Martin to resign teaching position

rebel10

[QUOTE Fianna Fáil leader Micheál Martin has confirmed he will resign his teaching position at the end of this academic year.

Mr Martin said this morning that he will not be going back to teaching, and he made the decision last year.

"I've been very clear about this and I've said this on public record already - I will not be going back to teaching," Mr Martin said.

"I will be resigning my post after this academic year."

However, he added, "the person who has the job at the moment will lose the job."

"That's the only consequence of that (decision) - a person loses their job if I do that."

It follows confirmation yesterday from Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny that he will not now take up his own teacher's pension.[/QUOTE]

My God, it took him 20 years to make that decision. Is he also trying to suggest that he was holding out for so long to protect the teacher that had his hours?

bonerm

It's like something you'd read on TheOnion.

godtabh

It has always been the case that if the TD was a teacher the school can get some one to fill that potion the TD just left. If the TD resigns their teacher role the school lose that position.

Many TDs use that to justify them hanging on to their teachers pension

Lumen

Can someone please clarify the pension rules for teachers? Surely you can't just work a couple of years then claim the full pension at retirement?

seamus

godtabh wrote: »

If the TD resigns their teacher role the school lose that position.

WTF kind of system is that?

Is this something special reserved for TDs, or if a teacher resigns from a school normally, does the school lose that position?

rebel10

godtabh wrote: »

It has always been the case that if the TD was a teacher the school can get some one to fill that potion the TD just left. If the TD resigns their teacher role the school lose that position.

Many TDs use that to justify them hanging on to their teachers pension

Yes, i understand that, but he was a member of the government that brought in these changes to teacher numbers in schools. Why wasn't he picked up on this before? Why does it take a GE to force politicians to do the reasonable/honest thing? Why does he expect anyone to accept change in contracts/hours when he doesn't accept them himself?

rebel10

seamus wrote: »

WTF kind of system is that?

Is this something special reserved for TDs, or if a teacher resigns from a school normally, does the school lose that position?

Pupil ratio is 19:1. If a teacher retires, and their school is over quota, the hours are lost. This is, I think, what has happened here. Plus, if a teacher takes a secondment, their hours are held for them, as far as I know. In my school, a teacher has been out working in Belgium for the last 10 years. Her position is still open to her, and the teacher covering her hours, for the last 10 years, could be told tomorrow this woman is coming back to her job. Unfair.:mad:

MagicSean

rebel10 wrote: »

Yes, i understand that, but he was a member of the government that brought in these changes to teacher numbers in schools. Why wasn't he picked up on this before? Why does it take a GE to force politicians to do the reasonable/honest thing? Why does he expect anyone to accept change in contracts/hours when he doesn't accept them himself?

How is this a reasonable thing? It just creates one extra unemployed person and increases the pupil teacher ratio in that school.

seamus

Bloody ridiculous union nonsense in this country. Why can't it just be like any other job? If you leave to go do something else, someone else gets your job, seeya. FFS.

Lumen

k_mac wrote: »

How is this a reasonable thing? It just creates one extra unemployed person and increases the pupil teacher ratio in that school.

Decisions about appropriate pupil ratios should not be based on the employment requirements of teachers or TDs.

Uriel.

Am I the only one who 1. Thinks it's mad and 2. just plain can't understand that Enda Kenny (legally) is (would have been) entitled to a pension of in excess of €20k per annum and a lump sum of approx. €100k for a job that he only held for 4 years???? I understand that he resigned from this job (position) many years ago, so it doesn't even appear to be a case of him maintaining a duel right throughout his political life.

rebel10

k_mac wrote: »

How is this a reasonable thing? It just creates one extra unemployed person and increases the pupil teacher ratio in that school.

It's reasonable because if the school the position was in, has an increase in pupil numbers or they aren't over quota, that teacher could have that job again, but with his/her own contract, not having to wait year in year out to hear whether they have a job again every year. Every newly qualified teacher is well aware of this. It is unreasonable for someone out of the job for 20 years, to still be able to walk back into it tomorrow.

humanji

I like to think that for the last 20 years, there's been a class of students sitting silently, waiting for him to come back.

opinion guy

seamus wrote: »

WTF kind of system is that?

Is this something special reserved for TDs, or if a teacher resigns from a school normally, does the school lose that position?

Is there a hiring freeze on at the moment ?

ejmaztec

Our local TD, Jimmy Deenihan, first elected in the 1980s, is another teacher, but I don't think that he's ever resigned from that particular post.

How many more are there, I wonder?

Rubik.

Another Martin U-turn. In 2009 his rational for not giving up his teaching post - "I have a young family and a TD's job is a precarious business".

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/shame-of-pensions-on-double-for-teachertds-1726771.html

In the midst of an election campaign his concern has shifted from himself to the other poor sod who is going their job. Funny that.

MagicSean

Lumen wrote: »

Decisions about appropriate pupil ratios should not be based on the employment requirements of teachers or TDs.

I'm talking about the practical effect. One less teacher in the school means a higher pupil teacher ratio.

rebel10 wrote: »

It's reasonable because if the school the position was in, has an increase in pupil numbers or they aren't over quota, that teacher could have that job again, but with his/her own contract, not having to wait year in year out to hear whether they have a job again every year. Every newly qualified teacher is well aware of this. It is unreasonable for someone out of the job for 20 years, to still be able to walk back into it tomorrow.

And if the teacher is not replaced? I thought there was a hiring embargo.

Rubik. wrote: »

Another Martin U-turn. In 2009 his rational for not giving up his teaching post - "I have a young family and a TD's job is a precarious business".

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/shame-of-pensions-on-double-for-teachertds-1726771.html

In the midst of an election campaign his concern has shifted from himself to the other poor sod who is going their job. Funny that.

One might argue his political career is more secure at this time.

Lumen

k_mac wrote: »

I'm talking about the practical effect. One less teacher in the school means a higher pupil teacher ratio.

Stupidity must be tackled at source.

Using a stupid solution to fix stupid problems is just doubly stupid.

rainbowtrout

Lumen wrote: »

Can someone please clarify the pension rules for teachers? Surely you can't just work a couple of years then claim the full pension at retirement?

If a teacher takes up a place as TD they can choose to resign from their job or not. If they don't resign (Kenny, Martin, Hanafin etc) their job is held open indefinitely and a sub is hired in their place. The sitting TD is entitled to the difference in pay between what it would cost to pay them and pay the sub.

Eg. If Mary Hanafin was on 50k a year when she left her teaching job, and it costs 35K to hire a sub in her place (let's assume the sub is a new/recent graduate), she is allowed to pocket the difference between her salary and the sub's salary i.e. 15k.

I assume because they are still essentially in a paid position and are still entitled to increments and 'years of service' :rolleyes: they are then also entitled to pay into the pension. Actually again I'm only assuming this but because PS pension contributions are compulsory they are probably obliged to pay into it while they keep their teaching job open. However, as they are allowed to pocket the difference in pay, in my opinion this would more than pay for their pension contributions for the year, or close enough to it anyway. So I see it as getting a pension for free when they are not in the classroom.

For what it's worth, I'm a teacher myself and I think it's wrong. They shouldn't be keeping a job open because they are in the Dail. It should be one or the other. You wouldn't be able to do it anywhere else. You can count your years of service if you move from one PS job to another, but you still only get one pension at the end. The whole debacle with teaching and being a TD should be no different.

Lumen

rainbowtrout wrote: »

If a teacher takes up a place as TD they can choose to resign from their job or not. If they don't resign (Kenny, Martin, Hanafin etc) their job is held open indefinitely and a sub is hired in their place. The sitting TD is entitled to the difference in pay between what it would cost to pay them and pay the sub.

Eg. If Mary Hanafin was on 50k a year when she left her teaching job, and it costs 35K to hire a sub in her place (let's assume the sub is a new/recent graduate), she is allowed to pocket the difference between her salary and the sub's salary i.e. 15k.

I assume because they are still essentially in a paid position and are still entitled to increments and 'years of service' :rolleyes: they are then also entitled to pay into the pension. Actually again I'm only assuming this but because PS pension contributions are compulsory they are probably obliged to pay into it while they keep their teaching job open. However, as they are allowed to pocket the difference in pay, in my opinion this would more than pay for their pension contributions for the year, or close enough to it anyway. So I see it as getting a pension for free when they are not in the classroom.

For what it's worth, I'm a teacher myself and I think it's wrong. They shouldn't be keeping a job open because they are in the Dail. It should be one or the other. You wouldn't be able to do it anywhere else. You can count your years of service if you move from one PS job to another, but you still only get one pension at the end. The whole debacle with teaching and being a TD should be no different.

Thanks for the detail. The system you've described is completely insane, particularly the bit about being paid for someone less qualified to do your job. Bait and switch!

I had the impression that PS pensions did not require contributions (I know, it's probably because I read the Indo). I guess if the TD has to pay these contributions to retain a pension entitlement, it makes sense for them to get some sort of pension at the end of it, but that's a big "if", and I'm not sure that pension contributions without service can be counted the same.

Is the sub teacher also entitled to a pension?

rebel10

rainbowtrout wrote: »

For what it's worth, I'm a teacher myself and I think it's wrong. They shouldn't be keeping a job open because they are in the Dail. It should be one or the other. You wouldn't be able to do it anywhere else. You can count your years of service if you move from one PS job to another, but you still only get one pension at the end. The whole debacle with teaching and being a TD should be no different.

+1. I'm a teacher, and i think the whole system needs a huge overhaul.

mconigol

lol...it's his government decisions that means someone will loose their job not the fact that he's decided to quit clinging on to his teaching post after so many years.

tipptom

rainbowtrout wrote: »

If a teacher takes up a place as TD they can choose to resign from their job or not. If they don't resign (Kenny, Martin, Hanafin etc) their job is held open indefinitely and a sub is hired in their place. The sitting TD is entitled to the difference in pay between what it would cost to pay them and pay the sub.

Eg. If Mary Hanafin was on 50k a year when she left her teaching job, and it costs 35K to hire a sub in her place (let's assume the sub is a new/recent graduate), she is allowed to pocket the difference between her salary and the sub's salary i.e. 15k.

I assume because they are still essentially in a paid position and are still entitled to increments and 'years of service' :rolleyes: they are then also entitled to pay into the pension. Actually again I'm only assuming this but because PS pension contributions are compulsory they are probably obliged to pay into it while they keep their teaching job open. However, as they are allowed to pocket the difference in pay, in my opinion this would more than pay for their pension contributions for the year, or close enough to it anyway. So I see it as getting a pension for free when they are not in the classroom.

For what it's worth, I'm a teacher myself and I think it's wrong. They shouldn't be keeping a job open because they are in the Dail. It should be one or the other. You wouldn't be able to do it anywhere else. You can count your years of service if you move from one PS job to another, but you still only get one pension at the end. The whole debacle with teaching and being a TD should be no different.

Just wondering rainbow is it usual for a teacher to become a pricipal within 4 years,and the 15k is just for pension purposes or is it actually paid to them.

Sanjuro

Christ, the system in this country is seriously out of whack. Once somebody becomes a paid TD, their previous position and all it's perks should be null and void. Give it to someone who needs a job, ffs.

rebel10

Lumen wrote: »

I had the impression that PS pensions did not require contributions (I know, it's probably because I read the Indo)

:eek:
Of course we are required to make contributions! Yes, the Indo could be the reason why you are misled! All teachers, sub or not, are required to pay into their pensions afaik.

Krusader

Mary Hanafin is the same i think

Duggy747

Fùckin' LOL

He gets to keep his teaching position up until now whereas a person will now lose their job.

My sister has been a teacher in Limerick for a few years now but because her school is over-quota she and others there have to up and leave Limerick now and start all over again securing a position somewhere else in the country. Only thing that's different from doing it before is now she has 2 kids and has to move.

Lumen

Facts from into.ie for the ignorant non-teachers such as myself.

The DES has also commenced the deduction of pension contributions for substitute service with effect from January 1, 2005.

Substitute service prior to 1 January 2005, may be credited for pension purposes following the payment by the teacher of superannuation contributions in respect of such previous service.

The National School Teachers' Superannuation Scheme is a contributory scheme. The basic average superannuation contribution is 7.5% of gross salary and allowances. Teachers who are members of the Spouses' and Children's Pension Scheme pay an additional contribution of 1.5% of gross salary and allowances.

...

Pension is calculated at the rate of one eightieth of retiring salary for each year of pensionable service at the date of retirement subject to a maximum of 40 years. For example, a teacher on a 'retiring salary' of €60,000 with 40 years' contributions to the scheme will receive an annual pension of €30,000 (i.e. 1/80th of €60,000 x 40).

A teacher on the same salary with 35 years' pensionable service will receive an annual pension of €26,250 (i.e. 1/80th of €60,000 x 35).

Pensions are deemed to be income and as such are subject to income tax.

Retired teachers' pensions increase in line with salary increases awarded to serving teachers.

Lump sum is calculated at the rate of three eightieths of retiring salary for each year of pensionable service at the date of retirement subject to a maximum of 40 years. For example a teacher on a retiring salary of €60,000 with 40 years' or more contributions to the scheme will receive a lump sum of €90,000 (i.e. 3/80ths of €60,000 x 40).

A teacher on the same salary with 35 years' pensionable service will receive a lump sum of €78,750 (i.e. 3/80ths of €60,000 x 35).

rainbowtrout

Lumen wrote: »

Thanks for the detail. The system you've described is completely insane, particularly the bit about being paid for someone less qualified to do your job. Bait and switch!

I had the impression that PS pensions did not require contributions (I know, it's probably because I read the Indo). I guess if the TD has to pay these contributions to retain a pension entitlement, it makes sense for them to get some sort of pension at the end of it, but that's a big "if", and I'm not sure that pension contributions without service can be counted the same.

Is the sub teacher also entitled to a pension?

Of course we have to pay into a pension!!! This is the type of mis-information that has been circulating for the last few years and giving PS workers a woeful name. It's compulsory for all PS workers to pay into a pension from the first day they join the PS. There is no way of opting out. I started teaching at 22 and have been paying pension contributions since then. The media have done a very good job in the last few years of making it sound like we were getting the pension for free and that that pension levy was finally a way of making us pay for the pension.

I have no issue in saying that we have a good deal pension wise, because we do. But we have been contributing to that pension all along, and only those that work the full 40 years get the full pension. The rest get a fraction equal to the years worked. Eg. if you work 20 years you get half pension etc etc.

tipptom wrote: »

Just wondering rainbow is it usual for a teacher to become a pricipal within 4 years,and the 15k is just for pension purposes or is it actually paid to them.

No it isn't. Any jobs you see advertised will usually say 'Must have 5 years whole time experience'. However if no other suitable candidates applied for the job they may give it to someone with less than 5 years, it could be that they worked in industry beforehand, or that they teach in a small rural 2 teacher school, or in Enda's case the criteria could have been different back in the 70s. There may have been no lower limit on the years of experience needed to apply for a principal's job back then.

The 15k, I took as an example, it could be more or it could be less, depending on the teacher/TDs number of years of service, and the number of years of service of the sub. It is paid to them. They can choose not to accept it, I have read of a couple of TDs who do not accept the surplus, can't think off the top of my head who they are, but as you can imagine those that do accept it keep it quiet. I also think that for the most part that TDs accepting the surplus should for the most part be able to fund pension contributions from that surplus, so their 'teaching' pension would cost them very little overall. Even moreso because they are getting a pension for a job they are not doing.

It may also arise that the sub has the same level of experience as the TD and would be on the same salary, in this case the TD would get nothing extra and again I would assume while they would still be entitled to make a pension contribution they would make it from their own pocket. However, my heart is not bleeding for the ones in this position as they are entitled to incremental pay, so their pay would go up every year anyway.

rainbowtrout

Lumen wrote: »

Facts from into.ie for the ignorant non-teachers such as myself.

It's also worth pointing out to add to Lumen's quote on teaching pensions that teachers do not get the the old age pension on top of this.

Eg. if a teacher retires on 60k after 40 years and gets a pension of 30k per annum, this includes the OAP, it's not an extra. They would have got the OAP anyway because of PRSI contributions, so the contributions they made over the 40 years are essentially funding the other 19k a year.

Also the Spouses and Children's thing is compulsory too. It might not be for pre 1995 PS workers whose terms and conditions are slightly different. (I'm post 95). You have to pay 1.5% into Spouses and Children's from day one, so there is some small pension for them if you die in service. However again there is no opt out and if you do not have a spouse or children like myself currently, you don't get it back.

maglite

There are about 30 Teacher politicians


http://www.independent.ie/national-news/disgraceful-tds-still-cling-to-teacher-posts-and-perks-1537131.html

FlutterinBantam

rebel10 wrote: »

:eek:
Of course we are required to make contributions! Yes, the Indo could be the reason why you are misled! All teachers, sub or not, are required to pay into their pensions afaik.

Do you get an index linked pension and a six figure sum on retirement.

at 60!!!

Newstalk today almost made me sick, we don't know the half of it.

rainbowtrout

The text of that article which is pretty much what I was saying.

'Disgraceful' TDs still cling to teacher posts and perks

By Patricia McDonagh
Thursday November 13 2008
TDs and Senators were last night branded a "disgrace" for clinging on to teaching posts after it was revealed they have received almost €315,000 in leave payments in just five years.

The figures for payments to politicians on "Oireachtas leave" from teaching jobs between 2003 and 2007 come in the wake of public fury over Budget plans to cut teaching positions in schools which will increase the pupil-teacher ratios.

Under an agreement with the Department of Education, teachers who become TDs or senators are automatically paid the difference between their teaching salary and the cost of employing a temporary replacement.

Entitlements

For example, if a teacher earned €60,000 a year before becoming a TD and was replaced by a substitute earning €50,000, the newly elected member of the Dail would be paid €10,000.

With no time limit on the payment, some politicians avail of it decades after taking office.

Politicians automatically receive the payment unless they tell the Department of Education they do not want it.

And even if they do not accept the payment, politicians who hold on to their teaching jobs continue to keep their pension entitlements.

Last night the politicians were heavily criticised by National Parents Council director Tommy Walshe.

"It is a disgrace that they are keeping their positions. I would be 100pc in favour of politicians giving them up, especially as we are set to lose teachers due to Budget cuts," Mr Walshe said. "It is shocking that people would hang on to two or three jobs in times like this."

Currently five of the 28 "teacher politicians" receive the payment, in contrast to others who have resigned or retired.

They are: Fianna Fail junior minister Tony Killeen; backbench party colleague Aine Brady; Independent TDs Joe Behan and Tony Gregory, and Fine Gael Senator Joe O'Reilly.

Four other politicians are signed up to the scheme but have opted not to receive payment.

They are: Fianna Fail's Maire Hoctor, Margaret Conlon and Frank Fahey and Fine Gael's Jimmy Deenihan.

A further six politicians have declined the payment but are holding on to their positions and continue to rack up their full pension entitlements.

They are: Foreign Minister Micheal Martin, Social and Family Affairs Minster Mary Hanafin, Transport Minister Noel Dempsey and Labour TDs Tommy Broughan , Roisin Shortall and Brendan Howlin.

Over the past five years 17 politicians have taken payments -- on top of Dail salaries.

Pension

According to the figures, Labour's defence spokesman Brian O'Shea clocked up the highest payment of all TDs on leave from their positions in primary schools.

Last night the Waterford TD -- who retired from teaching two years ago -- defended the €49,527 payout insisting the arrangement was in operation when he entered the Dail and allowed politicians some security.

"The most attractive thing was that the job was still there for me," he said.

Former chief whip Tom Kitt, who has retired from teaching, was the second highest beneficiary in the primary school category -- clocking up €44,983 in payments during that time. The Dublin South TD refused to comment on the issue when contacted.

In the post-primary sector Independent TD Tony Gregory received the highest payment, clocking up €27,223 between 2003 and 2007. He declined to comment on the matter.

Last night Fine Gael education spokesman Brian Hayes insisted it was "sensible" for those receiving money to give it up voluntarily after winning two elections to the Dail.

Labour education spokesman Ruairi Quinn said there was merit in looking at the period of time that people could avail of the payment but said people should have a right to return to a secure job.

Unions

Primary and secondary school teacher unions last night said they supported the scheme but that a limit of between 10 and 12 years should be applied.

The Department of Education last night said the system would not be changed.

Teachers are allowed normally to take a career break of up to 5 years - unpaid. A teacher applies for a 1 year break and reapplies each year after that for a maximum of 5 years. This allows a teacher to return to work after a year or two if they have changed their mind about the long term break. They do not have to take all 5 years together. They can take 2 years now and then return to teaching for another 10 years and then take another three etc. But it's 5 years in total. I think this should apply to those who are elected to the Dail. Take a career break for 5 years for the term of that Dail, or less if it is dissolved before then. If the TD has taken the full 5 years the TD can choose to remain in politics or return to the classroom. If they choose to remain in politics then they lose all rights to their teaching job as would anyone else who does not return to teaching after a 5 year career break.

FlutterinBantam

rainbowtrout wrote: »

The text of that article which is pretty much what I was saying.



Teachers are allowed normally to take a career break of up to 5 years - unpaid. A teacher applies for a 1 year break and reapplies each year after that for a maximum of 5 years. This allows a teacher to return to work after a year or two if they have changed their mind about the long term break. They do not have to take all 5 years together. They can take 2 years now and then return to teaching for another 10 years and then take another three etc. But it's 5 years in total. I think this should apply to those who are elected to the Dail. Take a career break for 5 years for the term of that Dail, or less if it is dissolved before then. If the TD has taken the full 5 years the TD can choose to remain in politics or return to the classroom. If they choose to remain in politics then they lose all rights to their teaching job as would anyone else who does not return to teaching after a 5 year career break.

can't see too much to argue with in that post.

rebel10

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Do you get an index linked pension and a six figure sum on retirement.

at 60!!!

Newstalk today almost made me sick, we don't know the half of it.

Ok, i'm no expert on pensions, but don't most skilled workers get an index linked pension? In the Uk they certainly do. The retirement age is going to be 68. Those that retire at 60 have bought back their years as such.

FlutterinBantam

rebel10 wrote: »

Ok, i'm no expert on pensions, but don't most skilled workers get an index linked pension? In the Uk they certainly do. The retirement age is going to be 68. Those that retire at 60 have bought back their years as such.

Very few people apart from the PS get index linked pensions.

Index linked= pension linked to the salary of the incumbent of whatever job you left.!!!

Aishae

absolutely crazy....
the sub would lose their job but taking into account the pay to the sub and the difference the td is entitled to AND the pension they are entitled to its hardly worth it. it'd cost more by them holding their posts open!

people dont have the luxury of holding one job open while they do another - so they have something to fall back on if/when it goes bust

rainbowtrout

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Do you get an index linked pension and a six figure sum on retirement.

at 60!!!

Newstalk today almost made me sick, we don't know the half of it.

Before the rabble starts, quote the facts first.

Teachers who started in PS before 2004 can retire between the ages of 60 and 65 assuming they have worked up their years by then.

Myself I started when I was 22, so I will have my full 40 years done at 62 and can go on full pension then. I will have been paying contributions to that pension for 40 years at that stage.

A teacher that works the full 40 years gets a pension which is half of the salary they retire on and a lump sum of 1.5 times their final salary. So yes, if I retire on 60k at the age of 62 I will get a pension of 30k and a lump sum of 90k. If I go before 62, eg if I go at 60, I will have worked 38 years so will get 38/40ths of my pension entitlement. ie. 30k x 38/40 = €28,500 and lump sum is adjusted accordingly 90k x 38/40 = €85,500.

However not all teachers work 40 years so will get their pension pro-rata. So a teacher who works 20 years and retires on 60k (lets assume she got a promotion and was made principal or something during that time to bump up her salary), will get a pension of 15k instead of 30k because she only worked half the years. Her lump sum would be 45k (which of course is not to be sneezed at).

Do also remember that teachers and other PS workers do pay PRSI as well so the old age pension is part of the teaching pension, it's not an extra. So the teacher with 20 years service, with the pension of 15k would have got 11k of it anyway through OAP.

Since 2004, the minimum retirement age in PS/teaching has been raised to 65.

FlutterinBantam

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Before the rabble starts, quote the facts first.

Teachers who started in PS before 2004 can retire between the ages of 60 and 65 assuming they have worked up their years by then.

Myself I started when I was 22, so I will have my full 40 years done at 62 and can go on full pension then. I will have been paying contributions to that pension for 40 years at that stage.

A teacher that works the full 40 years gets a pension which is half of the salary they retire on and a lump sum of 1.5 times their final salary. So yes, if I retire on 60k at the age of 62 I will get a pension of 30k and a lump sum of 90k. If I go before 62, eg if I go at 60, I will have worked 38 years so will get 38/40ths of my pension entitlement. ie. 30k x 38/40 = €28,500 and lump sum is adjusted accordingly 90k x 38/40 = €85,500.

However not all teachers work 40 years so will get their pension pro-rata. So a teacher who works 20 years and retires on 60k (lets assume she got a promotion and was made principal or something during that time to bump up her salary), will get a pension of 15k instead of 30k because she only worked half the years. Her lump sum would be 45k (which of course is not to be sneezed at).

Do also remember that teachers and other PS workers do pay PRSI as well so the old age pension is part of the teaching pension, it's not an extra. So the teacher with 20 years service, with the pension of 15k would have got 11k of it anyway through OAP.

Since 2004, the minimum retirement age in PS/teaching has been raised to 65.

Thanks, is the pension index linked?

rainbowtrout

rebel10 wrote: »

Ok, i'm no expert on pensions, but don't most skilled workers get an index linked pension? In the Uk they certainly do. The retirement age is going to be 68. Those that retire at 60 have bought back their years as such.

No rebel10, FlutterinBantam is right on this count. PS workers are one of the few in this country who have index linked pensions.

The retirement age rising to 68 has very little to do with working, all it simply means is that the state pension won't be paid out to retirees until they reach 68. They can choose to retire before that if they have a pension in place whether that be like ourselves in PS, through a work pension scheme in private sector or through a private pension scheme.

rebel10

rainbowtrout wrote: »

No rebel10, FlutterinBantam is right on this count. PS workers are one of the few in this country who have index linked pensions.

The retirement age rising to 68 has very little to do with working, all it simply means is that the state pension won't be paid out to retirees until they reach 68. They can choose to retire before that if they have a pension in place whether that be like ourselves in PS, through a work pension scheme in private sector or through a private pension scheme.

Thanks

rainbowtrout

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Thanks, is the pension index linked?

I'm not an expert on pensions, so if you mean by index linked that PS workers get a rise in their pension if teachers/PS workers get a rise in salary then the answer is yes.

If pay is increased (Towards 2016, benchmarking etc) and the top level salary increases from 60k to 62k for arguments sake then the teacher retiring on pension of 30k will now get a pension of 31k keeping in line with the rises. I'm keeping the example simple, but I'm sure it illustrates the point.

This is also something I don't agree with (although if I was getting 'free money/pay rise' on retirement I might hold a slightly different view). I don't think a person should get a rise in their pension when they are no longer contributing to that fund.

Sir Oxman

No wonder there are so many teachers or are they half-ex-teachers in the Dail.
A ban on this safety net for teachers would possibly save the nation from some hopeless, ignorant, idiotic lawmakers.
I see there are lots of FG and Labour amongst the FF doing the piggy in the trough on this.

FlutterinBantam

rainbowtrout wrote: »

I'm not an expert on pensions, so if you mean by index linked that PS workers get a rise in their pension if teachers/PS workers get a rise in salary then the answer is yes.

If pay is increased (Towards 2016, benchmarking etc) and the top level salary increases from 60k to 62k for arguments sake then the teacher retiring on pension of 30k will now get a pension of 31k keeping in line with the rises. I'm keeping the example simple, but I'm sure it illustrates the point.

This is also something I don't agree with (although if I was getting 'free money/pay rise' on retirement I might hold a slightly different view). I don't think a person should get a rise in their pension when they are no longer contributing to that fund.

Thanks for your honesty, and it's a totally crazy situation.

Cost of living increases are all that most other pension schemes promise and only then if the fund can afford it.

Is the PS pension co-ordinated or uncoordinated or a mixture

IE if in receipt of OAP does it drop the pension by a similar amount.

rainbowtrout

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Thanks for your honesty, and it's a totally crazy situation.

Cost of living increases are all that most other pension schemes promise and only then if the fund can afford it.

Is the PS pension co-ordinated or uncoordinated or a mixture

IE if in receipt of OAP does it drop the pension by a similar amount.

I don't understand the co-ordinated or uncoordinated bit. I assume you mean how the money is invested? To be honest I haven't a clue. I know with a private pension 'the value of your investment can go down as well as up' I've heard the spiel plenty of times and get the idea, but because ours is defined benefit, we are guaranteed a set amount on retirement so I have no idea where the money goes. I doubt many PS workers do to be honest.

The OAP is rolled into the PS pension,, so I don't know what you mean by that. Are you asking, if there is a cut in the OAP is there a similar cut in the PS pension? If so, I don't know the answer to that one. I'm guessing that there isn't because our pension is defined benefit.

What I do know is that when PS workers took a paycut last year, if PS pensions were keeping in line with that (i.e. they got a payrise when we got a payrise) they should have taken a cut as well, but they didn't. They got to keep their pension based on the older pay rates and this is what is currently being offered. Any PS worker that retires before Feb 2012 will get a pension based on 2009 pay levels (pre paycuts). This was designed to encourage a large number of retirements from PS, but I haven't seen a huge knock on effect, not in my school anyway. Those that have retired in the last 2 years were due to retire anyway, and didn't do so to keep the higher pension rate of 2009 to the best of my knowledge.

That's something else I don't agree with. If pension contributions (by percentage) have decreased because of a decrease in pay in PS then there is less money there to pay out pensions so why keep those who have retired on pensions which are now essentially artificially inflated. Oh yes, I remember that's what the pension levy is paying for.

theparish

This kind of crazyiness is not limited to teaching positions.
I recently lost my job after many years in the private sector.
Prior to the economy going tits up 2 public sector workers joined the company
that I worked for and stayed for the bones of 3 years.Just as redundancies
started to kick in the same 2 workers handed in their notices and returned to their old jobs in public sector.Great country.

Dionysus

rebel10 wrote: »

It follows confirmation yesterday from Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny that he will not now take up his own teacher's pension.

For the sake of accuracy it should be made clear that Enda Kenny merely said he is deferring acceptance of his €100,000 teacher payment for reaching his 60th birthday until after he leaves government. Kenny is still accepting it!

Source: Kenny says he will defer €100k pension lump-sum until he leaves politics

orourkeda

He definitely has the demeanour of a teacher

tipptom

Yea,Im confused about this,some said he had given it up but ithought he had said he is not taking it up until he retires,if thats true whats he bragging about in that annoying (me tough guy) way he does through his teeth,he is still taking it with all his other pensions.

rainbowtrout

tipptom wrote: »

Yea,Im confused about this,some said he had given it up but ithought he had said he is not taking it up until he retires,if thats true whats he bragging about in that annoying (me tough guy) way he does through his teeth,he is still taking it with all his other pensions.

The article says he's deferring it, so he's not giving it up. He'll still be accepting it. Because he started in teaching prior to 2004, he is allowed to 'retire' from teaching at the age of 60. Full service is 40 years as I mentioned in an earlier post, however in teaching you are allowed retire at the minimum pension age (60 in Enda's case) from 35 years of service onwards and receive a pension at that point. The pension is paid pro-rata. So a teacher with 35 years service at age 60 will get 35/40ths of the pension they would be entitled to. Pension at full service is 40/80ths of final pay, or more simply half final salary. However, teachers who have reached the age of 55 or more and have completed 33 years teaching and want to retire early are allowed to do so. They will be given up to two years 'service credit' for their time spent in college doing the degree/HDip to make up the 35 years.

I must stress that this is not financial credit of any type and does not give an financial increments. It simply allows teachers retire a bit earlier. A teacher going after 33 years service will get 33/40ths of the final pension payable after 40 years on that salary.

So the way it reads to me for Enda's case is that he will have 34 years 'service' done when he reaches 60. He could choose to 'retire' from teaching at this point at get a salary of 34/40th of the full pension he would get if he did 40 years and same with lump sum or he could 'work' and contribute another year until he is 61 and get the 35/40th salary. He could also choose to 'work' and contribute to the pension until he is 65 and get 39/40ths.

Something tells me though that he's getting out now on 34 years rather than 35 because next year the pay cuts imposed in 2009 affect the pensions from 2012 onwards and his pension is probably worth more after 34 years (with no cut) than it will be next year after 35 years with a cut.

The fact that he's not giving it up and just deferring it basically puts him in the same category as the others who haven't given it up no matter what party they belong to.

Actually I think my biggest gripe with the whole situation is not that he's getting this pension. He's paid into and has been allowed pay into it for 30 years so to say that he's not entitled to the money he's paid in might not be entirely legal. If I paid into a pension I'd expect to get my money back. My issue is that he's kept a job open for 30 years which could have gone to someone else, he's entitled to the surplus salary which is leftover after paying the sub (whether he's taken it or not is another issue), and that's he's entitled to incremental credit and pay rises and access to a pension for a job which he does not do. That's the problem I have with it. That and the fact that even if he didn't accept the surplus pay, there are other TDs who do accept it and can use it quite easily to fund their teacher pension so essentially they are getting a free pension for a job they don't do. That's my bugbear.

Lumen

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Actually I think my biggest gripe with the whole situation is not that he's getting this pension. He's paid into and has been allowed pay into it for 30 years so to say that he's not entitled to the money he's paid in might not be entirely legal.

The pension contributions do not nearly pay for the defined-benefit pension he's "entitled to".

These favourable pension arrangements of public sector workers are generally justified on the basis that it's part of the package they get for doing the job. Lower salary*, more job security, better pension.

If you're not doing the job, you shouldn't be entitled to a defined-benefits pension for that job.

By all means give him an index-linked sum based on his contributions and years of actual service (minus any pay he's been awarded over that period, index-linked), so that he can buy a private pension to fund his retirement. It would be worth the square root of fúck all.

(* yes, the "lower salary" bit is arguable, but I don't want to drag this into an argument about benchmarking)