Teachers to strike - 30 June

[meditrina]

breaking now on SKY

Overwhelming vote by 2 teachers' unions (92%)

In real terms if the pension reform goes through I will teach til Im 68 and lose £100,000 over 25 years ...if I live that long! Teaching is tough because you have to interact with up to 35 pupils per hour all day every day. I will also have to drive 40 mins each way when I am 68. Plus all the extra. I am a teacher not a babysitter. I am not in the union that voted for strike action but I will be doubling my contributions to have less out. I cant imagine being 68 and trying to teach 30+ kids every hour plus work 2-3 hrs every evening.. Too many people hark back to the days when they sat in rows and learnt by rote and read and sat in silence working with the teacher sitting at the front. I wish!

Strix, I toyed with the idea of talking to the school but then I thought it is not the teachers who have called for the strike really and therefore why should they have the hassle. It is the unions and therefore they are the ones that should get the feedback. Personally I have taken my kids out of school in term-time so have no argument. It is inconvenient for us but not insurmountable although my DS is going away with the school for the weekend the day after and I will offer to go if there is any danger of the trip being cancelled and the teachers who strike will not get paid.

My only concern is that the comments I have seen show some misunderstanding of what will happen to pensions and for that I hold the Union fully irresponsible for forcing a strike vote when many people were not told sufficient information or given firm proposals on which to base their decision whether to strike or not. This may be the reason for the low turnout.

Well, I think the teachers choose to join the union so they are responsible for following where it leads.

Almost every good teacher I've ever met would agree that bad teaching is unacceptable and that bad teachers should go. Very few agree OFSTED are the best judge of this however! Time and again I have seen bad teachers coast in 'outstanding' rated schools and superb teachers be ignored by ofsted because they are teaching in a 'satisfactory' school when often the only difference is SATs results and the different emphasis placed on them by different HTs.

Southofthethames, tutoring doesn't appeal to me at all. I loved teaching but hated all the crap that goes with it. As a TA, I get to work in the environment I love but I really can walk out at 3.30 and I get to spend weekends with my kids. Though I appreciate I am fortunate enough to be able to do it financially. Incidently, in another local school, their infant TA was originally a barrister who found her job simply didn't fit after she had kids. As far as I know, she loves it too! You'll find lots of TAs, especially in reasonably affluent areas, are professionally qualified in something else and switch to doing a TA role after they have kids. Isn't Hula also a teacher working as a TA in an infant school?

The 68 retirement age is one of the facts that the presentation caveated with a ? on the NUT sight. Scaremongering with no real reference to how it will impact on you. The state pension age is being moved to 68 and possibly beyond. If anyone can find an exact proposal from the Treasury that all the teachers currently in employment will not get their pensions until age 68 then a strike would make more sense.

Well, I think the teachers choose to join the union so they are responsible for following where it leads.

Considering the ATL haven't had a strike in its 127 year history-this may not entirely have been anticipated.

Stix, some of the teachers on here are leaving the union because of the ballot and the turnout was low, many are in other unions, that are less militant. You may get the teachers back up if she disagreed with the strike. My friends who are teachers all disagreed and are not in the NUT for this reason.

Strix, teachers, like doctors, really need to be part of a union simply to protect themselves in case of things like abuse allegations or allegations of inappropriate behaviour. These are rare but do happen and the union is excellent at sorting out advice and support in such circumstances.

I'm not denying some unions are far too militant. A great many teachers would agree with that. However, being a member means if a strike is called you must take part whether you agree or not.

I am against.

Those quoting the amount they pay in need to look at current annuity rates. My pension is quoting me £1000 pension a year for every £35000 I have in the pot. It may seem a lot you are putting in but it is peanuts.

Living has changed - we all live longer - and this situation had to be broached at some time. I hope they receive everything they have accrued to date under current agreements but FOR THE FUTURE things have to change. If they don't see it, then so be it, strike away (if legal) but I will never agree with you and hope the Government changes to something more realistic - like career average and higher retirement age.

Teachers need to be in a Union for insurance purposes. So it's not a choice really. They CAN chose which one but has already been said, you don't know where a union will stand until the situation arises. Didn't Twinkly say that she changed unions because she didn't agree with her original one, only to find that the new one, which NEVER strikes, is proposing to strike this time.

They will accrue everything they have built up to date if the scheme moves to career average. Pensions legislation covers this. It also allows any employee to change future benefits. Again this is something that is not really being broadcast.

Gosh, yes, the NUT are probably single-handedly responsible for the militant reputation of the teachers' unions held by the public.

My friend has to use the union (not NUT) when she was being hassled by a parent storking her and my SIL who was a nurse also used the union for an incident she was accused of. They do have some benefits for teachers. I was talking to a colleague today, whose wife (a teacher, was TA but retrained to be a teacher because she was practically doing the job but not getting the pay or any recognition.) If a teacher is in the NUT and does not strike even though they do not agree they may not get the support of the NUT in the future. Surely that is bullying!

I don't think it is fair to alter the terms of any existing agreement really. You wouldn't be able to wriggle out of a contract so to speak.
I generally think that people who put money aside for a pension shouldn't be penalised. Ok the state is topping it up, why not restrict the terms of new members pensions but keep existing ones as they are.

If you pay your subs into the union you get their support. Support is not dependent on you striking or not. So, no, there is no 'bullying' from the NUT.

I will be retiring at 68, this change happened in 2007-fact.

Seems there is still a lot of people without their facts straight on here today.

as you were...

They are not changing benefits that are built up to date and hence would stick to the agreement, it is pensions going forwad and for new members. This is standard practice. It is impossible to assess how much a pension will cost in the future, actuaries can only guess. However, it is possible to assess how much the salary bill will be next year and therefore it is different.

Is that the State pension change that happened in 2007, or is this a specific teacher scheme change?

I am a teacher, thanks. I am due to retire at 68 years old.

teacherspensions.co.uk/scheme/scheme2.htm Under the 2007 changes existing teachers could still retire at 60 and new members at 65 I believe. The state pension which is separate was moved to 68 for anyone irrespective of their occupation born after a certain age.

Something that also isn't being broadcast is that a lot of the public service is female. So, a lot of these pensions are womens pensions.

A lot of women take time off in their lives to have children. A lot of women go part time for a long time to have time with their children.

If you chose to work part time for a large part of your life and then get told you will be awarded a pension that is based on your average salary instead of what you had planned 6 years before you plan to retire, that could be a huge difference and a complete 'stitch up' quite frankly.

Personally Id do away with all unions of all groups. My view has been developed by Bob Crow and NUT. The rest of us have an issue with our boss we take it to them like grown ups. Completely unnecessary since about 15yrs ago. Time has moved on, unions still in 1975.

Also, it isn't just the teachers striking, just in case anyone hadn't noticed.

Who is the link for?

Final salary pensions have a reduced number of years for the periods you work part-time so you already penalised but you make the choice to go part-time. A career average would work in the same way in that the full salary is taken but the number of months in that part-time year would be reduced. Your career average will still be based on your full time salary but this will just be averaged from your starting salary to your leaving salary. That is the normal way it is approached. Therefore part-time should not make any difference should the scheme go career-average as you will just have a reduced number of years. Why should somebody who has been full-time all the way through and many women do work full-time and teach and bring up kids somebody who went part-time?

There seems to be an assumption by some posters that it's just the NUT threatening strike action - I'd like to repeat that it's also ATL (after over 100 years of no action), UCU (lecturers) and ASCL (lecturers) have already been on strike overy this issue. NAHT is balloting to strike at the end of this week and the NASUWT are waiting for answers to legal challenges before they too ballot for strike action. It isn't just the NUT.