After private-sector recklessness, greed and incompetence plunged us into financial crisis and recession, Tory politicians and right-wing newspapers have attempted, with some success, to deflect popular anger on to public-sector workers such as teachers and civil servants although those other public sector workers involved, such as fire fighters, armed forces and doctors are seldom identified in these attacks on 'gold plated' pensions
I guess teachers are just an easy target for the Bonzos and other loonies of this world.

Recruitment publicity stresses that "The Army's pension scheme is one of the best there is and you won't have any of your salary deducted to pay into it, making you better off in the long run. The pension you get will be based on your final salary and how long you've served for. You could be entitled to payments and a tax-free lump sum after 18 years' Regular service."
The armed forces pension scheme costs the government more than £3bn annually.

At 11% of salary, firefighters, along with the police, already pay some of highest contribution rates of any scheme in the public sector. The Government's proposed changes to the Firefighters Pensions Scheme (FPS) aim to save £73 million by 2014 is based on assuming only 1% would opt out of the FPS, by far the largest pension scheme for fire crews although a YouGov survey of nearly 8,000 firefighters found that as many as 27% would consider opting out of the pension scheme.
If such was the case it is estimated that the changes would cost the Government £283.5 million in lost contributions by 2014 (£94.5 million a year) and additionally undermine the viability of the pension scheme as the scheme is unfounded and relies heavily on the contributions coming in to pay the pensions going out, meaning the impact of the loss of contributions would be immediate.

[Hutton recognised that setting too high a level could prompt some lower-paid workers to quit pension schemes altogether resulting in even greater costs in the long term.]

Hutton is also quoted as saying
"….it it is wrong to say that public service pensions are gold-plated. …..these pensions provide a modest - not an excessive - level of retirement income……
I also reject the argument that the downward drift of pensions in the private sector is justification that pensions in the public sector must follow the same course. I have rejected a race for the bottom."

An independent financial on line guide points out
"Many critics say the problem with public sector pensions is that they are unfunded by investment returns and are paid direct by taxpayers. However, switching from unfunded to funded status could cost £20 billion a year as employer contributions would be invested in the stock market, requiring the government to find fresh money for existing pensioners."

Pension obligations, of course, are the biggest barrier to more privatising and outsourcing of public-sector services.