aibu to think that all those striking on thursday are being selfish and greedy?

[hellospoon]

And they should be thankful that they even have a job?

In a day where thousands of people are unemployed and living in poor conditions surely these teachers should be thankful they even have a job!

Many parents are having to take leave, some unpaid I presume the effect that it will have on family's is ridiculous.

Our SNU leader is striking not becuase of the pensions (she is happy to pay more) but becuase she can't work out how , with reduced TA provision, she can run a unit of kids with ASD and EBD unit into the latter half of her sixties when she finds it physically demanding in her fifites.

Selfish? the woman is a bloody inspiration! What she ahs done for asd ds3 is wonderful.

I agree with her and totally support her. All public sector jobs are not the same.

As for the lucky to have a job- pffft. Dh was made redundant and is haviong to retrain, we know what the real world is like right now- still need ds3 to be cared for by people who are physically able for it.

The real problem underlying all of this is that retirement/pension ages have not moved up in line with life expectancy.

When retirement ages were set, they were only about 5-10 years lower than average life expectancy at the time.

If retirement age had increased in line with life expectancy, it would now be at least 75.

The pension system was never intended to cover 20 or 30 year retirements.

The past few generations have benefited from a huge mismatch in retirement age and life expectancy, meaning they can take a long retirement. Current and future generations cannot, unfortunately, expect to have the same benefit.

As a result of this, private sector workers are going to have to earn more, or work longer, compared with previous generations in order to fund a reasonable pension. I see absolutely no reason why the same should not apply to public sector workers.

But there are jobs where it is harder to continue as you age- certain types of psych unit, working with certain types of SN or EBD child, police force, prison officer, social work, types of nursing etc- and a lot of the most at risk posts are in the public sector.

Not all- I worked in private sector and was badly ebaten by a man with a severe SN; dread to think how it would have affected me had I been older (risk of fracture etc, genertal strength to hold him off). But a lot.

I haven't reached a decision over pensions tbh, still more information i'd like. But I don't think a one size fits all approach for such a vast organisation is wise.

Have temped in VAT office and could have worked there until 75 (if I didn't died of boredom) but now within the SN field and they are vastly different.
it's not as if people can just change jobs to less risky ones- locally there are not teaching jobs, only redundancies.

I cannot agree with a policy that palces workers in certain career paths at risk, and their charges also. I want ds3 to be cared for by physically fit teahcers, not either by people who are struggling to keep going or by a profession where awareness of this means everyone apcks off to something else as soon as they gain any experience!

As for life expectancy- that varies as to where you live anyway.

DH fully expects to work until he drops or is unable, but that's possible becuase of his field.

ohno you get plenty from public sector workers, some obvious like nurses, doctors etc and some not so. When I buy something from a private company I contribute towards salaries etc and don't bat an eyelid. I think it's disgraceful that private sector workers have crap pensions yet their bosses are rolling in it claiming they're worth it plus you'll get a state pension anyway paid for by taxes.

Seems like some people will only be happy when we're all scrabbling around living on pennies while the privileged few aren't touched. Ridiculous.

And public sectors will have to work longer they don't deny that. However some professions just should not expect people to work longer - that's madness. Or would you like a 90 year old firefighter coming to rescue you if your house burns down

PeachY, Iggly of course are some jobs which need physical strength and fitness.

This applies as much to the private sector as to the public sector though: construction work for example.

IMO there are two solutions: 1) structure the job so that it is possible to switch to less physically demanding work when you are more senior (this is already done in quite a lot of public service jobs) 2) pay more in salary to compensate for the fact that you can do the job for fewer years, and are likely to have to retrain or switch to a less well paid job later.

Jeremy Vine currently ripping a teacher to shreds on Radio 2

I find it hard to believe that anyone expects a pension and a retirement age of 65.
Public or private that ain't what's going to happen to this generation and neither should it.
Why cripple young families with paying for old people lazing around for 30 years?!

I am getting really tired of all this complaining that we must cut back (as long as it doesnt affect you!). The rule that you signed up to perhaps 30 years ago is changing. We are living longer, suck it up. Of course if people want to say that they signed a contract 30 years ago and this should be honoured - OK - lets look at the life expectancy 30 years ago and after you have reached this the pension stops!

And before you all think what do I know - I work for a private company and did have a final salary scheme, we couldnt afford to continue it so it is now a career average and I had the choice of paying more, I'm miffed but we really cannot carry on wanting our cake and eating it.

Yes, teaching is difficult (my mother was a teacher) but no more difficult than some other roles.

Mini our son's SEN teacher is very happy to pay extra, she is striking because of the age issue.
It's not easy to switch jobs is it? Locally the schools are losing teachers, and if anyone is hired it is NQT or newly qualified to minimise costs. A teahcer with 30+ years experience of SEN who has to leave will face unemployment.

And yes it happens in the private sector - Dad was a builder who switched- but he knew full well it was not a career for life and had chances to work towards a complete career change, factory management. Sadly whern that facotory was asset stripped he ahdn;t had the chance to plan and ended up a cleaner on minimum wage: being able to make choices with significant penalty takes time and prior information.

Somewhat amusingly the SEN teacher was asked to keep the unit open today as 'the children you educate are so different and need so much more care'- sonit's not as if the state has not identified the anomallies! A higher set of pension payment accompanied by a retirement age of 60 for certains specifed roles is obvious. And ignored under a lot of media- directed comments designed to make it seem everyone strikes for the same reason.

Heck, in my last SEN carer role I received danger money! In the private sector. It's not as if people don't know what variety there really is out there. it just suits the state to paint all strikers as some homogenous state-money-hungry group.

Besides, most teachers I know rent due to local prices back home; cut the pensions, and add ££££££££ to what they will claim in HB etc. State pays anyway. Nobody wins..

When I started work 20 or so years ago I was told I had to pay in so much to a pension to be able to afford to retire at 55. They all assumed that there would be return on investments of 9%pa.

Now I am paying in more than double that, and will have to work until I'm 67 just to get the same pension.

I think I shall go on strike. Oh, hang on, I'm not a teacher. The tax payers aren't going to pick up the tab.

BTW:

1. The pensions already earned by teachers will not be affected. The rule change would apply to future contributions only.

1. I hope that some of the posters making more offensive comments on here aren't teachers - crikey what state our education system then!

yy Collaborate

exactly

fucking idiot,

collaborate, you sound a little cheesed off about what happened to your pension and I don't blame you. the public sector will be paying 50% more into their pensions too, but they won't get the same as in your case, they will also get far less.

I accept that it's probably not realistic to expect teachers or firefighters to work in those roles until late sixties and beyond. BUT there is another option to retirement. I am planning now what I can do from late 60s plus when I probably won't be able to keep up with my present job.
Why can't teachers et al do the same? Lots of my friend are planning different things to do when they're older. If you don't want to teach at 65, how about e.g private tuition? (just an example)
Watching teachers' reaction to the pensions crisis is like watching Sleeping Beauty wake up. Delayed retirement age is something the rest of us have been considering for years.

oh, and teachers are tax payers too!

we all need to accept that we are living longer and therefore must adjust in both the public and private sector to working longer. Indeed many of the trade unions have already accepted that position - new entrants to the teachers pension have to work longer and pay in more. But this current row stems not so much for the need to make changes because of finances but from an ideological stance of the government. The Hutton report, on which the government are basng their changes, says that the current system is untenable. It is true, untenable because of the comparison with the private sector. It does not say that the current system is unaffordable - which is what the government claim. They are using the present deficit as a smoke screen for their policy changes. Indeed the Hutton report makes clear that the cost of public sector pensions to the state will actually fall over coming years.

So are they right to strike ? Yes - because the government are not being fair in the negotiations. Why won't the government come clean with the figures on the state of the pension schemes? In the current economic climate, few can afford to lose a day's wages. But unless people make a stand now about the con which this government is trying to use, they will lose a lot more in due course.

If you listened to Osborne over the last year you would think the country was totally broke, about to go bankrupt until he stepped in. Yet he can find £250 million to fund military action in Libya with no clear idea how they are going to end this or what the costs will be.

No I am not a teacher and I am affected by school closures today. But something has to be done.

"It is true, untenable because of the comparison with the private sector. It does not say that the current system is unaffordable - which is what the government claim."

I don't really get what you are saying here. Untenable is the same unaffordable isn't it? The gov't can't afford to pay the pensions they are paying. I don't see what the comparison with the private sector has to do with it when the private sector pensions are not funded by the tax payer and are generally considerably less because you don't find private sector employers putting 14% in your pension fund for you.

ohnoherewego - I agree.

I also don't understand why teachers still think they have a job for life. Nobody has a job for life any more. People are increasingly changing careers to suit their personal circumstances. Why can't teachers do the same? If they aren't up to their jobs, do something else. My brother isn't a public sector worker and doesn't think he will be able to his job into his 60's. He has always said you never see a welder retire - they are either dead or they have had to give up years before because it is so physically demanding. Changing jobs is not a new thing for those who have always done heavy manual work so if teachers think their jobs are so hard (and I don't doubt that they are in some cases) they need to plan their working lives to take this into account.

I agree really with Niecie, other manual labourers and "hard on the body" workers are having to change jobs when it becomes too physically demanding aren't they? My husband works really long hours as a chef, he has a crap pension and won't be retiring until when into his 70s. He often works long shifts with virtually no break, is on his feet all day, works anti social hours and cannot take holidays at busy times - ie none allowed in December. He works Xmas, Easter, Mother's Day, weekends, evenings...

So I DO understand teachers being a little unhappy, but hey, isn't everyone? Should everyone strike? By the way, I do support their right to complain but have not heard anyone come up with a solution - ie how the pensions they would like can be afforded...

Think the teachers want to be treated differently, their job is so difficult, they get paid so little, none of them leave their school before 6, the long school holidays are not what they seem etc. Well these jobs are effectively jobs for life.

If the role is so tiring, relentless and badly paid - just go and do something else. No - they will cry - we love our jobs - we want to have it all, a job we love, final salary pension schemes, long holidays and a job for life!

If the education system was entirely privatised and teachers were paid like those in the private sector, ie for actual hours worked, the cost to the tax payer would be at least doubled, due to overtime costs (teachers are paid to work 1265 hours p.a, most work at least double that from my experience) working unsociable hours (often past midnight most evenings and a great deal of Sunday, + during school holidays). The pace is relentless (as confirmed by all of the mature students I teach at Uni who have left various other careers to pursue a career in teaching), yet many choose to stay in the profession because they want to perform a needed and once valued public service. I agree there needs to be reform, but those of you working in the private sector should perhaps take teacher's lead and fight your own battle for the right for all workers to have a decent pension. If there is enough money circulating in the economy for bankers to keep their £1m annual bonuses, for a small country like the UK to have the 4th highest defence budget in the world, for footballers to earn £120k per week, for there to be 19 cabinet memebrs who are millionnaires, for business corporation tax to remain unchanged despite the recesssion (I could go on), then there is enough money for all workers private or public sector to receive a decent pension. It depends on priorities. I don;t think teachers should have decent pensions at the taxpayer's expense but that a decent pension is the right if all!

For me if I were a teacher or if I were PM I would want to look at the prospect of scrapping all public sector benefits but upping the pay accordingly. In my opinion that would then be much more comparable with private sector - good pay but future risk.
What would teachers feel about that?

Gosh, there are a lot of bitter people out there. Instead of people supporting each other to get better conditions for all, both public and private sector workers there is a tendency to destroy. Divide and conquer. Boy the wealthy government fat cats really do know how to play the game and many of us commoners fall for it all the time.

Also,please remember that teachers are providing a service for the community. They do not work to fill the pockets of shareholders and private companies. (Yet! - I'm thinking of future Academies but that's another thread).

I think in theory it's a good idea, pommedechocolat, as it least the unpaid time that teachers currently do for free may be more recognised