teacher's strike

FATBALLZ

milliebear00001 wrote: »

I am waiting for somebody in Government to show me the 'actual maths' that demonstrates why my teachers' pension has to change. So far they have refused to do so.

Well lucky for you I've explained it already on this thread, so you don't need them to explain it to you. Quite frankly before anyone gets themselves worked up into a state over proposed changes to their pension the first thing they should be doing is doing the maths, for themselves (you'd think teachers would be able to do this).

The question you have to ask yourself, is whether in a profession where only the bottom performing 0.0034% are sacked for performance reasons, and quality of output has deteriorated markedly over the past few decades, your bog standard teacher should be on a reward package worth £60k a year.

poet123

FATBALLZ wrote: »

Well lucky for you I've explained it already on this thread, so you don't need them to explain it to you. Quite frankly before anyone gets themselves worked up into a state over proposed changes to their pension the first thing they should be doing is doing the maths, for themselves (you'd think teachers would be able to do this).

The question you have to ask yourself, is whether in a profession where only the bottom performing 0.0034% are sacked for performance reasons, and quality of output has deteriorated markedly over the past few decades, your bog standard teacher should be on a reward package worth £60k a year.

As has input....which is firmly down to parenting.

Given what a lot of teachers have to work with and put up with, they do earn their salaries.

Lotus-eater

VestanPance wrote: »

You really do have to be short on thinking to think increasing pension poverty in the future is a valuable short term economy fix worth implementing.

Oh I see, you think the strike will work?

Well good luck with that. I don't know whether they have a decent point or not tbh, knowledged commentators who know a whole load more than me, seem to be divided.

I think the public workers who are striking, are being led down the garden path. I repeat, it's exactly what the government want them to do. They're going to get reamed.

VestanPance

Lotus-eater wrote: »

Oh I see, you think the strike will work?

Well good luck with that. I don't know whether they have a decent point or not tbh, knowledged commentators who know a whole load more than me, seem to be divided.

I think the public workers who are striking, are being led down the garden path. I repeat, it's exactly what the government want them to do. They're going to get reamed.

No, I don't think the strike is severe enough. If I was in their position I'd take the government to task. Three month/six month strike.

Same with the occupy movement. !!!!! footing about does nothing. The violence of the Poll Tax riots shows what's needed.

Lotus-eater

VestanPance wrote: »

No, I don't think the strike is severe enough. If I was in their position I'd take the government to task. Three month/six month strike.

Same with the occupy movement. !!!!! footing about does nothing. The violence of the Poll Tax riots shows what's needed.

Thank the lord you're not in charge of the unions then, otherwise they'd be even more f****** than they are.

FATBALLZ

poet123 wrote: »

Given what a lot of teachers have to work with and put up with, they do earn their salaries.

Come on, that's a silly argument with no economic basis and you know it.

I could say the same about care workers who have to wipe toilet waste off old peoples private areas for a living and get physically assaulted on a regular basis, but if they suddenly went from NMW to £60k a year people would soon complain when care bills doubled or more (and they're by no means cheap at the moment). There are plenty more jobs you could apply the same to etc etc

grey_lady

I am quite anti this strike, it amazes me that civil servants who might pay in 5% to their pension and get 20% put in by the gov/tax payer are now complaining that the gov might put in a little less and they might have to pay in a little more. Because in the real world you would be very lucky to get your contributions matched.

Oh and the age old 'but I'd get a higher salary in the private sector' sorry but probably not, there are a lot of low paid jobs in the private sector to.

There are quite a few people happy to go out on strike for a jolly, an excuse for a day off and the gov are quite happy for that to happen, it's an excuse to get rid of more jobs, after all this strike is costing half a billion.

But here's what really winds me up, it's a !!!!take to the men and women who fought so hard for basic workers rights, without whom we wouldn't have any holiday entitlement or any right to even earn enough to guarantee being able to put food on the table. It was less than 100 years ago when children went without shoes and there are still children in this country who are going to bed hungry tonight and no-one seems to be protesting about that.

pollypenny

Why are posters just criticising teachers? Most of the public sector is out.

How many can imagine 63 year old teachers in class? Days of Mr Chips are long gone.

milliebear00001

FATBALLZ wrote: »

Well lucky for you I've explained it already on this thread, so you don't need them to explain it to you. Quite frankly before anyone gets themselves worked up into a state over proposed changes to their pension the first thing they should be doing is doing the maths, for themselves (you'd think teachers would be able to do this).

The question you have to ask yourself, is whether in a profession where only the bottom performing 0.0034% are sacked for performance reasons, and quality of output has deteriorated markedly over the past few decades, your bog standard teacher should be on a reward package worth £60k a year.

Your first response is a fatuous one which avoids actually answering the question of why the Government refuse to prove the teachers' pension scheme is unsustainable in the long term. I trust the financial 'insights' of somebody who calls himself 'fatballz' on an anonymous website only marginally more that I trust George Osbourne and Francis Maude.

Your second paragraph is a diversionary tactic aimed at drawing peoples' attention away from the facts, which are that the Government refuses to prove its own statements via hard stats.

Debbie_A_3

pollypenny wrote: »

Why are posters just criticising teachers? Most of the public sector is out.

Teachers' actions do cause more than their fair share of disruption. I suspect my local library will be shut, the bins won't get emptied, routine hospital appointments will get re-scheduled, etc, etc. However, none of these will lead to the disruption that teachers can cause when they withdraw the free child-care for the day. So I can see why teachers are criticised.

But if I want to be provocative, I would say that I am enjoying hearing the criticism. If I am going to lose a day's pay then I want my actions to be noticed. That said, I am pleased of the support that I am getting from friends and relatives who work in the private sector.

pollypenny wrote: »

How many can imagine 63 year old teachers in class? Days of Mr Chips are long gone.

Or 67 year-olds. The plans are to pay teachers' pensions at age 68. It's madness.

Debbie