Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Education

Join the discussion on our Education forum.

Flip

1 2

Original poster

please reassure me I won't be kicked off the Teacher's Pension scheme if I don't strike on Weds!

31 replies

whatarewedoingtoday · 26/11/2011 20:03

I am worried after reading a comment on another thread that this was a possibility

I work in an independent school and it has been made clear it would not go down well if we did strike. Please don't flame me for this, I am only looking for answers to my query.

Thanks!

OP posts:

TalkinPeace2 · 26/11/2011 20:04

don't be daft
the TPS is based on contributions
they do not clock you in and out

Original poster

whatarewedoingtoday · 26/11/2011 20:07

Thanks TP2, now I can enjoy my

OP posts:

Loshad · 26/11/2011 22:58

i suspect what they meant was that the government intend to kick all independent schools teachers out of the TPS so if you don't strike you will end up being kicked out of it.

EndoplasmicReticulum · 26/11/2011 23:15

OP I'm in the same position.

If they did kick independent school teachers out of the TPS, that would make movement between sectors difficult, wouldn't it?

TalkinPeace2 · 26/11/2011 23:30

how on earth could that be done
an individual is a member of a pension scheme
if they are a GTC registered teacher or a member of a teaching union and their employer is happy to pay the employer contributions, there is no legal way they could be "kicked out" of the scheme by the government
pensions are a private arrangement between employer and employee
and with NEST ones coming in it is certainly not legal to bar an employee from having a pension

sounds like more union scare mongering to me

scaevola · 26/11/2011 23:33

TPS is a public sector scheme, and it could be closed to those not working in the public sector. It is certainly under discussion.

Benefits accrued during years of membership would however be honoured.

manicinsomniac · 27/11/2011 00:16

I work in an independent school too and the strike has not even been mentioned - I will be amazed if there is a single one of us not at work as normal on Weds - we'll have to be, we are a boarding school, it is our junior school production and there are several home and away matches.

You cannot be kicked out of the TPS for not striking, the two things are not related in that way at all.

We could all be kicked out of the TPS for not being pubic sector workers but that's a totally different scenario.

DogStinkhorn · 27/11/2011 00:19

Why the fuck should teachers who teach in independent schools get government contributions when they not working in a state school?

EndoplasmicReticulum · 27/11/2011 09:24

DogS - in answer to your question, they don't.

The contributions to the TPS are paid by the schools and the teachers.

TalkinPeace2 · 27/11/2011 13:25

Endo
true, but the reason for the changes is that the contributions are not enough to cover the pensions due and the shortfall IS paid by the taxpayer - even for teachers at top Public Schools who never ever worked in the state sector

EndoplasmicReticulum · 27/11/2011 15:41

Is that true about there being a shortfall that the taxpayer needs to pay? I thought part of the argument about messing with teachers' pensions generally was that the scheme is self-funding.

TalkinPeace2 · 27/11/2011 15:47

NOPE
EVERY single defined benefit scheme has run at a deficit since around 1990
that is why ALL the private sector ones have been closed
and why this government (which is less willing to mortgage our children than Broon and Bliar were) is trying to limit the liability that our children and grandchildren will face

the Unions are lying
the Hutton review stated what was needed to bring it under control
the Unions pretend that the government is negotiating beyond Hutton
but Hutton has not yet been implemented
the public sector have GOT to accept that they can no longer borrow from their children.

Its not a "race to the bottom"
its avoiding a "race over a cliff"
companies like IBM and Microsoft and Ford want to have a long term future. They have made the pension changes to ensure that they do. The public sector has to do the same.

scaevola · 27/11/2011 15:49

The TPS, at last valuation, was in deficit. Yes, at present there is an unlimited guarantee that any shortfall between contribution and payout will be covered from general taxation.

The fastest way to end the dispute as far as TPS is concerned is to agree with the union position (self supporting, no deficit, no longevity problem) leave contributions where thet are, and remove the guarantee to make up any shortfall.

The unions, if they believe their own rhetoric, should leap to accept such an offer.

TalkinPeace2 · 27/11/2011 15:51

scaevola
are you an actuary perchance?
I just spat my after lunch wine
love it

Northernlurker · 27/11/2011 15:53

I think your pension (such as it is - public sector worker here too) will be safe but you should leave your union if you don't support their action. I'm not striking because I'm not a union member. If I were I would not want to strike as I work with a group of patients who are highly vulnerable and frankly need me more at work than I need to be on a picket line. Therefore had I joined a union I would now have left but I haven't so I won't be - does that make any sense at all?

scaevola · 27/11/2011 15:57

TalkinPeace2: nope, I was never good enough at maths to think of being an actuary!

mrz · 27/11/2011 16:02

whatarewedoingtoday you won't be thrown out of the TPS for not striking but part of the issue is that under the current proposals teachers working in independent schools will no longer be allowed to join / remain in the TPS. If you read the Hutton report on which the government has based it's plans you will see the details.

The financial sector were speculating in the summer that school fees will rise is independent schools are forced to set up their own scheme

FontSnob · 27/11/2011 18:58

Northern, it's daft to leave the union. You don't have to strike even if you are a member, but their support could be invaluable if, god forbid, you ever need it. Unions aren't just for pay deals and strike action!

mrz · 27/11/2011 19:03

I don't think anyone wants to strike deep down

Northernlurker · 27/11/2011 19:38

If your union votes for strike and you won't strike then it's not daft to leave. To stay would be hypocritcial.

FontSnob · 27/11/2011 19:45

Why would it be hypocritical? Whether you're in a union or not, you will still benefit from the work of the unions and its members. The union is there to protect you when you need it, you don't have to agree with every decison it makes, strike or don't strike, being a teacher and not being covered by a union is not sensible imo.

mrz · 27/11/2011 19:45

I didn't vote to strike but as the majority of those who voted did I won't be working on Wednesday

mrz · 27/11/2011 19:47

FontSnob because you want them to support you but won't support others in return

Northernlurker · 27/11/2011 19:53

Fontsnob - are you a member of a union? The point is to stand together. You get their strength and they get yours.

FontSnob · 27/11/2011 19:58

Fair enought then. I am a member and tbh it didn't cross my mind not to strike anyway. I presume that you will say thanks, but no thanks to any better deals that the unions may manage to broker, is it not hypocritical otherwise?

Flip

1 2