Teachers to strike - 30 June

[meditrina]

breaking now on SKY

Overwhelming vote by 2 teachers' unions (92%)

And bloody good luck to them, I say. If we really cared we would be rallying around organising ourselves into temporary childcare collectives so we could offer support to this and single parents etc.

Oh yes, and there ain't no public sector people retiring in their 50s anywhere I have ever worked. Tell me where you can do this, because in academe people seem to work to 67 already.

Without exception, work life for everybody I know is getting more and more difficult - longer hours, desperately small (if at all) pay rises, more work and responsibility and more scrutiny/measurement of that increased workload. Job security and Pension schemes have been eroding hugely for the past 5 years in the private sector.

I really do think teachers have had some cushioning of this pain and now they're 'catching up'.

I don't think they have it any worse than anyone else, but it's their human right to strike, so I support that.

Anyone who feels like teachers don't deserve their pensions are more than welcome to come and work in my department for a week and see how they feel after a week teaching, let alone 44 years (which is what I will put in by the time I retire). Most teachers I know who have retired in their 50's have gone on to other less demanding jobs in the private sector and not simply stopped working. It is also true that I spend most of my holidays working, work through my breaks and as a teacher and examiner I am currently working 14 hour days. We also get no other benefits yes I might get a slightly better pension than the lady who lives next to me but she has a shiny brand new company car, starbucks at work and discount at international hotel chains.

I don't have a shiny new car, starbucks at work or any discounts. I also have a fairly rubbish third sector salary, 30 days leave a year and NO final salary pension scheme. Ours was closed in 2006.

I fully value teachers, NHS staff etc, but I also see the need to close these hugely expensive pensions.

My mum retired on a lovely pension a couple of years ago (Civil service), it just isn't sustainable

Can someone explain teacher pensions compared to normal pensions then?
We have no pension so im not understanding it really. Are they asking for a greater % of monthly wage? How much! What is 'normal'?
What do people usually get when they retire?
How does this compare to the pension tax credit of £110 a week pensiners without a pension get (those pensioners get rent and council tax paid via housing benegit too)

MIL was a teacher for forty plus years and claims she has a tiddly pension. I have no idea what is tiddly and what is normal. So compare it to the £110 per week the poorest pensioners get.
Thanks

Maybe they could strike in a few weeks time, say July / August. They could do it for 6 whole weeks then, and make their feelings strongly heard. I mean, six whole weeks of strikes would really make their point felt wouldn't it.

It would make their point heard Nigella since dh has 6 schemes of work to write for next year, an office and 4 classrooms to clear out and prepare - this will take him at least 2-3 weeks of the 'summer holiday'.

Him not doing that would certainly be felt next year.

Riven, is this useful? Taken from NUT site.

The Government wants to put up teachers contributions by more than 50 per cent ? from 6.4 per cent to 9.8 per cent of salary.
Exactly how much you?d have to pay depends on how much you earn. An NQT would have to pay up to £60 a month extra and a teacher on UPS3 up to £100 a month. Teachers who earn more than that would have to pay even more.
The Government is planning to tie the ?normal pension age? ? the age at which you can take your teachers? pension in full - to the State pension age. That would compel all teachers aged 33 or less to work until age 68 for a full pension. Older teachers would also be affected - anyone aged 57 or less would have to work to 66 and anyone aged 42 or less to 67.
As an example, if you are 50 now, your normal pension age would be likely to rise to 66. Assuming you?re on UPS3 and you still retire at 60, you would lose £1,300 per year from your pension and £4,000 from your lump sum, due to the actuarial reduction applied to that part of the pension you would build up between 50 and 60.
The Government has already imposed one cut. From April 2011, pensions will now be increased annually by the Consumer Prices Index (CPI) rather than the Retail Prices Index (RPI). This change will affect existing and future pensioners alike and will cost you about 15 per cent of your total income during retirement. For example, a teacher retiring on a £10,000 pension would lose over £35,000 over the course of a 25 year retirement. This is in addition to any losses already suffered as a result of continuing to retire at 60.

So, the people on here who say it's a must to change the pensions drastically for people already in line for those pensions. Would you mind, honestly, if your boss told you they were taking another, say for example £100 [no compromise on your contribution amount and no compromise/choice on your pay out for final pension] out of your wages and giving you at least a two year pay freeze, knowing that any incriments after the two years will be minimum or maybe not even likely? Honestly?

You may accept it as you have no choice, but you wouldn't be happy about it. If there was some way of trying to alter it, you would.

You may be tempted to ask the boss to reconsider, or stagger the changes over a longer period of time, or ask your boss if there was a more flexible way, or a way to meet with the other bossess and colleagues and then decide. Even if the result was the same, you may well ask still. That is all that the unions are doing. You might say, but talks havent finished. I would say, they seem pretty certain about it already and look how fast they are bringing in their changes so far, look at all the disgruntled/worse off sections of society they already leave in their wake without a second thought.

The government response thus far seems to be; ''we'll change the strike laws if they do x, y or z''. They could say, ok, we will listen and negotiate and appreciate it is difficult and what a fantastic job you all do-well done and thankyou by the way. No one want's to strike but people feel they have no options left.

Would you mind, honestly, if your boss told you they were taking another, say for example £100 [no compromise on your contribution amount and no compromise/choice on your pay out for final pension] out of your wages and giving you at least a two year pay freeze, knowing that any incriments after the two years will be minimum or maybe not even likely?

Particularly if the figure of £100 was just an arbitrary amount, plucked from thin air on a whim by politicians with no idea of how much it could affect families, with absolutely no valuation/justification attached to the amount at all?

My point is that they are always moaning, and always striking about something - until the holidays then it all goes quiet.

For me, the issue once again is that often public sector employees feel as if the economy doesn't - or shouldn't - apply to them, and unfortunately it does, as it does to all of us.

I do not, and I do not know anyone who has a decent pension plan and who will be able to retire comfortably in their 60s. Of course, we'd all like to but we live in a different world now.

and always striking about something

There has been one strike day (by the NUT) in the last fifteen years, thinNigella, so clearly your 'point' is cobblers.

Oh FFS I am fcking fed up of public sectors workers moaning that we arent handing over enough of our earnings to them. Are they fcking serious to the private sector should continue to TOP UP their pensions?? WTF??? As thinNigella says - the economy does apply to you too believe it or not.

Every NQT I know has crap GCSEs and A Levels and couldnt think of anything else to do other than teaching.

boobear, so I presume your children go to school and learn nothing then, or maybe the teachers don't swear enough for your liking?

nigella, there haven'e been strikes for ages, as Feenie says.

lastly, so you both seem to think that because you, maybe, have been unfortunate, then everyone should be more unfortunate or as unfortunate as you? That's interesting isn't it and worth some careful consideration on the part of public sector workers. By the way, I think generally, that the public sector generally set the standard of working conditions for the private sector, so if this does all go to plan as the government wants it, it may well affect private pensions too.

eh? they haven't been on strike for more than 20 years - how it that always.

And they have a right to complain now as their terms and conditions are being changed unfairly (when the pension is not in deficit) and without consultation.

The teachers are an easy target and they have been deliberately chosen as people often have no idea of their terms and conditions or what the work entails. This has been done to set people against each other - they have deliberately not chosen nurses/firefighters or the police but instead they have chosen teachers.

This will result in some highly skilled professionals leaving teaching - of that there is no doubt. Standards in teaching have gone up so much in the last 15 years, so much money has been ploughed into the education system - it is sooooooo much better.

I'm sure there are people who have poor academic results in teaching but my dh has a first class Oxbridgen Masters and teaches at the best school in the country. He also works 70-80 hours a week in term-time and half the holidays - and with the best will in the world there is no way he can carry on teaching this well til he's 68 - he went to bed at 8.30 last night as he was exhausted. His union isn't striking though.

Riven Only 5 per cent of teachers pensions are for £20,000 or more.

I have very good O and A levels and I only ever wanted to be a teacher. 24 years on and I still love my job, but I can't see myself having the will or the energy i another 20 years time.

BooBearBoo,

While I have fairly similar views to your first paragraph (and I am a teacher, albeit one who has come into teaching later in life after another career in the private sector) I would perhaps take issue with your second.

I have 12 O-levels (all As), 4 A levels (ditto) 2 S-levels (remember them??), a first class degree from Cambridge and a PhD from the same university. I am also a Primary NQT....

Hulababy. I am a professional with 16 years experience therefore in a senior role, a degree, getting a postgraduate degree and I would earn 30K if I worked full time. How does a teachers pay compare with my pay???? People keep saying teachers pay is poor, How much do they actually get???

Riven

Pensions come in two forms: Defined contribution and defined benefit. Teachers are part of a defined benefit scheme which means they will get paid X per year when they retire. A lot of these plans are final salary pensions which means their pension payout each year is based on a percentage of their final salary (normally the 10 year average).

Those working in the private sector or those with private pensions have defined contribution pensions. This means the contribution to the pension is given but the payout when the person reaches retirement is undefined and totally reliant on the funds being invested wisely.

The problem with the defined benefit plans is that they have been woefully underfunded for years. The private sector took these cuts 15-20 years ago and the defined benefit plans were closed to new employees. If there is a shortfall (a pension deficit) then the employer must provide funds to cover this shortfall. In effect, teacher pensions are not sustainable with the current contributions hence their employer (the state) are requesting/demanding that they contribute more to keep the same level of pension.

I'm a secondary teacher. I qualified in 1997. I am Head of Department and Head of VI Form. I teach full time. I earn just under £35,000.

That was for ohanotherone. I accept that my salary is good, BUT I do an awful lot for it. I admit that it is unusual to be Head of Dept and Head of Year, but our school has very little money and those of us who are experienced and good at our jobs are being asked to do more and more. We have had a number of redundancies over the last two years. I certainly don't think I could work at this rate, effectively, if I was in my late 60s.

ohanotherone . Teachers pay is not poor if you work close to the contracted hours, take all the holidays and don't take on extra responsibilities - my best friend is a primary school teacher (year 5) and she does all that as she has young children - she works for an hour or two after her dd has gone to bed.

For this she earns £32k. She works about 45 hours a week for that and has 13 weeks holidays.

My dh however does the opposite to all that Assistant Head in huge secondary (responsible for Humanities so masses of marking, 70-80 hours a week, half of the holidays in work) - I worked out his hourly rate and it came out as £1.45 this year.

It was an improvement on the £1.23 it was 5 years ago. His salary is £45k.

Teaching varies hugely.

Thanks for the explanations

Top salary as a primary school teacher in senior management but still teaching - £37,000

FE - dh earns around £26, 000. He has taught GCSE/A level English for 7 years.