AIBU to feel that teachers shouldn't really be striking?

[Pinky1011]

They have 3 months PAID holidays only work 9-4pm, no dangerous or really bad working conditions, great job security, good pensions, They had pay rises last year up to 8%!!! I work in the private sector and haven't had a pay rise in almost 6 years! I just feel compared to alot of other professions, teachers have it quite good? I mean their starting salary is the same as a junior doctor. I get it inflation has wrecked everyone, but surely the issue should be getting inflation down? Not just demanding for more money, which by the way only fuels inflation further. AIBU to feel that teachers just don't know how good they have it compared to the rest of us?

I have been teaching almost 40 years. I love my job. But I don't love the fact that in my small one-form entry primary school, 3 staff have been off with work-related stress in the last year. I don't love the fact that I rarely get more than 5 hours sleep, work whenever school is open over the holidays and yet still I'm asked for more. I don't love that we continued working face-to-face with the children throughout most of the pandemic and yet still the vast majority of the public thinks we were sitting back doing internet shopping and learning a hobby. I don't love the fact that during on-line learning I rarely worked a less than 12 hour day and yet still people think we should not strike because we have it so easy.
We are striking for a funded pay rise because the last one had to come from the school budget. Yeah, the same budget that the fuel bills have to be paid from. Go figure. And then go and volunteer in a school. Shadow a teacher. Then report back.

Thanks. Yes, you get that and more often in the run down areas from what I have heard, Often its the parent/s that are worse that bullies. Hoever, on the whole in a nice area, it is a nice job and a daughter of ours was a manager in a nursery, close to promary age, kids were good as gold - it was the parents and other staff that were the proble

All in all, these days teachers all get around 16 weeks of lave inc BH's, teacher days and their extra health and welling being time off,

OP at best you're just poorly informed and can't be arsed to do any research, at worst you're as thick as pig shit.

How would you quote the pension contributions?

Saying they’re fake is just stupid. They’re a cost associated with employment that will yield a very generous pension at retirement. The argument that they’re unfunded is spurious, they’re not going to disappear overnight.

They are fake because no actual money is being paid anywhere, at all, for those schemes. It's just an IOU, which will be changed, as it already has been.

I think TPS pays around average salary years service / 80… so average salary of £38k over 25 years would be around £11,800 a year, of which 3/4 or c. 9k is from employer contributions… which is roughly the same as I’ve allowed for.

It says it will currently, yes. Will it, though? No. Because there is no money to pay for it.

Pensions are part of your pay.

I am not a teacher or part of any public sector pension scheme, so no. I'm simply explaining the facts and economics of it.

Indeed.

There's also no evidence that oay rises drive inflation. The causality works the other way around. Even Friedman accepted this!!

So no, public sector workers are not unreasonable to expect their salaries to rise at at least the level that private sector counterparts in comparable roles do.

And if the Government cared about inflation, prosperity or living standards - imstead of hammering public sector workers with paycuts - it would have done something about productivity over the last 13 years, would rejoin the single market immediately, would have had an energy and food security strategy, and would... drumroll!... be investing hugely in education.

It says it will currently, yes. Will it, though? No. Because there is no money to pay for it.

It's a legal obligation. They're not 'fake' or 'opt outable'.

Oh dear me, how naive.

How do you think pension schemes were downgraded previously then, from final salary to average salary for example?

How do you think private sector DB schemes were removed?

These were legal, contractual obligations as well.

Yeah, my dad was a Uni lecturer and he did very little work for a decent amount of money and a good pension. But I don't think that he is representative.

The pressure on teachers charged with teaching teenagers necessary skills is grim, and the senior management fail to manage behaviour of both parents and students in many schools, exacerbating the pressure.

No amount of money - or unpaid leave, which is what those "holidays" are - compensates for 5.30am starts and never ending assessment, imo. I worked over 60 hours a week to deliver a reasonable level if teaching in a department with a shockingly underdeveloped curriculum and I am not planning on going back any time soon.

So no, public sector workers are not unreasonable to expect their salaries to rise at at least the level that private sector counterparts in comparable roles do.

But private sector workers are not uniformly getting inflation level pay rises, far from it. It's also much easier to cut pay and cut jobs in the private sector, so it's continually self correcting.

The argument around struggling to recruit and retain teachers is the strongest one I feel. That's the thing to focus on in making the case.

How do you think private sector DB schemes were removed?

These were legal, contractual obligations as well

In what sense were they 'removed' though? They were phased out for new joiners or exchanged, in agreement, for other benefits. They weren't unilaterally 'removed' with no consultation or legal agreement.

That's why these exercises work by benchmarking pay/ payrises against private sector equivalent roles: people with similar qualifcations, experience and seniority. If their private sector counterparts have received rises then of course public sector workers with the same skills should get equivalent rises, otherwise the best ones will leave...

"exchanged, with agreement"

🤣 Doubt anybody will fall for that again.

Schemes in the public sector themselves bave been changed even for those already in the schemes. Terms and conditions will be changed again. No doubt there'll be many more strikes as it happens but it'll happen anyway. The projections on costs in 20/30 year show that the promises made cannot be paid, so they won't be. They'll be gradually eroded.

Same as with state pensions etc.

Anybody who believes any promise from Government is worth the paper it's written on is in a very precarious position.

That's why these exercises work by benchmarking pay/ payrises against private sector equivalent roles: people with similar qualifcations, experience and seniority. If their private sector counterparts have received rises then of course public sector workers with the same skills should get equivalent rises, otherwise the best ones will leave

But it's never as simple as comparing salary. Pension, job security, conditions, etc.

I 100% agree that there is a huge problem with teacher retention. However it seems like it's less to do with the package at first glance, and more to do with the fact that the hours being put in are not in line with what's stated or perceived to be the case.

Doubt anybody will fall for that again

Well there you go then. You're prior warned, unionised and up for the fight. That's a lot more than most.

E.g. most in if these unfunded schemes eligibility date is tied to state pension age. Government will likely keep raising that until most people can't collect their public sector pensions until soon before they die, drastically reducing the liability.

Change the infation measure it's tied to again.

Change the years ratio again to reduce accrual rates.

And many more. There are many, many ways to gradually bring the "liability" down by adjusting conditions it in favour of the Government and to the detriment of those expecting to receive these non-existent pension funds. And they will do this? Because they have no choice, because there is no money.

Again: I am not a teacher, nor do I have a public sector pension, nor am I a member of a union. I'm not talking about me!!

Again: I am not a teacher, nor do I have a public sector pension, nor am I a member of a union. I'm not talking about me!!

Okay then, 'they' are

Well, that's true of almost every professional job re. hours and level of work/ stress. Teachers are nowhere near unique in that. Their pay - like all public sector workers - needs restoring to an appropriate level comparable to private sector counterparts with similar skills.

The pensions are irrelevant really as no proper comparison can be made: public sectors have very generous but unfunded promises that won't be kept whereas private sector workers have much smaller pensions but funded and more protected - unless the Government tries to steal chunks of them again through changes to rules as they have done previously. But that would be shooting themselves in the foot because then people will stop saving for pensions and the state will have to fund even more in the end.

Teachers' main issue seems to be their working conditions and schools being underfunded so that they can't do their jobs properly no matter how hard they try. Like I said I'm not one, but this is my impression. But they're not allowed to strike about that, so this strike seems to be a proxy strike to try to wake people up to the fact that Government need to fund education properly. Then their jobs would better, and children would be supported properly, and productivity in the economy might have a hoe of recovering one day in the future.

Teachers get just over 5 weeks paid holiday a year. Same as most jobs I imagine. The hours they work is none of your concern.

whereas private sector workers have much smaller pensions but funded and more protected

This isn't true at all. Private sector pensions can be devastated by stock market crashes or funds failing. They're much less protected as things stand.

However, more broadly I think hours worked above and beyond by teachers are far in advance of what's generally expected from those on similar salaries. So either that needs to be addressed or the pay needs to increase in line with the reality. So I guess we are in fundamental agreement on that point.

What do you do op?
How many hours do you work?
What’s your salary?
What’s your educational background?
How many weeks paid holidays do you get a year ?

Oh of course DC schemes have more financial risk attached, because they are actual invested money! But that's financial risk, rather than risk of non-payment, risk that for say a 30 year old teacher, with a scheme which on the surface looks great but is tied to state pension age... it's fairly obvious that when these liabilities become unpayable Governments can raise state pension age to 75 or even 80 and ta-da! Most of the liability goes away.

No I don't agree that those in professions on similar salaries do shorter hours. Many who don't carve out really successful careers in law or accounting earn similar amounts and work very long hours. Same with many staff in medicine. Obviously those who are at the top and join Magic Circle/ Big 4 firms/ become partners/ consultants earn more but then so do those who become headteachers of academy chains I guess? But in many of the professions you get a salary to get the job done, and for the last 15 years people work extremely long hours for increasingly poor salaries, when you factor in inflation.

However, the recent assault on public sector salaries particularly in this last year or two - to hold them down in the face of record inflation - sticks out particularly to someone on the outside who looks at data (I'm an economist). It's not sustainable. You can only really tell professionals to do high-stress roles with long hours for a fixed salary if that salary at least keeps pace with others with similar skills.

No I don't agree that those in professions on similar salaries do shorter hours. Many who don't carve out really successful careers in law or accounting earn similar amounts and work very long hours

But they wont stay on those salaries. Those on 30k in law or finance will be putting in those hours in an expectation of moving up to better remunerated posts in the near future. It would not be normal in other careers to work 60 hours weeks for 20 years on 30/40k.

Obviously those who are at the top and join Magic Circle/ Big 4 firms/ become partners/ consultants earn more but then so do those who become headteachers of academy chains I guess?

A partner in a magic circle law firm will earn many, many multiples of a head teachers salary though.

The expectation of progression and future pay is different. In law/finance you put in these hours on lower salaries for a while, to get to much higher salaries.

The expectation seems to be that teachers do it as standard for years, without the prospect of big financial reward.

Op, there is such as shortage of teachers. Please sign up and become one.

You have made it sound a walk in the park...why are you not already teaching?

The problem with reducing workload is

1. I don't think other countries are so comprehensively propping up failing social services, SEN services and mental health services

2. Extra workload isn't necessarily pointless. Like in my dept after mocks we type in the score for every single assessment question for every single pupil into a spreadsheet. This then generates a list of strengths and weaknesses for each kid that can be given to them, forestalling any parental enquiries as to 'what do they need to work on?'. In Y11 that data goes into an app that generates tailored revision questions for each student.
   So it's a time-consuming admin task, but if we stopped doing it, we'd lose something.
   It's the same as where the expectation is to run revision classes for Y11. Once the expectation is there, removing it leads to the worry that the kids are missing out.