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.

The key words: following the 2007 revisions.

Precisely.

And what is missing: once all the pre 2007 beneficiaries have died off.

and those of us who have had more than one career will get considerably less than £10K ..
perhaps MmeB you are the one living in Cloud Cuckoo Land if you think we are going to walk away with 70%salary pensions

Ok. Gave up reading on p12, but a few things occurred. I do not like strikes and will not vote for one. Unless they can be sustained, they are pretty useless, and I don't know a single teacher who would be prepared to undergo a sustained strike as it would just be unfair on pupils. A one or two day strike will just piss everyone off, with no positive effect.
I sort of accept that I will have to pay more and work longer. All that means is £120+(cos of pay freeze) less per month that I am spending in businesses of all sorts. Either way, it won't help the recovery.
I hate, hate, hate the generalised talk of "the private sector". It is vast and various. Every person I know has still had pay rises and bonuses (albeit smaller than in the past), every single one of them. They are also still getting their health benefits and their new cars. So it is wrong and misleading for people who have had a hard time, to assume that this is the same for all. It is not. One of the key differences is that teachers, fire fighters etc, have no real alternative choice of employer. They can't "vote with their feet", and find a new job, with better T and C's.

I love teaching, and will work as long as I can do so. However, If public support is still poor for the profession, if it gets harder, if I feel that financially it is becoming a lot less worth it, I could withdraw many of the goodwill parts of the job - all the extra classes to help pupils, all the extra materials I prepare. Maybe I would go out for lunch every day!

From the National Audit Office:

We do not comment on whether public service pension schemes are financially affordable because that is a political judgement rather than an audit assessment.

www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/hc1011/hc06/0662/0662.pdf

The harsh reality for all of us is as previous poster said - there is no such thing as a free lunch - someone pays. Somehow we have to finance a longer and more infirm old age than previous generation have had, and it has to come out of what we earn. I am not a teacher, but in the job I do there have never seen anyone over 60 till now, so I have assumed I will have to get a different job, and it will be less paid, and so my final salary pension, which has also been whittled down, will be peanuts. But striking will not achieve anything -the reality is what it is, adn we are all going to have to adjust our expectations and, ideally, stop moaning like spoilt toddlers.

I don't think anyone is asking for a free lunch when teachers have already agreed to pay more for longer. In essence, teachers are being asked to work longer, pay more and get less. Rather than a free lunch it's being taken for a ride

Actually MmeB the NAO report says the changes are projected to provide stability until 2059-60

www.nao.org.uk/publications/1011/public_service_pensions.aspx

A free lunch and protection from the harsh realities that other employees have to face are exactly what is being asked for. If employees in other sectors are being asked to work to age 68, why should it be any different for teachers? It is a cushy job physically and most teachers are smart enough to know when to sit down. After 30+ years of experience, they can manage their day in order to spread out physical activities. My colleagues who are in their 60s would be horrified to think they were too decrepit to keep working - teaching has kept them young, physically and mentally.

As for the reforms, the post 2007 system is designed to provide current contributer with a sustainable programme. It is not designed to be sustainable to provide benefits to those contributing before 2007, although it will have to. Net, the system will not be sustainable until those beneficiaries, and their surviving spouses, die off, many decades from now.

Do the math.

If you had read the agreement MmeB you would realise that there is a clause for new teachers entering the profession which gives different pension rights in order to maintain the sustainability of the scheme

The NAO raised concerns that the high costs of teachers leaving the profession due to proposed changes to the scheme could in fact cause greater financially damage ...

I'm struggling to imagine MmeBlu taking any of that on tbh, mrz. She has already made her mind up, clearly. She lives in a parallel universe where teachers are just after a free lunch, where it's a 'cushy job physically' and where there are just the same challenges in the independent and state sector.
At least she has admitted that the 70% pensions were a misunderstanding!

MmeBlue - not a personal attack, t's just that you're not hearing so much of what is being said.

'it's' - sorry

Interesting MmeB is a teacher

You just don't get it, mrz.

All teachers have to pay for retirement benefits. The contributions won't be anywhere near in-synch until the pre-2007 generation (which means current teachers aged 27 and their spouses) die off. It is totally daft to protect new entrants or anyone else. All that does is drag out the pain. And it is unfair.

Gosh, we mustn't have anything unfair, then Mmeblue?

Sorry for any typos. I am using an iPad and don't always catch all the 'corrections'.

mrz - I know, I just don't feel that Mmeblue teaches in the same universe as most of us.

not if she's expecting a 70% pension

MmeB I was thinking the same ...MmeB just doesn't get it ...

Just to be clear, I am a teacher, working full-time, and post 2007 (presumably - I taught prior to then but have an extremely long maternity leave). I intend to work until my youngest is 18, but probably 10 years after this, which will take me past 65.

I am actually quite determined to work well into my 60s, having had two parents with dementia and a possible hereditary link. I see the benefits of working in my elderly colleagues. The 68 thing doesn't worry me about my ability to do the job, but more the loss of leisure time (all those cruises I won't be taking, lol).

I pay 6.4% of my salary into the TPS, and my employer pays 14%.

But I am realistic. I don't have to be happy about it, but nor should I deny it.

I explained the 70% thing earlier on this thread. It is what my husband should get (combination of all his pensions) and what I was on track to receive when I worked in industry. A few minute's research told me otherwise. I am happy to admit when I get things wrong.

ASB, I can't see any good reason to promote a system that is unfair.

If you give one group more than they deserve, you take it away from everyone else.

I just found it interesting that you had initially assumed that as your DH's pension would be 70%, that's what teachers would get, that's all.

I'm over that. I suggest you get over it too.

Sorry, I'm not getting at you personally!

if teachers are leaving the profession - where are they going? to jobs with better pensions?