Strikes to go ahead

Prudent

Really2 wrote: »

But you would argue their payed hours are around 2 hours less per day than the average worker. (so their pay kind of unoficially includes overtime as it is high for the lower hours and paid leave they receive)

Also they have around 7.5 weeks more annual leave than other workers

So I make that although they do a lot of unpaid overtime.
Against a 9am -5:30 pm worker with 25 days paid leave a year they are actually doing around the same amount working hours a year(providing the 9am -5:30 does no over time.).

17H - 10H for the 2h for 5 days = 7 hours per week
7H x40 (working paid weeks for teachers) = 280H per year overtime

7.5 (paid holidays over others) X5 = 37.5 Days extra
37.5X8h (9-5:30 working hours) = 300H

280-300 = -20 (but I will call it even hours )

So their hours including overtime in general are not greater than persons who does 9-5pm, they just have shorter paid working days and more holiday.

Unpaid overtime yes, more hours would seem to be a no.
So the argument hinge on that they may be they have more time to do unpaid overtime compared to other workers.

I work longer than the day you are quoting. I am always in school by 8am and rarely leave before 5.30pm. Add on after school clubs, parent's evenings and the work we take home. Plus the amount of work we do in the holidays. Additional we have an extra 35 hours CPD to fit in over the year.

My partner works outwith the public sector. We totalled up our working hours over the year. He is officially contracted for a 37 hour week plus 5 weeks hols and 8 days bank holiday. Even including my holidays (the ones I took not worked) he worked 3 hours less a day than me or 15 hours less per week over the year. He has a job with far less responsibilty and stress. Based on hours worked over the year he made 17p an hour more than me for far less responsiblity and stress. His pension has exactly the same contribution rate and returns as mine. The only difference is to his advantage. At 60 he can take his pension and continue to work full time if he wishes, giving him a cracking income.

I have been keeping an eye open for a job at his work place. I am a highly competent and experienced teacher with specialist skills, but fed up of the constant teacher bashing by media and some members of the public who fail to recognise what we contribute. I would miss the children very much and they are the only thing that is keeping me in the job now.

LydiaJ

Really2 wrote: »

Also it still ignores the fact that the worker outside the public sector pays for both but is only entitled to one or none.

The worker outside the public sector pays taxes and is entitled to benefits, subject to circumstances (and may or may not also pay some pension contributions and be entitled to a pension).

The worker inside the public sector pays the same taxes, and also pays contributions to whichever scheme they belong to (TPS etc). They are entitled to benefits, subject to circumstances, and a pension from the scheme to which they have contributed.

Stop trying to make out that public sector workers pay no more towards their pensions than the taxes that everyone pays. It's not true.

tartanterra

Prudent wrote: »

I work longer than the day you are quoting. I am always in school by 8am and rarely leave before 5.30pm. Add on after school clubs, parent's evenings and the work we take home. Plus the amount of work we do in the holidays. Additional we have an extra 35 hours CPD to fit in over the year.

My partner works outwith the public sector. We totalled up our working hours over the year. He is officially contracted for a 37 hour week plus 5 weeks hols and 8 days bank holiday. Even including my holidays (the ones I took not worked) he worked 3 hours less a day than me or 15 hours less per week over the year. He has a job with far less responsibilty and stress. Based on hours worked over the year he made 17p an hour more than me for far less responsiblity and stress. His pension has exactly the same contribution rate and returns as mine. The only difference is to his advantage. At 60 he can take his pension and continue to work full time if he wishes, giving him a cracking income.

I have been keeping an eye open for a job at his work place. I am a highly competent and experienced teacher with specialist skills, but fed up of the constant teacher bashing by media and some members of the public who fail to recognise what we contribute. I would miss the children very much and they are the only thing that is keeping me in the job now.

If you are so fed up, then leave. No one is making you stay there.

You say you have your "eye open for a job" at your partners workplace. I'm not surprised. He appears to be better renumerated than most of us in the private sector.
You will find that there are very few jobs like that.

Of course, you may find that you will be unable to find the kind of employment your partner enjoys, as your sense of your worth is not shared by employers:

"The Barclays Corporate survey suggested 57 per cent of businesses were either 'not at all interested' or 'not very interested' in employing public sector workers who had lost their jobs due to government cuts.
Businesses were said to be sceptical about the skills public servants possessed."

If you are serious about leaving for another job, then you will do it.
As they say, Those who can; do. Those who can't..............

Prudent

tartanterra wrote: »

If you are so fed up, then leave. No one is making you stay there.

You say you have your "eye open for a job" at your partners workplace. I'm not surprised. He appears to be better renumerated than most of us in the private sector.
You will find that there are very few jobs like that.

Of course, you may find that you will be unable to find the kind of employment your partner enjoys, as your sense of your worth is not shared by employers:

"The Barclays Corporate survey suggested 57 per cent of businesses were either 'not at all interested' or 'not very interested' in employing public sector workers who had lost their jobs due to government cuts.
Businesses were said to be sceptical about the skills public servants possessed."

If you are serious about leaving for another job, then you will do it.
As they say, Those who can; do. Those who can't..............

I don't see why. The same employer already employs two other former teachers in the same capacity as my partner. It is not a skilled job. They have a basic reading test and arithmetic as an entry requirement. I have taught both to a higher standard.

Really2

LydiaJ wrote: »

Stop trying to make out that public sector workers pay no more towards their pensions than the taxes that everyone pays. It's not true.

I never did, I was stating a public sector worker pays for both.
But a private sector worker also pays towards public sector pensions, they are paying towards something they could never claim.(that was the point).
there was no comment by me stating public sector works did not contribute to their own pensions.

It is fairly obvious the tax payer is picking up the tab for some ill thought out pensions from years ago, but not a great deal we can do other than change the future exposure to such generous schemes.

The point was against the idea that people who receive state aid in retirement some how cost more to tax payers more than state pensions.

The truth is many who received benefits in retirement are likely to be some of the poorest in society and have possibly been on benefits for some of their life. They are supported by all tax payers.

I don't think anyone would argue that the current arrangement is better for the private sector worker compared to the private sector worker.

What would happen if the whole country had the same pension as public sector workers?

If anyone could tell me the country could afford it I would say nothing needs to be done.
If we could not afford it would seem to indicate their is a problem and the system needs changing.

3princes

sonyhamster wrote: »

What really annoys me, is this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8607277/Public-sector-strike-500000-pension-pot-of-striking-teachers-revealed.html

Each teacher has an average £500K pension pot.. funded by the TAXPAYER...

And yet the taxpayer (many of whom, are in the private sector), probably gets a pension pot of about £80K

Have a look at what so called superheads get paid every year:eek: so if £500k were true,then it would just be a drop in the ocean of a superheads pension, there is one who earned more last year than the p.m,now they in my opinion do not deserve the wage they receive,amid all of the cuts to school budgets perhaps these people should take into account the fact that the staff they have to get rid of could be paid with the overpayment they receive as well as the money they use for perks,let's give the genuine Teachers the support they deserve and stop knocking them!

Really2

3princes wrote: »

Have a look at what so called superheads get paid every year:eek: so if £500k were true,then it would just be a drop in the ocean of a superheads pension, there is one who earned more last year than the p.m :rotfl:

The wage should not be questioned IMHO, the need for a partly state funded pension should be though.

LydiaJ

Really2 wrote: »

I never did, I was stating a public sector worker pays for both.
But a private sector worker also pays towards public sector pensions, they are paying towards something they could never claim.(that was the point).
there was no comment by me stating public sector works did not contribute to their own pensions.

It is fairly obvious the tax payer is picking up the tab for some ill thought out pensions from years ago, but not a great deal we can do other than change the future exposure to such generous schemes.

The point was against the idea that people who receive state aid in retirement some how cost more to tax payers more than state pensions.

The truth is many who received benefits in retirement are likely to be some of the poorest in society and have possibly been on benefits for some of their life. They are supported by all tax payers.

I don't think anyone would argue that the current arrangement is better for the private sector worker compared to the private sector worker.

What would happen if the whole country had the same pension as public sector workers?

If anyone could tell me the country could afford it I would say nothing needs to be done.
If we could not afford it would seem to indicate their is a problem and the system needs changing.

I felt you were implying that both public and private sector workers pay the same towards public sector pensions. Thank you for clarifying that you don't actually think this.

I do understand that the unaffordability of pensions has been a problem that has been brewing for some time and needed to be addressed. I don't think it necessarily follows that public and private sector workers should have the same pension arrangements. Too much else is different about their pay and conditions and the types of work that they do to be directly comparable.

The way some people talk about fairness, and speak scathingly about ponzi schemes, you'd think the best way forward would be to close all the public sector pension schemes and make the public sector workers invest in private pensions like everyone else. (Note I am not saying that you have said this, merely that it is implied in much of what I've read.) What would that achieve? The public sector workers would have to have increased salaries to compensate them, or it would get even more difficult that it already is to recruit people of the right calibre to do some of the jobs that are most important to our present and future success as a nation. And that money would get put into schemes managed by bankers, who would keep taking their fat fees regardless of the performance of the schemes. Net effect - public sector wage bill goes up, public sector workers worse off, bankers get more money. I'd rather the wage bill was kept down, and the government had the use of that deferred money for other things, instead of having to pay it out now and increase borrowing to do so.

I'd also like some more accurate and reliable information about how much public sector pensions actually cost central government, and how much they are predicted to cost in the future - I'm reading in some places that the Hutton report predicts the TPA costs will fall, for example.

And I'd like private sector workers to stop talking and writing as though public sector workers are some kind of benefit claimants. Public sector workers do actually work for their pay, and the taxpayer receives services as a result.

ILW

LydiaJ wrote: »

I felt you were implying that both public and private sector workers pay the same towards public sector pensions. Thank you for clarifying that you don't actually think this.

I do understand that the unaffordability of pensions has been a problem that has been brewing for some time and needed to be addressed. I don't think it necessarily follows that public and private sector workers should have the same pension arrangements. Too much else is different about their pay and conditions and the types of work that they do to be directly comparable.

The way some people talk about fairness, and speak scathingly about ponzi schemes, you'd think the best way forward would be to close all the public sector pension schemes and make the public sector workers invest in private pensions like everyone else. (Note I am not saying that you have said this, merely that it is implied in much of what I've read.) What would that achieve? The public sector workers would have to have increased salaries to compensate them, or it would get even more difficult that it already is to recruit people of the right calibre to do some of the jobs that are most important to our present and future success as a nation. And that money would get put into schemes managed by bankers, who would keep taking their fat fees regardless of the performance of the schemes. Net effect - public sector wage bill goes up, public sector workers worse off, bankers get more money. I'd rather the wage bill was kept down, and the government had the use of that deferred money for other things, instead of having to pay it out now and increase borrowing to do so.

I'd also like some more accurate and reliable information about how much public sector pensions actually cost central government, and how much they are predicted to cost in the future - I'm reading in some places that the Hutton report predicts the TPA costs will fall, for example.

And I'd like private sector workers to stop talking and writing as though public sector workers are some kind of benefit claimants. Public sector workers do actually work for their pay, and the taxpayer receives services as a result.

What are these public sector jobs which cannot attract anybody?

3princes

Really2 wrote: »

The wage should not be questioned IMHO, the need for a partly state funded pension should be though.

It wasn't just the wage which is well over £100k per year, but the fact that schools are having funding cuts,and with more superheads being employed,and academies which pay a consultancy fee people will lose their jobs, this government needs to sort itself out and stop paying stupid money.