[Closed] Striking - School Closures - Kids at Work

I work at home and would like to take the same approach.

I don't think I'd get away with it...

He really is a plonker!

handy if you're a couple like mrsconsequence and I, one working in psych hospitals and the other in prisons.

Can't take mine into work. I know what they're like. They'll leave the tops off my felt tips 🙁

Even more handy if you work in a school 😆

I don't have kids. Can I bring my dogs into the office instead?

I like it. Miners and chimney sweeps could make a regular thing of it.

i m planning with others to picket the school the day before.. daughters primary school closed to all the selfish self serving .. they say they care about public services kids education but all they really want is to maintain thier unaffordable working conditions and get boxes of cake sweets cash at christmas..

they say they care about public services kids education but all they really want is to maintain thier unaffordable working conditions and get boxes of cake sweets cash at christmas..

3/10 Please try harder.

what's wrong with you, get the kids back down the mine where they can do something useful. this schooling is over-rated.

Which way will the wind of public sympathy blow?

If it was about job losses, i think there would be more sympathy.

teamhurtmore - Member

Which way will the wind of public sympathy blow?

The tories have won the propaganda war using their tame press to do so. I doubt there will be much sympathy even tho the press have been spreading lies as there is no one pension fund, some of them are fully funded, some have capped taxpayer contributions and some have already been reformed.

If it was about job losses, i think there would be more sympathy.

given the budget cuts that will happen shortly, our school has lost 4 teaching assistants who havent been replaced in the last year and couple of of teaching staff are set to go.

If it was about job losses, i think there would be more sympathy.

No, i think most people are of the opinion, rightly or wrongly that everyone in the Public sector has a cushy ride, lots of money and a wonderful pension.

Relate this to the experience of those in the private sector who lost their pensions years ago, haven't had a pay rise in years and are spending their waking time waiting for the next round of redundancies.

Perhaps TJ the Great British Public are able to make their own minds up?

A teacher I know is on strike tomorrow but going Christmas shopping.
Strike if you want but do it properly. Have a picket line.
Donkey jacket optional.

Agreed......going for the sympathy vote is a waste of time, and will have zero affect on the government's position.

The solution is simple - an indefinite strike until the government withdraws its threat to scrap existing provisions which were previously agreed by both parties.

I would give it about two weeks before the whole situation was resolved.......2 months max.

However I have no doubt that the teachers will continue to go for the tea and sympathy solution.

And good luck to them. But they won't get my sympathy if they think all they need to do is to take the odd day off work until the government decides to be "nice" to them.

Still, their retirement, when eventually it comes, might be crap, but at least they will have the comfort of knowing that they hadn't upset anyone too much.

teamhurtmore - if they had the information yes but they do not. The propaganda has been pumped so hard that its impossible. The "big lie" technique. Even intelligent folk on here have swallowed the pish.

Teachers - pension fund has been reformed, Taxpayer contribution capped.

NHS - reformed, taxpayer contribution limited ( not as hard a cap as the teacher)

Average public sector pension - £4000 pa - hardly enough to take you out of benefits so reducing it will simply lead to a higher benefits bill

NHS pension fund in massive surplus with the taxpayer gaining millions a year from it and have done for a long time.

Public sector pensions are affordable and sustainable - this is the truth.

The government case is based on deliberate lies, a policy of divide and conquer and the aim is to destroy public sector pensions to make more money for their friends.

If only the proletariat could see the light eh TJ 🙄

[i]The unions case is based on deliberate lies, a policy of unite and conquer and the aim is to enhance pubic secot pensions to make mote money for thier members[/i]

What this really should be about is not dragging down public pensions/pay closer to private sectors, but increasing pensions/pay for the private sector.

Of course those lovely tax paying (or non tax paying coporations) wouldn't like that much.

+1 with TJ.
Last year NHS pension contributions provided a £2 billion surplus to the treasury.

Its actions like the Government's decision to switch the uprating measure for public sector pensions from Retail Price Index to Consumer Price Index expecting to reduce the value of retirement funds by 10-15 per cent is one the reasons why I will be striking on the 30th.

Who are the group of public sector workers who are keeping their pensions RPI linked?

Answer: MPs

We're not "All in this together" are we Mr. Cameron?

I know several teachers who are going shopping. Its a way of saying get stuffed to their striking colleagues. They cannot do anything else as the schools are closed. I can't work so I am going for a bike ride. As one young colleague put it, I'd rather be at work but stupid laws say I can't. I am equally pissed off as a supply teacher, as its a day I just don't get paid for, as some dim wit says that schools can't pay me to cover some one who is striking. Or even off on a planned course/illness or what ever.

What this really should be about is not dragging down public pensions/pay closer to private sectors, but increasing pensions/pay for the private sector.

Of course those lovely tax paying (or non tax paying coporations) wouldn't like that much.

The brutal realty of globalisation is beginning to hit home though, why should you be earning £20k when i can get an indian to do the same job for £5k? why expect a pension when i can get someone to do the job and not have to pay one?

I think that TJ is running the risk of being slightly disengenuous - the "average" £4K public sector pension is for people who have already retired after shorter careers and lower wages.

If we account for the substantial growth in the number and pay of public sector employees in recent years, the [i]future[/i] cost of public sector pensions will be markedly higher to the taxpayer.

What the argument basically comes down to is whether it's morally right for private sector workers who typically work longer hours for less money and retire later on lower income non index linked pensions to continue paying a disproportionate amount towards pension schemes set up for public sector workers who typically work less hours for more money and retire earlier on higher paying index linked pensions.

Note this isn't putting a value judgement of the work that either set of workers do, just highlighting that at the present the group that is worse off is paying disproportionately for the well off group - something that many people on this forum write passionately about in their observations on bankers pay etc.

A lot of mixed views on here , I'm a site manager at a school and I'm involved in the strike action too so it isn't just teachers . A lot of my friends have said how outraged they are that the schools are striking ?? So I put it to them like this ; I'm not on a huge salary atall as basically I'm a caretaker with a better title ( but same job ) if these actions go ahead I will automatically lose £100 a month paying towards a pension that I have no choice in paying , not only that but I will have to work more years ( still paying that extra money ) and when I retire I will receive less than what I would as things are now ? Even after paying more money for longer !! So I put to them.....you take on a mortgage over 25 years paying a certain amount , one day you wake up and are told you have to pay an additional £100 per month , also your mortgage is now over 30 years not 25 and to top it off we will also de-value your house at the end of the mortgage ??? It's basically the same so would you all accept that ?

What the argument basically comes down to is whether it's morally right for private sector workers who typically work longer hours for less money and retire later on lower income non index linked pensions to continue paying a disproportionate amount towards pension schemes set up for public sector workers who typically work less hours for more money and retire earlier on higher paying index linked pensions.

But they do not - thats the issue. None of what you say in that paragraph is true

1) private sector workers get paid more for equivalent jobs
2) Most of the public sector pensions have been reformed.

Teachers has a caped taxpayer contribution and has been reformed
NHS is in a massive surplus. 2 billion a year at teh moment

Both reformed in recent years

There is a whole variety of pension schemes out there. some arefully funded.

all public sector pension schemes are affordable and sustainable without open ended commitment from the taxpayer

You need to separate the truth from the tory propaganda

Mattsccm - I think your young colleague and teachers who are shopping next week need to check with their employer what is expected of colleagues who are not striking. They almost certainly need to be in school working on planning and marking - the schools are closed to pupils, not to non-striking teachers. Striking teachers are losing one day's pay - the non-strikers can't just then take a paid day off.

They almost certainly need to be in school working on planning and marking - the schools are closed to pupils, not to non-striking teachers. Striking teachers are losing one day's pay - the non-strikers can't just then take a paid day off.

This is the case in my school which is also open to sixth formers so some of the non strikers might even have to teach.

bobbingbuoy - whilst I appreciate it is a significant outflow, the problem with pensions is they can't be compared to mortgages. With a mortgage, the capital to repay is fixed at the amount you borrowed on day 1, the interest will vary over time. With a pension the ultimate liability is unknown, you can estimate it but it changes as mortality changes, the cost of providing for a pension if life expectancy post retirement increases massively for each additional year of life.

matt: solidarity comrade!

and what bobbingbouy and greeng said

oh and mefty don't be getting all pedantic, is was an anology. Of course you wouldn't be pissed off if the bank changed the terms and conditions of your mortgage...??

NHS is in a massive surplus. 2 billion a year at teh moment

You don't really understand pension surpluses do you? If you have 10,000 employees today but 1,000 in 30 years time (that sort of ratio is not unheard in declining industries), do you expect 1,000 to pay the pensions of 10,000 pensioners? Of course you don't, contributions today are to fund liabilities in 30 years time not today's pensioners, the way you would run it is a ponzi scheme.

hear our glorious leader is recommending employers allow parents to take their children to work with them if next weeks strikes go ahead

Some may actually think he is a leader, i believe he is just a very rich talking head,who has no concept of how real people live threir life.

oh and mefty don't be getting all pedantic, is was an anology. Of course you wouldn't be pissed off if the bank changed the terms and conditions of your mortgage...??

I wasn't trying to be pedantic but there is a fundamental difference between pension liabilities and other liabilities and that is what I was trying to highlight. If the government had a separate fund, which they don't, these issues would be much more obvious, unfortunately they don't and as a result there is a huge misunderstanding over the real cost of pension provision (something I have been the wrong side of, but it is my own fault for not looking at it more closely). That is what I am trying to highlight. I have my own political views but I can't be bothered to argue about these on here, so I don't bother airing them on the whole.

Of course you don't, contributions today are to fund liabilities in 30 years time not today's pensioners,

If that had been done ie invested for the future the NHS pension fund would be the biggest in the world and wouldbe able to pay all the possible liabilities in future for ever and still have a huge surplus. Unfortunately it has been used as a source of government income and spent. this government wants to make an even bigger surplus to pay off its banker friends.

Indeed its actually works the opposite way to that which you say so far from me not understanding it its you that does not. todays contributions pay todays pensions. this is how the NHS scheme actually works. revenue funded

What the argument basically comes down to is whether it's morally right for private sector workers who typically work longer hours for less money and retire later on lower income non index linked pensions to continue paying a disproportionate amount towards pension schemes set up for public sector workers who typically work less hours for more money and retire earlier on higher paying index linked pensions.

I think we have to argue about whether what you just said is true first.

You don't really understand pension surpluses do you? If you have 10,000 employees today but 1,000 in 30 years time (that sort of ratio is not unheard in declining industries), do you expect 1,000 to pay the pensions of 10,000 pensioners? Of course you don't, contributions today are to fund liabilities in 30 years time not today's pensioners, the way you would run it is a ponzi scheme.

Luckily, a bunch of clever people looked at the NHS and Teachers' pension schemes a couple of years ago and fiddled about with them so that this situation wouldn't occur.

Extra luckily, all the early-retirees from just before the previous TP reforms (in the 90s?) will be dying soon. So, the cost of the TP scheme is going to get even cheaper.

This is the case in my school which is also open to sixth formers so some of the non strikers might even have to teach.

At my 6th form college, all lessons are cancelled but the college is open so that any students who wish to can use the facilities and any non-strikers can go in to work.

If that had been done ie invested for the future the NHS pension fund would be the biggest in the world and wouldbe able to pay all the possible liabilities in future for ever and still have a huge surplus.

What like the Stichting Pensioenfonds ABP in the Netherlands, which is the Dutch Civil Servant's pension fund and one of the world's biggest investors. How come they still require contributions from employees, if such pension funds are self perpetuating?

Luckily, a bunch of clever people looked at the NHS and Teachers' pension schemes a couple of years ago and fiddled about with them so that this situation wouldn't occur.

Extra luckily, all the early-retirees from just before the previous TP reforms (in the 90s?) will be dying soon. So, the cost of the TP scheme is going to get even cheaper.

They are not particularly clever, they are just actuaries doing their job, a bit dull, but it is what they enjoy. The government is uncomfortable with the liability it is accruing, without government making contributions none of these pension funds would be close to self funding, all of them would be in deficit so you need them to contribute and they don't want to contribute so much. That is all. It is salary horse trade, nothing more nothing less, they are not raiding your pension fund like Maxwell.

The government is uncomfortable with the liability it is accruing

That'd be the one that's capped?

Yes at a very generous 14.1% before the changes. It may not be an open ended liability but it is still a big one.

mefty - sorry - you have a basic failure of understanding here. You didn't even realise the NHS was revenue funded. ie todays contributions pay todays pensions and its in massive surplus.

the teachers pension scheme is capped - there can be no open ended liability. It has already been changed as has the NHS one

The NHS is revenue funded - the taxpayer has been taking billions a year surplus for a long time. We have paid plenty for our pensions - its not right that the government should want to make even more out of us or deny us the pension we have already paid for

its stupid to talk about what used to be the case - the schemes have already been altered to make them sustainable.

Its exactly a maxwell style raid.

Take an example from our CEO, come the school holidays his kids are in the office making us cups of tea/coffee as required...

On a positive note, the childcare industry will flourish during the strike.

Not for those based on school premises it won't 😉 . What tyres for next Wednesday? 😛

It does seem extremely hard to argue that there's any fairness in a system where any surplus is returned to the taxpayer, but the idea of any shortfall coming from the taxpayer is met with horror.

Their union says they are striking so they go but they don't have to like it. Several heads are closing the schools. To all to avoid bad feeling.

Northwind - Member
It does seem extremely hard to argue that there's any fairness in a system where any surplus is returned to the taxpayer, but the idea of any shortfall coming from the taxpayer is met with horror.

the taxpayer has been taking billions a year surplus for a long time. We have paid plenty for our pensions - its not right that the government should want to make even more out of us or deny us the pension we have already paid for

I didn't see you complaining when Gordon raided our private sector pension funds to pay for NHS expansion 🙄

Why should I subsidise your lifestyle, now or in the future?

Although it is not being reported, teachers are not striking against the pension reforms. The working conditions and performance management changes are also priorities. As has already been touched upon, the government are not making the truth obvious. I'm sure that anybody with a good understanding of what it s like to work in schools at the minute would understand and support the strike.

[url= http://www.nasuwt.org.uk/Whatsnew/NASUWTNews/PressReleases/OverwhelmingVoteForQuietRevolutionToReclaimTheClassroomEng/NASUWT_008618 ]http://www.nasuwt.org.uk/Whatsnew/NASUWTNews/PressReleases/OverwhelmingVoteForQuietRevolutionToReclaimTheClassroomEng/NASUWT_008618[/url]

Zulu - apart from he didn't. He removed a subsidy in the form of tax relief. Not the same at all

I didn't see you complaining when Gordon raided our private sector pension funds to pay for NHS expansion

Raiding pension funds to raise revenue was a tactic first started by the Tories; Norman Lamont I think it was who started it.

Zulu - apart from he didn't. He removed a subsidy in the form of tax relief. Not the same at all

It was a removal of money that would otherwise have gone into the fund, so yes it was a raid on pension funds. Tax rebates on contributions to pension funds is the [i]only[/i] reason for investing into a private pension without it I, and any other private pension holder, might as well invest in other funds that have more flexibility built into the investments.

You didn't even realise the NHS was revenue funded. ie todays contributions pay todays pensions and its in massive surplus.

Yes I did, it is not a massive surplus if they are accruing an unfunded off-balance sheet liability which has to be paid by future tax payers. Like the pension fund of any growing group of workers, the contributions will always exceed the outgoings, however when this turns you have to fund the future pensions out of reduced inflows - likewise a ponzi scheme only fails when the redemptions exceeds the inflows.

the teachers pension scheme is capped - there can be no open ended liability.

It may not be an open ended liability but it is still a big one.

Which I recognised.

its not right that the government should want to make even more out of us or deny us the pension we have already paid for

They aren't, benefits accrued to date are retained. They are saying you need to pay more in the future to secure equivalent benefits for future contributions.

its stupid to talk about what used to be the case - the schemes have already been altered to make them sustainable.

With substantial government contributions, they are not self funding based on employee only contributions nor it is suggested that they should be. Maybe the government should give you the right to cash contribution to a private sector pension and you can chance your arm with that.

Dear Parents,

You will have seen in the National Press that ATL, NASUWT, NUT, NAHT, GMB and Unison will be taking industrial action in the form of a strike on Wednesday, 30th November.

This action is part of national industrial action organised by these trade unions about changes to the pension schemes of their members.

All members of staff at xxxxxxxxxxxx belong to one of the unions listed above. The staff have been seeking advice from their representatives and reading material on their websites. Clearly the unions are acting on behalf of their members to ensure their pensions remain protected, something that all public sector workers, including staff here, feel very strongly about.

However, having taken advice, all members of staff wish not to strike as they don’t feel it is in the best interests of the children for them to miss school. As important as this issue is, the action planned is to protect the interests of staff and it is testament to the commitment of this staff that they all wish to put the children first.

Therefore all classes will be open as normal on 30th November.

Hurrah 🙂

Children's primary school Head

allowing contributions holidays is what did the real damage. tory policy again

so zulu - you don't want to subsidise public sector pension( even tho actually no one is wanting you to do so) but you want a subsidy for private pensions?

Fine TJ - so you won't mind if the tories remove a subsidy in the form of employee contributions paid by taxpayers?

Tell you what, lets be fair, how does this suggestion sound:

We'll (as taxpayers) will cover all the payments you've made/pension rights accrued so far - and from this point on, all your future pension payments are put into a hypothecated fund, and have to be fully funded, any shortfall from this point on is made up either by members or reduced payouts.

sound fair?

Northwind - Member
It does seem extremely hard to argue that there's any fairness in a system where any surplus is returned to the taxpayer, but the idea of any shortfall coming from the taxpayer is met with horror.

I seem to recall you working for a bank, so how do you reconcile sharing the upside with its employees and then crying to the government when everything goes pear-shaped and the company you worked for needs bailing out? 😉

Ho hum - Member

how do you reconcile sharing the upside with its employees

What, getting made redundant? Well played!

^^^

Nice one 8)

Shouldn't that be "well paid" rather than "well played" 😉

All members of staff at xxxxxxxxxxxx belong to one of the unions listed above.

However, having taken advice, all members of staff wish not to strike as they don’t feel it is in the best interests of the children for them to miss school

So I take it that all members of staff voted in their ballots but didn't like the result then ?

I fine example to children.

And the head doesn't explain why attracting people to the teaching profession who will working longer so that they can receive a pisspoor pension will be " in the best interests of the children".

mefty - Member

(nhs pensions), contributions today are to fund liabilities in 30 years time not today's pensioners,

which is simply wrong as is several of your other assertions.

Ho hum - Member

Shouldn't that be "well paid" rather than "well played"

Nah, I was one of those inconvenient bankers that people don't like to talk about, who worked his balls off for a below-average wage doing a productive and essential job, then got *ed over just like everyone else. Just that most taxpayers still had a job after they got *ed over.

Still, can't complain eh.

^^^^

A DB pension is certainly not going to be "pisspoor" value in the years to come even with a [i]slightly[/i] higher contribution.

Try planning your pension on a DC contribution which is subject to global economic forces and economic nationalism! A localised economic third world war is coming (if it hasn't even already started), mark my words!

Ho Hum - Would you have preferred it if all the bank profits for the past, say, 20 years had been held by them instead of being taxed and then the banks could have been responsible for their own bail-out - or do you rather like the current arrangement?

You don't really understand the accruals concept do you, if you make a contribution today, the government is incurring a liability to pay you a pension in 30 years (or whatever the number is). The fact that this is neither a funded liability nor is recognised in the government borrowing figures does not mean it does not exist, money is going to have to be found in the future and that is what the government is worried about. Companies put these liabilities on their balance sheets, governments don't.

yes mefty - but you claimed NHS contributions made now paid pensions in 30 years time and this simply is not true.

I am sorry - you have some basic misconceptions about how the public sector pensions work and are funded and what the liabilities are. If the NHS pension had been run like a private one there would be a huge fund with no unfunded future liabilities.

As it is the government has spent surpluses rather than investing them. . Even so unless ( as the tories want) most people leave the NHS pension fund there is not an unsustainable shortfall in the future.

druidh - Member
Ho Hum - Would you have preferred it if all the bank profits for the past, say, 20 years had been held by them instead of being taxed and then the banks could have been responsible for their own bail-out - or do you rather like the current arrangement?

Wow!

That's a big question which I don't have time to write the answer to tonight (and that isn't a cop out, honest!)

Your question does really cut across so many different financial/economic/political angles that you could really write a thesis on the question you have posed (and I am sure that many university post grads have written loads about this).

However, to answer your question briefly, I would say (and this comes from someone who earns an income from the financial services industry) is that they should have retained enough capital from their shareholders and retained earnings to have been able to sustain the losses that occurred in 2008 and if they did not have enough then their business models were wrong (look at Northern Rock and HBOS for their over-reliance on the short term funding market) or they had not carried out a rigorous enough extreme scenario analyis.

I was making a point, which could perhaps have been worded more precisely. I fully understand how public pensions work in a number of countries because without that I can't make decent judgements on their overall liabilities, which would mean my bond analysis would be flawed

If the NHS was like a private fund, there would be a huge fund with huge liabilities, like ABP in the Netherlands, whether it would be in surplus or not is another matter, but any surplus should belong to the government as they, until 2009, would have had open ended liability.

As it is the government has spent surpluses rather than investing them. . Even so unless ( as the tories want) most people leave the NHS pension fund there is not an unsustainable shortfall in the future.

They have reduced the requirement for borrowing (or further taxation) and replaced it with an off-balance sheet liability, like most European countries. If you want to be slightly scared, you should see the French numbers, if you want to really scared, look at the Italians.

Well I,m going riding with the Boy, at last I have a reason to have a day off, having worked the last month without a day off. Small Engineering company, not enough staff. It's not all good I'll have to go in during the night to make the time up or the company will suffer big probs. How the other half live!

So I take it that all members of staff voted in their ballots but didn't like the result then ?

I fine example to children.

And the head doesn't explain why attracting people to the teaching profession who will working longer so that they can receive a pisspoor pension will be " in the best interests of the children".

You really think attracting people into teaching will be harder? Really where are those "great potential teachers" going to find a job which doesn't involve working longer for less pension? And do you think the best teachers are focussed on their pension?

Seems like a good example to me, showing that you don't need to feel pressured into doing something just because "everyone else" does. And encouraging the pupils to stand up for what they think is right overall, not just acting in their own personal best interests.

You think showing kids contempt for democracy is a good idea ? I think we might differ on that. And yes, they are putting their personal beliefs before those of others.

As long as unemployment remains high then I guess no employer will struggle to recruit. Are you expecting/hoping for unemployment to remain high ?

And it's funny how for people on stupidly high wages it's always argued that excellent salaries are required to attract the very best. However for people lower down the ladder apparently you can get the very best without worrying about giving them excellent pay and conditions. I've never worked that one out.

Still, perhaps you don't think that any attempt should be made to attract the best into teaching, and that a demoralised and pissed-off ageing staff can do the job just as well ?

So the summary of this thread would be the usual suspects saying that our pensions should be hit because theirs had? Fair enough,don't expect much else here any more,and of course the usual smattering of complete ignorance of what the Government has planned for the education system in the UK....For what it is worth, pensions are not the only cut that the Government has planned for us.We are drawing a line in the sand with this as it is the first concrete change to conditions they have imposed. Coming soon are changes that will,if unopposed,move education in the UK to a balance sheet driven exercise,and before we get the usual crap about wasteful public services,there is NO fat to be trimmed in my school. Now feel free to compare teaching to the private sector if you wish, but really, are they the same thing?

That is why I am striking and,even though it is on a holiday in my authority, attending a rally.

BTW; be warned, wait till the work to rule comes in.... I mean as long as we do the terms of our contracts, zulu et all;surely you have no objections to us not doing anything above and beyond that? Single day strikes will seem like bliss then.While I am dreading the fact it is coming,I for one cannot wait to see how they plan on putting the blame for it upon us.
Rugby,netball,fair trade group,DoE award, study support,football,eco group,SQA marking,field trips,UCAS applications,homework clubs, foreign trips. Off the top of my head,the five other teachers in my dept and I all do these, over and above our contracted hours/workload. Using the same private sector mindset applied by the usual to us striking over our pensions,why should we participate in the above for free? Hell; move me to a private pension and pay me for the rugby,DoE,Study support, foreign trip, UCAS apps I do in my own time. I will top up my pension contributions with the money. However I didn't get into teaching for that, I made more money with my own business.If it was just the pension being changed, I am not 100% sure I would strike. However the Hutton report up here paints a bleak future for my profession.

hear hear duckman. I will post my thoughts when I return from school.

BTW; be warned, wait till the work to rule comes in....
Rugby,netball,fair trade group,DoE award, study support,football,eco group,SQA marking,field trips,UCAS applications,homework clubs, foreign trips. Off the top of my head,the five other teachers in my dept and I all do these, over and above our contracted hours/workload.

And you think this government will give a toss ?

You can operate your work to rule as long as you want, it won't be any skin off the government's nose. The only thing which will have any affect on this government is if you close schools - and for more than one poxy day.

There is no way this unmandated government could tolerate or survive, say a two month strike by teachers. Not only would the whole issue be quickly resolved instead of dragging it out for years with pointless work to rules, but you would be laying the basis for fewer disputes in the future, as governments recognise the dangers of provoking disputes with bullyboy tactics.

Besides, if your work to rule annoys them too much then there will nothing to stop the government from changing 'the rules'. Specially if you have proved that teaching unions lack any commitment to seriously oppose changes in teacher's employment terms.

Taking firm action to fight the attacks by the government on the teaching professions would undoubtedly be in the best interests of pupils - a demoralised ageing teaching staff is of no added benefit to them. And of course you would be helping pupils who in the future will be entering the teaching professions.

BTW if anyone thinks this a dispute is just a localised one between our government and unreasonable teachers/public sector employees, it isn't. This is part of a struggle by ordinary working people who are being forced to pay the price for the reckless greed of incompetent bankers.

Greedy unregulated incompetent bankers who shafted the global economy and are continuing to screw it to new staggering levels, whilst protecting themselves from any financial consequences of their actions. In fact they are increasing their influence by now even seizing power from elected governments, and imposing policies which they know the electorate would never vote for.

Today there is a general strike on in Portugal, the issues are the same - wages and pensions. And the causes are the same - an economy screwed by bankers.

And you think this government will give a toss ?

You can operate your work to rule as long as you want, it won't be any skin off the government's nose. The only thing which will have any affect on this government is if you close schools - and for more than one poxy day.

Ernie; work to rule would also mean no national certificates would be marked,which means no exam results.My point was that the people bleating about us striking will be hit much harder by us withdrawing all the stuff we do off our own bats.

BTW if anyone thinks this a dispute is just a localised one between our government and unreasonable teachers/public sector employees, it isn't. This is part of a struggle by ordinary working people who are being forced to pay the price for the reckless greed of incompetent bankers.

Which the Government freely admit,still ****less public sector eh? 🙄

Well if the work to rule has any serious effect then as I said, they will change the rules of your employment, which is what they're doing right now. Waddcha going do about it......take a day off work ?

Z-11

Why should I subsidise your lifestyle, now or in the future?

Why should NHS workers subsidise your healthcare if you get sick and need more treatment than you have currently "paid for" with your taxes?

How would you like it if in order to "save money" the Govt decided not to cut workers pensions, but to cut services offered? So for example, healthy people would stop "subsidising" sick people?

Come on, think about it.

You're not "subsidising" anyone - your taxes are paying for health care workers, teachers, social workers, the army, the police, firefighters, librarians, traffic wardens etc etc etc etc. at the rates which they were contracted to do the job. If you think the public sector is so cushy, go get a job in the public sector.

We'll (as taxpayers) will cover all the payments you've made/pension rights accrued so far - and from this point on, all your future pension payments are put into a hypothecated fund, and have to be fully funded, any shortfall from this point on is made up either by members or reduced payouts.

sound fair?

And while you're at it you should of course remove all tax relief from all pensions contributions - after all it seems unfair that the low paid, possibly/probably with no pensions whatsoever, should be subsidising the rich so they can take their massive salaries so tax efficiently - but of course, if they did do that no one would have a pension at all and we'd be totally up $hit creek when millions retired skint and started to draw on the state for support anyway. Apart from the damage that all of this is doing now, there will be a lot of unintended consequences up the road, but of course by then, the current generation of MPs and Ministers will all be in clover with their own substantial pensions.