Teachers - are you voting yes for strike action

[sandgrounder]

Went to NUT meeting at school yesterday re pension reform. Cannot see myself teaching until 68 and who wants their kids taught by oldies not wanting to be there.

There has been a protest march already in which many teachers took part which wasnt in school time.

In case you missed it there have been protest marches at weekends so children's education wasn't disrupted MrsGuyOfGisbourne

obviously they had little impact as both you and Cain missed them which is perhaps why the unions are proposing to take more visible action

So what is the point of 'visibility? We all know the country's finances is in a scandalous mess thanks to Mr Brown, and in any case pensions are not affordable at the level the public sector have enjoyed in the past just about so - 'visbility' achieves - what exactly? Hardly the respect of other tax-payers who probably have far worse pensions. We're always hearing that parents are undermining schools if they take them out in term time - what message does it give to a child if a teachers leans on their shovels for a day?

How about using the collective intelligence, which you might expect to be above average, to explain to children why the pensions reform IS required.

The point is the National Audit Office has state the Teacher's Pension Scheme is affordable because teachers have agreed to pay more for longer ...

stated

No, not striking. I have thrown all the bumph from my union about this straight into the bin.

Give it a rest Mrs Guy. It may be all right sitting in front of a computer all day when you're in your late 60s, but running around after 30 reception children...? It's a little bit different.

I think this 'work longer' proposal is ludicrous. The physical demands on a teacher cannot be compared to the physical demands on a person in a sedentary job. IMHO the unions should be focussing on this.

Who said anything about sitting in front of a computer? And what's with teh running that teachers have to do The unions can emphasise all they like, and of course they will - but... who pays ?

I think teachers have agreed to pay MrsGofG now the government wants more

Errr.. like PE, standing ALL day, very few toilet breaks, having the patience for little people, working at home in the evenings, dealing with parents who seem increasingly incompetent (politely)....jumping through new hoops every 3 years...

I'm saying that a job sitting in front of a computer at 68 would be fine..... but being a primary school teacher would be demanding.

But instead of thinking the same job should last a lifetime, people need to think about having several different jobs over a working life. A job that suits an active 22 year old may not suit a 68 year old - pretty obvious, surely? Poeple just are going to need to be more flexible - cos, as I have asked before -it is unaffordable for everyone to spend many years in retirement - simple maths.

Do you really think there are going to be alternative jobs for over 60s with so many young people unemployed?

So..again- who pays? Those elderly who were not lucky enough to have a rewarding career before retirement, and may have had just as physical or stressful job - yeah, that's fair
The government has no money- it only has the tax it raises, mostly from people poorer than teachers.
Career average would mean that people can do part-time as they near retirement, rahter than hanging onto the best paid jobs an blocking them to younger people, and maybe if they are pat time, they won't bleat about it being too tough for them to work.

It has been said repeatedly on this thread that the pension is self sustaining. Noone else is paying for teacher pensions apart from the teachers. The goverment wants to use some of this money to supplement shortfallings elsewhere.

It has been said several times on this thread that TPA pensions are self-sustaining. I am skeptical about this, so does anyone have any non-propaganda evidence?

Given that teacher contributions are lower than industry standard, how is it that the TPA investors are able to do so much with it, that other financial brains are not?

I suggest that the TPA scheme will only be self-sustaining one those who are under the old gravy train system have largely died off. I suggest that the TPA has been overly subsidised, not anywhere near self-sustaining. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

I think that, for teachers, a career average is probably better than final salary. It will allow older teachers to gear down towards the end of their careers. Long term teachers have quite static salaries (the raises all happen in the first seven years of their careers, assuming they stay main scale, but still relatively early in the scheme of things for promoted teachers). Obviously this all ignores the affect of fluctuating inflation rates. I do think there is a lot to be said for the final salary model, but whichever system it all comes down to contributions.

If teachers think they can get a better deal on their pensions, they can always take out a private pension.

Rainbow, a 6% contribution is not going to deliver a 70% final salary pension.

Who ever says it is self-sustaining, they have to define what they mean by this. What is the relationship to final salary? What is the average length of time it is paid out for?

I didn't realise that the National Audit Office produced propaganda on behalf of the teaching profession.....

70%?!?!?!?!?! Where did that figure come from?

ASByatt no they produced the figures for the Hutton review

MmeBlueberry it was judged to be self sustaining in relationship to the agreements already made by teachers with the government to pay 50% contributions and working longer (paying more over a longer period of time)

I do think that MrsGuy is right and that we need to accept that we will not have one career for life. Teaching is my second career but I can see that I will only last until my mid to late 50s. I will then have to do something else.

Sorry, ASB. I didn't know the figure for teachers - was going along with DH's final salary deal. I have now learnt that is is much less for teachers.

Mrz, it is only self-sustaining in the minds of those people living in cloud-cuckoo land. By definition, it is not self-sustaining.

The National Audit Office has confirmed that the Teachers'' Pension Scheme is already sustainable following the revisions made in 2007. Teachers? pensions are affordable in their current design and costs of the scheme are falling as planned.

Amyas Morse, head of the National Audit Office, said today:

?By making changes in 2007 and 2008 to pension schemes of NHS staff, civil servants and teachers, the Treasury and employers have taken some steps to tackle potential growth in costs to taxpayers. In addition to saving significant sums of money, the changes are projected to stabilise costs in the long-term around their current level as a proportion of GDP.

?However, the savings are being provided by public service employees, in the form of increased contributions or reduced future pensions. We have not seen a strategic assessment of the long term impact of these changes on the motivation and retention of staff, so we cannot say that VFM has been demonstrated.?

The National Audit Office live in Cloud Cuckoo Land that's very worrying given their role in informing the treasury

MmeB teachers contributions are 9% and rather than 70% pension teachers will get a pension of one sixtieth of their salary per year worked. The average pension is £10K per annum