So is anyone here on strike?

[sten_super]

nothing to do with it. the different pension age goes back to a world and time when women weren't considered able to do as much as men, so could retire early. bless them. times have changed, we now consider the woman worker to be equal to the man, so they should retire at the same age.

...and that's without considering the fact that women generally live longer, so a defined benefits scheme for them is likely to cost more than for a man on the same terms...

 

[fork me]

There are underpaid people in the private sector as well (I'm sure you could start with cleaners in private hospitals). Unfortunately their pension scheme won't be propped up by tax revenues.

Right so, teachers should accept worsening conditions because some other people are even worse off? What a stupid argument.

Also, where do you get off comparing teachers to cleaning staff? Teachers are not cleaning staff, they are highly qualified professionals. The only comparisons that are valid are to other higly qualified professionals.

FACT: Teachers already pay a higher percentage of their wage to their pension scheme than ANY other government employees.

FACT: And I've brought this one up on numeroujs occasions and it is ALWAYS completely ignored. This "golden" pension that teachers currently get, do you realise what it actually is? For a teacher retiring on £32000 with a full 35 years of service, it works out at £14000 a year. (35*1/80*32000). That's not exactly what I call a "golden" pension. Hell, my rent alone was close to £9k a year when I left the UK. The other 5k wouldn't even cover the bills.

FACT: The new government proposals want teachers to pay more, work for longer and still get less at the end of the day. Only an idiot would accept that without a fight.

FACT: This strike was instigated by the ATL, a Union so non-militant they haven't EVER called a national strike before in their entire history. That, in itself, says a lot about how bad things have got.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Right so, teachers should accept worsening conditions because some other people are even worse off? What a stupid argument.

Also, where do you get off comparing teachers to cleaning staff? Teachers are not cleaning staff, they are highly qualified professionals. The only comparisons that are valid are to other higly qualified professionals.

FACT: Teachers already pay a higher percentage of their wage to their pension scheme than ANY other government employees.

FACT: And I've brought this one up on numeroujs occasions and it is ALWAYS completely ignored. This "golden" pension that teachers currently get, do you realise what it actually is? For a teacher retiring on £32000 with a full 35 years of service, it works out at £14000 a year. (35*1/80*32000). That's not exactly what I call a "golden" pension. Hell, my rent alone was close to £9k a year when I left the UK. The other 5k wouldn't even cover the bills.

FACT: The new government proposals want teachers to pay more, work for longer and still get less at the end of the day. Only an idiot would accept that without a fight.

FACT: This strike was instigated by the ATL, a Union so non-militant they haven't EVER called a national strike before in their entire history. That, in itself, says a lot about how bad things have got.

This.

 

[El Presidente]

Are you sure about that? Who is paying for these public sector pensions?

Well as a public sector employee and a taxpayer, I think I'm paying for the vast majority of my pension myself.

 

[El Presidente]

...and that's without considering the fact that women generally live longer, so a defined benefits scheme for them is likely to cost more than for a man on the same terms...

..........and they have bigger tits too!

 

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

Right so, teachers should accept worsening conditions because some other people are even worse off? What a stupid argument.

Also, where do you get off comparing teachers to cleaning staff? Teachers are not cleaning staff, they are highly qualified professionals. The only comparisons that are valid are to other higly qualified professionals.

FACT: Teachers already pay a higher percentage of their wage to their pension scheme than ANY other government employees.

FACT: And I've brought this one up on numeroujs occasions and it is ALWAYS completely ignored. This "golden" pension that teachers currently get, do you realise what it actually is? For a teacher retiring on £32000 with a full 35 years of service, it works out at £14000 a year. (35*1/80*32000). That's not exactly what I call a "golden" pension. Hell, my rent alone was close to £9k a year when I left the UK. The other 5k wouldn't even cover the bills.

FACT: The new government proposals want teachers to pay more, work for longer and still get less at the end of the day. Only an idiot would accept that without a fight.

FACT: This strike was instigated by the ATL, a Union so non-militant they haven't EVER called a national strike before in their entire history. That, in itself, says a lot about how bad things have got.

Remember you also get your state pension as well no matter what your job pension is and you don't have to pay National Insurance (though you do get taxed)

 

[The Antikythera Mechanism]

nothing to do with it. the different pension age goes back to a world and time when women weren't considered able to do as much as men, so could retire early. bless them. times have changed, we now consider the woman worker to be equal to the man, so they should retire at the same age.

What is the ratio of male / female workers (not office based) in construction then?

 

[beorhthelm]

FACT: And I've brought this one up on numeroujs occasions and it is ALWAYS completely ignored. This "golden" pension that teachers currently get, do you realise what it actually is? For a teacher retiring on £32000 with a full 35 years of service, it works out at £14000 a year. (35*1/80*32000).

for perspective and comparison, a normal worker with say a 5% employer contibution would have to contribute 12% or ~£320 p/m to get 14k in retirement. with no employer contribution, you would need to contribute 16% or £450 a month for £14k. and thats based on 40 years earning, retiring at 65.

lets stop all the "gold plated" phases for ordinary public sector workers, but lets also recognise the very, very good deal they get. one thing i have taken from all this today is why are they singling out teachers, who do seem to be paying more than other in public sector already.

 

[sten_super]

Right so, teachers should accept worsening conditions because some other people are even worse off? What a stupid argument.

Also, where do you get off comparing teachers to cleaning staff? Teachers are not cleaning staff, they are highly qualified professionals. The only comparisons that are valid are to other higly qualified professionals.

My argument, which I've said at least twice is this thread, is for equality - give everyone the same opportunity. At the moment there's no way that they could offer private sector workers the same defined benefits scheme as the public sector, because the numbers don't add up.

I mentioned cleaning staff because the previous poster (xenophen I think) had tried to talk about poor hospital cleaning staff on a pittance deserving a decent pension; my point was that their equivalents in the private sector don't, it was nothing to do with comparing teachers to cleaning staff.

FACT: Teachers already pay a higher percentage of their wage to their pension scheme than ANY other government employees.

I actually know a lot about the teachers pension scheme, because my wife is one. I am also in a highly qualified profession, on a similar wage to my wife, and with NO contributions to my pension from my employer. She pays 6% of salary into her scheme, and her employer contributes a further THIRTEEN AND A HALF percent. Can you not see the imbalance there? Note I am not saying that she should have no contributions, but over double the amount that she puts in is clearly an unsustainable position.

If you really are looking for sympathy for having to put 6% of your salary into your pension, you're not likely to find much amongst the private sector.

FACT: And I've brought this one up on numeroujs occasions and it is ALWAYS completely ignored. This "golden" pension that teachers currently get, do you realise what it actually is? For a teacher retiring on £32000 with a full 35 years of service, it works out at £14000 a year. (35*1/80*32000). That's not exactly what I call a "golden" pension. Hell, my rent alone was close to £9k a year when I left the UK. The other 5k wouldn't even cover the bills.

I notice you leave out the £28000 lump sum that you'd also receive on retirement. Do you realise how much you would require to have in a typical pension pot to get an annuity for £14000? It's a hell of a lot more than £67,200, even allowing for interest.

FACT: The new government proposals want teachers to pay more, work for longer and still get less at the end of the day. Only an idiot would accept that without a fight.

FACT: This strike was instigated by the ATL, a Union so non-militant they haven't EVER called a national strike before in their entire history. That, in itself, says a lot about how bad things have got.

I don't think at all that it indicates how bad things have gotten - it simply indicates how much things have changed. I realise that it is a lot of changes (and it is an effective 3% pay cut) in one go, but it is simply bringing a part of the public sector in line with the workings of the private sector. We'd all love to have defined benefits schemes based on our final salaries, but they are unsustainable.

 

[sten_super]

..........and they have bigger tits too!

you haven't seen my tits

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Teaching is one of the most important professions in this country, and education is one of the most important commodities. You do not educate your nation and you do not progress your nation. I do not understand why some people are happy, or indifferent, to seeing both teachers and students screwed over. It's one area where we should be finding ways to invest more money, not cut money. We will all benefit. If we want to attract the best people to be teachers this really is not the way to go about it.

 

[fork me]

for perspective and comparison, a normal worker with say a 5% employer contibution would have to contribute 12% or ~£320 p/m to get 14k in retirement. with no employer contribution, you would need to contribute 16% or £450 a month for £14k.

lets stop all the "gold plated" phases for ordinary public sector workers, but lets also recognise the very, very good deal they get. one thing i have taken from all this today is why are they singling out teachers, who do seem to be paying more than other in public sector already.

I didn't say it was a bad deal, but it's not as good as people make out. Teachers actually pay in 6.4% of their gross (ie before tax) salary.

 

[oldham gull]

A reference to some 'proper' strikes here for anyone who wants to read a little more.
Falling With Style: 3 Strikes & You're Out!

 

[fork me]

I don't think at all that it indicates how bad things have gotten - it simply indicates how much things have changed. I realise that it is a lot of changes (and it is an effective 3% pay cut) in one go, but it is simply bringing a part of the public sector in line with the workings of the private sector. We'd all love to have defined benefits schemes based on our final salaries, but they are unsustainable.

Except that it ISN'T bringing in equality. When I left the UK, the salary I was earning, while not crap, was less than HALF what I could have earned in the private sector with my qualifications. The fact that I enjoyed my work, the holidays and the better pension was what made me stay in teaching.

Excessive red tape, pointless paperwork and various other factors have already made the job less enjoyable, take away the pension scheme as well and there's less and less to encourage people into the profession.

I'm still teaching, just not un the UK, and now have to sort my own pension out (I have 11 years of a teacher pension and 9 years of an NHS pension, and I'm no longer paying NI because I'm out of the country) so it doesn't hugely affect nme personally anymore, but I am still fully in support of the strike.

 

[Titanic]

FACT: Teachers already pay a higher percentage of their wage to their pension scheme than ANY other government employees.

I didn't say it was a bad deal, but it's not as good as people make out. Teachers actually pay in 6.4% of their gross (ie before tax) salary.

You could check this with some of our regulars... but I think the Police pay 11% minimum, and up to 16% with AVCs.

 

[CliveWalkerWingWizard]

Two points:
(1) The pensions review has nothing to do with the recent financial crisis - it is a matter of demographics. Pensions liabilities are part of the UK's annually manged expenditure which has little to do with the structural deficit
(2) The financial services industry was responsible for 11% of ALL tax receipts in 2009/10 - that is an enormous contribution and means that the banking industry does contribute a great deal to the cost of public sector pensions. More importantly for our economy, financial services is one of the few sectors we have a trade surplus in - in 2010 it was £36 billion. Also, it is worth remembering that two thirds of those employed in the banking industry work outside London and earn salaries which in many cases are less that the public sector average wage. Our economy, like it or not, relies a great deal on the banking industry and this continual 'banker bashing' is tantamount to shooting ourselves in the foot.

Point 1- correct, but the government put a spin that it is public sector workers contribution to the deficit - not true, any changes made would not have any real impact for another 25 yrs or so.
Point 2 - Incorrect the money that enters the teachers pay scheme pays for the monies leaving (well thoeretically). For many years the government were in net profit. When the government realised that the 2 did not equate teachers pensions were renegotiated in 2007. There is NO EVIDENCE that there will be a shortfall in future years.

 

[wakeytom]

What are the bankers' sacrificing?

apart from the 16000 job cuts between the 2 banks today - many of which will be earning less than the teachers?

 

[Questions]

I am on strike today. For the first time in 20 years of teaching.


I was tempted into teaching because I wanted to do some good in society and help children to achieve, but a secondary reason was the pension. Now the government are attempting to move the goalposts, to change the contract I entered into all those years ago. I was going to retire in 18 year's time, now it could be 24 years, so effectively I now have to work 33% longer,pay £100 more a month, and receive a sustancially smaller pension. Personally, in years to come, I would prefer my grandchildren be taught by young, energetic teachers with fresh ideas, than 66 year old teachers limping towards retirement.

What contract did you sign regarding your pension. Tell me the name of it so I can have a read up on it will you.
I wish I had read my contract with the government when I went self-employed 30 years ago. No dole, no sick pay, no paid holidays and now they tell me that I`ll probably have to work on until I`m 68-70 before I get my 90 quid a week. Try working in the building industry when you are nearly 70.
Should have read the f***ing small print then I might have become a teacher, who knows ?

 

[kemptown kid]

Proud to say I've been on strike and to say that I support workers in any field, public or private, skilled or unskilled, white collar or blue, who campaign for decent pay and conditions, including, after working for over 30 years, a pension they can live on without relying on means tested benefits. As a teacher, the pension is a part of my overall 'wage' just as overtime opportunities, car/travel allowances, subsidised/free food, tips etc. are for some others. There may be the occasional teacher/nurse/fire fighter etc. able to work effectively into their sixties, and good luck to them, but it is not a realistic, healthy or desirable option for most - I suspect gov't knows this full well and at some vague actuarial level will expect to save on pensions as a result of killing off some of us by forcing us to work for too long when younger, healthier members of the population are willing to take our places rather than drifting from one MacJob to the next whilst waiting for us to retire or drop dead.

 

[Questions]

Teaching is one of the most important professions in this country, and education is one of the most important commodities. You do not educate your nation and you do not progress your nation. I do not understand why some people are happy, or indifferent, to seeing both teachers and students screwed over. It's one area where we should be finding ways to invest more money, not cut money. We will all benefit. If we want to attract the best people to be teachers this really is not the way to go about it.

There is only one thing worse than ''Back of the fag packet economics '' and that is ''Bleeding heart Liberalism''

You come out with these silly soundbites about the glory of education when we are discussing teachers pensions ffs. The public sector have had it far too easy for yonks and I`m glad its going to change. You think that these teachers will drift out now and join the private sector..... let them and they`ll soon see how rosy they had it. I know plenty of teachers who have arrived in the profession late and they`ll give you a pretty good insight into what life was like before they came in.
Education is important, so don`t make out that everyone who is against this strike doesn`t care about it. We all do.