to think that the NUT advertising in the press about teachers' retirement age..

[wimblehorse]

..is a bit off?
The advert is asking people to sign up to an online petition that teachers should not have to work until they're 68 and if you agree to sign up to the petition.

It also says that they don't think nurses, police, ambulance drivers etc should have to work until this age.
Teaching is a stressful, demanding job and I can quite understand not wanting to do it full-time until age 68.

However I am not convinced that teachers warrant such "singling out" above other jobs. Of course the NUT is standing up for its members, however there are many other deserving (and undeserving) jobs out there and I would feel happier if we were "all in this together" and could have some sensible discussions about retirement age, gradual winding down of work etc for everybody.
AIBU?

Quite simply, the pensions system is not suited to the lives we live now.

When the current pension system was set up most people died before or shortly after retirement age, now they live on for many years. We cannot afford to pay people to spend a third of their life at leisure yet we have to acknowledge if we are to reduce this by extending working years, there may be physical limitations to cope with.

I don't know what the solution is though and I certainly don't know why, as usual, teachers think they are a more deserving case than everybody else.

With regard to the comment About Those in private sectore fighting for their scmemes, remember, Private sector pensions were shafted by Gordon & tony and the last lot. The introduction of tax on dividends on pension scheme earnings wiped out a lot of value, then legalisation, recession etc etc...l

At then time those of us on these pensions or with final salary schemes closing down got no sympathy fom any quarter, and certaintly not from the public sector.

There was an article in the ft recently how only 1 company in ftse100 has a final salary pension now, there was little outcry when those 99 were closed!

Thanks for starting this thread, you reminded me to sign the petition.

My main objection to teachers working to 68 is that I don't think it will actually save any money.

Older teachers tend to be at the top of the pay scale and have positions of responsibility. They are much more expensive to employ than NQTs. If teachers don't retire until 68, there will be fewer jobs for new teachers. Also, older teachers will probably have more sickness which will also cost money.

I'm not entirely sure about that FullBeam. If you could replace all of those teachers with NQTs on the lowest level of the payscale then you would obviously save something. However if you replace a 60 year old with an NQT then the NQT will gradually creep up the payscale in that time, so the savings in the first year are significantly greater than in the 8th year. Also the NQT won't have a position of responsibility, but when the older teacher retires then someone else will have to take on the responsibility and be paid for it. I am sure you are right about the sickness costs. So overall I don't think that the savings from employing a younger teacher would be enough to pay out the pension of the older teacher.

If the older teacher (assuming a classroom teacher) was paid £40k per year and retired at 60 on a 50% pension then a younger teacher would need to be paid £20k to break even on the employment costs and that differential would need to stay in place for 8 years (when realistically the NQT would have reached more like £30k) to make it cheaper until the 68 retirement age. I know the figures I gave were not exactly what an NQT or older teacher would be paid and has ignored sckness, but I just am not convinced by your argument.

breatheslowly

Trois - how many have retired from your school in the last few years who you thought could easily carry on and continue until 72? Very few 72 year old ex teachers look ready to go back into battle!

none - most are too incompetant, and too set in their ways to evolve with change. All got shoved out in their 50's for being dinosaurs.

I've just done a quick calculation and you do have a point!

However, I still think that, when you factor in sick pay, not that much money will be saved. And certainly not enough to justify the impact on learning that an ageing staff might have.

An NQT on M1 of the pay scale earns £23295 and a teacher on point 3 of the Upper Pay scale earns £36756.

Approximate savings by allowing a top of the scale teacher to retire are:
Year 1 £13000
Year 2 £11500
Year 3 £9500
Year 4 £7500
Year 5 £5200

After that, it depends on how the teacher's career progresses.

On the current scheme, a teacher who retires at age 60 after 35 years of service would receive a pension of about £16000 a year. Most teachers (particularly women with children) would not be able to acrue that number of years service so I am guessing that the average pension would be about 12000 a year.

So leaving before 60 rather than teaching to 72 is the norm. Doesn't bode well for the new retirement age. Where do they go when they get shoved out?

The way occupational pensions work doesn't really fit with patterns of work today and especially not in the future. They all depend on the assumption that you are a man who starts work at 18, 21 or whatever, and then keeps working full-time in the same career (and often assume the same organisation or occupation covered by one scheme) until you are 65. Very few people can expect that kind of job security these days and very few women have ever met those requirements - most women take some time off to have children and return part-time when their children are under five.

If we are all going to have to work into our late 60s, we are going to need pension schemes that deal with people going part-time or ditching some responsibility without destroying their pensions. Most of all we need decent pension provision so the money you save actually gives you a decent pension, unlike most private pensions these days.

My friend who is a copper has just retired - he's 'done his 25 years' and got his pension. In his very early 50s. There won't be much of that around for anyone younger that him (he's now got a new job working for the council running something to do with a particular time of crime).

I could do it if I could teach in a traditional fashion, me at the front with a bit of chalk and 30 children at their desks with textbooks and pens. I could sit down most of the time and have monitors to do the running about bit.
I'd need a dart gun for the trouble makers, or perhaps we could just drug their water bottles to keep them docile.

Edam - how can we get a decent pension provision without saving more or is that what you mean?

I think it's important to remember that unions are not allowed to campaign on behalf of others - so however much teachers want to support anyone else facing a later & later retirement, it is not legal for the NUT to say that. They are only allowed to ask for support for their own members.

How people age is vastly different. As there is less credit/money around, it is the vulnerable who suffer. Older workers, chronically ill, very young, people with handicaps etc etc. It may be illegal to discriminate, but by saying that everyone HAS to work to age 70, a not-so-fit 65 year old is being pushed out without full pension. It's hardly someone's fault if they need a hip/knee replacement etc.

We do seem to be returning to the days when people worked until they were close to dropping, then relied on family to house & support them. Yet for many of us, we live miles from family and have young kids, mortgages, no spare rooms etc, even if we want our aged P's to move in with us.

The idea of 'deserving' a good retirement is a bit of a British utopia. Here in the US, people assume that they will work til they are late 60s, then do something part time etc as they just don't have the concept of retiring and having a 'holiday' for 20 years. They find it an odd notion. Pensions are less tied to jobs, so there isn't the concern about final salary etc. The majority of people I know just assume that they will 'keep busy' til they are too old/tired to keep going, then they will use their pension.