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.

Last year a colleague of mine retired at 55 and you know what she was ready to retire. She had been caring for her husband who had a long-tem health condition for years and she was tired. She'd had enough of dealing with difficult students of whom the oldest was nearly 40 years younger than her and whose outlook and experience was entirely different. She'd had enough of having to keep abreast of changes in ICT and the curriculum, she was getting irritable and exhausted and she knew it. She'd been a really great teacher for a long time and it would have been dreadful for everyone if she'd had to continue in the classroom until she was 68. As it was she left at a good time and her leaving enabled us to promote one member of staff and recruit another.

Nobody's denying that there will be some sprightly, enthusiastic teachers just itching to get to work until they're 68 but the idea that the majority of us will be capable or willing to meet the demands of a profession which is physically, mentally and psychologicalyl so hard is ridiculous.

And before anybody starts with the competitive bitchiness, I don't feel that ANYBODY should HAVE to work until they're 68 in any job.

And just because we live longer doesn't mean that we're necessarily competent to do a demanding job. Certainly, I've got at least 3 aged relatives who've not been capable of a huge amount beyond the age of 60 one because of Alzheimers, one because of heart problems and the other because of mobility problems.

Fivecandles,

I would not say that I am either pliable or ignorant. Nor am I swallowing the givernment's rhetoric without question.

My point is that I believe that it is morally wrong to strike over pensions in an economic climate in which many people (including the parents of our pupils) are losing their jobs and struggling to make ends meet for the needs of today, let alone the needs of their old age. In addition, the level of contribution teacher make to their pension scheme is far lower than to most private sector schemes, and our employer the Government makes a significantly larger % contribution than private sector employers do. This is perhaps the weakness in the 'affordability' argument - it relies upon the funding from the Government being at a much higher percentage of our income than any private sector employer would entertain. Do you think that is morally right? Does the teacher's pension remain sustainable if the Government reduced its funding for it to the normal level for a private employer?

We also have a predictable level of pension income, again very different to those who work in the public sector who have to rely on the performance of the stock market to deliver any pension at all.

And I will say it again. I do not demand that everyone should work until an average of 5 years before their death (as far as I remember, that was the assumption original pension schemes worked on - that many people would not live to draw an old age pension, and those that do would draw it for a very limited time). But I do not believe that it is unreasonable that those who remain fit and able to work should work for a length of time that slightly reduces the length of time for which they draw their pensions.

(Oh, should also have said that I am not assuming that I will be able to work as a teacher until I am 68 or 70 - but that I am assuming that I will be doing some work for some income at that point. My father, who as I said is 73, does not work as a building site manager now, as he did at my current age - but he does do work that is suitable for his age and level of fitness, and is paid for it.)

Actually teacherwith2kids my pension forecast from the private sector is much more generous than the TPS.

So you'll lose a big whack of your pension then, tw2k.

Surely our pension money is invested in financial institutions and is reliant on the state of the global financial markets too? Surely it's not paid directly from taxes?

I haven't a clue!

Mrz, so is mine - but that is because
a) I earned more
b) I worked there in the 'stock market boom' years of the 1990s

My point is that we need to look at the pension situation in the private sector NOW vs the public sector NOW - saying that 'my pension from the boom years of final salary pension schemes, funded by stock market growth, is not the same as my pension from a teaching job in the recession' is just a statement of the obvious.

GGB
Yes. But then I only started work as a teacher in my 40s, so I am entirely reconciled to the fact that my income in my old age will be a combination of
a) private sector pension
b) state pension from my years as a SAHM
c) a proportion of a teacher's pension
and some money that I earn by continuing to work.

In the same way, my husband's pension will be a combination of
a) self-invested pension funds from private companies that had no pension scheme of their own.
b) private pension paid into while he was unemployed.
c) tiny amounts of private sector pensions from several different companies he has worked in that do have pension schemes.
and
d) money he earns by continuing to work.
Isn't that the reality for most people nowadays, if they are lucky enough to have been able to save for their pension at all?

My Private sector pension is more and

a I earned much less as it was a considerable time ago
b I worked there for a much shorter time
c It was during the last recession

Sorry, GGB, failed to address your point about 'who pays'.

Even if funds for the TPS is invested in financial markets, the difference between it and modern private sector pension schemes is that on the day you retire:

• Teachers have a predictable, calculable amount of money (simplistically, a multiple of number of years worked x either final salary (old) or career average salary (proposed) )
• Those with defined contribution private pensions (almost universal now) get an unknown amount of annuity, basically the amount that the pot of money they have paid into will buy. This could be very high in the boom years, where stock market growth multiplied contributions very significantly, but is now typically very low, where 1990s contributions aare actually worth less than the cash value at the time and later contributions have barely grown.

What sort of Private company pension did you have teacherwith2kids? Mine was a salary based scheme and was/is calculated using a very similar formula - the amount you get is based on your salary and the number of years you have been in the scheme.

tw2k Teachers have a predictable, calculable amount of money (simplistically, a multiple of number of years worked x either final salary (old) or career average salary (proposed) )

This is SO untrue! They have just 'decided' to change the pension without negotiation. How is that predictable?

My old company pension payout depends on investments. The dividends are reinvested to buy more of the mutual fund. The fund managers are constantly monitoring the markets, buying and selling as appropriate.

The final payout projection is just an estimate, and includes the state pensions.

My understanding of the TPS is that they invest in government bonds, which are safer but lower return. This, together with government underwriting, is how they can guarantee the level of pension.

There are a couple of nuances to look out for when comparing the TPS with a private scheme - index linking and family benefits.

Mrz,

I have a pension very similar to yours - because, like you, I was working during the period of defined benefit (final salary) pension schemes. My husband, sadly, although he worked through this period has always worked in companies with defined contribution (money purchase) schemes

The point I have repeated several times is that the way pensions in the private sector work HAS CHANGED since you and I worked there. People of my age who remain in the same company will have a proportion of their pension as defined benefit, and from the date that closed (my company's closed about 4 years ago) will have a defined contribution portion. So yes, I have simplified my point - people whose working lives have spanned both types of scheme will have a fixed and a 'purchase annuity' part of their pensions. Is that clearer?

Anyone who joins a private company now, or who moves jobs into a new private company, with a vanishingly small number of exceptions, will join a defined contribution pension scheme, with the amount of their pension unknown at the end of it.

The TPS remains a defined benefit scheme for everyone (from NQTs all the way up) even with the new proposals, with the amount of pension known at the end of it.

Where do you stand on the moral point about the luxury of striking over pensions at a time when many people are struggling to retain their jobs?

Gordongrumble,

Well, it's a darn sight more predictable to do (years of old scheme x level of salary) + (years of new scheme x level of salary) than it is to do (level of stock market on day of returement x number of units purchased divided by likely length of life)!

But unlike mine you claim your pension isn't as good as the TPS

I stand by the individuals right to decide for themselves

Mrz,

My OLD private pension WHICH IS OF A TYPE NO LONGER AVAILABLE is better than the TPS.

The TPS we are talking about - today's pension scheme and the one going forward, not one that existed 11+ years ago - is better than the alternatives available TODAY in TODAY'S private sector.

As a staff team, we invited in 2 independent pensions specialists (as in financial people, not connected to teaching), to talk to us and to give us advice as to the best way forward - whether to remain in the TPS, how changes to the TPS would affect us, how this compared to 'free standing' private pensions and how it compared to 'average' private sector schemes. Both described the TPS, even the new proposals as 'gold plated, and you would be mad to try to replace them with private pension provision'.

There is no equivalent of my private sector pension, nor of yours, for those working in the private sector today and buying pension today - unless you worked for one of the vanishingly small number of companies who still have open defined benefit schemes.

Also, I presume your 'individual's right to decide' is about the moral point.

However, in a unionised environment, it is not wholly the individual, is it? That is why I have taken the step of moving unions - I can vote 'No' but still have to follow the results of the strike ballot...

Who did you move to?

NASUWT temporarily - they also have the advantage that this is the union the majority of my colleagues belong to whereas I was the only ATL member (had joined as a student).

Will transfer again to Voice (was PAT) if NASUWT goes for a strike ballot as well. I would have done this in the first place, as they are fundamentally anti-strike, but again I would be the only member in my school and they are traditionally a less 'strong' teaching union so am trying to remain mainstream for the moment!

'it is morally wrong to strike over pensions in an economic climate in which many people (including the parents of our pupils) are losing their jobs and struggling to make ends meet for the needs of today'

That just doesn't make sense. It is not the fault of teachers that we are in the economic climate we are. Why should teachers be the ones to give up their pensions in order to plug the deficit that was caused by bankers when the bankers get to maintain their millions of pounds worth of bonuses? When we have already accepted a pay freeze, are already experiencing cuts at all levels of our work?

And it is not just teachers that are protesting, it is many public sector workers.

Personally, I think it is much more immoral that my pension contributions should be used to pay to bomb Libya or for MPs expenses.

I just don't understand your argument, teachers. What, everyone else is having a hard time so we have to take additional cuts in sympathy? It's interesting that the bankers don't feel that way. Teachers did not cause the problems. We were not responsible for the global economic crisis and it should not be down to us to solve it. Which is not to say we shouldn't do our bit. The cuts that are affecting our working environments and our pupils are already having dreadful consequences.

'This is perhaps the weakness in the 'affordability' argument - it relies upon the funding from the Government being at a much higher percentage of our income than any private sector employer would entertain. Do you think that is morally right? '

Yes, I absolutely think it's morally right. Teachers earn less than any other graduate only profession. They work hard for public service. The pension scheme is a factor in attracting and keeping good teachers, teaching and we will lose good teachers if we don't have it.

'But I do not believe that it is unreasonable that those who remain fit and able to work should work for a length of time that slightly reduces the length of time for which they draw their pensions.'

But this is a ridiculous argument. How can you possibly know how long you will remain fit and healthy? You could remain fit and healthy until you were 68 and then drop dead the day after you retire.

But, let's face it, how many teachers will really be up to the job at 68?

' I am assuming that I will be doing some work for some income at that point'

But if you retire from teaching before you're 68 there will be massive penalties even if you go on to do another job!!!

Plus that's a huge assumption to make that a) having decided you are not able to continue to work as a teacher, you will be able to do another job and b) that anyone will take you on to do a job at the age of 50+

I'm really not sure that any of us can make those sorts of assumptions especially in this climate.

To be fair you do get a lot of examiners working post retirement but I'm not sure that's always a good thing. I worked with examiners and moderators last year who had never taught the specification they were examining because they retired before it came in.

'Isn't that the reality for most people nowadays, if they are lucky enough to have been able to save for their pension at all?'

Er, no. If you've gone straight into teaching or into teaching following some post-graduate study, and work in London for example then you won't have been able to make savings and you will only have your teachers' pension.

This will be even more the case for those people who are going to university now. They will be paying off their studetn debts for decades and will not be in a position to save anything.

You can't make any such assumptions.