Strikes

Well said borstalgran

Absolutely right borstalgran. Lots of parents protesting about having to rearrange their hours on Thursday. Would those who take their children out of school because holidays are cheaper in term-time like to stop and think how much rearranging class teachers have to do to cover the work that individual children miss out on? Conscientious teachers don't just write off those two weeks of missed work, you know.
Have to confess I'm not involved in Thursday protests as I am in Scotland where Michael Gove has no say. Also - my apologies to you as he is not one of Scotland's better exports. However he does represent an English constituency so someone must want him.

As those who have taught know, there is no comparison to be made to other work. 40 minutes in front of a class are not to be compared to 40 minutes in an office or at a work bench. At higher schools you have changes of classroom, or of students. Sometimes you don't know here to hang your jacket- and you can now buy briefcases on wheels to carry your stuff around. Then the dicipline, the worry about children with problem backgrounds, you're expected to be a social worker as well.

I was once at the swings with my daughter at 4 in the afternoon and a parent recognised me. 'very nice to be off early every day' he said.
'Why didn't you become a teacher then' I asked him amd he said 'Well its the thought of having to stand in front of a class of teenagers'-
' Exactly I replied so now shut up!

I would imagine the nearest to it would be to perform on a stage in front of a lot of people [some of whom don't actually want to be there]....for 6 hours!

With my son, it is not being up in front of a class that stresses him out, nor preparing lesson plans: it is the ever-increasing paperwork, the endless marking, filling in statistical reports, the constant nagging that all teachers get, dealing with love-struck teenage girls and testosterone-loaded boys when they come to see him for various problems, and the one-on-one tutoring when he's supposed to be going home or eating lunch.

I reckon every teacher has at least one aspect of their working life that is deeply stressful.

I think everyone has at least one aspect of their working life stressful and that's not exclusive to public sector workers. The private sector is the same. And I suppose we all have the same remedy open to us - change jobs or careers! If it's really that bad, then maybe a change in career is called for.

Imagine the scene....... It's a week before Christmas and you are shut up in a room along with 33 over-excited 10 year-olds. As one taxi driver observed, ' Really, no sane adult would choose to put themselves in that position!' 'Nuf said!!

Yes, janthea. I am forever trying to persuade my daughter to leave teaching. I do not know why she still wants to do it,

Oh yes, like it's really easy to switch career when you've got a mortgage and young children that will one day need funding to go to university..possibly a partner under threat of redundancy, a house that has devalued over the past couple of years that you can't sell even if you want to because the market is dead. You're teaching a subject that you've studied up to degree level which makes you a damn good teacher possibly still paying back the student loan as well. As I said before, teaching is pretty much vocational, and the majority of teachers teach because they they want to. They just want a bit of understanding from people that it's not the easy job that non teachers seem to think it is. It's vitally important to the fiture of this country that our children are taught well by good teachers. But then, of course there is always the option of private education. If there wasn't perhaps a lot of the more affluent members of society would put more money and effort into making sure that every child in this country has the opportunity to have a good education. It's not a level playing field.

Yay! crimson. Say it like it is!

.....come the revolution......

It's worth noting that many private (public?) school teachers are going on strike tomorrow as well because they are members of ATL. They pay into the Teachers' Pension Fund as well so their pensions are also in question. I don't suppose the private sector will be seriously incommoded tomorrow as they will manage to find a way to stay open.

I read in the papers today that for a private sector worker to get the same pension as a public sector worker, they would have to pay treble the amount per month that the public sector worker pays. Is that fair? And of course as a taxpayer, we are also contributing to the the public sector pension pot!

I dont think that private sector workers fully understand this unless they have close family members working in the public sector. I think the reverse is also the case.
Also I suspect the figures on both sides are difficult to interpret. On the public side there are a lot of low paid clerical workers, dinner ladies etc affecting the AVERAGE pension. On the private side you have many people with no occupational pensions whatsoever. Plus you have a few with huge pensions (MDs of banks etc) which will pull up the average in a misleading way.
So when people talk about averages they are difficult to interpret.

In the private sector, many people don't pay into a pension because it is so expensive and the subsequent pension so low.

janthea do you believe everything you read in the papers? I have worked in the private and the public sectors and my pay, pension and conditions of service were all better in the private sector. Like my husband, I chose to work in the public sector because I believe in PUBLIC SERVICE. Not to get rich! One other point to note: public sector workers also pay taxes, so according to your logic we are also partially self funded.

Many private sector pensions have been reduced and conditions changed to a far greater extent than that which is being proposed for public sector pensions. As I said earlier, my own pension contribution was increased by 9% about 4 years ago and the retirement date changed. We are all living longer and I for one would prefer to be gainfully employed, earning a full salary and therefore adding to my pension pot, than retiring early.

janthea, I don't think a tired, stressed out and worn down teacher of nearly seventy would agree with you.

Absolutely right Janthea. Very few private employees have a good employer pension schemes these days. Companies have gone into all kinds of business contortions to "reduce their exposure" because they did the sums and could see that with life expectancies rising rapidly the numbers were not going to add up any more.
An example would be a company in which there is an inner circle of long term employees on good pay and conditions while the majority of workers are actually employed by another company such as Serco or Reed and are on much less beneficial contracts. This has been a pattern right across UK industry in the last 20 years. Another variant is new employees not being entitled to join any existing employer pension schemes and told to start their own scheme. These are basically savings schemes - not the same at all. Or companies have started new company schemes which are far less beneficial than the old ones. And then there are the huge numbers of temps and contractors who don't get any pension rights. Businesses have done all these things to avoid the financial risk of having too many pensioners living too long, while there is not enough money going into the scheme from workers (maybe reducing in numbers due to technology) to keep it financially solvent.
It has also been the case that huge numbers of private sector workers have at some stage been made redundant and had to leave a job they thought was going to last.
When you change jobs within the public sector you stay in the same pension scheme. If you change jobs in the private sector you have a choice - which is to cash in any pension (at an extremely un-preferential rate) or to leave the money there until you retire and it will generate some pension. They then have to start again with any scheme the new employer might have or start a private pension scheme. This is much less advantageous than moving around within public sector.
I would love to be able to follow my heart and support the pension-based strikes (as opposed to the cuts-based strikes which are a different issue). However my logical head knows that the current position is not financially sustainable.

In addition to the above, according to Treasury calculations, a middle ranking teacher on £32,000 a year can expect to retire with a pension pot equal to £500,000 - 20 times higher than the average in the private sector (ONS) ..... nice work if you can get it. No-one is saying that teaching is an easy profession but hard done by? Come off it!

I'm prepared to put some facts and figures out there. Having taught for many years, but also opting out to bring up my own children, I retired (early, as I couldn't take any more) at 58.5. I had a lump sum but had to use it to live until state pension kicked in at 60. Pension is £5800 from teaching. State pension is £112 x 52. Obviously I have to pay tax on this. Do you really regard this as gold-plated and in any way excessive? Fortunately I had a modest inheritance from my parents. However this takes me above the level where any additional benefits kick in.
Compare this with someone whose income is slightly less and whose parents were less frugal - then add in their pension credits, council tax benefit etc.
Not a criticism of anyone in that position but a request that people who have the wrong impresssion of teachers' pensions might just consider the facts instead of the hype.

So, if the retirement package is so great (well and bravely said, em), why is there a shortage of teachers, especially for maths and physics? Doesn't add up, does it?

Your figures sound almost identical to mine, em. But I was in FE and the powers that be made me redundant when I was 58.5. I would have been happy to go on longer as it was a lovely job with great students but they thought they could do without me, even though they took me on part-time for a term after I was officially redundant. If I had known more about employment law I might have challenged this more strongly but my union was useless. As it happens, I couldn't have gone on to 66 or more because I began to fall apart (arthritis) which is one reason I am dubious about the increased retirement ages. People may be living longer but they are needing more and more support to do so in terms of medical, surgical and social care and very often it's in one's 60s that the slippery slope starts. I foresee a plethora of constructive dismissal cases or early retirements on health grounds when workers physically or mentally cannot carry on.

I also agree that teaching is a hard job, as are other public sector jobs, but it's not exactly a doddle cleaning toilets all day, or working in a factory ten hours a day, there are plenty of people out their working for the minimum wage, because they have to, and they have no benefits at all. So let's count our blessings. People are dying out there at young ages, so anyone that actually gets a pension at all should be happy they lived to receive it... Better any pension, than no pension at all..

I agree helshea and am very happy that I could retire when I did because I know that, as things are, I am not worried about my relatively minor ailments. However I know that I would not now be as effective in a classroom as I was.
The point I wanted to make is that my pension is more or less adequate - yes better than some - but certainly not generous or gold-plated. If I'd been a bit younger and was watching this modest pension being threatened then I would have been on strike too. I am so glad that bright and enthusiastic young people are still willing to be teachers. My son plans to do just that, carrying teaching into the 3rd generation of our family.