Where are teachers going ?

To school I suspect.

My wife could be home at 15:30, instead of the 17:00-17:30 she is "normally" but she isn't. Back at school often twice or three times a week for various activities. After all they are teachers not baby sitters for the benefit of others!

I don't know how her work, workload or pay compares to out side industry,is there a comparative job out there? Private schools pay about the same for trained teachers less for the untrained "teachers".

Most of the protest is about the arbitrary changing of the contract and expected benefits that these people are to get.

What really annoys is when people say all these public sector workers and their golden pensions, private sector pension are almost non-existent. What was stopping these people negotiating or even starting their own?

Some teachers indeed do need to "get a life" their OWN!!

People have the right to strike - and others have the right to chastise them.

There are no doubt quite a lot of "special" circumstances that exist (there are millions of public sector workers)

However, as I understand, public sector workers get better wages than equivalent private sector workers

The VAST majority of private sector workers (with a pension scheme) now have Defined Contribution schemes with depresingly low growth and even more depressingly lower yields when paid out as pension. Gordon Brown buggered up the whole private sector pension system and nobody got to vote for it. OK, we live longer on average and so our contributory funds have to fund pensions for many more years than anticipated (say) 20 years ago. No body, other than the employee, is going to keep "topping up" the private pension funds to mainatain 2/3 final salary (or are they?) So I guess that its only to be expected that annual pensions will be MUCH lower than previously anticiapted.

So why do public sector workers think they have the right to demand 2/3 final salary scheme pensions when they know that the ONLY way most of these schemes can be funded and topped up is by taking money from tax-payers, most of whom are private sector workers?

Perhaps the government should hold a referendum to see whether private sector tax payers are happy to hand over their money to fund public sector pensions

Cheers

Don

Better public sector pensions were given to help compensate because their salaries were lower.

BTW my wife's 2/3  she will receive actually is 1/2 salary.

Half salary if she works 40 years in an 80th scheme.

Plus 120/80 as a tax free lump sum mind,  as 1/80 + 3/80 LS per year of service replaced 60th scheme.

And it's indexed.

And it includes 50% spouse benefit on death.

And it includes 25% dependant benefit for up to two children.

And it's investment risk free.

And it's not dependent on:

Reducing annuity rates. (It's not just that people live in retirement twice as long, pension incomes that can be produced in low yield environment are less than half what they were in high interest/inflation years, so it could be argued that costs should be increased fourfold)

Or life expectancy.

Or postcode.

And currently based on 'Final' salary calculation. Not starting or middle salary...

And in value terms for all the above, it costs the member close on p*ss all.

It's an amazingly good scheme. Add on slightly higher costs for the member and a slightly higher benefit age (to match state age, which doesn't seem unreasonable for a state employee) and career average calculation, most/all deferred for another ten years, it's still a bloody, bloody good scheme for the member.

Oh and it includes early ill health retirement benefits. Oh and 6 months full + 6 months half sick pay.

That lot would cost somewhere between 30 and 40% of salary typically.

I wouldn't be striking if they said I can have all the above for 8.8% of salary. Before tax.

Then you understand wrong. The public sector salaries round me are substantially lower than their equivalents in the private sector.

Where on earth has this myth come from? The Daily Mail or something similar I suspect.

Sorry Mike I didn't notice your fine and eloquent reply before I posted mine. I was so pissed off to see the crap about public sector salaries being trotted out again.

Mike Hughes: spot on!

Jamie: you're so wrong. GO and read the ATL website. It might change your perspective.

Erm, wrong about what...?

http://www.teacherspensions.co.uk/scheme/scheme1.htm

Mike, you're idealogy does you proud. Unfortunately the maths are incredibly expensive. Many people suspect these changes are the start of more to come. I don't see how they can't be anything but. Even the proposed chnages can't be sustainable in the long term. The alternative is to pull the FS scheme altogether and switch to MP schemes as soon as, rather than the inevitable later. And with a bullish govt. deperately trying to at least keep the perception of an economy afloat, that could well happen.

Me, I'd take the lesser of two evils. Others  are free to make their own informed choice. I just don't think many people are making a fully informed choice. As ever, if they look at all, people are looking at the COST of an item to them, as opposed to the VALUE therein and/or the cost to produce. I heve spoken to many public sector workers in my career over the last quarter of a century, most have no idea what their benefits are, or how they worked, some do and realise how valuable they are. So, if they're threatened and given the perception of being robbed, it's not surprising they're in a panic. Trouble is, I think both 'sides' have handled this incredibly badly and the soundbite presentation in the media on both sides doesn't help either.

But while there has been poor management, you can't escape the fact that compared to when the the original maths were worked out, the environment and thereby the sum in which the maths now have to function has changed, in that the same pot of cash on a pro rata basis has to pay out for more than twice as long while being able to generate less than half of the original yield. So while the answer used to be Z, so you could back calculate the maths to be X by Y= Z, the answer is now 4Z. The maths of then just don't work out now. So either, the beneificiaries have to  stump up more  to shovel in. Or the tax payer does. On and ever increasing basis potentially. I'm not sure that they would want to though, if you asked them.

As to wages. I've no idea why this is brought up. To try and compare how public sector wages compare with private is like comparing the abilities of Naim and Linn or the price of apples with stair rods. I don't think this ultimately is about relative earnings, I'm sure there are good and poor earners on both sides. It's about the changing maths.

The link above was the high level summary of the scheme. The actual beneifts bought are in the members booklet below if anyone would like to check it out. It's a phenomenally good scheme.I'm not surprised members want to maintain the status quo. I'd take it in a heartbeat.

http://www.teacherspensions.co...members/members1.htm

Balance:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16021345

There is another approach to pensions generally, and that is actually to treat the 'pension fund', as it is loosely known, as a fund!

Under this arrangement, the person leaving work is told of the value of their fund and can then take it over whatever term they choose. If they die mid-term, the balance of the fund is credited  to their estate  for dispersal according to the term of their will.

It is thus up to the individual to take the gamble on their lifespan, and not up to the general pension scheme. Collaterally, spouses would get nothing - reflecting their contribution - on the contributor's decease, save what had been left to them in the deceased's will. If the contributor is on a second or third marriage and the spouse is substantially younger, they can, under present arrangements, be a non-contributory drain on the pension scheme for decades.

The first requirement of a pension scheme is that it works mathematically. This does.

Fraser

The Public Service are "demanding" nothing except the terms and conditions they are entitled to, and have enloyed for years, are maintained.

Those in the Private Sector have been royally shafted - that is no reason to demonise the public sector.

Private sector employees should join a union and fight for better terms.

You are right, the private sector have been shafted re pensions. Not helped of course by Gordon Brown. However, how do you think joining a union would affect annuity rates? A few years ago a £100,000 pension pot would buy you say £7,000 a year. Today, that same £100,000 will buy about £5,000. Very rough figures I know.

Demonising is the wrong word, 'get real guys' is the phrase I would use. Wake up and smell the debt.

And yes I am in the private sector. My wife has pretty much always worked in the University public sector. 

TomK and others,

Plenty of references, which i've indicated before, that show public sector wages are better than private sector.

Main point however, is that as a nation, we can't afford the excessively generous pensions being demanded by the public sector at present. Public sector can't expect this to be funded by private sector tax payers. It doesn't matter what might or might not have been promised.

As for private sector workers joining a union, that is just as point;ess.

The only "real" solution IMHO, is to turn the economy around - I don't know how this gets done. Anyone?

Cheers

Don

I guess it's the way you tell 'em.

I'm not sure what your point is here Mike. The point I was making, is that unions are not very effective, ie joining them as a means of raising private pensions to the excessively generous levels being demanded by the public sector would be pointless.What we need to do, is turn the ecconomy around.

Cheers

Don

BTW Mike - Just a suggestion, but if you broke your posts down into paragraphs, or put a blank line between the paragraphs, they would be a lot easier to read.

More here:

http://www.tuc.org.uk/extras/publicsectorpensions.pdf

This is the nub of the matter.

Just because something already exists doesn't mean it is sustainable. And public sector pensions are no longer sustainable without a grossly disproportionate amount of resource (ie money) being taken from private sector tax-payers.

The main problems behind this sad stae of affairs IMHO are

• people are living MUCH longer than was anticipated when these pension schemes were setup,
• and at present the ecconomy is depressed.

Now, short of euthenaisia for public sector pensioners (ie they get a jolly good pension for the 5 years they expected to live post retirement, then CHOP!) I think that the ecconomy has to be improved and each generation has to fund the pensions of the previous generation, private and public sector alike..

Cheers

Don 

1. Yes they are and in the longer term will be a reducing, not increasing, proportion of GDP.

2. Some Clarkson-style joke, I hope?

What!!! A sustainable and reducing proportion of GDP!!!

That'll be in the longer term when Naim dealers will be able to offer a pair of Ovators free with every Nait 5i purchased.

If you don't understand just say so?

and taken out of context in the usual gutter-press sort of way............

Clarkson is a bit like Alf Garnet......ie HE is the joke. (and like Warren Mitchell, even Clarkson knows this)

Anyway, back to my main point, unless the economy is revived, Public Sector workers can't expect to get gold-plated pensions at the expense of private sector tax-payers.

So, any ideas on how to revive the economy?

Cheers

Don

Don said:

So, any ideas on how to revive the economy?

Sure thing, Don...

Get the many Trillions of Pounds-Dollars-Euros back from the off shore tax havens where it should not have been illegally stolen by tax evasion criminality in the first place.

This wouldn’t just help the economy, it would cure it.

Debs