Having the right to strike does not mean it should be exercised.

What is your point anyway? That the needs of the Teachers out way the needs of the taxpayers? That the Teachers are tok use collective action to bully the people (taxpayers) into paying them more than they would get otherwise?

If you are saying that Teachers are a special interest group, then your argument ends because it is not justifiable by any means other than selfish ones. It makes Teachers no better than Bankers, or any other corrupt elite.

 

Complete bollocks (nothing new there then)!

The only way a teacher could collect their accrued pension at 60 is by retiring. Even allowing for your age diminished IQ, surely you don't think that the employer will continue to pay them a salary after retirement?

 

No Shaun - they simply have to freeze their current Pension and then start anew in the new one ....... the only possible stumbling block is that the Trustees can block their new application (but won't as they need the contributions).

This way they receive their 75% of Final Pay Pension at 60 .... whether they are working or not! In essence, we pay them TWICE from the age 60 to 66!!

 

You clearly have absolutely NO IDEA about Pension Law then!?

See the post above!

 

I've got an idea ..... if the Pension is so crap why don't they opt out of their Pensions and collect at 60?

Simple ......

PLUS did you all know that Teachers pay less NI than the rest of us? That's because they 'opted out' of SERPS ..... which reduced their contributions. Yet another thing we (the Taxpayers are funding!

 

And loads down here took today as an inset day, two days off for the children, god bless them.

 

Fair enough. I've been off-line for a bit, away from all this ******* madness.

 

Round here Wednesday was an INSET day .... Thursday a Strike Day .... and, Friday - well, Friday was down the Pub at lunchtime day!!

If it wasn't ruining childrens lives it would be bloody funny!

 

 

Need to get myself one of these cushy Teachers' jobs.

 

Loads of Teachers are looking for jobs ..... school kids could see the cushy number and went to Uni to become Teachers.

The result is that there way too many to go around ... sack the strikers and hire those youngsters on the new Terms and Conditions.

 

Your stupidity is breathtaking!

 

Are you trying to tell me that they cannot freeze their Pension on the old Terms and collect at 60 then?

You KNOW they can!! So, who is the stupid one? Idiot!

 

Yes I've heard that. I think before the recession there was still a shortage of science Teachers though.

I remember back in the late 90's when I graduated it was very unfashionable to become a Teacher.

 

quite simply people who whinge and moan always have a lot to whinge and moan about

if people used the energy they put into whinging and moaning into bettering their lives then maybe, just maybe they would not have to post 11 pages of sh1te on the internet.

 

They could collect it at 60 if they choose to actually retire then, but that would mean receiving an actuarily reduced pension under the revised arrangements (because they would, in effect, be retiring 7 years early). If they were to continue working until the new retirement age of 67, they would not be able to collect their accrued pension at 60.

What is certain, is that you can't take your accrued pension at 60 and continue to collect your salary, which is what you are suggesting.

Well, it looks like it's you - again!

 

Or go on strike or march through London thinking they are better than everyone else.

 

PSL

I'm not sure about the teachers pension but when the Labour Government "recruited" 1000 new NHS consultants a few years ago they "retired" 1000 old consultants, paid them the full 40/80 ths and then re-employed them again..

1000 new consultants for the NHS

Daryl..........are you saying the current retirement age for teachers is 67 ?

Shaun

 

You've not stated your stance though. Are you siding with the teachers or those attacking them?

 

No, but it will be if the Government's proposals are implemented. Currently, the earliest a teacher can retire is 60, although there is nothing to stop them staying on for longer if they want to. Under revised arrangements introduced in 2007, new entrants to the scheme can't retire until 65.

 

Are you talking about what's technically known as 'phased retirement' here, or something different?

 

Daryl

So what's unfair about equalising the retirement age at 65 for Teachers and NHS workers?

On the new Teachers pension scheme the final pension is two-thirds of final salary whereas on retirement at 65 the NHS pension only pays out half.

Is that fair?

Shaun

 

Is there a third option?

 

No.

ATTAAAAAAAAACK!

 

I'd put myself in the third option. I can see it from the teacher's point of view, it's moving the goal posts by the Government whilst making sure their own ***** are well and truly covered. Makes a mockery of the mantra 'we're all in it together'. I can also see that savings have to be made following the profligacy of the previous administration. I think there should be some give and take from both sides.

 

The further one tracks the argument back, the more complex it becomes. One could blame Alan Greenspan and if one blames AG one could blame Ayn Rand or the early (absolute) free market economists and thinkers or China for devaluing their currency and so on. I don't like the idea that people (particularly those in the private sector) want teachers to lose out because they're struggling, too; seems to me to be a poor position to hold. I think the whole event is riddled with unfairness and affected by that are the leadership having to make difficult decisions, the people on the recieving end, the pupils, the profession, the taxpayer, hodgy - the whole country. I think it's very much worth looking at the root cause, arguably external, before we start falling out amongst ourselves. Ultimately, there will be no right or wrong resolution, just one that inflicts the least pain upon all concerned. Shame Mark Serwotka's involved - he riminds of the Union leaders I dealt with when I was a sales and customer service manager at The Royal Mail; concerned predominantly, in my judgement, with their ego rather than the organisation, its members and the country.

 

There has been a lot of vitriol thrown about in this thread, unedifying to say the least. The situation has to be viewed in it's present form, your nod to the two notable figures above in my opinion has very little to do with the current plight. Indeed Ms. Rand was seen as a bit of crackpot in some circles however we are digressing. There has to be some change but the eagerness by those who wish to implement the change is balanced by the reluctance of the teachers to accept it. It's a catch 22 situation with neither side wishing to relinquish any ground. The likes of Serwotka will only further antagonise the issue. Whilst collecting their hundred k plus earnings they whip their members in to a frenzy of militant furore. A sad and seemingly impossible situation where in my opinion the teachers will have to accept the changes.

 

In practical terms, you're right, but it's worth exploring Greenspan's contribution to the planet, his relationship with Rand and her philosophy and how that philosophy impacts, by degrees of seperation, teachers' pensions.

 

I think the philosophising may be a little deep in the context of the thread However you do make a valid intimation. It's funny how we can have an opinion which doesn't demonise teachers or insult other posters. There's been a lot of that unnecessarily in the preceding eleven pages.

 

Maybe, but it comes down to the needs of the market (and Capital) ultimately, I'd rather look to Marx for why a socialist state cannot sustain.