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. Link here

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 no excessive or open ended liabilty on the taxpayer. 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?

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 – Member

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.

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 promoted 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 🙄

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…)

agaion no – the scheme is sustainable at teh moment – what the goverenment want to do is decrease the employers contribution.

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.