Teachers to strike - 30 June

[meditrina]

breaking now on SKY

Overwhelming vote by 2 teachers' unions (92%)

I will have to try harder then.

Oops I appear to have killed discussion

Thanks twinkly pearls

Victor. Just because you believe there is enough money and that there isn't a deficit, doesn't mean it's true. Just in the same way that some people thought the world was flat, it didn't make that true either.

The actual truth is that the Office of Budget Responsibility says that the gap between contributions and pensions in payment would double over the next four years to £9bn.

This graph sums up perfectly the problem. BBC News

As you can see, the current trend is that contributions remain flat but more is actually being paid out. The gap between the two must come from the taxpayer. Clearly anyone with any modicum of common sense can see this is not a sustainable trend. The only solution is higher contributions.

I read somewhere but can't find the link now that a person in the private sector would have to put in about 37% of their income to generate the same pension as the equivalent public sector. Again, clearly unaffordable since this must be paid from taxes of the private sector.

It's not about teacher bashing. It's not that we don't value public sector workers. The fundamental problem is that our pension system created forty years ago does not fit in with modern life and we've been avoiding reform for too long. The time has come where we simply cannot afford it anymore.

I can't remember who earlier said that unless we fight now, our children won't be able to afford a pension of their own. Well in response to that, I say well who do you think is going to pay your overly generous pension? The more you expect to be paid, the more taxes your child must pay and clearly the less they will have for their own pension. Personally I'm not comfortable already with the burden we've created for our kids. As a nation, the current generation and the previous have been selfish for far too long. All in the hope that "someone else" will pay. Well "someone else" is skint and "someone else" probably won't pay.

Hula the average life expectancy of a teacher retiring at 65 is 18 years not months. The months thing was a mistake on some website which has been widely (mis)reported. It is wrong. Also - the scheme cannot 'be in deficit' since it is unfunded. Current contributions do not however match current liabilities and projected contributions fall even further short.

I don't 'believe' anything, niceguy, and it's extremely rude of you to compare me to flat-earth believers. I'm hardly alone in thinking that the government is overstating both the amount of the deficit and the speed at which it needs to be cut. The vast proportion of the deficit was created by the bank bailout: shares in those banks have recently become profitable. The constant cry of 'there is no money' is starting to become a little wearisome.

The teaching pensions were established in the 1920s. As I have said, there is no 'fund' - money goes into the Treasury and money goes out. Therefore the pension pot has no 'savings'. I notice that others have pointed out that teachers had to pay in for forty years or they received significantly less, and that life expectancy rates meant that there was no gap. Do we think all the money that was paid in was paid back out again, before life expectancy started to rise so steeply?

It's disingenuous in the extreme to claim that the pensions of the public sector are paid for with the 'taxes of the private sector', as if public sector workers do not pay tax, and as if those of us in the private sector aren't happy to see our taxes go to support the elderly. And as if the private sector was not largely responsible for causing the nation to bail out a bank.

The gap between contibutions and payments is finite. Bluntly speaking, people whose payments lead to a gap will die, and be replaced by those on more moderate packages. Francis Maude labelling teachers as somehow holding the public to ransome is way, way out of line.

In any case, perhaps we will have to shift our thinking on state support. We are an aging population; advances in medical technology mean those disabled people who may not have lived, now do. As recent reports have shown, disabled people infrequently secure jobs due to prejudice. We have to support these people through state aid. Perhaps we will see 50% of our tax contributions going towards funding pensions. The economy should reflect the social status of the nation that keeps it turning - not the other way around.

Jesus, my posts are long. Apologies to you all wading through them. I shall stop clogging up the thread, I promise.

Victor. Again, there are lots of points of views about the cause of the deficit. It's clear to me that the banking bailout did cost a lot of money but it is widely expected that over the medium term that the taxpayer will get their money back via like you point out, the bank shares recovering and being sold at a healthy profit.

However, even if you exclude the costs of the bailout, we still have a frightening structural deficit. We still have to make cuts and like I said earlier. It barely matters anymore how we got into this situation. The fact is that we are.

We ARE shifting our thinking on state support and this is one of the first salvo's of a wholesale change in approach. As medical advances mean people live longer, the government are finding that they can no longer reasonably afford the cradle to grave approach of the last 50-60 years.

In short, the NHS, the welfare state and pensions as we know it will not be the same as our kids will know. And I often wonder if they will see us as the generation who made loads of debts expecting them to pay them all off for us.

This thread is about teacher's pensions and I've read nothing so far to make me think that what's proposed is unreasonable in the face of our current economic woes.

Victor - nearly all public sector pensions are unfunded. Although teachers sometimes claim that their pension isn't in deficit (ie teacher/school contributions matching pensions paid out at the time) it certainly has been in the recent past. Then there is an unlimited guarantee that the shortfall will be made up by the general tax revenue.

Perhaps those who are so confident that the teachers scheme has no deficit, and so higher contributions are not necessary, would like to take responsibility for that in future (ie remove the taxpayer guarantee) and pay all future pensions based on the contributions income of working teachers at the time?

Ive amost lost the will to live with this thread! Im not striking because my teaching union hasnt balloted me so I will be working on that day...either writing reports or sorting out cupboards...neither of which can be done when the children are in school. At the moment though I dont know if the school will be open or closed. We will wait until next week to find out for sure.
Teachers are not the only ones to be striking that day...but if you read, see, hear the news then it seems so! ;_0

I certainly do not mind paying a greater contribution to ensure I receive a half decent pension at the end of my teaching career (probably 70 by the time I get there) - however I feel it is unfair to be asked to pay higher contributions for longer and receive considerably less at the end.

We've five teachers (possible seven) who are with the NUT. Of those five, four are a definite strike. From what I know, our school is closing the classes of those teachers and everyone else is as normal. It's my PPA day but my fellow Y1 teacher will be striking. Our HT supports the strike.

I watched the news today and I think the strike may end up being a lot larger than anticipated as by Autumn it could be ALL public sectors striking. My union NASUWT have NOT balloted us yet. I think i recall a letter two weeks ago saying they were waiting until end of June for an Autumn strike. What's funny is they claim that a large proportion of the union would like to strike, yet I've never been asked my opinion!!

As a I know, less than HALF of NUT members took the ballot for strike action although probably most will be striking.

Ironic though: They strike because the pension will be reduced yet by striking, they loose a day's pay as well as a day's earning contributing to their pension!

Personally, I don't mind paying more as long as I get the same pension at the end of it. But I don't want to teach full time until I'm 66/68. Imagine anyone you know at that age working as hard as a twenty-something in front of a class of 30 5 & 6 year olds!!! But that doesn't mean I don't WANT to work. I've talked it through with DH who insists I WILL NOT be teaching at 55+ as his pension will be enough to see us through until my pension comes through (his is private and he can start drawing it at 55 - unless his goes belly up!). I can see myself working at B & Q as one of those 'more mature workers' or going part time in education.

I can't remember the exact figures but I remember when Dad (a doctor) was taking early retirement a number of years ago (they were asking for volunteers back then ) he found out the the life expectancy of a consultant, if they retired at 65 was something silly like 2 years, but if they retired at 55, was over 20 years (or something like that) - ie early retirement dramatically increased life expectancy.

So the increase in the retirement age may all be part of a cunning plan to reduce life expectancy as an additionaly way to reduce pressure on public finances!

thetasigmamum - If that is the case that it is wrong, maybe someone should inform the insurance companies then! Because they seem to believe it. Teachers are already in the top bracket for life insurance as it is.

'And as if the private sector was not largely responsible for causing the nation to bail out a bank.'

Yet again somebody holding the whole private sector to blaim for an economic crisis that started in the US and affected some banks (not all as Barclays were very resiliant during this time). This is in turn affected the private sector and government coffers. How do you think the country would have fared if the banks were not bailed out? Millions would have lost their savings including most private and public pension schemes and lots of council funds. The Govt had to take an unpopular decision at the time. So all the manufacturing companies and retail firms were also largely to blaim in your opinion which in unfounded. These companies have been affected far worse from the recession without access to funds or lending.

For me, these argument being banted all the time on this thread is extremely naive and insulting to those bosses in the private sector trying to keep people in jobs.

Even with this poor and unfounded argument in your view, this should mean that pensions advice to the Govt to reduce the potential pensions in future generations should be thrown out. Please, what will your children and grandchildren think if they decide to become doctors or teachers when they are paying for pensions from the past and getting no matter. This is the situation that is happening in all private sector companies and is a problem based on longevity and not privatisation of the banks!

www.teacherspensions.co.uk/resources/pdf/tpnews/TP%20Member%20Newsletter.pdf Life expectancy for a teacher retiring at 60 is 27 years according to this. Blue Collar workers have the lowest life expectancy.

We have been borrowing from our children for the last 15 years (that is what the deficit really is)
Now we have to start living within our means.

Anybody who thinks that pensions and deficits do not need to be cut should be willing to tell their children that they will have no pension at all because we want to keep ours.

I hope every teacher who voted to strike will be willing to tell their pupils that - to their faces.

Is that any different to pointing at the public sector bits and suggesting that their T&C's are contributing to the current financial issues.

At the end of the day Cameron and Osborne are doing a grand job of putting us all at each others throats, and getting support for the unsupportable, purely and simply because people are thinking 'if they get the extra money through stopping benefits/cutting public sector penions/increasing higher rate tax then they won't touch me'. And the Public Sector changes are not because what is there now is unaffordable - as they are intending to go far further than Hutton recommends - it is purely and simply to enable as much outsourcing as possible, by reducing pay and T & C to the lowest possible.

So bottom line, these cuts due to Tory ideology not vital cuts because of the deficit - and don't be fooled into thinking any different.

however I feel it is unfair to be asked to pay higher contributions for longer and receive considerably less at the end

1. Is it therefore fair to expect someone else to pick up the tab then?

2. Welcome to the same boat the rest of us were in a few years ago. I didn't hear teacher's at the time protesting on our behalf so sorry if our sympathy is lacking somewhat.

I think most teachers do live in the real world and accept that money can't just magic itself out of nowhere. If it's genuinely the case that the current system can't support itself, then I accept that we have to play our part. I've heard so much conflicting information from the unions, the papers, the government etc though that I have no idea what the actual figures are.

It's a shame that quite a few of the comments above make the same points we get on every teaching related thread - someone writes that teachers only work 9-3 and have 43 weeks a year holiday, teachers write back saying that actually they work 25 hours a day and all we get is a slightly tedious bunfight. Teachers don't care about the kids they teach, teachers wouldn't survive three days in the private sector, teachers don't pay tax, teachers could get much better paid jobs in the private sector blah blah blah.

What I would like to see most of all is a debate about teachers' pensions that focuses solely on that - are teachers' pensions sustainable and if not, what needs to be done? I seem to get the impression that nobody has any idea.

I think most teachers do live in the real world and accept that money can't just magic itself out of nowhere.

Yes, this is the same reason that many of us cannot afford the extra contributions.

Wherearemysocka

There is no point discussing the number of hours teachers work , its not relevant. This is an economic issue surely?

This country has been living beyond its means, who/whatever the culprits and causes.

Changing demographics, life expectancies etc mean that

1)Teachers pensions are not sustainable.
2)Retirement age should be made fair and standardised for all workers.
3)Final salary schemes are not sustainable either and no private sector workers on generally lower wages should be expected to pay for them for others when they will never enjoy them themselves.
4)If this issue is not resolved, it is sustaining a sort of inter generational theft .....

Sofadweller: that's what I meant - this is an economic issue and teachers' hours and holidays are nothing to do with it, that's why it's frustrating that debates about it always involve some snide comments about them.

The government (and you, and I have no reason to believe that you are wrong) tell me my pension is not substainable. Yet my union tells me that our pensions are sustainable. Just trying to make some sense of it all. I'm not an economics teacher, thank goodness!