what will you do while the teachers strike 30.6.11

[Archieharrysmum]

What will you do???

I had thought I was in a non striking union. I'll be working - no-one on strike at my school - but all my 4 children are off. Y10 dd is in to help me, otherwise little one being looked after by big ones.

I do support the teachers though.

I'm working. DD2's school is closed, DD1's school is partially open. I'm keeping them both off school so as not to break any strike, and our babysitter will stay the day instead of just around school hours. If it's nice out, they'll go to the beach.

Need to go to work as have a deadline coming up very fast. Ds is keen to stay at home on his own. Given it will be for 8 hours and i'll be an hour's drive away I'm less keen on leaving him at home all day on his laptop that option . Still trying to work out what to do.

Why is no one striking at your school goingmad?

I'm a teacher, in a non-striking union, who doesn't work Thursdays.

I'll be at home/out and about with my DDs (DD1's school is closed) and the children of various friends who do work Thursdays.

Have just had it confirmed that ds' school will be striking. I'll slip him a fiver to buy some lunch.

I am a teacher on strike tomorrow but my DD's school is open as usual. I am rather looking forward to a day to myself. The first one in about two years - worth every penny of lost wages.

I'll continue working as I need to keep earning partly to fund my retirement pension (you know, the type that no contributes to except me and I will not know exactly what my level of pension income will be until much nearer retirement age, subject to market fluctuations etc).
Oh, and I also need to keep paying tax to fund the government's element of the teacher's pension.

because teachers don't pay tax do they rottentiming?

I've been on march and rally to support teachers and all public sector strikes. Jolly well played, those strikers!

mrz, wilful misinterpretation for effect there (i.e. cheap shot), I've seen your usual high quality posts and I'm puzzled, that is surely beneath you.

Public sector workers pay tax, some of which naturally ends up funding public sector pensions, none of it is used to fund private sector pensions.

My funding point is valid, just doesn't help the public sector workers' cause.

rottentiming the cost of public sector pensions is falling because of the 2007 agreement and are set to continue to fall. There is no evidence forthcoming to suggest that the TPS is unsustainable I call Mr Gove's move a cheap shot!

But 2007 was before the worldwide recession.

Things have changed dramatically financially since then in terms of what the government can/can't afford to fund via the working population's taxes.

It is great if the cost of public sector pensions is falling because of the 2007 agreement but the events of later years surely mean that things have had to be re-evaluated even further ?

When I started working for example, my state retirement age was set at 60, It was then increased to 65. It has since been moved to 66+ and I fully anticipate that it is likely to be nearer 70 by the time I retire. The government kept coming back for a deeper and deeper cut as far as state pensions were concerned which affects both public and private sector workers. The government reduced returns on pension funds in 1997 when they removed the dividend tax credit reclaim facility. This naturally had no effect on public sector pensions due to the way in which they are funded/paid as defined benefot schemes but it slowed the rate of growth of a private sector pension and resulted in increases in the level of contributions by the private sector workers/increasing the number of years to retirement. Private sector workers have had increased contributions/working longer/reduced retirement benefits as a reality that had to be borne/factored in many years ago.

Public sector workers need to look at the contributions required by private sector workers to achieve the same level of retirement pension and ask themselves if they truly believe it is fair that they pay less or get more and the difference is made up from taxes.

I refer you to various comparision tables in the broadsheet sunday papers today regarding public/private sector workers average salaries/quality of pensions.

So why does the latest reports say that it is continuing to fall?

I'm referring to the House of Commons report and Lord Hutton's report not propaganda in newspapers.

Presumably if a report says the cost is continuing to fall then it is continuing to fall but this is not the issue concerning me. I'm interested in what teachers think of the comparison of the cost of public vs private sector pensions as far as the employee contribution to benefit ratio is concerned ?

What is the justification for continuing to benefit from a substantial discount on the cost of their pension (and a defined benefit pension scheme at that) ?

Speaking personally what I pay for my TPS is considerably more than what I paid for a private pension with a better projected income when I retire.

Then why on earth did you leave the private employment and its pension scheme when we are reliably informed on MN that people pick a career, let's say teaching based on the pension they will get at the end of it so it is VERY wrong to change the terms of the pension scheme as this is the only reason they went into teaching in the first place.

I'm not convinced by the way.

Well it might suggest that MN information isn't reliable in this case. Many people aren't governed by money. Out of my colleagues who had previous careers, one was an accountant, one worked for the health service and another was a manager... none joined teaching for the pension or the pay.
Personally I wanted to be a reception teacher from the age of 10 or 11 had cold feet at 18, slid into another career that I disliked intensely, so decided that the time was right for me to see if teaching reception was the career for me. I love my job but certainly don't do it for the salary, holidays or the pension.