22nd November 2011, 03:59 PM
We can push down the wages but this leads towards a non-delivery and replaceable facilitator industry, especially on the grounds of a wage driven competion character to the industry.
So if your interested solely in wages then David has the best level of wage, whilst if we are talking about a responsible and considered delivery within the sector then we have to focus.
This focus could be in the form of targets, but then were talking about keeping the public interest and diversifying the nature of that interest.
Which depend on the public sector character of the industry.
If people are pointing out that this is not going particularly well then I would suggest competition to consider a self-reflexive determination agenda to the nature of a facilitator driven sector.
At the moment this would be mainly extending as an avenue of education sector participation rather than solely being education sector driven.
But still this requires a parity between the isolated fields.
At an organisation level this drives up the upper echelons and experience end of the wage considerations, but then this is down to leveraging up the entire industry with a resultant downward pressure being targetted by both industry standards and organisational leadership.
Either way this points out a bubble, much akin to a starting wage of ?20,000.
These issues are going to continue, but the manner of how and what we can deliver is the only way we can get out of a negative standards of living focus.
RPI and CPI are important for now, but the products that we deliver formulate the integrity of any given industry exposure.
Growing engagement and partisipation will only deal with a certain degree of problems, but in the long term we still need to think about what it is we are actually producing and in what direction we are moving.
We know how to respond to the economic conditions, but we need that level of clarity and consideration to be the basis from which we can start to evolve outside of previous limitations that were established by our predecessors.
So if your interested solely in wages then David has the best level of wage, whilst if we are talking about a responsible and considered delivery within the sector then we have to focus.
This focus could be in the form of targets, but then were talking about keeping the public interest and diversifying the nature of that interest.
Which depend on the public sector character of the industry.
If people are pointing out that this is not going particularly well then I would suggest competition to consider a self-reflexive determination agenda to the nature of a facilitator driven sector.
At the moment this would be mainly extending as an avenue of education sector participation rather than solely being education sector driven.
But still this requires a parity between the isolated fields.
At an organisation level this drives up the upper echelons and experience end of the wage considerations, but then this is down to leveraging up the entire industry with a resultant downward pressure being targetted by both industry standards and organisational leadership.
Either way this points out a bubble, much akin to a starting wage of ?20,000.
These issues are going to continue, but the manner of how and what we can deliver is the only way we can get out of a negative standards of living focus.
RPI and CPI are important for now, but the products that we deliver formulate the integrity of any given industry exposure.
Growing engagement and partisipation will only deal with a certain degree of problems, but in the long term we still need to think about what it is we are actually producing and in what direction we are moving.
We know how to respond to the economic conditions, but we need that level of clarity and consideration to be the basis from which we can start to evolve outside of previous limitations that were established by our predecessors.