teacher's strike

rpc

Marisco wrote: »

On News 24 yesterday, they had a spokesperson from one of the unions on, and she said that the 3% that they are asking the workers to pay towards their pensions, will not actually go on the pensions, but will be used to get the deficit down.

Spin, taking advantage of a general misunderstanding of how most public sector pensions are run. There is no "fund" - outgoing payments to retired members are a government liability paid for by the incoming payments of current members. i.e. part of the deficit is paying out pensions and the government wish to reduce this liability. Sadly, the unions do not seem to put much effort into explaining this clearly (and, to be fair, neither do the government).

rpc

milliebear00001 wrote: »

No, you are peddling misinformation that directly goes against the findings of a major enquiry into the sustainability of teachers' pensions.

The enquiry that said public sector pensions were, given the source of the "employer" contribution, clearly sustainable but that whether they were affordable in future was a political decision. The elected representatives of our country have now decided that they are not affordable. Of course, they could just hike taxes for the rest of us but that would be even less fair than the current proposals.

You are also avoiding answering the question of why the Government refuses to revalue the scheme and prove their statements.

Valuations only really apply where there a proper pension funds. How do you want to see a direct-payment setup to be valued? As a result of the expansion in the public sector, most public pensions are currently in surplus but that will change in the future as more people retire and then don't die as quickly as they used to.

Marisco

rpc wrote: »

Spin, taking advantage of a general misunderstanding of how most public sector pensions are run. There is no "fund" - outgoing payments to retired members are a government liability paid for by the incoming payments of current members. i.e. part of the deficit is paying out pensions and the government wish to reduce this liability. Sadly, the unions do not seem to put much effort into explaining this clearly (and, to be fair, neither do the government).

So let me see if I've got this right! The workers pay into a pension "pot" that the government dish out to retired workers? So they want the workers to pay more into the pot, not to give the retired or future workers when they retire more, but to help the government pay off the deficit, yes? If that is the case then I can see why they are going on strike!! (I was "for" them anyway;)) Why should workers pay for the mistakes and bad decisions of government? I'm sure the deficit was caused more by bailing out the banks, paying for wars, billions in aid to corrupt countries, than paying retired public workers their pensions!!

Lotus-eater

Marisco wrote: »

So let me see if I've got this right! The workers pay into a pension "pot" that the government dish out to retired workers? So they want the workers to pay more into the pot, not to give the retired or future workers when they retire more, but to help the government pay off the deficit, yes? If that is the case then I can see why they are going on strike!! (I was "for" them anyway;)) Why should workers pay for the mistakes and bad decisions of government? I'm sure the deficit was caused more by bailing out the banks, paying for wars, billions in aid to corrupt countries, than paying retired public workers their pensions!!

No, there is no pension pot, what comes in, goes out, as I understand it.

Successive governments have inherited the "pension time bomb" as it used to be called.
ie, it has no money in it, but needs to keep paying out more and more.

This one seems to be doing something about it. Hard luck for the people involved that it's happened now. No harder than the private workers who have got pay freezes and cuts.
Or what about the Irish civil servants who got a minimum of 5% pay cuts and other cuts when the crap hit the fan.

Marisco

Lotus-eater wrote: »

No, there is no pension pot, what comes in, goes out, as I understand it.

Sorry to sound thick, but I'm trying to get it straight in my own head. So all the money that the workers pay in, is all paid out to those who are retired now? So what is going to happen is, that what is paid in, will not cover what is getting paid out, because of longevity etc, and that is why they want them to pay more, yes? So that spokesperson on the news was out and out lying then, when she said it will go to pay off the deficit?

Lotus-eater

Marisco wrote: »

Sorry to sound thick, but I'm trying to get it straight in my own head. So all the money that the workers pay in, is all paid out to those who are retired now? So what is going to happen is, that what is paid in, will not cover what is getting paid out, because of longevity etc, and that is why they want them to pay more, yes? So that spokesperson on the news was out and out lying then, when she said it will go to pay off the deficit?

I only understand the very basics, you need someone else to answer your question tbh.

But it does seem to be that numbers can be arranged in any order you want and can prove or disprove anything if you try hard enough.

Marisco

Lotus-eater wrote: »

I only understand the very basics, you need someone else to answer your question tbh.

But it does seem to be that numbers can be arranged in any order you want and can prove or disprove anything if you try hard enough.

This is where I think both sides have fallen down badly! None of them have explained it properly - preferably in language we can all understand!!! If you listen to the strikers, they will all be on the breadline if forced to pay more for their pensions, then you have the gov saying they are all greedy sods who want everyone else to pay for their pensions!!

So is there anyone out there who can explain, in words of one syllable, shorn of all emotion and bias for either side what exactly is going on?? Pretty please??:D

mr_and_mrs_ts

please put debate elsewhere as was not intended for it's current use, thanking you. original post was a light hearted comment - elder sibling going to school. In fact please close thank you.

plumtreebabe

"Here's an example, a bog standard teacher who works for just 7 years and finished on a salary of £31k (top of the pay scale for a bog standard teacher outside london) will get a pension of more than £4k pa. They will have earned approx £190,000 gross in those 7 years, and get a pension worth £137k. Good luck saving 72% of your salary if you're in a private sector job."

That is just total rubbish! Here is the online calculator for teachers pensions:
http://www.teacherspensions.co.uk/resources/pension_calculator.htm

Work it out yourself - its just over £2000.

Most teachers and public sector workers nowadays don't have a job for life and don't have a pension to match. Brought down by all those part timers - yes, many are part-time or have not got full 40 years due to breaks for childcare or other work so that means the pension pot doesn't have to fund quite so many £25,000 pensions does it? My husband is on the max a teacher can get right now, but he will only ever have 22 yrs in his career, as he spent many other years doing voluntary and youth work, poorly paid and no pension but it was his choice. If he does not lose his job next year (central services where he works with excluded kids getting assaulted physically almost every day are being restructured), he can expect a pension of around £9,000.

The previous government renegotiated teachers pensions three years ago with a promise that it was guaranteed not to change, and guess what? Three years later they have reneged on it.

gregg1

Lotus-eater wrote: »

If you are a teacher, I would have expected you to be able to read what was written and give a suitable reply.

Saying that a teacher would be way down the list of horrible jobs, is very different to what you have replied to.

Maybe you should think about saying something else.



And I completely disagree that most of the population look at schools as free child care, if you see the amount of people that struggle to get their kids into good schools, you know that can't be true.



There are good teachers and bad teachers, but I am a bit sick of teachers on here constantly moaning how badly treated they are. If you don't like it, do something else.

And I completely disagree. That is exactly how a lot of parents view schools unfortunately.