should he stay or should he go.....(Clarkson)

[agg221]

That is nonsense!!!!!

 

Which particular aspect of my calculation (earlier post) do you disagree with?

 

Alec

[MATTMOSS]

Really?

 

Care to quote some references on that, or did you read it in the Daily Mail? Can you actually quote any average salaries for these jobs in private and public sectors?

 

Not a personally directed comment, but there is a lot of rubbish talked, by a lot of people with no, or very little, knowledge, derived from biased sources.

 

Well said Alec spot on!!

[skyhuck]

3. In 2007, teachers recognised the need for financial change with regard to their pension provisions. They increased their contributions and pension age, in a deal which was agreed with their employers to be sufficient to meet the ongoing investment requirement in their pension fund. Their pension fund has (illegally) not been revalued since, and the contribution they're making may well be sufficient that, when invested wisely, as it has been over the past 40yrs, it will grow to meet the needs of the scheme's members. As such, increasing the contribution they make achieves only one end - allowing the government to pay more into the schemes of other public sector workers, most notably civil servants, who currently receive their pension directly from the state. I'd say that would be a bit annoying, wouldn't you?

Alec

 

Alec

 

Not at all, they are all working for the same employer, so whats the problem??

[skyhuck]

Which particular aspect of my calculation (earlier post) do you disagree with?

 

Alec

 

The wage I highlighted in bold.

 

I am vice chair of governors at my local primary, so am more than aware of what teachers earn

[TRADITIONAL LOGGERS]

I think all these union people should SHUT UP AND STOP MOANING all the time about having a hard life both at work and when retired before most working people can afford. I have no pension and as someone who works in woods cannot insure below the ankles/below the wrists and have to lose both eyes to be paid a rubbish amount.

 

The daughter is a nurse and worked a long night shift whilst most were on strike and did not complain once. She often has to work overtime and is not paid. The son worked at Eddie Stobarts on long night shifts and does not complain about going on strike. (If he did no food in the shops!!)

 

I would make all the moaners work for £16.000 and ban all strikes. The UK cannot afford to keep paying certain occupations more than everyone else because some have tantrums unless spoiled.

[agg221]

Not at all, they are all working for the same employer, so whats the problem??

 

The problem is that some of them have been paying pension contributions all their working lives, while others have not. The ones who've been paying at top level have been making a contribution sufficient to cover the pension cost, but are being penalised to make up the difference in the ones who haven't been paying, and to cover this fact up the relevant pension pot is now 18months overdue on revaluation - which in the private sector would see the trustees in court.

 

Same employer, different terms.

 

How's this for an analogy - you take on a major contract on agreed terms. It's full time for 2yrs, guaranteed, and you need to make an investment in some kit to deliver it.

 

The contract is big enough that there's another company delivering a different part of it at the same time, who have agreed their own terms with the same employer.

 

6months in, your employer comes to you and says that, because he's only got a total budget available, and he's got to pay the other company more, he's going to cut your rate by 5%. You say, 'but I've got a contract'. He says, 'yes, but I'm big enough to re-write the contract and there's nothing you can do about it'. You could leave, but you've got not orderbook to fall back on and a whole load of debt to service on the kit, or you can stay, accept it, tighten your belt and carry on.

 

In either case, are you happy with your employer?

 

If so, are you suggesting that it's fine for anyone employing you to do a job to announce partway through the job that they'll only pay you a reduced amount for the remainder of the job, and your alternative is to stop and walk?

 

Alec

[Dean Lofthouse]

The public sector needs a good thinning anyway, perhaps this will do the job.

 

About a thirty percent reduction should do

[agg221]

The wage I highlighted in bold.

 

I am vice chair of governors at my local primary, so am more than aware of what teachers earn

 

Please check the calculation I gave. It's not the wage, it's what they're left with as a gross after the obligatory costs of getting in to the profession, and getting the benefit of the pension. If the pension goes, they take home more (based on £20k gross instead) but have no pension contribution from their employer.

 

And for reference, what teachers earn is a matter of public record: Teaching salary scales - TDA

 

Yes, you can read the inner London superhead figures if you want, but the 'real' scale is the main pay scale, which ranges from £21,588 to £31,552. It's a progression over 7yrs. Note, these figures are before you've serviced your debt or made any pension contribution. The reason for the discrepancy in figures for my original calculation is that the terms of the loan do not require that you start making repayments before you cross the threshold.

 

Alec

[Tom D]

All the professions cost money to get in to, not just teaching....

[skyhuck]

The problem is that some of them have been paying pension contributions all their working lives, while others have not. The ones who've been paying at top level have been making a contribution sufficient to cover the pension cost, but are being penalised to make up the difference in the ones who haven't been paying, and to cover this fact up the relevant pension pot is now 18months overdue on revaluation - which in the private sector would see the trustees in court.

 

Same employer, different terms.

 

How's this for an analogy - you take on a major contract on agreed terms. It's full time for 2yrs, guaranteed, and you need to make an investment in some kit to deliver it.

 

The contract is big enough that there's another company delivering a different part of it at the same time, who have agreed their own terms with the same employer.

 

6months in, your employer comes to you and says that, because he's only got a total budget available, and he's got to pay the other company more, he's going to cut your rate by 5%. You say, 'but I've got a contract'. He says, 'yes, but I'm big enough to re-write the contract and there's nothing you can do about it'. You could leave, but you've got not orderbook to fall back on and a whole load of debt to service on the kit, or you can stay, accept it, tighten your belt and carry on.

 

In either case, are you happy with your employer?

 

If so, are you suggesting that it's fine for anyone employing you to do a job to announce partway through the job that they'll only pay you a reduced amount for the remainder of the job, and your alternative is to stop and walk?

 

Alec

 

What your describing would be accepted with open arms by many who have gone bust or been made redundant in the private sector.

 

Those with private pensions that have gone bust giving them nothing for the £1000's they have paid in would give their right arm for a deal like that!!!!!

 

The problem is those in the PS have had this so incredibly good for so long they don't realise how lucky they are!!!!