Forum menu
surely , doing an MBA, you are a facilitator or trainer rather than a teacher...what do you teach as you said you worked with the 2nd biggest supermarket in the world?
Is intrigued but does not expect a serious answer.I
Headfirst, good retort with "nob" years of education have helped your language skills. 🙂 Personally I think teachers have a good deal. Good pay, good pension, good regular holidays, good hours. Yes they do a great job that only certain people can, in often trying circumstances but my they go on about their bad lot!
MBA? Who, me?
I teach Business English (aka talking crap) and train students in preparing and giving presentations in English (and ocassionally in Spanish).
f) We could turn all the old people into oil, thus providing us youngsters with a decent revenue stream for our pensions 🙂
I teach Business English (aka talking crap) and train students in preparing and giving presentations in English (and ocassionally in Spanish).
At what type of institution?
In the private sector.
Perhaps the private sector teachers need to stand up for themselves?
What would you suggest we do? You are aware of the reasons why my salary has dropped by 60%, aren't you?
RichPenny for president of the world!!!
My mum has put face cream on every day for decades, I bet we could just wring her out, not actually kill her, and get the best part of a gallon...that should do me for a week's commute...how many old folk are there? I'm gonna need a few...
In the private sector.
A private school or a business? I.e. are you a teacher or a lecturer or a trainer?
Perhaps we could develop an engine that ran on pulped pensioners? It would be remarkably ironic if humans turned out to be a slightly sustainable energy source!
MBA? Who, me?
I teach Business English (aka talking crap) and train students in preparing and giving presentations in English (and ocassionally in Spanish).
so not a teacher than in the sense it is being discussed here. actually a trainer at best in TEFL perhpas?
[i]Here's another angle: would you want your (grand)kids being taught by a 70-year-old? [/i]
Other careers are available! Do you have to be a teacher all your working life?
It's a privately owned school that is run as a business, I teach and I train.
Other careers are available! Do you have to be a teacher all your working life?
Unemployment is currently at 8%, I believe.
(I have no intention of teaching for another 34 years.)
Unemployment is currently at 8%, I believe.
In teaching or in general?
So not a teacher than in the sense being discussed here.
In general. So, not many other jobs to move to.
Only 8%, not too bad then.
You still haven't told me how we could stand up for ourselves or what you understand to be the reasons behind the sharp reduction in salary.
Strike
😆 (I assume [s]hope[/s] you're not being serious)
I calculated that with adjusted figures my salary has decreased by 60%. Count yourselves lucky and stop f*****g whinging.
i dont give a shit to be honest, has no impact on my views on my pension
i dont give a shit to be honest, has no impact on my views on my pension
You may just have convinced me to vote tory at the next election, thanks. Even though it might just have an impact unless Banco Santander don't pay UK tax into the UK coffers, their employees don't pay taxes. Who owns the BAA? What happens here will affect you there.
I imagine you call the tories selfish f****rs.
don simon - Member(I assume hope you're not being serious)
Why?
Because I'm self-employed.
EDIT: And not a good long term solution during the present crisis, killing the goose that lays the golden egg, etc.
Can someone other than TJ explain what the union is demanding? If the scheme is already affordable, and not government funded, why is the government so concerned about it that they are proposing changes?
Clearly there must be some link to taxpayers that the union is not being totally clear about.
We are recently informed we will be paying 15% more to receive 10% less up here.Allied to the fact that teachers have a life expectancy of 70 (according to the union rep) At least the English unions had the balls to take a stand, good on you.As awful as it will be,if we do not,then the government will just carry on removing the T&C's that they agreed to. And maxray, however it is spelt,it suits you.
dmjb4
My analysis whilst simplistic is basically true.
The NUT believes that our pensions are fair and affordable. The Government wants teachers to pay more, work longer, and get less. They are pressing ahead with unnecessary reforms despite the changes already made to the Teachers' Pension Scheme in 2007.The National Audit Office has confirmed that public sector pension costs are falling as expected due to the reforms already in place. Teachers are already paying more, the normal pension age has been raised to 65 for new entrants and employer contributions have been capped.
The House of Commons Public Accounts Committee has also been highly critical of the Government's pension strategy which they say is based more on public perception of public sector pensions than on actual figures.
Christine Blower, General Secretary of the National Union of Teachers, the largest teachers' union, said:
"The Government's unnecessary attack on public sector pensions has convinced NUT members that there is no alternative but to support strike action.
"It is disgraceful that the Government is pressing ahead with its reforms which will affect teachers' pensions. The Government knows that they are affordable. This is a policy which has nothing to do with economics and everything to do with politics.
"The NUT is party to the TUC negotiations with Government to protect public sector pensions. It is not too late for common sense to prevail and for these unnecessary changes to be stopped. It is in no one's interest to create a whole new swathe of people who are a burden on the taxpayer in old age.
"The NUT alongside TUC affiliated unions will do all we can to ensure fair pensions
The paper confirms the Government's intention to abandon the current teachers' pension scheme. It wants to introduce a new "career average pay" scheme, giving teachers massively less.They are suggesting you would only get 1/100 of career average pay for every year in teaching. This compares to the current scheme which gives you 1/60 of final pay, or 1/80 of final pay plus a lump sum payment, depending on when you joined the scheme.
Younger teachers would have to work until 68 for a pension worth less than half of their career average pay. Older teachers would earn far less pension between now and retirement. The Treasury proposals would mean you losing even more than the figures shown in the NUT pensions loss calculator. They show just how badly the Government's plans will affect our futures.
http://www.teachers.org.uk/pensions
Note the employers contribution has been capped - this is in the agreed changes in 2007. thus there is no excessive or open ended liabilty on the taxpayer. Any shortfall has to come from increased contributions from the employees.
Its purely a political move. The Tories allies in the press created a moral panic about public sector pensions to create a bogeyman and the government are now attempting to slay the bogeyman.
If it is a 6.5% contribution and a final salary scheme then there is no question of it being affordable without additional contributions from elsewhere - i.e the present system is not self financing based on current teacher contributions.
I've found this discussion interesting especially as I had a proper row with my father-in-law about my right to strike and how I should be lucky that "the private sector was bolstering up my public sector pension". I pointed out that, using his theory, as a tax payer I was paying twice for my pension, once from my wages and again as a tax payer. I also pointed out that I had signed up for one thing and was now being told that it would change and I could do nothing about it. Furthermore I noted that surely going to an average salary scheme was discriminatory against women who tend to take time off to raise kids and therefore have a lower average salary. Once F-i-L had finished sounding off about "that's your choice to take time off to have kids and not work" and wanted to know why his pension pot was low (apparently to prop up the public sector pensions) I'd had enough.
F-i-L runs his own pretty successful business with a number of employees, his, and their ability to earn high wages is greater than the average teacher whose salaries are centralised and capped. Yes I get better holidays but my (unpaid) working hours are longer. On average teachers have a shorter life span once retired than other retirees.
Basically what I'm trying to say is, yes I chose my job knowing full well the pro's and the con's...what I didn't really expect was to get right royally screwed again and again with no say on the matter.
no mefty - it has an employer contribution THAT IS CAPPED AND DEFINED so there is your other source - and if it goes into deficit then the teachers contributions will rise not the taxpayers.
~Edit - reducing the pension will mean more will need to get additional benefits as they do not get full pensions because of interrupted careers - so the taxpayer will pay then
That is debatable mefty can I see your figures.
There are employer and employee pension contributions 6.5% is wrong for starters
The point is the teachers are happy with their pensions which have been reformed to be affordable and no burden on the taxpayer.
Precisely, so this statement is rubbish - they are a burden to the taxpayer the current employer contribution is 14% per annum, more 2 times the teacher's.
TJ - that didn't really answer the question, it was just some clips from a union press release.
How have the actual terms changed? Should be less than a line for each e.g. for our work scheme:
I pay x%, work pays y%. No guarantees. When I retire the pot buys an annuity.
Please post before and after proposals for new teachers scheme in same manner so we can compare and assess.
sorry - you asked what the teachers wanted. There is info in the link on the changes.
They are suggesting you would only get [b]1/100 of career average pay for every year in teaching[/b]. This compares to the [b]current scheme which gives you 1/60 of final pay, or 1/80 of final pay plus a lump sum payment, depending on when you joined the scheme.[/b]Younger teachers would have to work until 68 for a pension worth less than half of their career average pay. Older teachers would earn far less pension between now and retirement.
* contribution increased from 6.4% to 9.3%
you can work out the cost and effect here
http://www.teachers.org.uk/node/12872
mefty the current arrangement does not alter the employer contribution. Can you stop telling me it is unaffordable and actually provide me with some evidence to support this view .
They are suggesting you would only get 1/100 of career average pay for every year in teaching.
More rubbish, the suggestion is 1/60 - read the Hutton report. [url= http://cdn.hm-treasury.gov.uk/hutton_final_100311.pdf ]Link here[/url]
Junkyard - I have not made any comment on its affordabilty, i was merely pointing out it does cost the taxpayer something - actually quite a lot. TJ's statement suggested otherwise so I corrected.
mefty - no - what I said was
Note the employers contribution has been capped - this is in the agreed changes in 2007. thus there is [b]no excessive or open ended liabilty on the taxpayer[/b]. Any shortfall has to come from increased contributions from the employees.
Teh taxpayer pays a contribution via the employer as all good employers should. it is sustainable and affordable following the changes agreed a couple of years ago.
and I think you will find that the government want to go a lot further than the hutton proposals - its 60ths or 80ths at the moment.
OK, i couldn't find in link but did elsewhere.
Current scheme:
Teacher pays 6.4%. Gov pays 14.1%. You get 1/60 final salary guaranteed by Gov.
Proposal:
Teacher pays 9.8%. Gov pays ??%. You get 1/60 avg pay guaranteed by Gov.
I can understand why teachers are complaining, but there is an implicit Government guarantee in the scheme which will have an end cost. If this is unaffordable it is not fair to expect rest of country to sacrifice their pay to subsidise a minority.
edit: found some further info on proposal.
Seems hasty to be striking. I note that only about a third of members (0.40*0.92=0.36) actually voted for the strike, so I can't see why children should lose a day of their education.
The strike cannot be legitimate when 64% of union members do not support it.
You said what I quoted previously and the casual reader would assume it is self financing which it is clearly not, I do agree 1/60th will be moved out, having read further, to coincide with increased retirement age but 1/100th is still not the proposal.
If it is a 6.5% contribution and a final salary scheme then there is no question of it being affordable without additional contributions from elsewhere - i.e the present system is not self financing based on current teacher contributions.
I have not made any comment on its affordabilty, i was merely pointing out it does cost the taxpayer something - actually quite a lot.
Think you have tbh but not arguing it tbh
you may as well argue we pay all the cost as we also pay the teachers wages. Employer contribution pension schemes are nothing new and the private sector still does them.
Teacher pays 6.4%. Gov pays 14.1%. You get 1/60 final salary guaranteed by Gov.Proposal:
Teacher pays 9.8%. Gov pays ??%. You get (not yet known) avg pay guaranteed by Gov.
As TJ notes it was changed it is no longer guaranteed by the govt if there is a shortfall it has to be met by members the members
. If this is unaffordable it is not fair to expect rest of country to sacrifice their pay to subsidise a minority.
Crux of the issue is IF they have not proved that case unless you have evidence to the contrary?
We can't determine whether it is affordable or not at the moment, as as far as I can see the final avg salary figures have not been confirmed.
Yes if only the people managing had thought to work out their liabilities and potential income ah well fingers crossed 🙄
Seems hasty to be striking.
Why when should they strike after they have implemented the change and ask them to change their mind?
I note that only about a third of members (0.40*0.92=0.36) actually voted for the strike, so I can't see why children should lose a day of their education.
A nice way of spinning it but was it the high 80's % of those who voted who voted voted yes.
Turnout is low in all ballots except ones on tv for reality programmes.
It is more than the current Mayor of london got , for example, and yet he who wants the law changed so unions cant do this.
he strike cannot be legitimate when 64% of union members do not support it.
Your legal understanding is flawed and you would object to the majority of our current elections and the electoral system using the same argument.
it is a poor argument but the issue of low turnout is a real issue in general
Junkyard - no axe to grind with you on this, I only used affordable because that was in the quote, I knew there were other contributions so my caveat was self fulfilling i.e. I understood the ridiculousness of the statement. In my mind at least I was not commenting on affordability.
I agree employer's contributions are common in the private sector but maybe not at this level. Whatever they are a direct cost of employment, employee contributions are not, even if paid out of a taxpayer funded salary.
Your legal understanding is flawed and you would object to the majority of our current elections and the electoral system using the same argument.
it is a poor argument but the issue of low turnout is a real issue in general
There is a big difference. An election result might impact eligible voters who did not vote. However, union strikes impact non-members as well as members who did not vote. Therefore its reasonable to hold strike ballots to a higher standard, and expect a majority of members to agree, regardless of turnout.
yes a strike ballot should be held to a much higher standard/rigour /turnout than a ballot for who governs us due to impact ...what was I thinking off sorry 😳
What rubbish - non union members do not have to strike, union members who don't want to strike do not have to strike.
Whereas we are all affected by the results of elections - what % of the electorate voted tory - about 16% was it not?