1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Why we must strike on 28th March

Discussion in 'Scotland - education news' started by ryeland, Mar 2, 2012.

  1. ryeland

    ryeland New commenter

    crossed my threads.
  2. omega1

    omega1 New commenter


    Thanks for your points - first I should have emphasised the extra contributions are per month not per year.

    Can you provide the document which says if you retire at 60 the rest will have to be actuarially reduced. I have read The Hutton Report with a fine toothcomb and as far as I see you can retire at 60 with what you contributed to 2015. There is no mention of anything else.
    You are right the current highest age was 68. However in his Autumn Statement Danny Alexander revised retirement ages upwards again. I have a table from the Sunday Times 4/12/2011 with the updated age and it clarifys that anyone under 30 will not collect their full pension until age 70.
  3. I sympathise with the unions and do strike with and support my union. However, the overall feeling is that the timing of the strike is ill judged and that the horse has bolted on this issue - its going ahead on pensions anyway.

  4. Hutton Report - section 4.22
    <font size="3" face="Humanist777BT-LightB">http://cdn.hm-treasury.gov.uk/hutton_final_100311.pdf
    Also useful is this ( although designed for the English scheme it is the same)
    Will I have to work until I am 68?
    No. Teachers who joined the Teachers&rsquo; Pension Scheme prior to 2007 currently have a Normal Pension Age of 60.
    Those joining after 2007 have a Normal Pension Age of 65.
    The Government is proposing a phased increase in the Normal Pension Age for all teachers to align with the State Pension Age - which is currently 65 and due to increase to 68 by 2046. The Normal Pension Age is not a compulsory retirement age and won&rsquo;t be one in the future. It is a reference point from which pension benefits are calculated.
    Under the proposals, you will still be able to take your pension at any age from 55 to 75, although your annual pension income will vary depending on when you choose to retire.
    All of the pension you have built up under the current scheme will remain payable in full at either 60 or 65 depending on whether you joined the scheme before or from 2007.
    Only the pension you build up under the reformed scheme would normally be payable at a later age, but you will still be free to draw that pension at any point from your 55th birthday.
    It is also law at the moment that you must be able to access your pension at age 55.
    </font><font size="3" face="Humanist777BT-LightB"></font>
    It was George Osborne and he didn't revise the figures upwards. What he did say was, "Future increases would be based on the demographic evidence and the government would further dicuss the process to allow the views of interested parties to be considered."
    <font>Now it may well mean a further increase but it's certainly not set in stone yet,</font>
    <font>I know feelings are running high but I think we need to be careful to actually gather the facts and not base our decisions on hearsay and newspaper articles.</font>
    <font>There was a great calculator on the English Teachers' Pension Scheme website which allowed you to enter your information and it worked out your pension based on different retirement ages. Unfortunately it was removed after the December changes to the proposals and hasn't been put back up yet.</font>
  5. betsyb1

    betsyb1 New commenter

    I feel that many supply teachers won't support this either. There was little support when supply pay was cut. I also have had to withdraw from the pension scheme as the poorly paid daily rate now does not allow me to pay into a pension. It's pointless worrying about retirement when your salary doesn't barely pay the bills.
  6. amysdad

    amysdad Established commenter

    I would love for my wife to support this (I'm a student), but to be quite honest the money she'd lose by striking is the difference between us paying the mortgage in May and not. I understand the argument about "looking to your retirement and think of others" but when it comes down to that, it's a no brainer, I'm afraid.
  7. amysdad

    amysdad Established commenter

    Betsyb1 - I'd at the very least make sure you have some sort of small provision, even if it means you're only paying £25 per month or something into a private pension scheme. Totally with you on the supply teacher point though (although I still kind of understand at least the EIS's rationale for doing what it did.)
  8. Effinbankers

    Effinbankers Lead commenter

    Think about it.
    The money you'll lose in your May packpacket will be lost in <u>every single month</u> of the year in 3 years time if these extra contributions are imposed. That money will never ever be retrieved and you'll continually struggle to pay your mortgage.
    No costings have ever been published about the sustainability of our pension scheme and I think this tells you a lot. It is a clear raid on our pension.
    This government has utter contempt for the public sector; not surprising when you're a millionaire with private health care, you send your kids to private schools and you don't know what public transport is when the chaffeur brings the Bentley round to the front door. And they're happy to shelter those who caused the mess, the bankers and venture capitalists in the city of London, from paying for it.
    We have to make a stand, regardless of how unpleasant it is. To me that's a no brainer.
  9. Both assume ordinary class teacher at top of pay scale.
    Strike day pay lost = &pound;145.53
    Extra pension in 3 years = &pound;91.20
  10. GuessWho

    GuessWho Occasional commenter

    Strike day figure quoted above is GROSS SALARY......actual take home pay lost will be in the order of &pound;90-&pound;100.
    It is ironic that the increase in pension payments (per month- when the 3.2% is implemented) will be equivalent to the money lost for one day of strike action.
    As a previous poster said.....if you can't "afford" to strike just now how will you cope with "losing" that EVERY MONTH.
    If this is the case I assume many teachers will have to leave the pension schem in order to make ends meet.
  11. I support striking now, as I did last year, if only on the rather desperate principle of solidarity, but I don't see what effect that strike had, or this one will have, on the govt's pension reform plans. They are going ahead with it *****-nilly, so what's the use of yet another one-day strike, is my practical, if unprincipled, response.
    Which may in fact be exactly what the govt intends. The more people that leave the plan, the less viable it becomes until the day arrives when the govt can justify cancelling it altogether.
  12. As is the pension payments.
    Strike day = &pound;145.53. If you take 20% tax and 12% NI that would make it &pound;98.97
    Pension = &pound;91.20. After 20% tax relief it's &pound;72.96
  13. I supported the strike last November - joined the march too.
    However nothing has changed since last November. The Scottish Government hasn't even had talks with the Scottish Unions so it really has achieved nothing. Last November's strike received a lot of press beforehand. I've read barely anything about March 28th so is anybody caring?
  14. I joined the pension scheme in 2007 so what does that mean for me? I have voted yes. I can't not! I think it's ridiculous that we didn't strike over the pay cuts for supply teachers. I think the vote for that was rigged though. Also, are eis the only union currently balloting? I haven't heard of any other unions within teaching.
  15. Same as everyone else. It will mean increased contribnutions, the majority of your pension paid in full at age 65 with the rest actuarially reduced if you still want to retire at age 65 instead of age 68.
    Members were asked if they would strike. Fewer than 20% said they would be prepared to do so.
    How exactly would it be rigged? Votes are counted by independent bodies that have nothing to do with the union.
    The NUT appear to be holding a consultative ballot too but that's about all that I've heard.I doubt it will have the same impact that last November's strike had which is why I feel the timing is all wrong.
    The NUT brought its members out on strike last June - Scottish teachers weren't involved as it was during the summer holidays. What did that strike day achieve? Nothing whatsoever.
    The November strike day saw the concession for those with 13.5yrs of retirement but that was all.
  16. omega1

    omega1 New commenter

    From my orinal post I have studied some more - the eis provided more information on Friday.
    jem19 - wrote that those only within 13.5 years gained concessions - not true.
    For those under 46.5 who move onto the proposed new system after 2015 - the acrual rate is 1/57 instead of 1/60 this was a concession in November - it may not seem much but it more than makes up for the loss in wage for the one day strike.
    Another significant improvement from what the eis provided on friday: At the moment if you retire before 60 - every year you take early retirement are actuarily reduced by 5% - someone retiring today at 55 takes a 25% actuarial reducation. HOWEVER it seem in the new system the actuarial reduction is 3% per year - I don't know if this was another concession in November can anyone please clarify?
    Therefore someone under 46.5 in years to come can retire at 60 - take what is protected at 60 PLUS 8 years x 3% = 24 % actuarial reduction on the contributions post 2015.
    It may be too much of a hit especially if you are younger - say under 30. But you could say well I will retire at 65 so 3 years actuarial reduction = 3 x 3% = 9% actuarial reduction on contributions post 2015.

    One thing is clear pensions are going to be much more difficult for the masses to understand with a two tier system running in tandem. I'm the eis Rep at my school - I intend to run CPD courses for staff in my school taking time to explain in detail the changes with illustrations so staff can work things out for themselves and possibly make future projections.
  17. heldon

    heldon Occasional commenter

    the actuarial reduction of 3% only applies back to the age of 65 -it is then back to what we have now -near 5%
    so retirement at 60 will not really be an option for most in the future -only if yoou have already got many years in -sorry

  18. It is true I'm afraid.
    You are correct in that the accrual rate changed from 1/60th to 1/57.
    However when it was 1/60th the revaluation was in line with average national earnings.
    Now it's 1/57ths and the revaluation is CPI + 1.6%.
    Both of these work out exactly the same but it's been packaged up to sound better.
    If you are going to run CPD courses for other staff members it's important to get the facts correct. Ian Mcaskill is the pensions expert at EIS headquarters so it may be a good idea to speak to him first.
  19. Is the additional information on their website?
    We also have to remember that none of these concessions were actually offered to Scottish teachers and no taks have taken place as yet for our scheme.

  20. Dominie

    Dominie New commenter

    It is the same scheme. The UK Teachers' superannuation scheme. The Scottish Government has already made it clear that they will have to make the savings imposed by the UK Treasury on the scheme by passing these on to Scotland's teachers. If Scotland's teachers wish better conditions than this, then they will have to pay for them.

Share This Page