Teachers leaving Dublin schools due to accommodation costs

Even the simple solution of paying a top up like they do in London to acknowledge the cost of living would go a long way to solving this issue.

The problem is that the cost of accomodation in Dublin isn't unsustainable, wages in the private sector enssure they aren't. The prices around now are not down to intervention in the market but rather the preponderance of FDI and the high wages they brought with them mixed with a lack of supply.

County councils building at scale is the real answer but there doesn't seem to be an appetite for that.

We've had a couple of young teachers buy with the county council mortgages, be helpful if the unions pushed these heavily

I think the private sector workers accommodation issue is separate to this topic.

It's about ensuring there are enough teachers for our current children. There's a reason why other countries offer incentives to public sector workers in major cities.

Sorry to break it to You but the new pension scheme system ensures they have an utter $hite pension when they retire anyway.

This hits hard especially at secondary where the career average royally screws teachers on part time contacts for years... and that's assuming you go straight from college to work (ideally a BEd!!). Quite a few people come to teaching say in their late 20s early thirties, add on potentially 8-10 years before full hours, then you're really starting full payments in your late 30s. Now compare that to the older scheme where it was based on final salary, and you'll see that the 'golden public sector pensions ' are now a fairy tale.

If I were an nqt now I'd be far better off cancelling any department of education pension contributions and investing that money myself, either stick it into a Zurich PRSA or use it to fund a mortgage and pay it off quicker.

At the moment ,all these deductions ensure is that you have less money to save or ,god forbid, enjoy!

The unions hired actuaries to calculate that the new pension is just another tax unless you live to 134 or something!

What do you mean by "it is still very good compared to the normal private sector one"

... Are you seriously comparing to private sector teachers pensions?

At least if you are a privately paid teacher you have 100% control of your own pension contributions, plus there are some schools who also CONTRIBUTE on top of the employees contributions.

BTW most private sector employers of professionals also contribute to employee pension schemes ... what does the department add on top of the teacher contributions?

Anyhow heres the report, Knock yourself out.

Keep in mind, the assumption is that these NQTs would begin working full time between ages 21-25... Which of course you know about the reality of this.

https://paycommission.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/INTO-TUI-pensions-1-Single-Scheme.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwi6grfXnu_5AhWJR8AKHePYAV0QFnoECC8QAQ&usg=AOvVaw230cNBs7vu7bHEzjS0rcQQ

"

The value of many teachers’ contributions under the proposed new scheme will exceed the value of benefits, a situation which is grossly unfair and which may be open to legal challenge especially since membership is compulsory. A meaningful employer contribution is a statutory requirement for private sector schemes."

"  The new scheme would result in a scheme pension of 26% of final salary after working for 43 years, compared to a 32% pension for working 40 years at present (lump sum falls from 150% to 129%). The disimprovement in conditions would be more severe for a teacher who is promoted in late career."

https://www.tui.ie/_fileupload/Trident%2520Report%252015%2520point%2520summary%25201110.doc&ved=2ahUKEwiDmbqTnO_5AhVbSEEAHXp8CVMQFnoECAsQAQ&usg=AOvVaw18G64iq3_p0CzW0J12QW51

38k for 8 months. You should pro rate to get comparable 12 month figure.

Yes, I can’t understand why there hasn’t been a word about these career breaks in all the discussions about teachers only being offered temporary positions.

The "normal private sector one" is for the employer to make zero contributions.

Now, I've searched that document high and low, but couldn't find anything about living to 134, so I'm still going to use the phrase "porkies".

But I did find this:

"Average percentage of cost paid by member 95% | 88% | 91% | 85% | 88% |82% "

Basically, on his assumptions, and using his examples, the employer is paying from 5%-18% of the pension. As per my post, this is obviously not as much as the old pension scheme, but is still good, and a lot better than most have it.

But the reality is that the author is missing 1 huge assumption (maybe it is there, but couldn't find it in the document). The teacher's pension is guaranteed. That is a prenominal cost, so to exclude it is a massive oversight and hugely distorts the figures (coincidentally in the union's favour). Thus, his figures are based on a 72.64% mix of equities throughout the the person's career. This is completely at odds with a standard private sector worker, all because of the lack of guarantee. As a result, he is not even comparing apples and oranges, but comparing apples and books.

Change the asset mix to cater for a private sector worker wanting a low risk (they will never be able to get a guarantee) pension, and that 5%-18% would probably move close to 50%

So let's look at some big figures that don't require big (or missing) assumptions...

For a person who works as a teacher for their whole career and retires at normal age, this scheme guarantees them a pension of 42% of their retiring salary. All for an average (total) annual contribution of what, 10%ish (tax deductible)?

There are a lot of people reading this thread who would (or should if they had any sense) bite your hand off if you offered them that.

How anyone can call a huge benefit "a tax" is perplexing to me.

As for the second link, it doesn't work, so not sure what you are referring to. Bu anyone who is even talking about hte pension only being worth 26% is playing fast and loose with the truth so is probably best ignored.

Firstly, talking about annuity rates of 6% on your retirement is very dangerous. It is a lot more than just interest rates; the low annuity rates we have seen for a long time are based on the continued increasing life expectancy of retirees.

As for your calculations, are you adjusting for inflation? Are you taking into account the investment strategy to get as close to guaranteeing a pension of 42% of retirement salary?

I don't think anybody is referring to the current public sector pension as "gold-plated". But it is still a good pension and the very opposite of a "tax".

Considering the low contribution figures required, I assume you are both also contributing to a PRSA as well?

Assuming tax relief on the contribution?

If so then that doesn’t seem a terrible deal that is being made out.

is the old age penguin paid in addition to the teachers pension?

In the examples given in the doc, the pension received for that "average" "career" teacher worked out to be 42% of final salary. While it is different for everyone (depending on age you start/retire etc), the 42% is a "typical", with most people getting slightly above/below that.

You need to stop comparing it to the old pension scheme. That is long gone and never coming back, and seems ot be confusing you. When comparing it to something, it is best to compare it to the typical private sector worker.

I assure you I am interpreting those figures correctly. Based on the examples given, the employer is paying 5%-18%. While I can't find any decent breakdown online, it is clear that way over half of employers contribute 0%. That is worth repeating - Zero, Nada, Zilch.

But, of course, you didn't include the second point after that. That he never included the cost of the guarantee in his calculations which is huge. Including that could easily increase those figures to 50%, which would bring it line with the top private sector employers.

"majority of private sector workers would bite your hand off if you offered it to them."

Why are you still taking about private sector workers like they are one homogenous group?

Your showing your hand now with your digs at unions for the change in pension scheme for new entrants. You know damn well this was brought in by your government during fempi.

So what private sector worker are you comparing to?

So your comparing teacher pension calculations to "pretty much every other worker in the country"???

Can you outline the pension details of "pretty much every other worker in the country" please? So we can actually compare like for like.

You say the teachers pension is "far better than what most receive from their employer"... Most of who? Like a barman, hairdresser, landscape Gardner??

So by your logic, if their private sector pension schemes are worse, then , teacher pension scheme should be just as bad.... because we're comparing and trying to align it right?

Now it is very funny indeed that you ask how my PRSA is doing because I actually WAS a privately paid teacher with my own PRSA managed by Zurich. And even though I've stopped the contributions and I'm still charged a management fee it's doing very very well... and growing for the most part year on year, it will far exceed anything any NQT would hope to get out of their contributions.

Plus you may be astounded to know that my school ALSO made a contribution towards my pension! Which they certainly did not for the public sector teachers in the same school.

So if you want to compare Public Sector Teacher pensions to Private Sector teacher pensions then let's do that. Rather than comparing us to "pretty much every other worker in the country". Which you fail to define.

Furthermore , when I was privately paid (on a par with public sector pay). I didn't have to contribute to any of this nonsense in the public scheme.

It was just one monthly payment which I got the usual tax relief on.

Nothing happens to this money above in the photo which I pay, it is not invested by the state into any fund, it's thrown into the general Exchequer pot. Our public sector pensions come out of the same Exchequer pot. You may remember there was a pension reserve fund started with a few billion built up, but of course the glorious private sector bank crash saw that off.

And if you want to talk about how a private teacher pension fund contributions could replace the government I'd be happy to just link it to Zurich or the OTTP and eliminate the nonsense in the photo above.

Indeed, my own choice ... But I still count it as a nonsense of the teaching system because of it's part time nature. Which , seeing as we are talking about teachers leaving Dublin schools , is a factor, i.e. offering a teacher 6 hours then suggesting they have the "choice" to make up their guaranteed pension shortfall with an AVC is like saying ,well if you don't like the crowded A&E then you have a choice to build your own hospital.

USC ... fair enough I didn't mean to circle that.

Yes they are compulsory, the point being, if I were private I would have better control. Plus I wouldn't be paying (2) or (3) . They are just another tax on public servants, nothing of this money gets "invested" anywhere .

I'd rather decide where Id "invest" that €500 euro from Pension Grouped, Sp&ch and ASC every month myself. Most private sector workers have a choice no?

don't count on irish teachers from dubai coming back anytime soon many are deciding to stay

I think you may be one of the dozens if not hundreds of online profiles based in political party or government department HQs but maybe Im a bit of a conspiracy theorist .Its crazy how in some online debates today there seem to be a large proportion of 'bots'-sometimes debating with one another !No doubt people seem to be very bad at basic maths these days .Public sector pension was solid but not gilt edged up to 2008 .Its not our fault the 'market' devastated private sector pensions and as a result ours (at least for the oldies) seems so good .Its not really ,its just that everybody elses (except the 1% ,ministers etc )is so bad .Race to the bottom !

New circular out today. PME/hDip allowance to be added to new entrants pay scales. The money to fund it comes from the unions diverting a general pay rise for all to specifically adress this issue for new entrants. We've had a lot of sh1t thrown at us over the years saying we sold out the younger teachers when the fact was the government locked us into a deal and subsequently turned around and slashed new entrants pay.

Pay inequality is now almost wiped out. It has taken over 10 years to get here. The non teaching public sector unions didn't give a toss and still don't as they overseen pay rises for all this year when they too could have boosted the pay of their new entrant members.

I want to salute the leadership of both the second level unions who helped to make this happen. The next battle will now be the new entrants pensions.

New entrant teachers are being lockec into a pension scheme that is practically unethical. If they actually worked a full career of 40 years they will need to live to the age of 94 to get back what they put into it. Considering that life expectancy is around 82 it means the government has a nice little earner.

I know what people mean when they say " two teachers doing the same job" but I would argue no two teachers can ever do the same job really. Theres a world of diference between working in a private school in SoCoDub and somewhere that has to take the sort of feral scrotes from the cherry orchard video seen this week. Christ no amount of money could pay you to deal with that in fairness. I dont think I would be able for it anyway being honest, id say I would be gone after a week.

There has always been lower attendance rates at 3rd level from Dublin, compared to non-Dublin.