Martin to resign teaching position

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)

Freddie59

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?

This is all too surreal. Apparently they go on 'leave of absence' and a temp is employed (for however many years they're away) and if they choose to return, the temp loses the job. This fcuking country. It's all about politicians protecting their own interests. No matter what party they're from.

Isn't it about time a referendum was called on SERIOUSLY reducing the number of TDs and abolishing the impotent Seanad, a playground for wannabee TDs who didn't make it and for those who lose their seats?

We live in a country where radio presenters (and that's what they are) are paid up to €1m to broadcast to a population or four million people.

We live in a country where people go on 'disability/invalidity' and receive medical cards, bus passes, etc. Once you're on it there's no going back. It's sickening.

We live in a country where consultants earn between €250,000 and €500,000 per year. The max they can earn in Germany is €96,000.

We live in a country where people are rewarded for being incompetent (a la the banking scandal) even though it's dressed up as a 'crisis'.

We live in a country where the Government owns a bank which it has to take to court to gain access to information which it now owns.

We live in a country where some €14,000 per estate has been allocated to finish ghost estates, but billions are pumped into the black hole that is Anglo.

And finally:

We live in a country where one Party has bankrupted the State for Banks & Developers; another is claiming it can undo all this; and not one party is talking about cannibalizing the amount of TDs in an over-represented Dail.

You really couldn't make this sh1t up.:mad:

take everything

Dionysus wrote: »

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

Can someone please tell me:
Is Kenny forfeiting or deferring his pension.
The independent said he was forfeiting it.

steddyeddy

I had an alcoholic french teacher who made a point of repeating that the irish are lazy and didnt chip in during ww2, the same woman called in sick (with a cough) for 19 days out of two months. Please someone tell me she doesnt get a pension!

rebel10

steddyeddy wrote: »

I had an alcoholic french teacher who made a point of repeating that the irish are lazy and didnt chip in during ww2, the same woman called in sick (with a cough) for 19 days out of two months. Please someone tell me she doesnt get a pension!

Could it have been her alcoholism and not a cough that saw her taking so many days? I know that when i was in school, we had a science teacher who was an alcoholic, we were told she had the flu for about a month, while in transpired after the event that she had checked into a drying out centre. The same woman subsequently suffered a break down and didn't teach again, so I would assume there were probably other issues going on with your teacher?

rainbowtrout

Lumen wrote: »

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)

Under current arrangements he's 'entitled' to it rightly or wrongly. I've said in earlier posts that I don't think it's right that he can still get a pension and pay for a job he doesn't do.

steddyeddy wrote: »

I had an alcoholic french teacher who made a point of repeating that the irish are lazy and didnt chip in during ww2, the same woman called in sick (with a cough) for 19 days out of two months. Please someone tell me she doesnt get a pension!

Don't think that has any bearing on this thread, and when you don't know the full facts about the woman you're not really in a position to comment.

FlutterinBantam

rainbowtrout wrote: »

I don't understand the co-ordinated or uncoordinated bit. I assume you mean how the money is invested?

It means that the OAP is deducted from your pension or is given without reference to the pension.

I would be fairly certain that PS pensions are co-ordinated.. ie when a person qualifies for the OAP, the corresponding award is deducted from the persons pension

steddyeddy

rebel10 wrote: »

Could it have been her alcoholism and not a cough that saw her taking so many days? I know that when i was in school, we had a science teacher who was an alcoholic, we were told she had the flu for about a month, while in transpired after the event that she had checked into a drying out centre. The same woman subsequently suffered a break down and didn't teach again, so I would assume there were probably other issues going on with your teacher?

It probaly was her alcoholisim rebel, i have every sympathy for alcoholics but still is that fair on the kids?

Freddie59

Freddie59 wrote: »

This is all too surreal. Apparently they go on 'leave of absence' and a temp is employed (for however many years they're away) and if they choose to return, the temp loses the job. This fcuking country. It's all about politicians protecting their own interests. No matter what party they're from.

Isn't it about time a referendum was called on SERIOUSLY reducing the number of TDs and abolishing the impotent Seanad, a playground for wannabee TDs who didn't make it and for those who lose their seats?

We live in a country where radio presenters (and that's what they are) are paid up to €1m to broadcast to a population or four million people.

We live in a country where people go on 'disability/invalidity' and receive medical cards, bus passes, etc. Once you're on it there's no going back. It's sickening.

We live in a country where consultants earn between €250,000 and €500,000 per year. The max they can earn in Germany is €96,000.

We live in a country where people are rewarded for being incompetent (a la the banking scandal) even though it's dressed up as a 'crisis'.

We live in a country where the Government owns a bank which it has to take to court to gain access to information which it now owns.

We live in a country where some €14,000 per estate has been allocated to finish ghost estates, but billions are pumped into the black hole that is Anglo.

And finally:

We live in a country where one Party has bankrupted the State for Banks & Developers; another is claiming it can undo all this; and not one party is talking about cannibalizing the amount of TDs in an over-represented Dail.

You really couldn't make this sh1t up.:mad:

And, of course, I didn't include Gardai and teachers, who also get a lump sum, along with a substantial pension. FFS.:mad:

MagicSean

Freddie59 wrote: »

And, of course, I didn't include Gardai and teachers, who also get a lump sum, along with a substantial pension. FFS.:mad:

Yep. I'll be rolling in it in 30 years. Take that recession.

rebel10

steddyeddy wrote: »

It probaly was her alcoholisim rebel, i have every sympathy for alcoholics but still is that fair on the kids?

No, but i suppose that goes off topic completely.