Teachers strike on Thursday

alm721

You'd think wouldn't you, that if teacher's have such a great lot everyone would be wanting to do it! When I started teaching there were two major perks for this job, the holidays and a decent pension. Many teacher's went into this career believing that a reasonable pension made up for the 'downsides' to this job. Even at the top of main scale I get paid less than I would in industry and it's a pretty stressful job!
I'm not sure if people are really aware of how much is at stake here. If this propsed change will go ahead I will effectivly 'lose' a days pay every month in extra contributions. This would not be so bad if it was to preserve the pension but it isn't. For the pleasure of 'losing' an extra days pay every month I also have to retire later at 68. (and seriously no-one wants lots of teachers still teaching at 68).

Yet still that is not the end of it. After losing a days pay a month and retiring later I will also lose approx £157k assuming I live 25 years after retiring. Some teachers are set to lose over £200k. To add insult to injury I believe this is not being done because there is no money in the pension pot, rather that the government want to take more money out to pay elsewhere.

I know everyone has it bad and no doubt there are many other sectors worse off but if we start degrading one of the major attractions of teaching, then what effect will this have in the long term? We need to recruit high quality individuals to teach our future generations. I'm not entirly sure how we will continue to do this if pensions get screwed over.

kit77

Sorry can I just ask what is the main issue with having a teacher who is 68? I appreciate nobody wants to be working till this age but everyone is having to do it.

I don't want to be rude I'm just asking so I can understand.

milliebear00001

kit77 wrote: »

Sorry can I just ask what is the main issue with having a teacher who is 68? I appreciate nobody wants to be working till this age but everyone is having to do it.

I don't want to be rude I'm just asking so I can understand.

Probably because it's a very physical job - esp if you teach very young kids. Teaching PE, on your feet all the time, lots of bending, kneeling, lifting etc. I'm sure you get lots of 68 year olds who could manage, but looking at my parents (who are younger than that) I doubt many teachers could - just as many manual workers couldn't keep doing the job until 68 either.

Violetta_2

Is it just teacher's down south- I haven't heard anything about Scottish teachers striking.
If they strike during the holiday's no one will notice, well done teacher's on trying to stick up for yourselves & your rights.

milliebear00001

Just England and Wales Violetta.

kit77

milliebear00001

Thank you - I understand for PE teachers but just couldn't understand the likes of Maths etc.

Violetta

If may be wrong but I am sure teachers in Scotland came to some agreement and at present were not planning on striking at all.

paddedjohn

alm721 wrote: »

You'd think wouldn't you, that if teacher's have such a great lot everyone would be wanting to do it! When I started teaching there were two major perks for this job, the holidays and a decent pension. Many teacher's went into this career believing that a reasonable pension made up for the 'downsides' to this job. Even at the top of main scale I get paid less than I would in industry and it's a pretty stressful job!
I'm not sure if people are really aware of how much is at stake here. If this propsed change will go ahead I will effectivly 'lose' a days pay every month in extra contributions. This would not be so bad if it was to preserve the pension but it isn't. For the pleasure of 'losing' an extra days pay every month I also have to retire later at 68. (and seriously no-one wants lots of teachers still teaching at 68).

Yet still that is not the end of it. After losing a days pay a month and retiring later I will also lose approx £157k assuming I live 25 years after retiring. Some teachers are set to lose over £200k. To add insult to injury I believe this is not being done because there is no money in the pension pot, rather that the government want to take more money out to pay elsewhere.

I know everyone has it bad and no doubt there are many other sectors worse off but if we start degrading one of the major attractions of teaching, then what effect will this have in the long term? We need to recruit high quality individuals to teach our future generations. I'm not entirly sure how we will continue to do this if pensions get screwed over.

this £157k you will lose, where is it coming from in the first place?

milliebear00001

paddedjohn wrote: »

this £157k you will lose, where is it coming from in the first place?

I believe that figure is based on an estimate of a twenty five year retirement at the rate paid to that individual teacher each year. So in that case, about £6000 less per annum in pension payments.

liney

kit77 wrote: »

milliebear00001

Thank you - I understand for PE teachers but just couldn't understand the likes of Maths etc.

I think primary is more physical on the whole. Firstly they teach everything, including both Maths and PE.

Secondly, they are constantly getting down the child's level to speak eye to eye, or kneeling at a desk to help an individual.

The same can not be said of Secondary teachers, due to the physical size of the children at 11 plus, and therefore the size of the desks and benches used.

gregg1

milliebear00001 wrote: »

Yep, those teachers are always mooning aren't they!?

Do you mean the 'real world' where all the employees rolled over, didn't strike and allowed their employers to shaft them over pensions...

...and are now so bitter about it that they hate anybody with a bit of backbone who stands up for theirs?

Milliebear makes an excellent point - private sector take note!