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.

I only know primary and special schools though - I suspect secondary teachers have desks.

That's the point though, manic. You are up and about, sitting, standing, moving around. Teaching is not a sedentary job. I spend a lot of my day on my knees in the classroom, sitting on the floor with children or next to them on small tables. My knees are already giving out and I'm early 30's. They won't last another 30+ years!

I am not a teacher but a parent and a grownup who had to watch as my older sister and now have knowledge of DH being dumped on from a great height when they were at school.
DSis was the first to go throught he new GCSE. With no teachers to help her. Quite literally no teachers. She did totally crap as did most of her year because not one teacher wanted to help. They were all in the pub next to school watching the children walk past at the end of morning lessons.
DH was let down in exactly the same way. He hates teachers. Has no respect at all for the profession.

I help out at dd's school so I have nothing but respect for what teachers do. Such a hard job.
BUT.
Is that harder than when I was out in an ambulance at 3am trying to save a young girls life when she was thrown out of a car window and lost her leg, or the time at 5am whena man woke up having a massive heart attack that with out our help would have lkilled him?
I only say this because I didnt have alot of holiday or time off and my pay was much worse than my dd's teachers are now.

I do not want to watch my childrens futures being destroyed just to protect your, better than most people's, pensions.

Sorry but I really dont like strikes. Seems so selfish.

I have a lot of friends who are teachers and I genuinely have a lot of respect for what they do ,just as I try to respect all professions but teachers do not have a monopoly on hard work.I and many of my friends and relatives work hard too. I work for a charity ,yes it is quite a sedantry job (might save my knees but not my eyes as it turns out).I am a graduate ,have no pension to speak of ,frantically juggle holiday care at exorbitant cost for my children (most teachers are saved the cost of this ,although I do understand that they work in the holidays they can organise it to some extent to avoid childcare costs)I fully expect to work until at least 70 as does my dh and as do all 4of our parents,one at least in a fairly physical job.

My dh leaves for work at 5am at the moment and on a good day he is home before 9.30pm.He rarely takes 4weeks holiday a year and frequently works weekends ,he has no index linked secure pension.He simply cannot understand what you are all moaning for .You might think you contribute a lot but the fact is what you contribute doesn't come close to what you get out .Your lot in life might be hard but so are other peoples if you strike I think many people will simply be baffled at your arrogant attitude to the rest of us.

So what happened to contracts being binding on both parties?
If the government breaks its contract with me, why should I not object?

Ummm... agree totally.
But what if you think the method of objection will just put public opinion against us?

If it doesn't affect public examinations, but greatly affects the nation's childminding service - as a measure of how unahppy every single teaching union is, regardless of history, etc?

I am not a teacher...my kids are school age. Teachers IMHO work hard and put up with a lot. The new conditions of employment are not on...working for less (realistically) for longer and getting less pension at the end..there will be no-on going into this profession at this rate. Who else would put up with 30 kids day in day out plus all the out of hours work..I struggle to deal with my 4! Go ahead and strike....you deserve better treatment.

It has nothing to do with arrogance.
It has everything to do with outrage that this government deems fit to renege on an agreement that both parties signed.
Teaching is stressful and although not low paid, it is a lower wage than most well educated professionals could find in the public sector. The pension scheme is just about the only "perk" left in teaching. If this government forces through these changes you will have schools full of old, demotivated teachers with no newblood being encouraged to join the profession.

No-one is claiming that teachers have a monopoly on hard work I just strongly object to changes being imposed on me with no consultation. And changes that are designed to help cover the public deficit rather than to fund my pension scheme. Thats why we are upset.

Madhatter, thank you

It's not helpful to compare in terms of how 'hard' jobs are. Teaching is paid less than other GRADUATE ONLY professions. The action is because the Govt are not sticking to the 2006 agreement.

There's nothing selfish about striking. You lose a day's pay. And it will be after the exam period (planned date is 30th June). That is after Government negotiations so there is an opportunity to call of the strike if a compromise can be reached.

The thing about working till you're 68 is not just about the often physical nature of the job it's that it's in no one's interest to have teachers who don't want to teach. It's a psychologically draining job and you need to be mentally agile. At 68 you will be over 50 years older than your oldest pupil which means your ability to relate to them and their experiences is going to be limited. It's also unfair to ask teachers to keep up with developments e.g. in ICT at that age. You cannot compare it to being a shop assistant! It means that lots of exhausted and resentful teachers will be sitting around waiting to retire and blocking access to fresh, enthusiastic teachers with modern approaches.

Nobody's against teachers working till 68 when they want to but it's going to be horrible for everyone if they are forced to.

It is a fallacy that people do not want 68 year old teachers. My DF is a warehouse man at the age of 70 which is hard physical work. He can still manage and supervise other people. I think your views of what is possible for a 68 year old are outdated and as an HR person there are less health problems with this age of employee than there are with those in their 40s who are more likely to be stressed, coping with families, elderly parents and work. A 68 year old is less likely to have outside pressures. Remember people are now living longer and do not blaim the conservatives. This is the result of the Hutton Report, which was an independent review of pensions, led by an ex-Labour politician. Labour wanted to do this when they were in power but did not want to upset the unions, their main support and public sector workers. If they had have done something 10 years ago when the private sector woke up to the impossibility of final salary pensions with increasing longevity, we would not be having some of the problems we are having now. I promise to give you £10k a year for the rest of your life in 40 years. What happens if I go bust? What happens if you live longer than my funds allow? It is a ridiculous concept that now with the average woman living to 89 does not compare to the circumstances when these schemes were set up and most people lived to 69. Think about the unreality of this situation, not just for teachers but for anybody. When you think of it in those terms, you realise that teachers, final salary members have had many pay rises over the years in terms of pension contributions and these have not been appreciated as part of your pay. It is only when they are being cut, that people notice them. If you can come up with a solution that is realistic and financially achievable I will support a strike. Having worked in pensions for 20 years, I have yet to see a reasonable argument for continuing with these type of schemes. Children today have a 1 in 4 chance of living to 100, do you really want them to live their lives in poverty because you insist on maintaining an antequated system of remuneration, that is a blank cheque to future generations.

Teachers' threads always have an element of The Four Yorkshiremen in them:

"I've never had a desk in 20 years of teaching"

"Pah! Our staff room is an old cupboard ..."

against striking here too.

ALL workers will be working longer for less pension. We have no choice, the country can't afford anything else.

I work fewer hours and the job is less stressful than my pre-teaching job. I have nothing to complain about imo.

Betsy, the point is NOT that we don't want 68 year old teachers, it's that we don't want 68 year old teachers who don't want to be there.

As for it being 'ridiculous' to allow teachers final salary pension schemes, it's funny what Governments and the public find 'ridiculous' isn't it? It's not 'ridiculous' to find billions to shore up the banks who, in turn, spend billions on bonuses. It's not 'ridiculous' to spend billions on bombing the buggery out of Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. But as to contuing the final salary pension scheme which is self-sustaining and which was agreed in 2006 in order that teachers who have devoted their lives to working hard in public service can continue to have a modest pension, this IS 'ridiculous'.

'the country can't afford anything else.'

This is a myth propogated by the Tories in order to justify their ideological spending cuts. The teachers pension scheme is self-sustaining. There is no need for additional contributions. The Govt wants additional contributions so that it can use this money for its own ends (to plug the deficit). Teachers have not caused and are not responsible for solving the deficit. We are already doing our bit in accepting a pay freeze not to mention the way in which we're being affected by the other cuts in education.

It amazes me how ordinary, hard-working people are so quick to accept the propaganda but don't question where the Government is not making cuts - on MPs own salaries, expenditure and pensions for examples.

I agree with you fivecandles about the banks and Iraq etc but I do not see the relevance in this discussion. The Hutton Report said that final salaries were not sustainable and has encouraged the govenment to act. You imagine if the Govt was a company and did not act on such recommendations. The shareholders would hold them liable. Are taxpayers not the equivalent of shareholders in the Goverment and companies that also pay tax. The government would be negligent if it did not act on these recommendations. Teachers will still be able to retire before 68. The State pension will be around between the ages of 66 and 68. Teachers will still be able to take a reduced pension early that will still be of reasonable value just not the same as it was when previous teachers retired at 55. As far as I saw the recommendation was for the teachers pension to start at 65, which is below what the State Pension Age will be.

www.teacherspensions.co.uk/scheme/scheme7.htm

This is the Hutton report.

www.teachers.org.uk/files/hutton_final_100311.pdf

Another point is that this is not victimisation of teachers. I know of one final salary scheme facing a valuation at the moment. There are no active members. Because of longevity alone, this year the Company will have to pay an extra £1-£4m in to the scheme just to maintain existing benefits for approx 3000 deferred members at a time when the company is facing extreme constraints and has not given a pay rise since 2008. The reality is that this additional money needs to be paid and will result in job cuts. Nothing can be done about previous benefits because they have already been promised. Just imagine if that company had maintained the final salary link for current employees. Job cuts or pensions, which would be the choice? This is simply a pensions issue.

I will strike if that's what union suggest. BUT it will be the first time I've ever striked (ATL) & i'll also be writing to the union to stress that we REALLY need PR etc on our side too. You just need to look on MN to see there is little real understanding of what teachers do each day, the hours we work, how our 'holidays' are spent, etc etc. I discovered this week (going through TUPE, don't get me started...) that I'm contracted for 32.5 hours a week. Hahahahahahah! Personally I think 'work to rule' would be more effective.

I dont get why people are going on about not wanting to pay for teachers pensions. You don't. THey are self sustaining. The reason for the cuts is so that the government can use our money to fill in the gap elsewhere.

I have a desk and chair in my office but not in my classroom. I never sit down when teaching so no point.

Loved the post that said teachers don't pay childcare during the holidays. Most childminders still expect to be paid for the holidays whether you use them or not.

fivecandles it's not "accepting propaganda" to look around you and see that we have a top heavy society which cannot afford a large percentage of non-working older people living 30 years after retirement. It's logic.

And please leave out party politics. It's not as if the others were doing any better.

and jenga which teachers work all through the holidays? I certainly don't!

I also don't see what's so bad about the hours - so you work more than you are contracted? So do most professions! And last time I looked, teaching was a "profession"...

The hours teachers work are long. They work long hours during the week. My bf is a teacher. However, that is not the issue. I would prefer to see a work to rule rather than a strike. Although most teachers take pride in their work which makes them want to work longer hours and sometimes in the holidays. The HT at my kids school is in every day of the holidays and he is in his 60s but he is very committed and does this because he admits, he misses work. For me this individual is still capable of so much at any age when many on here have written him off.

It does make me uncomfortable though when I see MNers quote that trainee lawyers get paid more than teachers, which I have not experienced in reality, although I have seen trainee lawyers work 60 hour weeks, 46 weeks of the year. Trainee doctors working shifts that leave them unable to finish a cup of tea. I have witnessed one guy spill his tea when he fell asleep literally sittind down after a 36 hour shift. Graduates at companies such as ALDI expected to work 10 hour days. In any graduate profession, long hours are expected as are many non-graduate jobs. It is a fact of life now that nobody really works 9-5. Most contracts include the extra hours are expected as required contract. 48 hours is mainly got around due to the 'your choice' rule.