New teachers strike wtf
Discussion
Was listening to the head of one teaching union this morning saying that teachers will probably strike because
1. They have had a pay freeze for two years
2. The average teacher gets a pension of £10k
3. Pension age is increasing
4. What they have to pay in is going up 3% so an effective pay cut now
5. Get less pension
6. The govt will not supply the basic information they have requested which is they want an updated position on the teachers pension fund which last time re govt told them was in surplus.
Why will noone explain the last point to her there is no find it's pay as you go. Due to that reason sadly they cannot eat into whatever surplus which they were told existed.
Fact is as we all know private sector went through losing most final salary schemes years ago and the ones which are left they are changing to CARE at higher cost to the employee. Plus of course the govt have set a defecit reducing budget so each part of the govt is taking cuts- if the teachers don't want the cuts on them can they please state which govt dept needs to be cut more to compensate for them.... Fact is they cannot say that nor will they.
My wife is more than happy to pay in more as a teacher she accepts the situation sure it's not nice but even after the changes it's still an exceptional scheme which the vast majority of people of the uk don't get a fraction of.
1. They have had a pay freeze for two years
2. The average teacher gets a pension of £10k
3. Pension age is increasing
4. What they have to pay in is going up 3% so an effective pay cut now
5. Get less pension
6. The govt will not supply the basic information they have requested which is they want an updated position on the teachers pension fund which last time re govt told them was in surplus.
Why will noone explain the last point to her there is no find it's pay as you go. Due to that reason sadly they cannot eat into whatever surplus which they were told existed.
Fact is as we all know private sector went through losing most final salary schemes years ago and the ones which are left they are changing to CARE at higher cost to the employee. Plus of course the govt have set a defecit reducing budget so each part of the govt is taking cuts- if the teachers don't want the cuts on them can they please state which govt dept needs to be cut more to compensate for them.... Fact is they cannot say that nor will they.
My wife is more than happy to pay in more as a teacher she accepts the situation sure it's not nice but even after the changes it's still an exceptional scheme which the vast majority of people of the uk don't get a fraction of.
Deva Link said:
Where did the surplus go then?
Not sure what the issue is here - there is published information that it's currently running at a bit of a deficit, but that will correct itself as contributions increase and the 2007 becomes more dominant.
More generally, I always think this constant attack on public sector pensions is completely mis-guided. Everyone should have the pensions they do - people in the private sector should be up in arms about their own pensions, not the public sectors. Bet your boss has a good pension.
Well there is no pension fund so there is not a surplus or a defecit from a fund perspective. Not sure what the issue is here - there is published information that it's currently running at a bit of a deficit, but that will correct itself as contributions increase and the 2007 becomes more dominant.
More generally, I always think this constant attack on public sector pensions is completely mis-guided. Everyone should have the pensions they do - people in the private sector should be up in arms about their own pensions, not the public sectors. Bet your boss has a good pension.
Instead it's a pay as you go ie current employees paying the pension of pensioners. I guess in 2007 when they did the calculation the pension payments from active staff was higher. However now it is less - or is it. Which is their key question. I'd still say it's in surplus ad they want to hear that answer BUT then it's the accepting the cutting of the benefit for the sake of the national defect which is a different question.
If their point is to get that out in the open that's fair enough But don't strike. Make it clear they were sold a duck. Then for future negotiations clearly it will be around correct base salary not future pension benefits then the peoblem will not be present.
sidicks said:
It's been said before, but worth repeating (in bold):
Current contributions being paid in > current benefits being paid out is NOT an appropriate or sensible definition of 'surplus' for a pension fund!
Sidicks
Oh I fully agree that's called a ponzi scheme. I'm just trying to be devils advocate. Current contributions being paid in > current benefits being paid out is NOT an appropriate or sensible definition of 'surplus' for a pension fund!
Sidicks
Edited by sidicks on Thursday 15th September 17:54
It would work if rather than have a fund they invested it elsewhere which would generate more tax revenue than a fund could. But that's very difficult to accept.
I do sympathise with the public sector they were all sold a pup. Yea yea take a tiny payrise now but trust me you'll get a cracking pension instead deal?
I think the biggest nub which they are not grasping is we are where we are and we are in a big hole spending more than we are taking in. We cannot increase what we are taking in as that could be the straw which breaks the camels back ie consumer spending drops even more then less company profits then less staff needed etc so up taxes from the already high position isn't an option.
Therefore the option is reducing spending - is it fair how the cuts have been allocated? Well if you ring fence NHS you need to cut much harder elsewhere. But if say the teachers don't want to have pension cut then they have to voice which other govt dept will take their allocation of cost cutting.
I annoyingly met union guys in a union conference in Manchester and I went to a number of pubs and heard the same discussion by some old boy over and over. Have a transaction tax it only needs to be 0.5% of every transaction. He kept saying it's half a pence you wouldn't even notice it..... Idiot.
So if I buy an average priced UK house I'll be paying what ... £800-900 personally. Or every tank of fuel I'll be chipping I an extra £0.35.
Then it was all those bankers just tax their bonuses that will pay for our pensions. Delusional.
I had planned on calling it time at last orders.... I got into a discussion with a group of them... Got to bed at 5.30am daylight. I couldn't get through to them.
I think the biggest nub which they are not grasping is we are where we are and we are in a big hole spending more than we are taking in. We cannot increase what we are taking in as that could be the straw which breaks the camels back ie consumer spending drops even more then less company profits then less staff needed etc so up taxes from the already high position isn't an option.
Therefore the option is reducing spending - is it fair how the cuts have been allocated? Well if you ring fence NHS you need to cut much harder elsewhere. But if say the teachers don't want to have pension cut then they have to voice which other govt dept will take their allocation of cost cutting.
I annoyingly met union guys in a union conference in Manchester and I went to a number of pubs and heard the same discussion by some old boy over and over. Have a transaction tax it only needs to be 0.5% of every transaction. He kept saying it's half a pence you wouldn't even notice it..... Idiot.
So if I buy an average priced UK house I'll be paying what ... £800-900 personally. Or every tank of fuel I'll be chipping I an extra £0.35.
Then it was all those bankers just tax their bonuses that will pay for our pensions. Delusional.
I had planned on calling it time at last orders.... I got into a discussion with a group of them... Got to bed at 5.30am daylight. I couldn't get through to them.
graphene said:
This is true, add to which the bank employees who must now figure in the public sector statistics. I assume, they raise the figures (average page, rises, spending etc..)?
I haven't sought any evidence, but if I do, can I expect to see that these 'menial' jobs, that have been outsourced to the private sector, now have lower salaries, poorer pensions, fewer holidays, smaller sick pay and sickness absence?
The banks are not public sector it is a commercial entity which have investments in from the Govt. your really scraping the barrel if you think the salaries have gone up due to this....I haven't sought any evidence, but if I do, can I expect to see that these 'menial' jobs, that have been outsourced to the private sector, now have lower salaries, poorer pensions, fewer holidays, smaller sick pay and sickness absence?
Edited by graphene on Saturday 29th June 13:22
Hobzy said:
Head of each dept or faculty. 4 heads of house and 2 deputy heads. School of 1000.
Head needed to find over 200k of salary savings.
Easy - ignoring the individuals but if you HAD to find £200k savings without compromising the output of delivery to the kids then 2x deputy's to be made redundant with all costs those alone wouldn't be far off £200k. The head can then as and when required utalise the 4 heads of house to step up from a developmental perspective. Head needed to find over 200k of salary savings.
Sure it would/will be more work for all but hard luck it happens all the time
sd477667 said:
Say 20 staff take 10k cut each, bingo 200k saved, it's not rocket science it really isn't.
Sorry 2 deputy are not coal face delivery they can be removed the head takes up some slack and the SMT the remainder. £10k pay cut each.... Really so you keep the inefficiency in the positions and when budgets allow you ten up salaries... No way.
Each day strike is zero pay and also they reduce the number of total days for their pensions both reducing cost to the taxman.
I wonder what the breakeven point is x number of days strike pays for the benefits they want to retain
I have a BIL who is a socialist and a teacher he is flagging up the 60 hours a week he has to do - (I do more and get a mere 5 weeks off not 13 - but I am not complaining). My point always is IF you don't like it then you can always look for another role -oh hold on he tried that for two years and could only get supermarket jobs ... Read into that as you will
I wonder what the breakeven point is x number of days strike pays for the benefits they want to retain
I have a BIL who is a socialist and a teacher he is flagging up the 60 hours a week he has to do - (I do more and get a mere 5 weeks off not 13 - but I am not complaining). My point always is IF you don't like it then you can always look for another role -oh hold on he tried that for two years and could only get supermarket jobs ... Read into that as you will
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff