Forum menu
TJ: Non-members are impacted, that's the point of the strike. Kids lose a day at school. Parents have to make different arrangements.
If you don't vote in an election, yes, tax changes still might bite you. But if we tried to tax the French, they'd laugh. Especially if only 40% of the UK voted to tax the French. If the whole of the UK voted yes, they'd still say something rude, but at least the chap delivering the message could claim he'd a credible reason for doing so.
I'll add to the chorus of "rubbish".
If someone doesn't agree they should vote No. Taking non votes as implying something is ridiculous.
16% of teh electorate of the UK voted tory 5% of the electorate of Scotland. We end up with a tory Uk government that is making massive changes to our society and that is their mandate?
teh teachers striking have a much better mandate than that.
dmjb4 - MemberI 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.
In related news, only 10,726,614 people voted for the Tories and 6,836,824 for the Lib Dems, clearly the government cannot be legitimate when 61.5% of the electorate don't support them.
PS, 🙄
Oh there's some good stuff here.
"A teacher earning £35,000 a year would have to pay an extra £100 a month, while pensions would shift from a final-salary scheme to career- average."so pay more and get less
You're grumbling about getting less from a career average scheme than a final salary scheme? I moved from a final salary to career average a couple of years ago and have done far better out of it, given my salary has fallen behind inflation. If you're getting above inflation increases then you're doing far better than the vast majority of people - but you're teachers so you'll grumble.
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.
Are you suggesting that people who take time off mid career should get the same pension as those who don't? That's the only basis on which such women have a lower average salary - they average just as much when they're working. They lose out just as much on a final salary scheme.
no aracer -
teachers get promotion - so salaries are often higher in later years as they go up grades - nowt to do with pay rises
they lose out twice with an average - once in less contributions and once in a lower average salary due to the lower promotion prospects - so the cuts in pensions would affect women more.
so wrong on both counts
I suspect I have a better perspective on this that most if not all on here. Anybody else go from a scheme similar to what the teachers are on now to something similar to what is being proposed?
The thing is our new (I would say current, but I no longer work there - save your anger for when lots of you start getting made redundant despite having lots of work) pension scheme was far from awful. Still a lot, lot better than what most people in the private sector get. I've also seen the figures, and clearly our old scheme wasn't sustainable - this was determined by independent auditors. I'd be extremely surprised if the teacher's current scheme is sustainable in the face of decreasing returns and increasing longevity.
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
In which case the teachers should be grateful that the government is averting the time bomb which would otherwise hit them (of course the government wasn't contractually obliged to pick up the tab for the failing banks either...)
teachers get promotion - so salaries are often higher in later years as they go up grades - nowt to do with pay rises
So they get "promotion" and move up the pay scale whilst still doing the same job? Ha, ha, ha. So something else they get which doesn't happen in any other job.
they lose out twice with an average - once in less contributions and once in a lower average salary due to the lower promotion prospects - so the cuts in pensions would affect women more
Both of which affect a final salary scheme in exactly the same way. In fact if they get "promoted" less, they'll actually lose out less than those without career breaks moving to a career average scheme, given a lesser differential between their starting and final salary. Please work out the figures rather than base your postings solely on ideology.
No - teachers get [i]promoted[/i] for additional responsibilities head of dept and so on.
And on the other you are wrong as well if yo stop to think a moment. so instad of 3/4s (for example) of a final salery pension they get 3/4 of an average pension 🙄
agaion no - the scheme is sustainable at teh moment - what the goverenment want to do is decrease the employers contribution.In which case the teachers should be grateful that the government is averting the time bomb which would otherwise hit them (of course the government wasn't contractually obliged to pick up the tab for the failing banks either...)
still Please work out the figures rather than base your postings solely on ideology.
If you don't vote in an election, yes, tax changes still might bite you. But if we tried to tax the French, they'd laugh. Especially if only 40% of the UK voted to tax the French. If the whole of the UK voted yes, they'd still say something rude, but at least the chap delivering the message could claim he'd a credible reason for doing so.
i was going to do a reductio ad absurdum on your point but you saved me the effort.
You're grumbling about getting less from a career average scheme than a final salary scheme? I moved from a final salary to career average a couple of years ago and have done far better out of it, given my salary has fallen behind inflation. If you're getting above inflation increases then you're doing far better than the vast majority of people - but you're teachers so you'll grumble.
you are not very good at maths are you? Teachers have had no pay rise for 2 years so that bit is wrong as well.
Are you suggesting that people who take time off mid career should get the same pension as those who don't? That's the only basis on which such women have a lower average salary - they average just as much when they're working. They lose out just as much on a final salary scheme.
yep you cant do maths 🙄
Both your points are wrong. Seriously are you sure you understand what a final salary scheme is and what an average salary scheme is as you dont appear to. You are almost always worse off under a final salary Why do you think they want to change it if it makes no difference 🙄
I suspect I have a better perspective on this that most if not all on here. Anybody else go from a scheme similar to what the teachers are on now to something similar to what is being proposed?
I could not disagree more you seem to think it has not made you worse off due to not getting a wage rise..I wish you could realise the depth of your ignorance as that is so wrong it is funny.
I'd be extremely surprised if the teacher's current scheme is sustainable in the face of decreasing returns and increasing longevity
In which case why not run your great mind over the figures and get back to us. Just because yours was not affordable does not mean everyones is not.
No - teachers get promoted for additional responsibilities head of dept and so on.
So this thing which has been mentioned on here before about teachers going up a point on the pay scale every year they meet targets (despite still doing the same job) is a total lie? 😕
Teachers have had no pay rise for 2 years so that bit is wrong as well.
In which case they should be happy to go to a career average scheme as they'll do better out of it.
Seriously are you sure you understand what a final salary scheme is and what an average salary scheme is as you dont appear to.
Having had a pension on both systems and looked pretty hard at the difference when we changed (I had the option to pay more to stay on final salary) I think I understand it rather better than either you or TJ do from your comments. Can't be bothered to reply to individual points - please come back when you understand why if you get increases at the rate of inflation it makes no difference being on final salary or career average, and why somebody who gets "promoted" less due to not being there the whole time actually does better on a career average scheme relative to a final salary scheme than somebody with more "promotions".
you are not very good at maths are you?
Oh, the ironing.
No - teachers get promoted for additional responsibilities head of dept and so on.So this thing which has been mentioned on here before about teachers going up a point on the pay scale every year they meet targets (despite still doing the same job) is a total lie?
2 different things. Promotion is for greater responsibilities. Increments are for years of service. Increments are not promotion
and on both the other points you have a basic maths fail. Still - don't let your ideology get in the way of the truth
Promotion is for greater responsibilities. Increments are for years of service. Increments are not promotion
They both result in the same thing as far as this issue is concerned. Why would the majority of teachers without added responsibilities (I'm assuming - possibly mistakenly - they have less chiefs than indians) be bothered about the difference promotion makes?
...actually I'll take sympathy on the ignorance on display, given I have been in a career average scheme so probably know a lot more about it than you lot seem to. You do realise that when you're on career average each year's salary is adjusted for inflation when doing the calculation?
Still a maths fail?
basic understanding fail - promotion and increments are not the same thing, women will loses more than men on average due to the changes, all teachers will get less pension for more contributions promoted or not.
I am on a final salary - career average is the new scheme - everyone who has had forecasts made on the new scheme that I have heard of will lose out hence none of us want it - NHS employees scheme.
promotion and increments are not the same thing
Indeed - it's the effect of the increments they're bothered about.
women will loses more than men on average due to the changes
You're going to have to explain to me why and include figures, or at least proper economic reasoning - because your logic is completely flawed on this one.
I'm assuming given your switch to "understanding fail" you're admitting you're wrong about the other stuff?
Teacher pays 9.8%. Gov pays ??%. You get 1/60 avg pay guaranteed by Gov.
So, the Govt/LEAs pay 100% of the salary, whch is paid for by the taxpayer, the teacher's proportion of the pension contribution has been increased and the Govt direct proportion decreased. The Govt is asking that the teacher receives less net income, just like the rest in the real world (except bankers and savvy entrepreneurs), in an attempt to save money, as the Govt is still contributing indirectly and funded by the taxpayer, and not reduce the country into a debt ridden state like Spain. And all the teachers want to do is protect themselves and try to screw the country up. You've got my vote...
Aracer,let me clear something up for you, the increments you are talking about are just the same as any employee in the private sector taking on more duties and getting an increase because of it. I look at my workload compared to somebody at the bottom of the scale,and there is no comparison.The gov are aware of that, but having got rid of promoted posts to save money (talking about Northern Britain)they now are suggesting that the incremental system McCrone put in place has "Run it's course."
This thread is full of the same people banging on about how easy teachers have it, all we need is project and we will have the full set. Well here is a wee heads-up;
Up here we will be working to rule shortly,which means no study support, school clubs,school trips,sports teams, and no purchasing of books and jotters by unpromoted staff.And most interestingly no marking of exam scripts for the SQA. That will give all of you a new appreciation of what exactly you get for our huge pension.
I have a solution for the numerous people who complain about the Public sector;How about an end to free education? Actually that is genius! No worries over our pension,we can follow the model of how the NHS is being dismantled.I mean if we have no right to expect our apparently outdated terms and conditions to be met,surely getting rid of the last bastion of the "outdated" social reforms of the early 20th century is fair. I could run my hugely over subscribed DoE groups as a going concern.I mean there seem to be fans of market forces on here, the government is struggling to pay for education cost,so the price of that education will have to rise.
;How about an end to free education?
sounds like a plan I reckon I could easily get it in the terms of my contract that my son get a place for free.
PS more evidence that Gove is a complete idiot
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-13772923
my current school could have no teachers and would meet that target, my last will not get near and I know which school has the hardest working and better teachers!
I have a solution for the numerous people who complain about the Public sector;How about an end to free education?
How is it free when it is paid for through taxes?
How is it free when it is paid for through taxes?
You'd still be paying taxes though, they aren't going to go away so this country can have free at source health care and education.
I agree, but by paying for healthcare and education indirectly doesn't make it free and the idea that education is free is a myth, someone is paying. It is, however, free for those who are unfortunate enough not to have incomes and these people should be supported by those who are more well off and that's how it should be. Or perhaps we should educate those less well off so that they can be in a position where they can look after themselves without outside aid.
Tax will always exist, distribution of those taxes can, and perhaps should, change though.
Neither education nor healthcare are free.
No they're technically free but if you needed to pay at source it'll cost an individual a lot more than what you pay in taxes per month. Yes the taxes could possibly be distributed better that's for sure.
so hang on you get a defined pay out whatever the performance of the scheme??
Way better than most then
No they're technically free but if you needed to pay at source it'll cost an individual a lot more than what you pay in taxes per month.
I don't understand, if a few are paying for the masses, surely the cost per tax payer would be reduced if the whole population pays their way. Or is the govt sourcing money from somewhere else?
So, what this puts an end to, is the old trick of promoting someone to a higher grade/post in their last year of employment before retirement, to give them a golden pension boost, as has happened for years in local authorities & schools?
No wonder they're pissed!
So, what this puts an end to, is the old trick of promoting someone to a higher grade/post in their last year of employment before retirement, to give them a golden pension boost, as has happened for years in local authorities & schools?
That's one of the major changes and a fair change if you ask me it existed for a genuine reason I suspect but has been abused.
I don't understand, if a few are paying for the masses, surely the cost per tax payer would be reduced if the whole population pays their way. Or is the govt sourcing money from somewhere else?
Taxes may reduce but I doubt by much if at all if you still wanting to pay for those that can't pay and price up private education see how much that is, add in health care package it'll soon add up.
price up private education see how much that is
We could also look at the results of the private sector too. I don't actually see that as a fair comparison either, private schools get away with charging because of supply and demand, they provide a superior service, generate a demand and charge accordingly.
state schools, on the other hand, provide a basic education for 'free' that is a right for everyone. Why not put the whole education system out to tender and see how the state teachers will fare when they don't have the luxury of being able to blackmail the govt? You'd probably find the overall cost reducing in a wheat and chaff kind of way. 😀
the increments you are talking about are just the same as any employee in the private sector taking on more duties and getting an increase because of it
If you got increments like that in the private sector you'd have a very good point. I'll accept your lack of understanding of the private sector given you're clearly insulated from that.
If you look at it on a rational basis, career average is clearly fairer - you get out in direct proportion to what you've put in. Why should somebody who gets a promotion a couple of years before retiring get a higher pension than somebody who was previously earning (and paying) more for the rest of their career?
I have a solution for the numerous people who complain about the Public sector;How about an end to free education?
Whoah boys, he's pressed the nuclear button!
So, what this puts an end to, is the old trick of promoting someone to a higher grade/post in their last year of employment before retirement, to give them a golden pension boost, as has happened for years in local authorities & schools?
its currently based on an average of the last 5 years or similar so this would appear to be another myth.
I don't understand, if a few are paying for the masses, surely the cost per tax payer would be reduced if the whole population pays their way. Or is the govt sourcing money from somewhere else?
more than just individuals pay taxation, its simple really if you stop to think.
its currently based on an average of the last 5 years or similar so this would appear to be another myth.
If it's the same as ours which I believe it is it's the highest wage in the final 3 years.
how the state teachers will fare when they don't have the luxury of being able to blackmail the govt? You'd probably find the overall cost reducing in a wheat and chaff kind of way.
I'd take that bet and dispite all the bluster and bullshit on here I can honestly say the state teachers would blow the private counterparts out of the water teaching the vast majority of kids in this country.
more than just individuals pay taxation, its simple really if you stop to think.
Which comes around nicely to the flaw in the original argument. Individuals and the private sector are paying for the teachers' salaries. The govt wants and needs to cut costs, they are not simply reducing the contribution to the teaschers' salaries, just trying to redistribute the the costs.
As we are living a global crisis the whole pot of money is being reduced and everyone has to take their share of the burden. Mine was a 60% reduction, I'm not complaining too much because adjusted figure would make my current salary in the region of €5k gross per month, but alas it is no longer that. 😥
As revenues decrease, costs have to decrease and part of that decrease is accepting changes to the pension for the greater good and longer term survival. If you wish, as an individual, to persue your rights, and they are your rights, you have to accept the consequences. you are lucky in that your paymaster is the govt, and the govt will not go bankrupt, but holding them to randsom neither makes economic nor ethical sense in the current climate.
My mother, a retired headteacher, often compares her decrease in income to mine, being completely oblivious to the fact that her costs have decreased too, whereas mine haven't. Whjat it must be, to be ignorant of what reality is. 😀
Got to go now as work is calling and I now have to get the nose to the grindstone to earn less than I was 8 years ago.
Keep up the fight, it's sterling stuff.
If you got increments like that in the private sector you'd have a very good point. I'll accept your lack of understanding of the private sector given you're clearly insulated from that.
Very kind of you to take that into account, however 20 years in the private sector,the majority of it self-employed, means your attempt to patronise me by suggesting teachers work in an insulated little bubble is about as valid as the rest of your statements on this thread.
A.A; [b][i]Testify ![/i][/b]
I've been at work for an hour
however 20 years in the private sector,the majority of it self-employed
So you got increments every year during that? 😯 How long have you been out of the private sector?
50 mins here 😀
Well I've been unemployed for a good 45 minutes.
So you got increments every year during that? How long have you been out of the private sector?
Yup, I was a plasterer, as word of mouth spread about doing unusual things like turning up when I said I was going to and doing the job for the price I quoted, I got busier/took on another man/was able to charge more.As such,my income rose each year,with no potential ceiling.Roughly the opposite to what the Government is doing now to teachers.
I did one day a week teaching apprentices to run cornice at local trade school. I found I loved that,retrained.
Edited due to spelling mistake 😳
state schools, on the other hand, provide a basic education for 'free' that is a right for everyone. Why not put the whole education system out to tender and see how the state teachers will fare when they don't have the luxury of being able to blackmail the govt? You'd probably find the overall cost reducing in a wheat and chaff kind of way.
Look at the railways for an example of how the private sector has improved service while cutting costs...hang on
Now, back out of the classroom and not earning. 😐
Look at the railways for an example of how the private sector has improved service while cutting costs...hang on
That's going to the other extreme, there is a happy medium, I believe.
in other news...
So, at the moment, for a school to be seen as "acceptable" the teachers need to coax a whole 35% of the pupils to 5 GCSE grade A-C
and teachers get paid for this!
in other news...So, at the moment, for a school to be seen as "acceptable" the teachers need to coax a whole 35% of the pupils to 5 GCSE grade A-C
Half the national average!
and teachers get paid for this!
What proportion of 16-year-olds do you think should be average or better?
at least 60 % should be average or better 😉
Having had a pension on both systems and looked pretty hard at the difference when we changed [b](I had the option to pay more to stay on final salary) [/b]I think I understand it rather better than either you or TJ do from your comments.
So you accept that final salary schemes cost more yet the one with the lower contributions gives you a better pension. What doid i say about you and maths and your grasp. I am happy you are so ignorant you dont know how ignorant you are.
Can't be bothered to reply to individual points - please come back when you understand why if you get increases at the rate of inflation it makes no difference being on final salary or career average,
In your scenario you would be correct [ i note you claimed earlier you were better off for being in an average salary scheme and not getting a pay rise at least now you accept that currently you are not worse off – you are confused aren’t you – its rhetorical btw though I am willing to chuckle some more about your ignorance if you want to bat on]. However almost all workers, and teachers in paerticualr as we are discussing a real scenario , [b[end salary will be more than their start salary[/b]. You are hypothetically true for a very limited number of workers [ not teachers obvioulsy as they get increments] who never get promoted or an increment or a wage increase in their entire working career. What opercentage oif workers do you think dont ever geta wage rise /promotion?
Why would the govt want to change it if it did not reduce the payouts?? Why would anyone care if it had no impact?
In general a final salary scheme costs more you accept this was true for you for example but you seem to think it wont pay out more. Obviously this is just wrong.
and why somebody who gets "promoted" less due to not being there the whole time actually does better on a career average scheme relative to a final salary scheme than somebody with more "promotions".
This ijs just wrong and making your self look stupid even more so for not even relaising how stupid you are being as simple as i think I can get and for you to understand so lets do some simple maths here I have ignored inflation as it wont affect the basic maths
Column 1 = career break average salary
Column 2 – career break final salary
Column 3 – no career break and better promotion
So I am sure you can see the average salary is lower + reduced pension than the final salary ergot it is cheaper and the member is worse off
year 1 100 100 100
year 2 100 100 100
year 3 100 100 100
year 4 100 100 100
year 5 100 100 100
year 6 100 100 100
year 7 100 100 100
year 8 100 100 100
year 9 100 100 100
year 10 100 100 120
year 11 100 100 120
year 12 100 100 120
year 13 100 100 120
year 14 100 100 120
year 15 120 120 150
year 16 120 120 150
year 17 120 120 150
year 18 120 120 150
year 19 120 120 150
year 20 120 120 150
total 2120 2120 2400
av 106 106 120
salary 106 120 150
used
If you never ever get promoted/wage rise above inflation it makes no difference [ except you are btter off apparently though it makes no difference 🙄 ]but this is quite unlikely to be the case and definetly not true for the teachers striking. Cheaper versions pay out less .
What proportion of 16-year-olds do you think should be average or better?
irrelevant, the correct question is what proportion of children should leave school able to achieve the "benchmark" qualification?
OOH a post of your I like 😉