Strikes to go ahead

michaels

Thanks Generali - this is important to me - if pension rights already 'earned' were retrospectively being changed that would be unfair - if renumeration for work yet to be done is being reduced then at least employees have the option to take their labour elsewhere if they feel they are being underpaid.

As I said before - the unanticipated increases in life expectancy are effectively increasing the value of teachers remuneration considerably and the Govt. is suggesting that this increase should be capped thus teachers are not being offered a lower value total package but rather one that isn't increasing as rapidly. When all other workers with defined contribution pensions are not seeing such increases in total remuneration why should public sector workers continue to see them?

Generali

michaels wrote: »

Thanks Generali - this is important to me - if pension rights already 'earned' were retrospectively being changed that would be unfair - if renumeration for work yet to be done is being reduced then at least employees have the option to take their labour elsewhere if they feel they are being underpaid.

As I said before - the unanticipated increases in life expectancy are effectively increasing the value of teachers remuneration considerably and the Govt. is suggesting that this increase should be capped thus teachers are not being offered a lower value total package but rather one that isn't increasing as rapidly. When all other workers with defined contribution pensions are not seeing such increases in total remuneration why should public sector workers continue to see them?

I agree with you but.....

...the problem is that the promises can't be afforded. If it was a private sector company that promised something and couldn't deliver then it would be forced to go bankrupt. If a Government does it then taxpayers have to stump up more and more. For an example, see General Motors' promises regarding health insurance for retirees.

One solution could be to go back to the old actuarial tables and say, "This is the cash value of the promise that we made in 19xx and we're happy to give you that, adjusted upwards for inflation". As a sovereign body, the UK Government can do that and her ability to do that is why public sector pension liabilities aren't included in the national debt.

It isn't reasonable to expect taxpayers to impoverish themselves to pay for the lifestyles of others. It also isn't reasonable to take away workers' contractual rights. Unfortunately the two things will increasingly be at odds with each other.

As a non-smoking man that eats well, isn't overweight and takes regular exercise I've probably got a decent shout of living to 100. As I didn't really enter the workforce properly until the age of 25 (although I worked from the age of 13) it probably isn't reasonable for me to expect to work for 40 years and spend the first 25 and last 35 years of my life being kept!

System

Private sector pension contributors have seen the rules repeatedly changed over the years, altering the value of what they thought were contractual obligations. Pension pots have been raided, the tax regime changed, limits suddenly and arbitrarily imposed, terms and conditions altered. This is all apparently fair and legal.

LydiaJ

Kennyboy66 wrote: »

Be nice if politician and the judiciary showed the lead and reformed their pensions first.

:T

michaels wrote: »

I know we shouldn't let the facts get in the way of a good rant but if some one could confirm - are the teachers being asked to accept a reduction in the value of the pension rights they have already accrued or is it just that going forward the rights they will be accruing will be less valuable.

Generali wrote: »

This is what the Teachers Pension Scheme has to say on the matter:

The Government remains committed to the protection of accrued pension rights. Lord Hutton recommended that the pension promises that have been accrued by scheme members should be honoured, and additionally that the rights individuals have built up to date should remain linked to their final salary until the point they leave the new scheme, or retire. Similarly the linking of Normal Pension Age (NPA) to the State Pension Age would apply to future service only, so benefits built up to date would still be payable at the current NPA in those schemes.

Lord Hutton has recommended that a new career average salary scheme be set up for future pension accrual

http://www.teacherspensions.co.uk/bulletin/bulletin1.htm#a24_06_11

Just because Lord Hutton has recommended something doesn't mean that the government will stick to it. I'm told some of the plans go beyond Hutton's recommendations, although I'm not sure in what way. Details of what the government is actually intending to do are hard to come by - hence the TPS merely telling us what has been recommended. Some of his recommendations were on record before the information gathering was complete, which has raised questions about the independence of his report.

It is also worth noting that Hutton has said that teachers' and NHS pensions are "fairly modest by any standards" and should not be regarded as gold-plated.

Finally, it is not clear how the proposals will affect teachers in Gove's pet project of free schools. The independent school teachers are all to be chucked out of the scheme (welcome to higher fees, any of you who pay for your kids' education) but it's difficult to tell about teachers in free schools and whether this will affect plans to make more of them.

StevieJ

I don't know what it is about this extended life expectancy but many people popping off at the moment don't seem that old :eek: The latest casualty today, the bogey man of us Man Utd fans in the past, Mickey Doyle 64 RIP

vivatifosi

michaels wrote: »

Thanks Generali - this is important to me - if pension rights already 'earned' were retrospectively being changed that would be unfair - if renumeration for work yet to be done is being reduced then at least employees have the option to take their labour elsewhere if they feel they are being underpaid.

I agree with you michaels but there is a potential joker in the pack here. This is the move from RPI to CPI. This may (very likely will) reduce the pension values going forward, including those already accrued. Unless your scheme docs state explicitly RPI and not "the government measure of inflation" or words to that effect, then your scheme could change and there's nothing you can do about it, even if the benefits are accrued. Oh, and this isn't just public sector pensions either.

macaque_2

=Really2;44827576]I don't think anyone disagrees that many teachers do a great job.

The disagreement is in that they are reasonably paid, and in the modern world with life expectancy increasing by 3 years every 10 years is it fair for their pensions to be heavily subsidised by the tax payer.

I for one certainly disagree. Compared to other countries, the UK education system is rapidly becoming a disaster zone. Too many UK school children lack any work ethic, good manners or social skills and levels if illiteracy and innumeracy are disgrace. Far too many are totally unprepared for working life and as a generation they have been totally failed by their teachers (and in many cases their parents).

Weak teaching staff are impossible to sack and the education system is far too tolerant of bad teaching performance. People would scream blue murder if the plane they were getting on had a dysfunctional pilot but they say nothing when the future of their children are left in the hands of dysfunctional teachers.

There are plenty of good teachers but their ranks are too heavily diluted with unsackable turkeys.

And then there is the question of salary. Why should a good teacher be paid less than a GP. As a service to the community, there is little between them. In terms of commitment, I suspect that many teachers put in a lot more than GPs.

leveller2911

So basically the Public sector feel they have been lied to over their pensions and want to strike.The private sector was also lied to over pensions and retirement ages increased,personally I was told I would be able to retire at 65 now it seems more like I will retire if i'm lucky at 68.

It was interesting to see the Teachers union rep on Newsnight saying "Teachers should not be expected to teach in the classroom at 66,67 or 68 years old" why not? a bricklayer is expected to lay bricks till he's 68 so why are teachers incapable?.

1/ Key worker status with preferencial Housing.

2/ Contracted for 38 weeks of the year (14 weeks off.)

3/ If they fall ill or break a leg playing sport they get 6 months full pay and a further 6 months of half pay.

4/ Currently far better Pensions than the Private sector

5/ Job for life almost imossible to sack bad teachers.

Any other perks Teachers get that I don't know about? and it was also mentioned on Newsnight that average wages are in fact higher than they are in the Private sector but is that actually right?.

I understand its in no ones interest to have a race to the bottom but !!!!!! they really need to wake up. Fact is we are all living longer and something has got to give and also Is watching Newsnight akin to being a Daily Mail reader?

LydiaJ

macaque wrote: »

There are plenty of good teachers....

And then there is the question of salary. Why should a good teacher be paid less than a GP. As a service to the community, there is little between them. In terms of commitment, I suspect that many teachers put in a lot more than GPs.

Thank you.

LydiaJ

leveller2911 wrote: »

It was also mentioned on Newsnight that average wages are in fact higher than they are in the Private sector but is that actually right?.

Interesting. Average wages for whom are higher than whose wages in the private sector please?