On 10 May 2011 at 11:56am Teachers Pet wrote:
Teachers Pensions, and others in the Public Sector, are at the forefront of many discussions nowadays. Should they retain the obvious advantages that they have over the Private sector, or not.
Perhaps if the teachers were expected to work like those in the private sector a different picture would emerge.
A few suggestions to get the ball rolling;
Pay by results
Comparable holiday entitlements
Meetings in own time, not in school time i.e. inset days
Preferential mortgages for all or scrap them
There are many more perks to the job so let's hear about them!
If at the end of the day teaching proves too bad to tolerate try the private sector...........the choice is yours.
On 10 May 2011 at 12:06pm Teachers Pet wrote:
Oops! Is there an edit function on this Forum?
Editor: Yes. :-)
On 10 May 2011 at 12:22pm Pensioned off wrote:
The issue of teachers pensions (and other publ;ic pensions) is not a straightforward one, it depends on what you are comparing to what. In some cases the total remuneration package (pay plus pensions etc) for the public sector looks better than a private counterpart and in other cases it does not look so good. The point that I take issue with is the way in which the remuneration package is being changed for those who are al;ready in the system without their permission. When someone goes into a career they decide whether the terms and conditions they are being offered are acceptable. I do not think that those terms and conditions should be fundamentally changed half way through that career without the agreement of the people affected. There may be case for changing the terms and conditions for new entrants but not for those alraedy in the system.
On 10 May 2011 at 12:45pm 'ere be monsters wrote:
Anyone working, in the private sector or public, should pay into a pension fund and when they retire should be paid on the basis of what is in the fund. Final salary pensions are just far too expensive to sustain.
On 10 May 2011 at 1:10pm Paul Newman wrote:
The link gives some information which teachers et al will not like
Check it out here »
On 10 May 2011 at 1:17pm Paul Newman wrote:
Sorry that link seems to have evaporated ?
On 10 May 2011 at 1:29pm Husband of a teacher wrote:
My wife is a teacher (head of department and assistant head). She works much harder than anyone else I know, except for other teachers. In fact the amount of time she works at home can sometimes be a source of tension between us. She leaves the house at 7.15am and returns at 6.30pm. After putting our son to bed she will work from 8.30 to 11.00 pm most nights. I estimate that she generally works 8-10 hours over the weekend.
As for the holidays. A fair bit of those are taken up working and she goes to the school quite a few days during the summer holidays.
Most people I know would not be up to managing the kids she teaches. I'm certain that few on this forum could do the job. Most would be eaten alive. No-one I know in the private sector works anywhere near as hard for such little return (even including those that run their own businesses).
For the work she does and the affect that it has on her general health and energy levels (not to mention speeding her ageing process) she gets paid very little. The pension is one of the benefits that makes the job worth doing. (I just hope she is not too knackered and used up by the time she is old enough to take it.)
The state have made a contract with teachers. They expect a lot from them for a pretty low wage. For this they promised to make large contributions into their pension schemes. The state are now renegading on this contract. Quite frankly I'm amazed this is legal.
Fine to adjust the condition for new entrants, then candidates can make a decision whether teaching in the state sector is something they wish to pursue, but to turn round to teachers who have given their life to teaching others kids and say that they will not provide the pensions they promised is nothing short of criminal.
And the bankers still get their bonuses. I know which profession I value the most, and which works hardest for the good of 'all' our society.
On 10 May 2011 at 1:52pm Teachers Pet wrote:
Husband of a teacher- your posting is certainly an eye opener and I'm sure many would commend the efforts your wife puts into her work.
She is, like many in the private sector, working hard and probably deserves a just reward for her efforts.
The fact remains though that there are those that may still feel that there is a large gap in benefits between the two sectors.
Bear in mind also that the private sector only exists through the workers efforts to keep their Company's profitable to continue to exist, whereas the Public sector exists on the back of Taxpayers wallets. So cost savings need to be made; how is another matter.
Fair comparisons are probably more difficult to perceive under these conditions.
You're a brave man, or not in any danger of being identified, to suggest that your wife is old before her time! 
On 10 May 2011 at 1:56pm Donna Edmunds wrote:
Would it not make more sense for salaries to be higher, but pensions more comparable to those in the public sector?
On 10 May 2011 at 2:06pm Andaxi wrote:
It would Donna, if only it were that simple, but unfortunately the private sector is also struggling and many final salary schemes have been scrapped.
Increasing salaries is also not an option as redundancy usually follows very swiftly for other worker(s) to pay for it.
Increase productivity equals the chance of increased benefits........sometimes.
On 10 May 2011 at 2:23pm DFLoater wrote:
Teacher's pet - there is another way to look at the issue.
If private sector workers are comparatively poorly paid, why don't they become teachers?
Teaching isn't a closed shop profession, if it was you'd have a point, but anybody with the skills and training can do it. Even you.
The next victims of this false argument will be the nurses. Why not understate their jobs and accuse them of being overpaid at the taxpayers expense? - then you can suggest if they don't accept a pay cut, they can always join the private sector.
Honestly, I despair.
On 10 May 2011 at 2:49pm Paul Newman wrote:
D Floater that is easy to say but in practice there are obstacles unless you go into it form the start .You lose income training and then in working your way through the system. Above a certain age entry , in practice restricted. Most of the teaching profession could easily be replaced at far less cost to the tax payer but due to national pay rates they are all hired at the cost of the last maths teachers and in some regions it is a King`s ransom. Something like 20 teachers have been barred since the war , about 50% adjusted additional funds was pumped in over ten years and ( says the OECD) there has no significant educational improvement.
The average private sector employee is 40% worse off than his public sector counterpart who is six times as likely to be unionised . This includes pensions and does not discount for position/seniority etc. but why should you? The Public Sector sprout new positions and faux responsibilities in way any other business would scream with agony at
I am afraid few will recognise the job for life deal mentioned above and it is not the state but the TAX payer who picks up the bill. My brother is a Head of Dept at a pretty average London Comp . I know quite a few teachers , some are very good and love their job, many are idle and incompetent.
On 10 May 2011 at 2:59pm bastian wrote:
everything that teachers are about to lose suppoet staff in schools lost years ago,and they are not paid anything like as much as teachers.many were taken on under all the same benefits but have staedily had them erroded.The point is,or was,that you could retire early under the 85 year rule,and on a decent pension to make up for the poor wages(at the time) and dedication to your job,that was the deal.However,what has happened is that though the public sector wages have not moved much in years(and I know because i've been in my job for 20 years now)the market driven economy around the public sector has been picked apart until what was once standard benefits don't exist anymore,Oh yeah,and as for holidays,support staff do not get paid for the holidays,only statuary like everyone else,we all have to work one week a year during the holidays...notice they don't want to take that away.
On 10 May 2011 at 3:23pm Brixtonbelle wrote:
Taking teachers pensions away from them just makes them more of a burden on the state when they do retire. And it doesn't increase the pension pot for anyone else, public or private sector. The real issue is how to give everyone a fair pension that will support them properly in their retirement.
I wonder when they will come after nurses pensions, army pensions, police pensions, in fact anyone inservice to the state. The whole state system will end up being run on the cheap and being outsourced to private companies and our taxes will end up going into the pockets of shareholders.
Reducing teachers pensions, pay and conditions doesn't benefit anyone in the long term, becasue you'll just end up with a bunch of poorly paid, miserable, overworked and demotivated staff who won;t give the best to the kids.
From the examples I posted on the previous thread, I really don't think around 8k a year is too much to expect for a teacher on a an average salary after 20 years service, is it ? They'll still be living in their retirement below the poverty line....
On 10 May 2011 at 3:25pm Paul Newman wrote:
....but having had a bit of a go, I must also say that our experience of real life schools has been fantastic in Lewes and the teachers quite superb.
Thats Wallands btw .
Note to self - Get off soap box and stop being a know -all
On 10 May 2011 at 3:32pm bastian wrote:
paul you are,as usual,talking bollux again.one can only quote pay job for job,ie,private teacher for state teacher(and even then you are talking a whole different job as a private teacher will have less abuse to deal with,if they don't then why do people choose private over state?)so how about a private nurse for a state nurse,a private doctor for a state doctor...facts only please...and while we're on the subject,skilled degree jobs ie,teachers and escc lawyers,both qualified to the same level,paid vastly differently....and then there are all the other people who run a school paid less than 18k who have all the same duty to care as a teacher but nobody sees working until their jobs are taken away as a cost cutting measure...you can bet your life someine will notce but they are under16 so they don't count.
On 10 May 2011 at 3:34pm bastian wrote:
brixtonbelle,well done,paul,may I say...at last!
On 10 May 2011 at 4:17pm Pensioned off wrote:
@ Brixtonbelle. You have to work a lot more than 20 years to get your pension. The Teachers Scheme has alaways been a 40/80's scheme which requires you to work 40 years to obtain your full pension rights (although I think this may be changing). Interestingly, many private schemes are based on a lot shorter service than 40 years!
On 10 May 2011 at 4:46pm Teachers Pet wrote:
Sorry DFLoater I didn't mean to rattle your cage, I was only trying to promote a reasoned discussion on the issue.
I worked in the private sector, retired early and am still paying full taxes, including Income Tax, without making a claim on anyone.
I am fortunately in a position to discuss many of the issues being raised from experience.........as for 'even you could be a teacher', no thanks!
There was no malice intended in starting this thread only a desire to get people involved in airing their views in a sane manner. 
On 10 May 2011 at 5:20pm Twinky wrote:
@Pensioned off - errr....no...almost all current private schemes are based on defined contributions, not years of service - there is amost no such thing as "pensions being based on 40 years of service" anymore - I put in what I can afford and then take my chances on what the annuity rates will be when I ratire at 65! Almost all private schemes have migrated off final salary based- because it is simply unsustainable, as our government is about to find out.
On 10 May 2011 at 5:21pm brixtonbelle wrote:
something else that never seems to be taken into account - very few poeple get a full pension these days - thanks 'pensioned off' as they dont work the full 40 years required.
the only people iknow who gets huge payoffs are all in the private sector, even when they are 'let go' for some misdemeanour. Strangely enough the more senior you are, the more money you get... never understood why people get paid off if they have been damaging the company
On 10 May 2011 at 5:28pm bastian wrote:
women least of all, don't think we haven't noticed the unseen, unpaid work that means pay cut and pension cut...men who go on about this subject,especially those who implement cuts etc should think themselves fortunate for having the chance to have an unbroken work record to gain a pension...no wonder they now feature in divorce settlements.
On 10 May 2011 at 8:51pm Pearlie wrote:
Where do I begin. I have several meetings a week in my own time. I work most weekends one full day, most evenings and most holidays I work at home. The nations children are rude, abusive and in many cases aggressive. In many cases they are supported in their rudeness and ignorance by their parents. Contrary to popular belief we spend hours after school chasing up poor behaviour, making phone calls to parents, wring letters home ( despite what they tell you when you sign up you will do clerical work on top of teaching and the one hour of planning per lesson standard. 50% of teachers leave within the first 5 years because they can't hack it. The hours, the abuse, the lack of respect from parents, children and othe professionals. Anyone that makes it to pensionable age has well earned their final salary in my opinion.
On 10 May 2011 at 9:42pm Husband of a teacher wrote:
Pearlie: Mirrors my wife's experience I should say.
It is not possible to underestimate the importance of good quality teaching for the next generation. We devalue teachers at our peril. We must put aside political dogma and understand just how important education is for our future and the future of our society as a whole.
Realistically there are very few people who do not have a huge vested interest in state education. The only people who don't are those that choose to (can afford to) have their children educated privately.
On 10 May 2011 at 11:19pm Lambo wrote:
Well said Pearlie and Husband - I can't understand why there are so many teacher bashers on this forum. I lasted 15 years in the profession. I left for a number of reasons, but I certainly wouldn't have managed 40 years in the job. Three of my ex colleagues died within a year of retirement!
A good teacher is worth a lot - the cost to society for poor ones is high. However, their job would be a lot easier if parents had more respect and appreciation for the value of education.
On 11 May 2011 at 6:51pm Clifford wrote:
Wouldn't the most sensible thing to be to ensure that every worker gets a decent pension on retirement? Instead of insisting that public sector workers' conditions should be worsened, private sector workers should have the courage to join a union and press for an improvement in their own conditions.
On 11 May 2011 at 7:52pm Grunge wrote:
Where's the money going to come from, Clifford?
On 11 May 2011 at 9:55pm Teachers Pet wrote:
'Where's the money going to come from, Clifford?'
Easy one Grunge:-Council Tax?
On 12 May 2011 at 3:06pm bastian wrote:
what people forget is that many private companies and small firms did used to offer benefits small as they were but this has all been wiped out by rampant american capitalism...money for shareholders means no money for workers....where are you mr Marx.
On 12 May 2011 at 4:07pm Clifford wrote:
Grunge - 'Where's the money going to come from?'. Have you noticed that the share of wealth that goes to shareholders has increased over the past 30 years and the share that goes to workers has decreased? That's where the money goes and where it comes from. It's a choice. You may prefer wealth to be concentrated upwards. I think most people prefer it to be spread out a bit more fairly.