rises.

I have to admit, there's a certain jealousy about public sector working conditions and terms.
Oh and my daughter and her fiancée are training to be teachers

 

[cambsno]

but it's not all about teachers going off long term sick, it's about them quitting the profession. 1/3rd of new teachers quit in the first 2 years and half quit in the first 5 years.

Personally that statistic scares me especially as I'm one of them. We're sending our children to school to be taught by teachers that have a 50% chance of only ever having a maximum of 5 years experience in the job.

Making the job better for the teacher = more likely they will stay in the job = my 2 children getting a better education.

SIGN ME UP!!!!

Means nothing! 2 friends are both actually good teachers, one has 8 or so years experience, 1 has two years. They both work in good schools. My local school has got experienced teachers and has been marked very badly in Ofted for last 2-3 years and is now on Special measures. I can remember my time at school, some realtively young and inexperienced teachers were far better than some of the more experienced ones.

 

[onona]

I have to admit, there's a certain jealousy about public sector working conditions and terms.

I don't think it's jealousy so much as confusion as to why certain groups keep demanding more and more when they already appear to get quite a lot.

You and others complain about downsizing in staffing and pay freezes and whatnot, but these happen in the private sector too. And it's not that I don't appreciate what a problem is it because of course it adds a huge deal of stress to everyone's lives, but sometimes you just have to suck it up. In my job, I could be dismissed on two weeks notice for pretty much anything, really, without any form of compensation. I accept that's the reality of my particular line of work though, and take measures to ensure that I can support myself in the event of losing my job. Sometimes **** happens and you just have to pick up the pieces and move on.

I guess what it boils down to is that I'm one of an earlier-mentioned demographic who feels alienated by the strikers.

 

[Dale_tem]

onona - Byker works in the private sector and is jealous of the public sectors position

 

[joescrivens]

Do you mean their legal 10% non contact they are entitled to by law?

Yup those are the ones that people don't get.

How nieve are you to think people only work 9-5?

Firstly you do realise I work in the private sector an yes I work 9-5. So does my sister and my brother in law, oh and my other sister an brother in law, oh and my brother.

Secondly, eos_jd asked me to do a comparison of a person of a standard 9-5 worker so that's what I did. Are there people who work longer. Yup. My father in law is one of them and he gets a sweet overtime package!