If a supermarket charges too much because it offers all till staff an outdated final salary pension scheme, then I can (and will) shop somewhere else.
For the public sector, I have to pay more regardless.
Yeah but you don't though do you? Everywhere could be cheaper if they stripped out their employees pension costs but every supermarket, bank, oil company, utility company, airline or just the bloke that fixes your boiler includes them. And you don't think twice about paying them but the minute you start discussing any public sector pay and pension package and all of a sudden it's a massive problem and you want to pay as little as possible...despite the fact that person might have spent 40+ years educating you or your children, colleagues or workforce rather than sitting in an office thinking of new and interesting ways of ripping off their customers.
As I said I doubt I've changed your mind but there you are.
that's good to hear sir johnny, as it has been a real bug bearer of mine, my nephew who is now 25 started to speak like it at about 13 and it drove me mad , I used to always bang on to him about it, yet his mum used to say oh leave him its ok they all speak like that
i would always say to her if he is in an interview and speaks like that , there is no chance of him getting a job, by the time he left school it was better but not gone totally,
i think there's no place for it at all tbh, in any situation glad to hear that your school actively addresses it, do you believe all schools do it or is there a train of thought that its about allowing them to express themselves
If a supermarket charges too much because it offers all till staff an outdated final salary pension scheme, then I can (and will) shop somewhere else.
For the public sector, I have to pay more regardless.
Yeah but you don't though do you? Everywhere could be cheaper if they stripped out their employees pension costs but every supermarket, bank, oil company, utility company, airline or just the bloke that fixes your boiler includes them. And you don't think twice about paying them but the minute you start discussing any public sector pay and pension package and all of a sudden it's a massive problem and you want to pay as little as possible...despite the fact that person might have spent 40+ years educating you or your children, colleagues or workforce rather than sitting in an office thinking of new and interesting ways of ripping off their customers.
As I said I doubt I've changed your mind but there you are.
Not all employers pay into company pensions. Mine don't. Maybe they will pay minimum contributions when auto-enrollment hits, whenever that will be. I'm not bitter about it, just saying. I think it would be similar for many of your named sectors.
Of those employers who do, none provide a final salary pension scheme to new hires. If you can name five medium-big companies that offer new hires a final salary pension scheme, I'll be surprised (and polishing up my CV). I've spoken to public sector employees before about this and they don't seem to realise this is very unusual.
I think many people in the private sector would be very happy to contribute less than 10% of salary and guarantee a pension of 67% of final salary. My rough calcs probably understated the funding gap required to be filled by employers, it was a generous interest rate and a fairly low final salary. Whereas in the private sector employer contributions would be around 5-10%, for public sector they would have to be 30-50%. If a supermarket had to add 20-40% to every price to cover its pension scheme, you would know about it.
I don't begrudge them a pension, I just think the one they have is unsustainable, and I'll be forced to pick up the funding gap for years. If it was in the private sector, the pension would have been stopped by now. And that's with the new contribution rates they're striking about.
Your characterisation of private sector employees works both ways. Plenty of office workers in the public sector, far away from the 'front line', even within schools and hospitals. I haven't made any accusations against public sector workers, so how about you stop saying private sector is evil?
that's good to hear sir johnny, as it has been a real bug bearer of mine, my nephew who is now 25 started to speak like it at about 13 and it drove me mad , I used to always bang on to him about it, yet his mum used to say oh leave him its ok they all speak like that
i would always say to her if he is in an interview and speaks like that , there is no chance of him getting a job, by the time he left school it was better but not gone totally,
i think there's no place for it at all tbh, in any situation glad to hear that your school actively addresses it, do you believe all schools do it or is there a train of thought that its about allowing them to express themselves
I'll tell you the other thing that is bizarre. All the kids I run into near my work in London (and I believe this is spreading into Kent now) seem to talk with a bizarre fake 'gangster' accent. It is very strange..........
We don't have a hard and fast rule on it but we don't allow it in lessons or in conversations between teachers and pupils. Can't really stop it when they speak with each other. A school near us has a list of banned slang words but it is hard to change.
We basically say that we are preparing them for the world of work and therefore have strong rules on uniform, punctuality, behaviour etc.
We shake their hands as they come into school and at the end of the day. Luckily the whole fist bump thing has disappeared.
We realise that many of our pupils come from backgrounds where integrity, manners and respect are not necessarily taught or demonstrated. Therefore we have to teach them these things alongside the curriculum.
But it's a part if my job I see as vital and I like seeing kids develop into really pleasant, positive and charming young adults. Believe me the vast majority of them do this.
Slightly off topic, but this is the most horrific sentence on this thread, in my opinion.
We don't have a hard and fast rule on it but we don't allow it in lessons or in conversations between teachers and pupils. Can't really stop it when they speak with each other. A school near us has a list of banned slang words but it is hard to change.
We basically say that we are preparing them for the world of work and therefore have strong rules on uniform, punctuality, behaviour etc.
We shake their hands as they come into school and at the end of the day. Luckily the whole fist bump thing has disappeared.
We realise that many of our pupils come from backgrounds where integrity, manners and respect are not necessarily taught or demonstrated. Therefore we have to teach them these things alongside the curriculum.
But it's a part if my job I see as vital and I like seeing kids develop into really pleasant, positive and charming young adults. Believe me the vast majority of them do this.
Slightly off topic, but this is the most horrific sentence on this thread, in my opinion.
Perfect example going on in the lower north on Saturday. Guy gets into a punch up with someone in front of his kids. If someone is acting up and you have a problem with it then you walk away. What kind of example will that set his children? Never mind the number of people you see effing and blinding at a football game with their children right next to them. Usually get myself to Twickenham to see a six nations game most years and you never see it there. Or at Silverstone for the British GP. Disappointing that we have to see it at football match for some reason.
Seth is correct in pointing out that the teachers pension scheme, along with other public sector pensions has been subject to periods where the employer has not only taken payment holidays but used the existing fund for other purposes. Robert Maxwell is not an inappropriate comparison.
Moving away from teachers, the NHS takes in more than it pays out every year and the Local Government scheme (a funded scheme) also runs at a surplus of several £b between them. Both were sustainable in the long term.
People love to bring the term 'the taxpayer' into these arguments but really isn't it more appropriate to just think of them in terms of being an 'employer' just like every other business?
Most people recognise and aren't bothered that we all contribute to others pensions every time we shop in a supermarket, fill our car up with diesel or use a bank. For some reason though many of us find it almost unacceptable to contribute to the pay and pension package of those charged with educating our children or looking after our elderly or vulnerable.
Don't think it will ever change sadly.
I think the difference is that the tax payer provides, in effect, a bottomless pit of funds. In the private sector, as has already been mentioned, pension schemes that were unsustainable have been removed. The public sector workers have a scheme that compared favorably with the private sector twenty or thirty years ago, but that now promises to pay pensions that are more than is affordable. In the private sector, despite objections from the employees, these schemes were scraped as the inevitable outcome if they were not was that the pension funds would run out. In the public sector the thinking is that if the money runs out the 'employer' will have to put more in.
It is worth noting that in the private sector pension funds are deliberately ring fenced so that the employer can't get their hands on them. Many public sector schemes work the same way - my father was responsible for the pension fund for the London borough that he worked at years ago so I have a bit of knowledge of how that used to work. Employee contributions were regularly amended (both up and down) based on the projections of the demands of the fund. If the fund, literally, runs out of money in the private sector the pensioners don't get paid - or they get a lot less.
It's all well and good trying to compare the 'employers' from private and public sectors but the private sector can't be held to ransom as if the money isn't there it isn't there. If all schools were private and not managed by the state these discussions would have been much simpler. The employees would have been told that they change what they put in or they will not get out what they expect. I'm not aiming attacks at the public sector (both my parents worked their entire lives in it) but there is no doubt that their demands ignore the harsh realities that the private sector employees had to accept.
If a supermarket charges too much because it offers all till staff an outdated final salary pension scheme, then I can (and will) shop somewhere else.
For the public sector, I have to pay more regardless.
Yeah but you don't though do you? Everywhere could be cheaper if they stripped out their employees pension costs but every supermarket, bank, oil company, utility company, airline or just the bloke that fixes your boiler includes them. And you don't think twice about paying them but the minute you start discussing any public sector pay and pension package and all of a sudden it's a massive problem and you want to pay as little as possible...despite the fact that person might have spent 40+ years educating you or your children, colleagues or workforce rather than sitting in an office thinking of new and interesting ways of ripping off their customers.
As I said I doubt I've changed your mind but there you are.
Not all employers pay into company pensions. Mine don't. Maybe they will pay minimum contributions when auto-enrollment hits, whenever that will be. I'm not bitter about it, just saying. I think it would be similar for many of your named sectors.
Of those employers who do, none provide a final salary pension scheme to new hires. If you can name five medium-big companies that offer new hires a final salary pension scheme, I'll be surprised (and polishing up my CV). I've spoken to public sector employees before about this and they don't seem to realise this is very unusual.
I think many people in the private sector would be very happy to contribute less than 10% of salary and guarantee a pension of 67% of final salary. My rough calcs probably understated the funding gap required to be filled by employers, it was a generous interest rate and a fairly low final salary. Whereas in the private sector employer contributions would be around 5-10%, for public sector they would have to be 30-50%. If a supermarket had to add 20-40% to every price to cover its pension scheme, you would know about it.
I don't begrudge them a pension, I just think the one they have is unsustainable, and I'll be forced to pick up the funding gap for years. If it was in the private sector, the pension would have been stopped by now. And that's with the new contribution rates they're striking about.
Your characterisation of private sector employees works both ways. Plenty of office workers in the public sector, far away from the 'front line', even within schools and hospitals. I haven't made any accusations against public sector workers, so how about you stop saying private sector is evil?
I think you're miss-quoting me grossly there, I haven't said everyone in the private sector is evil for a start but the fact is there are also some extremely generous pensions provided in the private sector. A member of my family in banking is in a non-contributary scheme for example.
Okay it's not available for new starters but then again neither are final salary schemes in most public sector jobs and haven't been for some time. Those, like myself who signed up 25+ years ago on one basis (when I could easily have gone off chasing the money in the city instead btw), have now found their pension will be mishmash of final and average schemes, significantly reduced and later in coming.
I have no idea where you got that figure of 67% of final salary from...being selfish I wish it were true in fact...but the average public sector pension is somewhere between £5-£6k a year if I remember my figures rightly.
If a supermarket charges too much because it offers all till staff an outdated final salary pension scheme, then I can (and will) shop somewhere else.
For the public sector, I have to pay more regardless.
Yeah but you don't though do you? Everywhere could be cheaper if they stripped out their employees pension costs but every supermarket, bank, oil company, utility company, airline or just the bloke that fixes your boiler includes them. And you don't think twice about paying them but the minute you start discussing any public sector pay and pension package and all of a sudden it's a massive problem and you want to pay as little as possible...despite the fact that person might have spent 40+ years educating you or your children, colleagues or workforce rather than sitting in an office thinking of new and interesting ways of ripping off their customers.
As I said I doubt I've changed your mind but there you are.
Not all employers pay into company pensions. Mine don't. Maybe they will pay minimum contributions when auto-enrollment hits, whenever that will be. I'm not bitter about it, just saying. I think it would be similar for many of your named sectors.
Of those employers who do, none provide a final salary pension scheme to new hires. If you can name five medium-big companies that offer new hires a final salary pension scheme, I'll be surprised (and polishing up my CV). I've spoken to public sector employees before about this and they don't seem to realise this is very unusual.
I think many people in the private sector would be very happy to contribute less than 10% of salary and guarantee a pension of 67% of final salary. My rough calcs probably understated the funding gap required to be filled by employers, it was a generous interest rate and a fairly low final salary. Whereas in the private sector employer contributions would be around 5-10%, for public sector they would have to be 30-50%. If a supermarket had to add 20-40% to every price to cover its pension scheme, you would know about it.
I don't begrudge them a pension, I just think the one they have is unsustainable, and I'll be forced to pick up the funding gap for years. If it was in the private sector, the pension would have been stopped by now. And that's with the new contribution rates they're striking about.
Your characterisation of private sector employees works both ways. Plenty of office workers in the public sector, far away from the 'front line', even within schools and hospitals. I haven't made any accusations against public sector workers, so how about you stop saying private sector is evil?
I think you're miss-quoting me grossly there, I haven't said everyone in the private sector is evil for a start but the fact is there are also some extremely generous pensions provided in the private sector. A member of my family in banking is in a non-contributary scheme for example.
Okay it's not available for new starters but then again neither are final salary schemes in most public sector jobs and haven't been for some time. Those, like myself who signed up 25+ years ago on one basis (when I could easily have gone off chasing the money in the city instead btw), have now found their pension will be mishmash of final and average schemes, significantly reduced and later in coming.
I have no idea where you got that figure of 67% of final salary from...being selfish I wish it were true in fact...but the average public sector pension is somewhere between £5-£6k a year if I remember my figures rightly.
Hardly gold plated.
I think you'll find that most final salary schemes, in the private sector for sure, were capped at two thirds of final salary. Most of them were, back in the day, 60th schemes where after 40 years service (the cap) you would be entitled to 40/60ths of your final salary. Most public sector schemes were 80ths schemes so the cap was 40/80ths, but there was a lump sum equal to three times the pension (or one and a half times the final salary) all tax free, of course.
If a supermarket charges too much because it offers all till staff an outdated final salary pension scheme, then I can (and will) shop somewhere else.
For the public sector, I have to pay more regardless.
Yeah but you don't though do you? Everywhere could be cheaper if they stripped out their employees pension costs but every supermarket, bank, oil company, utility company, airline or just the bloke that fixes your boiler includes them. And you don't think twice about paying them but the minute you start discussing any public sector pay and pension package and all of a sudden it's a massive problem and you want to pay as little as possible...despite the fact that person might have spent 40+ years educating you or your children, colleagues or workforce rather than sitting in an office thinking of new and interesting ways of ripping off their customers.
As I said I doubt I've changed your mind but there you are.
Not all employers pay into company pensions. Mine don't. Maybe they will pay minimum contributions when auto-enrollment hits, whenever that will be. I'm not bitter about it, just saying. I think it would be similar for many of your named sectors.
Of those employers who do, none provide a final salary pension scheme to new hires. If you can name five medium-big companies that offer new hires a final salary pension scheme, I'll be surprised (and polishing up my CV). I've spoken to public sector employees before about this and they don't seem to realise this is very unusual.
I think many people in the private sector would be very happy to contribute less than 10% of salary and guarantee a pension of 67% of final salary. My rough calcs probably understated the funding gap required to be filled by employers, it was a generous interest rate and a fairly low final salary. Whereas in the private sector employer contributions would be around 5-10%, for public sector they would have to be 30-50%. If a supermarket had to add 20-40% to every price to cover its pension scheme, you would know about it.
I don't begrudge them a pension, I just think the one they have is unsustainable, and I'll be forced to pick up the funding gap for years. If it was in the private sector, the pension would have been stopped by now. And that's with the new contribution rates they're striking about.
Your characterisation of private sector employees works both ways. Plenty of office workers in the public sector, far away from the 'front line', even within schools and hospitals. I haven't made any accusations against public sector workers, so how about you stop saying private sector is evil?
I think you're miss-quoting me grossly there, I haven't said everyone in the private sector is evil for a start but the fact is there are also some extremely generous pensions provided in the private sector. A member of my family in banking is in a non-contributary scheme for example.
Okay it's not available for new starters but then again neither are final salary schemes in most public sector jobs and haven't been for some time. Those, like myself who signed up 25+ years ago on one basis (when I could easily have gone off chasing the money in the city instead btw), have now found their pension will be mishmash of final and average schemes, significantly reduced and later in coming.
I have no idea where you got that figure of 67% of final salary from...being selfish I wish it were true in fact...but the average public sector pension is somewhere between £5-£6k a year if I remember my figures rightly.
Hardly gold plated.
I'm only talking about teachers at this time because they're the ones striking. If other public sector workers go on strike about their pensions, then I might look into that. For now, though, it's not relevant to the teachers' strike what pensions other public sector workers receive.
I gave links for all my figures in my first post. Here's the one for the 67% figure, based on 40 years' service (25 - 65). Lower pension amounts for less service, but then that person would have contributed less. Maybe I've worked it out wrong
Strike its a impossible job with little thanks maybe people should look a little closer from there high horse, bailed out company that they so love working for
Strike its a impossible job with little thanks maybe people should look a little closer from there high horse, bailed out company that they so love working for
I have read through the debate on here and having been a teacher for many years, I would respectfully suggest that if you believe it to be a holiday enriched 6 hour day with the added benefit of a personal pension that is a significant drain on our GDP, get yourself down to your nearest Teacher Training College and enrol. Take no notice of the fact that 40% of new teachers leave within 5 years because YOU can get on the gravy train, and then sit back and relax, while you plan where to go for your holidays as you gaze blankly out of the window during your lessons. When you are finally free of the ghastly kids at 3.15 each day you can pack up quickly and get yourself home for a cup of tea in time for Countdown and Pointless. :-) I wish..... I am not going to come on here and argue that teaching involves more work than a lot of other professions and jobs, but I would say that teaching is often more difficult and demanding than it looks. Before I became a teacher I worked on a variety of other jobs and ran an office for 6 years. In the end I chose to go into teaching for yes, those long holidays mainly, and because I felt I could teach kids. It soon became clear it was harder work than anything I had done before. So there you are. It's not a bad job. The holidays are good. Most teachers really do work hard and are trying to help your kids if you have them. :-)
that's good to hear sir johnny, as it has been a real bug bearer of mine, my nephew who is now 25 started to speak like it at about 13 and it drove me mad , I used to always bang on to him about it, yet his mum used to say oh leave him its ok they all speak like that
i would always say to her if he is in an interview and speaks like that , there is no chance of him getting a job, by the time he left school it was better but not gone totally,
i think there's no place for it at all tbh, in any situation glad to hear that your school actively addresses it, do you believe all schools do it or is there a train of thought that its about allowing them to express themselves
I'm pretty sure all schools work hard to make their establishments as 'formal' as they can. This includes the language they use. Most schools I know take most aspects of the social and moral aspects of education very seriously.
Good luck to em, I wouldn't do their job for all the tea in China. They are having terms, conditions and work/life balance as well as pensions dicked around with it is their right to strike and stand up for themselves
Kids are arseholes and I wouldn't blame the ones who snap and knock the crap out of some of the obnoxious thickos they have to try and educate.
If they strike good luck to them, those that treat it as a day off and don't picket are idiots but it is a weapon they should be able to use to stick up for themselves
I am involved running pension schemes and the only thing that irritates me about public sector pensions is the talking down of their value by the employees themselves. A pension of £10,000 a year needs a quarter of a million pounds to fund it for an average lifetime. Every year you get the same pension paid early adds 5% to its cost and every year paid later saves 7%. Not very difficult to see why all the talk is about retiring later.
Following the recent 'cutting" of public sector pensions, the future contribution rates of Local Government Schemes are being re-calculated by the actuaries, purely to gauge the effect of the "cuts" and taking account of the higher employee contributions. They result in local councils having to increaser their future contributions. A great many members will actually get bigger pensions as a result of the changes. It is only the better paid employees on career paths some way from retirement who are likely to see a modest fall in future service rights.
The Local Government Scheme is funded by employees and rate payers but there is still a shortfall between what it pays out and what it gets in which has to be made good. For all other public sector schemes there is no "fund", the pensions are paid out of government coffers. The total shortfall in 2010 was £4.5bn in 2014 it is estimated to be £9.7bn. In the private sector companies are not allowed to have a deficit without, by law, being forced to pay extra contributions. The Unions deny that a problem exists and run rings around ministers aided by civil servants with a vested interest to agree a fudge that requires public sector employees to believe they have been shafted.
It is a fact that nearly 50% of Local Government Employees retired early on favourable terms giving them credit for service they never completed, in the Fire Service it is approaching 70%. A pension paid ten years early is 50% more expensive. All that has happened with job cuts is to transfer the wage bill for the public sector to the pension bill for the public sector. Most of the Union manoeuvring in the Fireman strike was about protecting poorly regulated access to inflated early retirement pensions. The higher retirement age is the last thing Firemen needed to worry about, they can retire as soon as their abilities are impaired, as the 70% figures suggest. I heard firemen genuinely believing that their own high contributions paid for all of their pension, if it covers a tenth I would be amazed.
Unions and politicians are neck and neck in the race for first prize in the art of misrepresenting facts to suit the argument. Public sector pension facts must be the easiest to mis-represent because only someone who is a lawyer with a degree in mathematics, economics and financial science knows how to calculate the pension and what it costs. Problem is, three of his other colleagues can come up with different answers if they are paid to.
I'm not knocking public sector pensions I am knocking the lies about what they are worth, what "cuts" have been suffered, and the deception on tax payers.
My misus is a teacher and for those who think it's a 9-3 job with loads of holiday are so wrong. She spends most evenings at home up to her neck in marking, lesson planning etc, normally finishing up about 9pm. Half-term coming up next week. Will she be having a week away from work? No chance. Apart from having to go into work for 2 days for some (probably pointless) training excercise, she will also be filling the remaining time working from home.
She's also not in the NUT (a different union) so she won't be on strike and even though the school will be closed, she and others in her union will be expected to turn up for work as usual, which on a positive front, will give her time to concentrate on marking/ planning, meaning I can hopefully spend at least one day with her during the week..................
What an appalling attitude to children! Genuinely shocked!
blockquote class="Quote" rel="Carter">Good luck to em, I wouldn't do their job for all the tea in China. They are having terms, conditions and work/life balance as well as pensions dicked around with it is their right to strike and stand up for themselves
Kids are arseholes and I wouldn't blame the ones who snap and knock the crap out of some of the obnoxious thickos they have to try and educate.
If they strike good luck to them, those that treat it as a day off and don't picket are idiots but it is a weapon they should be able to use to stick up for themselves
Twenty years in industry; dirty hands and long hours. Eight so far in teaching, admittedly most of it in behaviour management and pastoral so a different day to many teachers but similar to many others. Aggressive kids, aggressive parents, aggressive management, aggressive ministers, aggressive phone ins, aggressive message boards, fight!
Looking forward to game today so I can shout at someone rather than de-escalate and calm using moderated vocal patterns and low tones, non-aggressive body language and active listening techniques.
Teaching as a job? Decent holidays but takes a while to be good company. Terrible company for partners during term time. Money ok, better than many, worse than many who contribute less.
Pension irrelevant, missed the boat on that and will not be around long enough to build decent pot. Mind you when had the firm couldn't pay enough into private pension to make that worthwhile either.
Would I recommend it? Be at least late twenties before going in, do not think it is easy money, be prepared that everybody else thinks your'e screwing a living and you're fair game for abuse, including physical confrontation.
Strike? Don't know anyone who wants to go out, been out before achieves nothing but short wages. Needs whole public sector out together including emergency services so that ministers (government and shadow) and Mail readers get the message that there are millions of us, we pay a large proportion of the nation's taxes and in effect pay our own wages. We are not a rabid minority, we are the general public.
In the end teaching will go same way as my previous trade, digitalised. Gove and his privatisation agenda is only the start, why do we need teachers and schools Mailites? Save millions on buildings and wages, get the kids to log on to your approved digital lessons and switch off from thinking.
P.S. If you can communicate one on one, one to thirty, one to two hundred, to adults and kids, you have half a chance, get into behaviour management and do the job that parents don't.
Many of them around NLA, you and I probably were taught by very similar types. One of the main reasons I went into it was to make sure that there was an alternative for kids. Kids like boundaries and somebody to tell them where they need to stop.
Ha Ha. You are a bad person! On a serious note, my wife had a few jobs before becoming a teacher. As if politicians know about the world of work. I am not going to show my missus this as I want a quiet day. I think you have put the mods on red alert!
That's a bit harsh. He does have a point. When it comes to careers advice I think children and young adults should speak to people with experience in different industries and working environments. Academia is different and going from University to school doesn't expose Teachers to many of the things that would help young people choose their career.
Cable's words were, not for the first time, very badly chosen, but if my son wanted to be a teacher I would suggest that he spoke to as many teachers as possible, but if he wanted to be a Policeman I would suggest that he spoke to as many Policemen as possible. Teaching is (like many jobs) different to other occupations and someone with experience of just one career (irrespective as to what it is) is, probably, not best suited to help young people to choose theirs.
Comments
As I said I doubt I've changed your mind but there you are.
i would always say to her if he is in an interview and speaks like that , there is no chance of him getting a job, by the time he left school it was better but not gone totally,
i think there's no place for it at all tbh, in any situation glad to hear that your school actively addresses it, do you believe all schools do it or is there a train of thought that its about allowing them to express themselves
Of those employers who do, none provide a final salary pension scheme to new hires. If you can name five medium-big companies that offer new hires a final salary pension scheme, I'll be surprised (and polishing up my CV). I've spoken to public sector employees before about this and they don't seem to realise this is very unusual.
I think many people in the private sector would be very happy to contribute less than 10% of salary and guarantee a pension of 67% of final salary. My rough calcs probably understated the funding gap required to be filled by employers, it was a generous interest rate and a fairly low final salary. Whereas in the private sector employer contributions would be around 5-10%, for public sector they would have to be 30-50%. If a supermarket had to add 20-40% to every price to cover its pension scheme, you would know about it.
I don't begrudge them a pension, I just think the one they have is unsustainable, and I'll be forced to pick up the funding gap for years. If it was in the private sector, the pension would have been stopped by now. And that's with the new contribution rates they're striking about.
Your characterisation of private sector employees works both ways. Plenty of office workers in the public sector, far away from the 'front line', even within schools and hospitals. I haven't made any accusations against public sector workers, so how about you stop saying private sector is evil?
It is worth noting that in the private sector pension funds are deliberately ring fenced so that the employer can't get their hands on them. Many public sector schemes work the same way - my father was responsible for the pension fund for the London borough that he worked at years ago so I have a bit of knowledge of how that used to work. Employee contributions were regularly amended (both up and down) based on the projections of the demands of the fund. If the fund, literally, runs out of money in the private sector the pensioners don't get paid - or they get a lot less.
It's all well and good trying to compare the 'employers' from private and public sectors but the private sector can't be held to ransom as if the money isn't there it isn't there. If all schools were private and not managed by the state these discussions would have been much simpler. The employees would have been told that they change what they put in or they will not get out what they expect. I'm not aiming attacks at the public sector (both my parents worked their entire lives in it) but there is no doubt that their demands ignore the harsh realities that the private sector employees had to accept.
Okay it's not available for new starters but then again neither are final salary schemes in most public sector jobs and haven't been for some time. Those, like myself who signed up 25+ years ago on one basis (when I could easily have gone off chasing the money in the city instead btw), have now found their pension will be mishmash of final and average schemes, significantly reduced and later in coming.
I have no idea where you got that figure of 67% of final salary from...being selfish I wish it were true in fact...but the average public sector pension is somewhere between £5-£6k a year if I remember my figures rightly.
Hardly gold plated.
I gave links for all my figures in my first post. Here's the one for the 67% figure, based on 40 years' service (25 - 65). Lower pension amounts for less service, but then that person would have contributed less. Maybe I've worked it out wrong
https://teacherspensions.co.uk/members/the-scheme/active-teacher/doing-the-sums.aspx
Take no notice of the fact that 40% of new teachers leave within 5 years because YOU can get on the gravy train, and then sit back and relax, while you plan where to go for your holidays as you gaze blankly out of the window during your lessons.
When you are finally free of the ghastly kids at 3.15 each day you can pack up quickly and get yourself home for a cup of tea in time for Countdown and Pointless. :-)
I wish.....
I am not going to come on here and argue that teaching involves more work than a lot of other professions and jobs, but I would say that teaching is often more difficult and demanding than it looks.
Before I became a teacher I worked on a variety of other jobs and ran an office for 6 years. In the end I chose to go into teaching for yes, those long holidays mainly, and because I felt I could teach kids. It soon became clear it was harder work than anything I had done before.
So there you are. It's not a bad job. The holidays are good. Most teachers really do work hard and are trying to help your kids if you have them. :-)
Kids are arseholes and I wouldn't blame the ones who snap and knock the crap out of some of the obnoxious thickos they have to try and educate.
If they strike good luck to them, those that treat it as a day off and don't picket are idiots but it is a weapon they should be able to use to stick up for themselves
Following the recent 'cutting" of public sector pensions, the future contribution rates of Local Government Schemes are being re-calculated by the actuaries, purely to gauge the effect of the "cuts" and taking account of the higher employee contributions. They result in local councils having to increaser their future contributions. A great many members will actually get bigger pensions as a result of the changes. It is only the better paid employees on career paths some way from retirement who are likely to see a modest fall in future service rights.
The Local Government Scheme is funded by employees and rate payers but there is still a shortfall between what it pays out and what it gets in which has to be made good. For all other public sector schemes there is no "fund", the pensions are paid out of government coffers. The total shortfall in 2010 was £4.5bn in 2014 it is estimated to be £9.7bn. In the private sector companies are not allowed to have a deficit without, by law, being forced to pay extra contributions. The Unions deny that a problem exists and run rings around ministers aided by civil servants with a vested interest to agree a fudge that requires public sector employees to believe they have been shafted.
It is a fact that nearly 50% of Local Government Employees retired early on favourable terms giving them credit for service they never completed, in the Fire Service it is approaching 70%. A pension paid ten years early is 50% more expensive. All that has happened with job cuts is to transfer the wage bill for the public sector to the pension bill for the public sector. Most of the Union manoeuvring in the Fireman strike was about protecting poorly regulated access to inflated early retirement pensions. The higher retirement age is the last thing Firemen needed to worry about, they can retire as soon as their abilities are impaired, as the 70% figures suggest. I heard firemen genuinely believing that their own high contributions paid for all of their pension, if it covers a tenth I would be amazed.
Unions and politicians are neck and neck in the race for first prize in the art of misrepresenting facts to suit the argument. Public sector pension facts must be the easiest to mis-represent because only someone who is a lawyer with a degree in mathematics, economics and financial science knows how to calculate the pension and what it costs. Problem is, three of his other colleagues can come up with different answers if they are paid to.
I'm not knocking public sector pensions I am knocking the lies about what they are worth, what "cuts" have been suffered, and the deception on tax payers.
Or, of course, a computer.
She's also not in the NUT (a different union) so she won't be on strike and even though the school will be closed, she and others in her union will be expected to turn up for work as usual, which on a positive front, will give her time to concentrate on marking/ planning, meaning I can hopefully spend at least one day with her during the week..................
blockquote class="Quote" rel="Carter">Good luck to em, I wouldn't do their job for all the tea in China. They are having terms, conditions and work/life balance as well as pensions dicked around with it is their right to strike and stand up for themselves
Kids are arseholes and I wouldn't blame the ones who snap and knock the crap out of some of the obnoxious thickos they have to try and educate.
If they strike good luck to them, those that treat it as a day off and don't picket are idiots but it is a weapon they should be able to use to stick up for themselves
Looking forward to game today so I can shout at someone rather than de-escalate and calm using moderated vocal patterns and low tones, non-aggressive body language and active listening techniques.
Teaching as a job? Decent holidays but takes a while to be good company. Terrible company for partners during term time. Money ok, better than many, worse than many who contribute less.
Pension irrelevant, missed the boat on that and will not be around long enough to build decent pot. Mind you when had the firm couldn't pay enough into private pension to make that worthwhile either.
Would I recommend it? Be at least late twenties before going in, do not think it is easy money, be prepared that everybody else thinks your'e screwing a living and you're fair game for abuse, including physical confrontation.
Strike? Don't know anyone who wants to go out, been out before achieves nothing but short wages. Needs whole public sector out together including emergency services so that ministers (government and shadow) and Mail readers get the message that there are millions of us, we pay a large proportion of the nation's taxes and in effect pay our own wages. We are not a rabid minority, we are the general public.
In the end teaching will go same way as my previous trade, digitalised. Gove and his privatisation agenda is only the start, why do we need teachers and schools Mailites? Save millions on buildings and wages, get the kids to log on to your approved digital lessons and switch off from thinking.
P.S. If you can communicate one on one, one to thirty, one to two hundred, to adults and kids, you have half a chance, get into behaviour management and do the job that parents don't.
Small willy bully mug and a teacher to boot
This should stir things up a bit.
On a serious note, my wife had a few jobs before becoming a teacher. As if politicians know about the world of work.
I am not going to show my missus this as I want a quiet day.
I think you have put the mods on red alert!
Cable's words were, not for the first time, very badly chosen, but if my son wanted to be a teacher I would suggest that he spoke to as many teachers as possible, but if he wanted to be a Policeman I would suggest that he spoke to as many Policemen as possible. Teaching is (like many jobs) different to other occupations and someone with experience of just one career (irrespective as to what it is) is, probably, not best suited to help young people to choose theirs.