Teachers' Strikes

[Husky]

I don't care if it's 5 pages in already, this thread needs a poll. I'm going to add one, if for nothing else than my own curiosity.

 

Sorry Rich to abuse your thread

i thought, must be a mod thats added it. sure enough

[nicon2k]

a bit of marking and Yes, you may have to plan some lessons.[/i]

 

Really not "a bit" and "some", it's a rediculous amount as class sizes are far larger than they should be. If you say that then you clearly don't know any teachers, I know a fair amount and many of them rarely get to come out to play.

 

I believe my point still stands. The average worker get 4 weeks out of the office per year (excluding public holidays). A teacher gets six weeks over summer, two weeks over Christmas and Easter and three, week long half terms. That's 13 weeks, give or take. Say they were to work 9-5, Monday to Friday. How long do you think it would take them to finish all of the extra work not covered in school days?

 

falling standards - i'd put alot of that on the falling quality of students; which can be traced back to the lack of parenting that goes on at home (not in all cases, and we do have lovely kids as well) there is a very visible slide in the lack of behaviour in kids over the last 10 years, and not alot we as teachers can do about it.

 

also we're expected to do the job of the parents when they can;t be bothered, i reckon only about 65% of my time is actually spent teaching, i lose a lot of time to paper work, marking, and dealing with students. as well as all the other wonderful inititive that get fed back from whitehall.

 

I agree with you that if a parent is not bothered to take an interest in their child's education, what hope do they have?

 

I was not having a go at you as a teacher. The difference between a good teacher who cares and one that is just doing a job is like night and day. I wonder what percentage of people striking yesterday would fall into the latter category?

[rtbiscuit]

no offence taken, yes the holidays are nice, but i can;t choose when i take them; so when i get holiday it just so happens all the travel companies and holiday people double their prices, so i don't tend to go abroad, or if i do its to france and i camp.

 

i don't mind; i wouldn't do the job if i didn't enjoy it. but i would say that the first week or 2 of the summer is recuperation not holiday (argue it how you like, i know others do a stressful jobs) you feel close to burn out by the summer,

 

i don't want to justify how hard my job is, i think most people on this forum have a hard job or work hard, its why we all have nice cars; because we worked for it.

 

i would say people really need to come and try teaching, before saying if my job is easy or not, when i started i didn;t realsie that it would drain you on so many levels. emotionally, mentally, and physically.

 

my classes sizes make it interesting, i'm teaching in a room nig enough for 17 students, but usually have classes of about 25. then throw in power tools, blades, chisels etc, and maintaining a safe environment. it keeps you on your toe's. and thats if the kids are the nice well behaved ones. lob in 3-5 difficult kids and its like spinning plates.

 

still love what i do.

[Leeroy]

without sounding morbid or insensitive, we're overdue an epidemic/pandemic or world war, it has a major effect on population numbers and often resets a balance. not saying its a good thing, and i wouldn't want one, but its possibly t eh only way to control growing population numbers.

 

That's a pretty radical solution Rich! Couldn't you just suggest killing off or neutering a few chavs and habitual troublemakers?

 

I've been following this debate with interest, partly because I have friends who work for Central and Local government who in my opinion have had an easy ride in past years. Things like travelling first class on expenses and clocking off at 5.30 on the dot regardless irk me somewhat, but hey, if they can get away with it good luck to them (naive I know, as we're paying for it). However now that their salaries are being frozen, expenses are being carefully monitored and they're having to re-apply for jobs they're up in arms. Public spending needs to be reduced and I just hope that the right sectors are targeted. Teachers and their pay packages should be assessed carefully though, because quite simply they're setting the foundations for the UK's future. I don't see why their pensions should be any more rewarding than the private sector, but salaries should be high enough to attract good quality people.

My job is unsecure at the mo, and I've had issues with late salary payments and this is unhappily common at the moment. Why shouldn't the public sector feel some pain too?

I say you should strike Rich - hopefully the govt will take teachers more seriously and any reductions in pensions will only be to realistic levels given what's happening in the wider economy.

[JetSet]

without sounding morbid or insensitive, we're overdue an epidemic/pandemic or world war, it has a major effect on population numbers and often resets a balance. not saying its a good thing, and i wouldn't want one, but its possibly t eh only way to control growing population numbers.

 

Yeah, we need more young people to pay for the pensions of older people and then we'll need even more young people when the youngsters of today get old and so on. Within about 4 generations we'll have a population of 100 million, 6 generations 140 million, just not sustainable. Last year alone the population increased by 470,000

 

 

Pete

[Husky]

i in for neutering chavs

[Ebized]

 

The thing about pension funds is that the money doesn't sit there in the bank, it gets invested. Bad investments and the recent financial crash meant that pension pots shrunk by huge amounts. This is just one of the factors involved.

 

Pete

 

A good and important point Pete as to why we are in the mess - i.e. the endowment mortgage I took out 25 years ago (before the FSA was set up) with 'promises' at the time I should get at least double the £30k supposedly covered at the end, but instead I am getting about 2/3rds of the £30k to cover the mortgage pay-off, all because those who invest "our" money fecked up and got greedy. That failing has affected us all, including public authorities who had sought and had planned to make up the known shortfalls which Chesterfiled mentions (which has been done for many decades) by entrusting money to the 'private' sector but who got it so badly wrong big-time, aided and abetted by useless politicians world wide not contolling the money markets and that is why we are all affected now. Remember the Icelandic banks crash and the worry of the knock-on effects to many Local Authorities who have to pay the teachers wages etc.

 

Having worked in the public sector most of life in the last 10 years I have worked for myself. I know I can earn a lot more now, if I want to, in my professional vocation than when I was in the public sector. (Chesterfield - you are right about average salaries in the public sector being higher, but that relates to the relatively high proportion of adminstrative staff whereas there is no question that those with professional qualifications are far better off in the private sector and when seen to do well as employees will be rewarded accordingly - something that does not happen in the public sector) But as those who work in the public sector will know, the bureauracy and systems brought about by many of the 'high flyers' enticed in from the private sector with ridiculous salaries, to supposedly improve management and save money in the last 20 years mainly failed to work. In reality, it led to far worse working conditions for the front line and experienced staff tearing their hair out over new incentives that were either time-wasters or just demonstrated that the new powers in charge had no basic understanding of what the public they are in place to serve wanted/needed. That simply demotivated staff and was the main reason why I and many others I know have jumped ship in the last decade to the private sector and never looked back.

 

With this country now seen as a virtual charity, with easy pickings for the worlds waifes and strays who can get in, or we seem to find billions to prop up other countries (invariably a higher proportion than most other conributing countries), it is not surprising that those of us born and bred here paying our high taxes do feel we are being taken for mugs. I do understand the frustration of those who dedicated their lives to public service and will never aspire to expensive houses, cars or safe investments - the fall-back private pension pots for the fortunate few. So for teachers and the like who had thought they might see their retirement years out without having to call on public handouts, which this country still seems all to ready to provide with far too many not prepared to do an honest days work in their lives if they can get away with it, it is a bitter pill to swallow.

 

Unfortunately though and whilst I understand the current public service frustration, as others have said it affects the vast majority of us that are not fortunate enough to join the increasing number of million/billionaires - many from the financial world who will see out their years in luxury. It is that end of the gulf where the real money is that needs to be addressed IMO, rather than the debate about the pros and cons of the average public/private sector workers lot which has been argued over many decades.

 

Like Husky said a while back, most in their early years do not think about their pensions its only when family responsibiities and middle age appears that those in public service started to wonder how much they would get. And even more these days I sense a greater "live for today and worry about tomorrow attitude". The very fact more people are renting than buying property, primarily because of the financial institutions greed, serves to suggest that what we all having to prepare for more support for those who do not have property to downsize to release extra funds because the state pension/other income support will become even more important, irrespective or public/private employment, given many will have no savings to speak of to draw on.

[sasha@lazytrips]

I was going to make a very long post, but then found that Chesterfield actually infiltrated my brain and wrote it all down in a far more concise and explicit manner.

[spursmaddave]

Canabalism FTW

 

Eat the unemployed

 

Eat the prisoners

 

Eat the old (might be tough so in a stew)

 

Problems solved!

[M13KYF]

it made me boil yesterday when on the BBC news they interviewed a chap on the march in London. He proclaimed that we should look at the businesses (in the march) around him and justified that being paid less was a good reason for fighting for his pension. Bull. Hundreds of thousand of people are paid just the minimum statutory rate per hour with no pension. Wake up and join the real world. You get no annual increase and long have gone the days of good pay rates for the large majority.

 

Not have a go at anyone here, this is just my opinion

[martinmac]

One other point, I thought it was a public sector strike.

[Husky]

Canabalism FTW

 

Eat the unemployed

 

Eat the prisoners

 

Eat the old (might be tough so in a stew)

 

Problems solved!

people, meet the new prime minister

[ATTAK Z]

I'm finding this thread interesting but, and please correct me if I'm wrong, don't all pension schemes base viability on the growth of the economy and an increase in numbers of the working population ?

[Chesterfield]

Depends where the pension scheme is invested. My private scheme is effectively just a whole bunch of investments in various financial markets and companies around the globe, with a fund manager looking after the whole thing - not just for me, they manage billion pound funds, all made up from thousands of private and corporate investors.

 

If none of my fund is based on UK markets, then the economy here wont affect it. Thats the beausty of it - if one countries economy takes a bit of a dive, then the fund gets shifted around to cope. Needless to say, the ammount of the fund invested in Greek companies and markets is precisely nill.

 

The public sector schemes are more like pyramid selling. The reason they (the unions) dont want anyone opting out of the scheme, is that they know full well its only the money from those still at work thats even remotely propping up the pensions for those nearer the retirement age. Thats why they dont want it changing - not that they care about the new entrants. They know if new entrants take their premiums elsewhere, then the scheme collapses. So too does their credibility as a union leader and their £100k+ earnings from the union subscriptions.

[Ricey]

Crikey I've come into this one a bit late and I've got to say I really agree with Chris.

 

From my understanding of pensions (which only really amounts to the bits I learnt in the CeMAP 7 years ago and haven't used since) if you have a final salary pension scheme you are one lucky bugger indeed.

 

They are like rocking horse turd these days and probably only the public sector are likely to benefit from them - they almost always pay a better return because they are guaranteed to pay whatever fraction you 'bank' each year.

 

My pension for example will buy me whatever the best annuity available is after some mongtard in red braces has had his way cocking about gambling it on the stock markets at the point of retirement - Biscuits will give him a 'banked' amount for each year he pays into it.

 

So to me - yes striking is a bit of a cheek when your already in possession of the Golden Egg.

 

Then again its like my carpark space at work....I've had it for 5 years and its a major perk of the job as others have to trek to another car park a mile away.........they're talking about taking it off me which is quite fair in honest - it'll still feel like a kick in the guts though because I've come to expect it as a perk of the job. Being given the spec on your pension then having it changed is a similar concept - if you sign up to something under a set of conditions you don't expect for some bugger just to change them half way through!

 

To be honest the world is an utter shitstorm at the moment.....if we seriously do not pull together it will fold underneath us - I've mentioned on other threads about the impact of a 1% BOE interest rate rise.......it would cripple a large proportion of homeowners in the UK.

 

I think teaching is one of the worst possible jobs in the world and I genuinely have respect for anyone who's got the kahuna's to do it - personally I'd want to smash each and everyone of the little gits heads in!

[JetSet]

if you have a final salary pension scheme you are one lucky bugger indeed.

 

they almost always pay a better return because they are guaranteed to pay whatever fraction you 'bank' each year.

 

 

Well, the thing is if they're based on career average then you're going to loose out big time. I don't have any problem with this but I don't thing it's fair to advertise a job with one set of pension rules then change them at a later date, new teachers will be aware of the pension rules, fair enough, but to change the rules after you've done 20 or 30 years is blatantly unfair and I'd apply that to any work pension, private or public. People who think that a career average isn't that bad should bear in mind that the salary of a classroom teacher in 1976 was £2.5k a year, just imagine how much a few years of that sort of salary is going to drag your pension down

 

Pete

[Stew]

Oh just as a side note my Pension is performing brilliantly.

[Vik54]

if you have a final salary pension scheme you are one lucky bugger indeed.

 

they almost always pay a better return because they are guaranteed to pay whatever fraction you 'bank' each year.

 

 

Well, the thing is if they're based on career average then you're going to loose out big time. I don't have any problem with this but I don't thing it's fair to advertise a job with one set of pension rules then change them at a later date, new teachers will be aware of the pension rules, fair enough, but to change the rules after you've done 20 or 30 years is blatantly unfair and I'd apply that to any work pension, private or public. People who think that a career average isn't that bad should bear in mind that the salary of a classroom teacher in 1976 was £2.5k a year, just imagine how much a few years of that sort of salary is going to drag your pension down

 

Pete

 

This is the point I was getting at in my first post Pete.

And Martin has also highlighted another - this is not just about teachers - it is about front line staff who deliver essential services on a below average pay on a 52 week contract with 4 weeks leave and no increments

It has taken me a total of 8 years self funded study with all the associated debt (£14k) and 15 years of slog to get to where I am and I still earn sub £30k.

Obviously this career was my choice - there is no 'Private sector' equivalent employer - Community Workers are either employed by Local Govt or the Voluntary sector - but it is also my choice to strike, and when the time comes I will not hesitate to join all my colleagues

[sasha@lazytrips]

The one thing that confuses me here is this. Am I right in understanding that the government's proposal will not retrospectively affect all accrued pensions up to the date on which the switch takes place, i.e. if you've done 20/30 years, then you'll get the pension equivalent of final salary as if you left at this point and whatever else you accrue under the new programme for the remaining years until actual retirement.

 

This is the point that the government made, but every single person you read about in the papers/see on TV conveniently ignores and lies about. Would the people protesting prefer for a large proportion of the workforce to be made redundant? There are no two ways about it as when, as Chesterfield pointed out, more money comes out than goes in, something will have to give. So the government had a choice:

 

1. Make tens of thousands of people redundant.

2. Pension fund goes bust in around 12 years meaning that nobody gets any pension at all.

3. Borrow astronomical sums of money to fund this pension gap which will most likely eventually lead to the country defaulting on its debts making the Greek crysis look like peanuts.

4. Ask public sector employees to contribute a little bit more to their pensions and retire at the same time as everybody else.

 

Given the above options (and there actually are no other options), what would the protesting public sector voters prefer? Got to love the incapability of structuring any logically coherent argument from people paid hundreds of thousands of pounds to be union leaders.

[Chesterfield]

People who think that a career average isn't that bad should bear in mind that the salary of a classroom teacher in 1976 was £2.5k a year, just imagine how much a few years of that sort of salary is going to drag your pension down

 

So of that £2.5k salary in 1976, the ammount paid in in was 6.4% by the employee (£160), and 14.1% by the employer (£352.50). Or a total of £512.50

 

Retire today (2011) on a salary of £30k, after 35 years service since 1976 and your pension is £17,500 a year. So the teacher puts in £160 in 1976 and expects £17,500 back 35 years later.

 

Imgaine how much a few years of being on that sort of salary and having a final salary scheme is going to increase the defecit in the fund....

 

Though as Sasha points out - the changes proposed will not affect any pensions accrued to date. Its only the accruals going forward that are affected. Meaning your £160 contribution in 1976 will still bag you £17,500 today. The union leaders did explain that it only affected accruals going forward and wouldnt be retrospectively applied, didn't they?....

 

 

Hows about this - who agrees with the business model of companies like pay day loans and wonga etc whom charge interest rates the likes of 1200% APR? Anyone like how they charge ridiculous interest rates to some of the most vulnerable/gullible in our society?

 

Well, in the example above, the public sector worker paying in £160 and expecting £17.5k back in 35 years is expecting their pension fund/taxpayer to pay them over 1500% APR for 35 years.

 

Without starting to take pictures of the digits on my calculator, I seriously don't know how to make it any easier for the public sector to understand the problem being faced.

 

 

 

EDITED to add: The same problem existed in the 70s, but of course Labour didnt want to upset the unions, so they just didnt mention it. The tories tried a few things in the 80s to try and make up for some of the defecit, but as lots of people wanted maggies head on a spike just for taking the milk away, trying to change the pensions wasnt exactly going to fly. In the 90s/00's Labour just made the schemes even better for people as Gordon just started selling stuff to pay for it, like a few billion £'s worth of bullion for a start. They imposed massive increases in the numbers of, and levels of, taxes to pay for their spend spend spend attitude. Now we find ourselves in the 10's and the problem still persists, though its grown by many billions since the 70's, its now at tipping point - if we dont do anything about it, the country will be broke. Its not far off already.

[M13KYF]

it is about front line staff who deliver essential services on a below average pay on a 52 week contract with 4 weeks leave and no increments

 

whats a increment. I never had one, or my wife, plenty of people dont get them and plenty of people are earning a lot less than yourself.

[Ekona]

It has taken me a total of 8 years self funded study with all the associated debt (£14k) and 15 years of slog to get to where I am and I still earn sub £30k.

Obviously this career was my choice - there is no 'Private sector' equivalent employer - Community Workers are either employed by Local Govt or the Voluntary sector - but it is also my choice to strike, and when the time comes I will not hesitate to join all my colleagues

A couple of questions/points then Vik:

 

1. How do you propose we (as a country) pay for your (as public sector workers) pension? Where should we find the £Bns from?

2. If your pension is that important to you, why not top it up with a private one instead of downing tools?

[Vik54]

it is about front line staff who deliver essential services on a below average pay on a 52 week contract with 4 weeks leave and no increments

 

whats a increment. I never had one, or my wife, plenty of people dont get them and plenty of people are earning a lot less than yourself.

 

So you still earn the same as you did ten years ago? You've never had a pay rise or end of year bonus?

Mike, I don't know what you or your wife do so really not my place to comment.

 

I would personally welcome performance related increments and would happily pay more into the pension pot. Either that or stop the pension scheme completely and lets see if the tax payer will manage to shoulder the true cost of the millions of hours put in by police, teachers, social workers right down to the binmen who come and take away our rubbish.

 

Nobody expects something for nothing here - the point is that terms and conditions are being eroded yet again. There have been several changes to the LGPS and T&C's in the last ten years - there were no strikes - employees just took them on the chin. I think all any sane and reasonable person wants to see is a fair system - however if the Govt doesn't start some adequate consultation we will see a repeat of the late 70's

[coldel]

Wow...up to 7 pages

 

I think the original post was that do we support striking? I think as the majority here are in private sector it was a no brainer that we would be against it. If you sign up to a union then of course you will be for it, otherwise whats the point. Whats interesting is the level of understanding we have.

 

It seems that a lot of the supporters of strikers on here have not quite grasped the actual proposal on the table. Not through their own lack of ability to understand but because of the message cleverly put out by the media and especially whats 'placed' in the media by Labour press. I would suggest the 40% that actually decided to participate in the ballot to vote for strikes were quite unaware of the full proposal and the details that would have not put the proposal into such a dark light were deliberately ommited by union leaders.

[rtbiscuit]

it was to get peoples POV on the situation and the strikes,

 

i know that there are people on this forum with a very good grasp on things, and knew i would learn alot by asking.