teacher's strike

gregg1

Lotus-eater wrote: »

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.

You are right - there is no pension pot because successive Governments have consistently raided it to their own ends. It is their fault they are now stuck with a "pension time bomb" . Do you think that the public sector have not had to suffer pay freezes, cuts and job losses? Get real. The private sector have had it pretty good for a long time, higher rates of pay etc. This really does smack of sour grapes - i.e. I can't have it, so I don't want you to have it either!

poet123

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.

My point was that in the eyes of many teachers are way down the list of those who deserve decent salaries, and way down the list of hard jobs, despite the fact that they are educating the next generation. Till you have stood in front of a class of 30, you can't really comment on how arduous it is. So, maybe you should look at the other side of the coin.

There are supportive parents and unsupportive parents, and like tends to mix with like, so maybe you really don't see those who use the school system as child care, let me assure you they are out there, and out there in numbers.

Marisco

poet123 wrote: »

My point was that in the eyes of many teachers are way down the list of those who deserve decent salaries, and way down the list of hard jobs, despite the fact that they are educating the next generation. Till you have stood in front of a class of 30, you can't really comment on how arduous it is. So, maybe you should look at the other side of the coin.

There are supportive parents and unsupportive parents, and like tends to mix with like, so maybe you really don't see those who use the school system as child care, let me assure you they are out there, and out there in numbers.

I don't think you (not you you iyswim:D) can compare "hard" jobs, as physically a road digger is way harder than a teacher, but a teacher is way harder, mentally than a digger. As for using the school as "child minder", you only have to read forums, see interviews on TV etc, to see all the parents whinging on about how they are going to manage for the day, so I think that is a pretty good summation of it!!!

Poppy9

Marisco wrote: »

As for using the school as "child minder", you only have to read forums, see interviews on TV etc, to see all the parents whinging on about how they are going to manage for the day, so I think that is a pretty good summation of it!!!

It's not really. Parents have a legal obligation to send their children to school and the majority of parents use state schools. Given this legal obilgiation they then arrange their working life around their child's school hours.

They are informed in advance of school holidays so have time to make alternative arrangements if they have to work.

Other days off though throw many parents into chaos with childcare as it's hard to arrange "one off" childcare. Private day nurseries usually only take children upto 4, older children holiday clubs don't run for one day at the request of a parent. Again child minders are not easy to get at short notice as they have their regular charges.

Not everyone has family or friends available to help out.

As a Public Sector worker who will be on strike on Wednesday I understand it's creating problems for private sector workers and I sympathise that they are suffering because of my actions.

However the whole point of a strike though is to cause disruption, if it didn't there would be no point in it. Angry parents are actually helping the strike be effective by raising the profile of the strike.

To say though that these angry, inconvienced parents are using the school as unpaid childminder is unfair. They are tax payers and their taxes contribute to state education so they are paying for it. The majority of parents like myself ensure my child attends to school to receive an education.

FATBALLZ

Marisco wrote: »

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

The teachers pension scheme funding is very simple. Basically, whatever 'contributions' the members make, goes to the government to spend on whatever they want. So yes, this will help reducing the deficit, although the contribution it makes in the whole scheme of things is very small. Whether this is the governments primary motivation, I don't know.

When the pensions are paid out, they are paid from general taxation, ie from tax on private sector enterprise.

When you are reforming pensions you have 3* ways of making them cheaper:

1. Increase contributions.
2. Delay the retirement date.
3. Pay less on retirement.

It makes sense to use a mix of the 3, which is what is being done. However the unions spin this as "the government want you to pay more AND retire later AND get a lower pension". It's really sad how little rational argument is being put forward by both sides. However seeing the responses to my posts pretty much shows rational argument isn't welcomed.

*There is actually a 4th way, which would be for scheme members to agree to stop drawing a pension at a certain age (say 80), essentially offering to be euthanised (or just live in poverty). But I don't think anyone wants that!

FATBALLZ

plumtreebabe wrote: »

"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.

It's not 'total' rubbish, however I realise a while after posting that I'd made a slight error in the calculations, but didn't bother correcting it myself as a case study to see how many people with these strong opinions actually had the wherewithal to actually understand and refute any of it, sadly apart from your own slightly erroneous response, nobody said anything.

To clarify, I was looking at the 'new entrants' scheme, and it was 8 years, not 7. This gets you a pension of £4133.

The best index linked annuity rate is 3.84% from the FSA website (which apparently isn't that up to date, the rates may have fallen since then).

Doing the maths this makes the teachers pension worth £107600, or 49% of their gross salary to that point (£221,051 based on publish pay bands for teachers).

poet123

Marisco wrote: »

I don't think you (not you you iyswim:D) can compare "hard" jobs, as physically a road digger is way harder than a teacher, but a teacher is way harder, mentally than a digger. As for using the school as "child minder", you only have to read forums, see interviews on TV etc, to see all the parents whinging on about how they are going to manage for the day, so I think that is a pretty good summation of it!!!

The road digger does not have to deal with the road answering back, swearing or worse, nor does he have to deal with its parents!!;) However, I take your point.

Poppy9 wrote: »

It's not really. Parents have a legal obligation to send their children to school and the majority of parents use state schools. Given this legal obilgiation they then arrange their working life around their child's school hours.

They are informed in advance of school holidays so have time to make alternative arrangements if they have to work.

Other days off though throw many parents into chaos with childcare as it's hard to arrange "one off" childcare. Private day nurseries usually only take children upto 4, older children holiday clubs don't run for one day at the request of a parent. Again child minders are not easy to get at short notice as they have their regular charges.

Not everyone has family or friends available to help out.

As a Public Sector worker who will be on strike on Wednesday I understand it's creating problems for private sector workers and I sympathise that they are suffering because of my actions.

However the whole point of a strike though is to cause disruption, if it didn't there would be no point in it. Angry parents are actually helping the strike be effective by raising the profile of the strike.

To say though that these angry, inconvienced parents are using the school as unpaid childminder is unfair. They are tax payers and their taxes contribute to state education so they are paying for it. The majority of parents like myself ensure my child attends to school to receive an education.

My point about childcare was not really directed at those who have an issue with the strike, as tbh I do sympathise for the reasons you stated. It was directed at those parents who are unsupportive of the school, think their kids can do no wrong, and do think of it as a free babysitting service, with all the rights on their side but with no responsibility.

starnight_2

FATBALLZ wrote: »

When you are reforming pensions you have 3* ways of making them cheaper:

1. Increase contributions.
2. Delay the retirement date.
3. Pay less on retirement.

It makes sense to use a mix of the 3, which is what is being done. However the unions spin this as "the government want you to pay more AND retire later AND get a lower pension". It's really sad how little rational argument is being put forward by both sides. However seeing the responses to my posts pretty much shows rational argument isn't welcomed.

*There is actually a 4th way, which would be for scheme members to agree to stop drawing a pension at a certain age (say 80), essentially offering to be euthanised (or just live in poverty). But I don't think anyone wants that!

So basically you are saying that the governments proposals are a mix of all 3, which is, increase contributions, increase retirement age and pay less on retirement. Therefore helping the longevity of the scheme? So what you're saying is the government want us to pay more, work longer and get a bit less on retirement? Here's me thinking you disagreed with the unions.

Marisco

FATBALLZ wrote: »

The teachers pension scheme funding is very simple. Basically, whatever 'contributions' the members make, goes to the government to spend on whatever they want. So yes, this will help reducing the deficit, although the contribution it makes in the whole scheme of things is very small. Whether this is the governments primary motivation, I don't know.

When the pensions are paid out, they are paid from general taxation, ie from tax on private sector enterprise.

When you are reforming pensions you have 3* ways of making them cheaper:

1. Increase contributions.
2. Delay the retirement date.
3. Pay less on retirement.

It makes sense to use a mix of the 3, which is what is being done. However the unions spin this as "the government want you to pay more AND retire later AND get a lower pension". It's really sad how little rational argument is being put forward by both sides. However seeing the responses to my posts pretty much shows rational argument isn't welcomed.

*There is actually a 4th way, which would be for scheme members to agree to stop drawing a pension at a certain age (say 80), essentially offering to be euthanised (or just live in poverty). But I don't think anyone wants that!

Yes thank you, that's a bit clearer, but it does throw up more questions!!! If the contributions go to the gov to spend on what it wants, why don't they ringfence the contributions to just pay for pensions? I would be very annoyed if I'd paid for my pension, and the gov turned round and said I had to pay more, because they'd spent it on something else, and didn't have enough to pay for what it was intended for!

And why don't they have the new system just for new entrants? It's not right to change the "rules" half way through the game! Say to everyone, from, say, September (new term) anyone who starts then has to pay more, work longer and have a bit less pension. Then at least they know the score, and it will then be up to them whether they want to become teachers under those rules. At least they'll know "up front", unlike those who are getting their contracts changed to something they didn't sign up for!

This goes for all public service workers, or any worker for that matter, who signed a contract. By all means change the rules for new workers, but it's not really fair to change it for people who might have been working on "old rules" for 15/20 years, and have their retirement worked out on those figures!

Poppy9

poet123 wrote: »

My point about childcare was not really directed at those who have an issue with the strike, as tbh I do sympathise for the reasons you stated. It was directed at those parents who are unsupportive of the school, think their kids can do no wrong, and do think of it as a free babysitting service, with all the rights on their side but with no responsibility.

I know what you mean, but they are generally not tax payers