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.

About 7 years ago I worked for a company who decided to end the salary sacrifice scheme, and ever other T&C they deemed unecessary. There was a big consultation, lots of grumbling, a few resignations. But, most people stayed. We were sent new contracts and given a choice of signing it or leaving.

Why do any workers public or private think they are entitled to a pension they signed up to 20 years ago. Your contract, just like any other employment contract, is up for renegotiation at a months notice (or whatever notice is specified in your contract). There are no lifelong T&Cs to which you are entitled.

If people were arguing they want what they have already earned, then I could understand. But, as far as I know, no one is talking bout taking that away. I assume you keep the portion of salary sacrifice you have already earned through x years of teaching. It just won't continue going forward.

We would all like a cushy retirement package at 65. But, those days are over for nearly everyone, and I don't understand why teachers feel they are above the rest of us.

I know lots of fab teachers and I'm glad my children have had the good fortunate of being taught by them. I don't think it's the easiest job in the world. But, it isn't the hardest either. I remember wathing the bin men as I walked passed them to the train the other day and thinking "now there is a job I'm thankful I don't do". I wonder what their retirement age is?

Actually Strix they are talking about taking away what we have already earned and taking away from teachers who are already in receipt of pensions ...

Strix as far as I can work out, what you've said they won't do is eaxtly what they are proposing - so dh's colleague, set to retire the year after next after almost 40 years service gets a pension based on career average salary, rather than the final salary he was expecting. Can fully understand why he would want to strike!

If it was only for new entrants to the profession, I'd agree with you.

*exactly

Teachers have agreed to pay more towards their pension (50% more in fact) and to work for longer before retiring and now they are being told they will get less pension when they finally do retire (pay more for longer get less in return )

Actually if you read the info on the teachers pension website it says that all benefits earned to date will be protected and that for people already in the scheme those benefits will continue to be payable at 60.Also as the final proposals are not being published until the Autumn this is all speculation anyway

Career average usually benefits you unless you have taken a very steep pay rise in the last 3 years.Also the formula has not yet been decided on it may only be over the last 10 years .Your colleague set to retire in two years time is unlikely to be affected because it will be at least 2014 before this comes in and also his rights under the existing scheme are protected ,career average will only apply to the new scheme .

I think people should read the actual report and not just the unions spin on it ,remember the Government has not announced its proposals yet

strix ...'Your contract, just like any other employment contract, is up for renegotiation at a months notice (or whatever notice is specified in your contract).'

Again I will say it:
The strike ballot is being held to persuade the government to join unions at the negotiating table, something it is refusing to do at the moment.

It is not a simple ballot for (or against) strike action, as the finer details of the proposals aren't even known.

So, you are going to walk out for a day over some proposals that haven't been made and aren't even known yet?

I am confused now on whether you are having something you have already earned taken away. If they are moving the goal post after you have held up your end of the bargain, I might side with you (you being the teachers), but if you are getting the protion you have already earned and complaining that they have changed future contributions, then I'd be more inclined to welcome you to the real world - in which everyone else has been living for some time.

As pointed out by several posters, taking away what has already been earned is exactly what they propose. If we do nothing the changes could be implemented in June, so we cannot afford to wait and see! The intent is clear and they will not discuss it.

But any benefits already earned will according to Hutton and TPS be protected within the current scheme and will still be accessible at 60 and will be based on final salary.The new scheme will implement the changes;later retirement date and career average earnings

That assumes we only care about ourselves; maybe we worry about new entrants to the profession too. And won't the retirement date change for people already in the scheme? And won't we pay more, for less?

Well you will have to wait for the proposals ,contribution rates are going to go up ,the thing is new entrants will have to pay more but over the life of the scheme they will still be better off than people in the private sector.also career average is fairer to all members of the profession whereas the current scheme favours those at the very top,those at the bottom of the pay scale apy disproportionately more for their pensions than those at the top of the pay scale etc

I just think that people should go back to the Hutton report and read what it says and not fall necessarily for some of the more extreme scare stories which are being peddled by the unions at the moment.Yes it is going to change ,yes it probably will cost more but it will still be a very good scheme compared to the majority of the population ,so you will retain a differential but on current information it will not mean that all teachers have to work whilst on a walking frame and then live in poverty

My understanding is that the Hutton Report (which is being used as pension guidance) proposed that we will be working longer, our contributions will increase and our pension will be based on our average salary.

The government is not willing to negotiate with the unions regarding these points.

Hence the strike ballot.

Lord Hutton is a labour peer not a member of the Govermnent ,have you read the report .The TPS has a helpful FAQ section on it's website.

I didn't say he was a member of the government - I said that I understand that the government wish to proceed with his recommendations. I've scanned bits of it, bit I find it real eyes glaze over stuff.

But anyway, the strike ballot is on the basis of the government refusing to negotiate with the unions re. the proposals.

So, when is this pending strike?

This link clearly states that benefits already accrued are expected to remain in tact.

It also says that teachers contribute less than half of what the government contributes to their penions. A 2-1 matching scheme is actually very generous these days.

So, I think I might be falling on the side of not supporting the teachers here.

I also not that this article (on the teachers' pension site!) notes that the government is talking to the unions. So, whoever said they weren't talking seems to have been misled.

www.teacherspensions.co.uk/members/members_faqs.htm

If a career-averaged scheme is introduced it would be for future benefits only and should not affect benefits built up to date so will hardly be noticed by those close to retirement. Any changes to pensions would only require 60 days consultation as a minimum for the employer. Slightly longer generally if unions are involved.

The union communication is really badly drafted and misleading, although I have only looked at the NUT documentation. They would appear to be throwing in issues that have not been proposed with a question mark to put ideas into peoples' heads. Read the facts first before making a decision.

Do people believe that pensions, holiday pay, sick pay, parental leave etc were created by benevolent and caring employers? Or that these things were fought for and need to be defended by working people?

Pensions are quite often provided by benevolent employers as it is not compulsory for employers to pay them at the moment.

This may help to look at the possible changes without reading the whole Hutton report. Remember the Govt cannot make changes as an employer has to give a 60 day consultation period.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11466273

I have been sitting on the fence with donki but you are doing a great job of helping me decide bitsyandbetty thank you

mrzMon 23-May-11 07:17:17

Interesting Cain your argument seems to indicate teachers play a valuable role in the economy of the country ...
you also seem to be suggesting teachers are there to look after your children so you can go to work ... wrong!

Wrong. I am suggesting that teachers get on with the job they are contracted to do rather than holding to ransom children's (and future taxpayer's) education for a pension entitlement that the country (and said taxpayers) can't afford.