Teachers vote for industrial action

Hillel

Fredser wrote: »

I am a teacher. Listen carefully to what I am about to say ...........
SECURITY - NONE. Good chance of me having no job this September. See that's not very secure is it. Understand?
HOLIDAYS - UNPAID. I'd rather be working and earning money during the holidays. See?

Alessandra wrote: »

Why are teachers the main public sector employees being targetted by abuse?
Teachers are having contracts their contracts ended in May.. Paycuts etc.
Same boat as private sector.

Those teachers who are temporary/on non-permanent contracts are in a very similar position to the private sector. I don't think any reasonable person could argue with that. However, teachers who have attained permanent status are in an entirely different, and much more favorable, situation. They are not doing their "temporary" colleagues any favors when they deliberately ignore that position. Stating, and documenting this is not "abuse", it is an important input to the current debate. Lets stop trying to "muddy the water", here.

Alessandra wrote: »

Sorry but not all teachers get paid holidays!! Depends on the contract.. Get your facts straight.

+1 Lets be fair here. It is important to recognise that non-permanent teachers, are in a similar position to the rest of us.

Trotter

I spent a long time as a temporary teacher before getting a permanent contract. If we strike, one of the reasons will be in defence of temporary teachers who will lose their jobs as a result of higher class sizes. The main reason for me is because of the lack of interest or respect being shown to primary education as a whole. Children suffer in huge classes. The levy isn't the reason why I voted yes.

Hillel

*Honey* wrote: »

sweeping generalisations only serve to irritate and annoy and show that the poster in question hasn't done their research and isn't au fait with the complexities of the differing employment statuses throughout the education sector (from primary to third level).

*Honey*, thats extremely harsh. dave-higgz is to be commended for taking a considerd interest in this area, as should any second level student. Would that many more were so motivated! I have been a permanent member of two Boards of Management and I couldn't claim to be "au fait with the complexities of the differing employment statuses throughout the education sector (from primary to third level)".

*Honey* wrote: »

The OP states that he is in transition year and then says that teachers should take the hit just like "we" all should. Yeah cos transition year students are really going to feel the pain of possibly losing your job, taking pay cuts etc.

Cmon, how do you know his family circumstances?

*Honey* wrote: »

I am not a teacher (but do work in education) and I don't believe teachers should be classed seperately from any other public sector worker..

I don't agree. To quote yourself "sweeping generalisations only serve to irritate and annoy...." In any case the public sector is not homegeneous and it is important to consider the reform needed "sector by sector" and "grade by grade".

dave-higgz wrote: »

1. I know that all teachers do fantastic work during their free classes and at home making lesson plans, correcting homework and exams etc. Just to make that clear.
2. When I said about teachers leaving at 4, I should add that many teachers do stay later to help in extra curricular activities and adult education etc. I don't want to generalize all teachers as being out the door with the students when the bell rings.

No need to "over egg" it. We all know that the teaching profession has its own quota of non-performing members. The management team know this too. The problem is that, unlike the private sector, it's next to impossible to get rid of a non-performing public sector worker.
(Don't worry, while not truly annonymous, it's EXTREMELY difficult to identify the location of a poster. They won't know its you!):D

dave-higgz wrote: »

3. It was said that teachers are no different than any other public sector worker but I feel that they are in some respects. I guess that main one being holiday. Mid-terms, summer, christmas! Only TD's enjoy such breaks (and more) and it's fair to say that TD's are being discussed as a totally separate PS workers.

Fair play to you for sticking to your guns. You're absolutely correct. But, they are also different in that they play a key role in the education of students such as yourself. Don't underestimate the level of preparation it takes for a teacher to prepare and correct class materials. (I speak from personal experience.) Teachers who are committed and doing their job, the majority in most schools, have a substantial amount of work to do outside the class contact hours. In most cases they cannot do this at school as the staff facilities are often grossly inadequate.

turgon

Even if temporary teachers have risks like the public sector, theres still the fact that schools are only open just above half of the days of the year, and they close at 4. Its a nice job to be in.

And permanent teachers obviously get it better. My father is one, and he voted no because he viewed the pension levy as everyone taking the shoulder of responsibility, and he saw a lot of the yes voters for what they were: greedy people who just want to hold onto everything. And fair dues to him for his stance.

To poster above who said the plight of temporary teachers was his issue: that has nothing to do with the vote. If the levy had not been introduced there would have been no vote at all. The vote was triggered by, and was thus about, the levy.

SkepticOne

Trotter wrote: »

I spent a long time as a temporary teacher before getting a permanent contract. If we strike, one of the reasons will be in defence of temporary teachers who will lose their jobs as a result of higher class sizes. The main reason for me is because of the lack of interest or respect being shown to primary education as a whole. Children suffer in huge classes. The levy isn't the reason why I voted yes.

It is important that teachers participating in the action for reasons other than the pensions levy/pay cut such as yourself make it clear that they don't agree with the myopic unions leading the industrial action.

Temporary teachers need to understand that any worsening of the public finances such as would be caused by a reversal of the pensions levy (the main demand of unions) would have a disproportionate effect on them. They need to bear this in mind if they take part in industrial action.

Hillel

Trotter wrote: »

I spent a long time as a temporary teacher before getting a permanent contract. If we strike, one of the reasons will be in defence of temporary teachers who will lose their jobs as a result of higher class sizes. The main reason for me is because of the lack of interest or respect being shown to primary education as a whole. Children suffer in huge classes. The levy isn't the reason why I voted yes.

I empathize with your motives, but I don't think it will help. The government simply has no move to manoeuvre. Every time the government backs down, it only brings us closer to the abyss.

And for the record, the public sector is not being unfairly targeted. The private sector, those of us lucky enough to still have jobs, are feeling real pain. I have just taken a 15% pay cut and expect more to follow. That is in addition to the tax increases. Overall I expect my take home pay to fall by 25%+. This is by no means unusual at the moment, many of my friends are in a similar situation. The business environment is truly savage, right now.

Yes, lets all take a fair share of the pain. When times were good teachers had the benefit of benchmarking - to keep them in line with wage increases in Industry. Now that we are in real trouble it is reasonable to expect the public sector to take their share of the cuts. And yes, I do feel for students and temporary teachers, alike. I believe that teaching is one of the most important professions in the country. Those that do it well deserve recognition and reward. However, that reward must be in line with what the country can afford.

Tony Broke

turgon wrote: »

The vote was triggered by, and was thus about, the levy.

Of course, its all about the money and always will be.They dont give a **** about class sizes and all that stuff.

Trotter

SkepticOne wrote: »

It is important that teachers participating in the action for reasons other than the pensions levy/pay cut such as yourself make it clear that they don't agree with the myopic unions leading the industrial action.

I'm very much behind the actions of my union. The people at the head of my union have made a lot of sense to me and although we don't like the idea of handing out more money, I mean.. who does?.. I am and we are willing to do it when there's a fairness to it, and when the money is going to someone we feel can manage it well.

I don't think my union is myopic, I just think that people need to read all that the union states before jumping on the easy bandwagon that this strike is all about 7% when clearly it is not.

We'll pay our fair share when fairness is evident and when the money is going to be used properly. Until then, I support my union's stance on the industrial action, because I believe the union understands that we all have to take pain.

I mean really, whats the point in giving these people 7% of my wages on top of everything else? They're odds on to squander it, and we're well within our rights to protest against that for one reason alone.

turgon wrote: »

The vote was triggered by, and was thus about, the levy.

I'm telling you what the protest is about. Are you in any of these unions? Have you attended any of these union meetings? If the answer is no, then read what I've written. There is more to this protest than 7%. Saying otherwise is simply wrong.

Hillel wrote: »

And for the record, the public sector is not being unfairly targeted. The private sector, those of us lucky enough to still have jobs, are feeling real pain. I have just taken a 15% pay cut and expect more to follow. That is in addition to the tax increases. Overall I expect my take home pay to fall by 25%+. This is by no means unusual at the moment, many of my friends are in a similar situation. The business environment is truly savage, right now.

Yes, lets all take a fair share of the pain.....

I think you and me are being unfairly targetted by the government. There's a sequence that should have been followed here.

If having put a tax on the very wealthy and then increasing the second level of tax, the government came looking for a pay cut of 7%, I'd have said fine! Thank God I'm on a tracker mortgage because I'm lucky enough that it will balance out and I'll afford the repayments.

This isnt and shouldnt be about private sector v's public. Yes I have security in my job. Thats why I went for it! Yes, I'll use that security to take whatever action my union recommends in the interest of you and me and our kids being treated fairly. If me taking a pay cut is fair, then yes! I'll take a pay cut!

BUT.. I will not willingly give a single cent so that this government can continue to fly TD's to trivial meetings with state cars following along. I know of one minister who flew to a meeting last week to be met there by his state car which drove him to the next meeting 15 mins away, and the minister then flew home. How much fuel did the state car use for that 15 minute journey!? I'd say our PAYE for a week wouldnt cover it.

So I will strike if necessary so that you and me will be treated fairly. I wont lose my job because I strike. You might. Therefore its best that the secure ones strike.

I'm laying my honest motivation out here, and I'm representative of the people I work with. Why do we still have to take such abuse for the conditions we have, when I am telling people here that all that I am willing to do whatever is fairly expected of me to stop the government from making your people and mine argue while they go around throwing our hard earned cash down a hole!?

I want to pay my fair share, no more. I want the government to spend that share properly. I want the children to have the best education in small class sizes so they'll grow up and like maths and science and can work us out of this mess. I want to work hard and be well paid for what I do. I want the government to be so prudent and exact with their spending that your jobs become safe and prosperous again.

I want everyone here to realise that the ones we all need to be giving out about are sitting in State MERCEDES laughing while we argue!!

END RANT!

SkepticOne

Trotter wrote: »

I don't think my union is myopic, I just think that people need to read all that the union states before jumping on the easy bandwagon that this strike is all about 7% when clearly it is not.

What precisely then are the demands of your union? Exactly what do you want to see (other than the 7% pay cut reversed - which may bring about redundancies among temporary teachers) from the government before the industrial action is called off?

Hillel

Trotter wrote: »

........The levy isn't the reason why I voted yes.

Trotter wrote: »

We'll pay our fair share when fairness is evident.

The two don’t add up, Trotter. If fairness was the concern the public sector unions would be agreeing 10%-20% pay cuts, in addition to the levy. The levy would apply to permanent, pensionable, public servants, only. Pigs might fly……

Trotter

Hillel wrote: »

The two don’t add up, Trotter. If fairness was the concern the public sector unions would be agreeing 10%-20% pay cuts, in addition to the levy. The levy would apply to permanent, pensionable, public servants, only. Pigs might fly……

If I took 20% tomorrow, you'd want 30%. Why on earth should the public sector unions agree to give this government more money when they've shown they can't manage money! They haven't the guts to close the tax incentives that support high earner's pensions and multiple properties, but they have the guts to close special needs classes. My union is right not to agree to hand money to such people! Whats the guarantee it'll be used properly?

SkepticOne wrote: »

What precisely then are the demands of your union? Exactly what do you want to see (other than the 7% pay cut reversed - which may bring about redundancies among temporary teachers) from the government before the industrial action is called off?

Demands of my union are listed in detail on www.into.ie and the ICTU websites. Im not typing them out. They centre around fairness. I've spoken enough on my own view on that already.

I don't want the 7% reversed to be honest. What I want is the 7% used to the optimum level to make sure people keep their jobs, Ireland gets out of this hole, and we start keeping our promises to children and getting them into classes of 20 or less. Thats what I want. It costs money. So do a lot of the idiotic things this government is doing.

Until I perceive that the government is managing the money it takes well, then I'm not going to agree with giving them more. Taking 7% from me and spending it on the expenses for someone flying a lear jet to the States when theres an empty business class seat on Aer Lingus behind it, wont save your job.

When I know that money is being well spent, I won't argue.

Hillel wrote: »

The two don’t add up, Trotter. If fairness was the concern the public sector unions would be agreeing 10%-20% pay cuts, in addition to the levy. The levy would apply to permanent, pensionable, public servants, only. Pigs might fly……

If I took 20% tomorrow, you'd want 30%. Why on earth should the public sector unions agree to give this government more money when they've shown they can't manage money! They haven't the guts to close the tax incentives that support high earner's pensions and multiple properties, but they have the guts to close special needs classes. My union is right not to agree to hand money to such people! Whats the guarantee it'll be used properly?

SkepticOne wrote: »

What precisely then are the demands of your union? Exactly what do you want to see (other than the 7% pay cut reversed - which may bring about redundancies among temporary teachers) from the government before the industrial action is called off?

Demands of my union are listed in detail on www.into.ie and the ICTU websites. Im not typing them out. They centre around fairness. I've spoken enough on my own view on that already.

I don't want the 7% reversed to be honest. What I want is the 7% used to the optimum level to make sure people keep their jobs, Ireland gets out of this hole, and we start keeping our promises to children and getting them into classes of 20 or less. Thats what I want. It costs money. So do a lot of the idiotic things this government is doing.

Until I perceive that the government is managing the money it takes well, then I'm not going to agree with giving them more. Taking 7% from me and spending it on the expenses for someone flying a lear jet to the States when theres an empty business class seat on Aer Lingus behind it, wont save your job.

When I know that money is being well spent, I won't argue. The sooner people realise that they're losing their jobs because of the stupidity of the government the better. I worked to better myself, got a job teaching children that pays 39k, and you'd swear I'd personally taken a 2BN wage cheque that caused a shedload of P45s.

Theres a big attack here on the wrong people and the government are the only ones benefitting. They're inept, and we're blaming teachers, nurses and guards. How dare we strike to put pressure on those that caused private sector people to lose their jobs. How dare we look to take them to account for what they did to private sector workers and small children. How dare we demand our 7% on top of everything else be spent with morality and prudence.

Yes.. we're the enemy alright.

SkepticOne

I actually had a look at the INTO site before I asked the question about the exact nature of the unions' demands. Unfortunately it is not very clear. From their site:

60,000 teachers vote for industrial action

The members of the teacher unions, the ASTI, INTO and TUI, have voted to take industrial action, up to and including strike action, over the government’s handling of the economic crisis.

In a joint statement issued last night, the General Secretaries of the three unions said the decision had been a difficult one for teachers who as well as facing difficult economic circumstances are well aware of the impact of the economic crisis on the communities in which they live and work. The statement said the results showed clearly the anger of teachers at Government’s inequitable handling of the crisis.

“Teachers and other workers expected to be treated in a fair and equitable manner and that the well off in society would contribute their fair share,” the union leaders said. “Teachers want government to re-enter discussions to address the economic crisis with the ICTU on the basis that the burden must be shared by all sectors of society according to their means.” The statement expressed support for the Congress plan "There is a better, fairer way".

The Irish Federation of University Teachers is expected to begin balloting its members on industrial action next week.

Industrial action by teachers will be organised on a co-ordinated basis by the teacher unions in conjunction with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions.

Plenty about how they are not happy about the current situation (is anyone happy?) but very little about their demands in this particular industrial action. The only specific thing mentioned is the levy. Obviously reversing this would put put public finances into a worse situation that it already is but this would only affect those teachers on temporary contracts who would be then be laid off.

Trotter

SkepticOne wrote: »

I actually had a look at the INTO site before I asked the question about the exact nature of the unions' demands. Unfortunately it is not very clear. From their site:Plenty about how they are not happy about the current situation (is anyone happy?) but very little about their demands in this particular industrial action. The only specific thing mentioned is the levy. Obviously reversing this would put put public finances into a worse situation that it already is but this would only affect those teachers on temporary contracts who would be then be laid off.

Alright, well I can't dictate back what was discussed at the last meeting I was at but here's my take on it. We'll pay the money, we'll take the pain. They levy is just a shady way to cut 7% off people, many of whom can't afford it. Are you saying its right to take 7% off a public service cleaner on 19k and not adjust the tax allowances given to people on 100k + who are paying into their own pensions?

The levy in its current form isn't fair. If the tax system is changed so that I pay exactly the same as the levy would take from me, but people who should be paying are also paying their fair share, you won't hear such anger.

I should be paying more tax in days like these.. I cant afford much more, but I'll pay it regardless.

Its fairness.. why should the cleaner pay 7% when ultimately their pensions won't go above that of the state pension anyway!? I keep saying that the design of this levy is all wrong.. not the amount that it causes me personally to pay out.

Hillel

Trotter wrote: »

If I took 20% tomorrow, you'd want 30%.
Why on earth should the public sector unions agree to give this government more money when they've shown they can't manage money!

Because, if we really are in this together we'd all be sharing the pain right now. Otherwise its just rhetoric and all this talk of worker solidarity is just that, talk!

Trotter wrote: »

They haven't the guts to close the tax incentives that support high earner's pensions and multiple properties, but they have the guts to close special needs classes. My union is right not to agree to hand money to such people! Whats the guarantee it'll be used properly?
Until I perceive that the government is managing the money it takes well, then I'm not going to agree with giving them more. Taking 7% from me and spending it on the expenses for someone flying a lear jet to the States when theres an empty business class seat on Aer Lingus behind it, wont save your job.

They're two entirely different issues. The prolifigate waste, lack of governance and general greed at the top table, is well covered in other threads. This is not the preserve of politicians, either. It cuts accross the Public Service, Industry, some charities, unions... That is the culture WE allowed develop during the good days. It absolutely needs to be addressed - BUT, it won't address our current spending deficit. Either public servant's pay will have to be cut, or numbers reduced.

SkepticOne

Trotter wrote: »

Alright, well I can't dictate back what was discussed at the last meeting I was at but here's my take on it. We'll pay the money, we'll take the pain. They levy is just a shady way to cut 7% off people, many of whom can't afford it. Are you saying its right to take 7% off a public service cleaner on 19k and not adjust the tax allowances given to people on 100k + who are paying into their own pensions?

The levy in its current form isn't fair. If the tax system is changed so that I pay exactly the same as the levy would take from me, but people who should be paying are also paying their fair share, you won't hear such anger.

I should be paying more tax in days like these.. I cant afford much more, but I'll pay it regardless.

Its fairness.. why should the cleaner pay 7% when ultimately their pensions won't go above that of the state pension anyway!? I keep saying that the design of this levy is all wrong.. not the amount that it causes me personally to pay out.

What we need to see is public statements on their website along those line before we can say that this is the union's stance on the issue. If I was a temporary teacher I would be very wary of supporting the current action.

They can say many things at their meetings but this does not mean they are the the official demands behind their industrial action. We still don't know what they are.

Trotter

Hillel wrote: »

Because, if we really are in this together we'd all be sharing the pain right now. Otherwise its just rhetoric and all this talk of worker solidarity is just that, talk!

This won't be popular but I do think theres a bit of jealousy in that statement. I lost my tennis ball so you should lose yours etc.

Would you cut the wages of teachers, guards and nurses across the board before you reduced the number of back office positions created needlessly in the last 10 years?

sock puppet

I'm in second level education and it's pretty obvious that the strike is only over the pension levy. Teachers are saying it's about more than that. Well I've been in my school 6 years. We've had the same government with the same policies through all those years and yet this will be the first time I'll miss school because of a strike (providing it goes ahead). Why wait until now?

Trotter

sock puppet wrote: »

I'm in second level education and it's pretty obvious that the strike is only over the pension levy. Teachers are saying it's about more than that. Well I've been in my school 6 years. We've had the same government with the same policies through all those years and yet this will be the first time I'll miss school because of a strike (providing it goes ahead). Why wait until now?

Same policies?!!? Have you not seen the outrage at the change in policies over the last year??

Class size policy has changed in the last year. Funding of practically everything has been reduced! I know one school who will most likely lose transition year and the leaving cert physics class will no longer be available.. ALL because of policy changes in the past 12 months.

I'm going around in circles in this thread so I'll leave it at this.. I'm willing to pay my fair share and I won't apologise for having a very good, steady job. I sincerely hope you all keep yours, and that your kids will have space to learn in their classrooms.. and that we'll have a government that the majority of us don't despise for their sneaky underhand and immoral minding of their rich friends.

Can I just appeal to people here though not to cloud their judgement with hatred of the teaching profession. Christ I try my best in my job and all I've got in the last year is abuse from all angles. I cant speak for everyone but I do my best for the children I teach, and I want the government out because of their treatment of us, and their abuse of power and our money.

Slán

Hillel

Trotter wrote: »

This won't be popular but I do think theres a bit of jealousy in that statement. I lost my tennis ball so you should lose yours etc.

Would you cut the wages of teachers, guards and nurses across the board before you reduced the number of back office positions created needlessly in the last 10 years?

Thanks for your honesty. At least now its clear where we stand with no bull$hit.

And, yes I would, accross the board. Thats what true benchmarking is all about - it goes up with Industry and down with Industry. Nothing at all to do with jealousy, but thank you for acknowledging that your situation is far better than the private sector. Rather, it is to ensure the future prosperity and viability of the country.

sock puppet

Trotter wrote: »

Same policies?!!? Have you not seen the outrage at the change in policies over the last year??

Class size policy has changed in the last year. Funding of practically everything has been reduced! I know one school who will most likely lose transition year and the leaving cert physics class will no longer be available.. ALL because of policy changes in the past 12 months.

I'm going around in circles in this thread so I'll leave it at this.. I'm willing to pay my fair share and I won't apologise for having a very good, steady job. I sincerely hope you all keep yours, and that your kids will have space to learn in their classrooms.. and that we'll have a government that the majority of us don't despise for their sneaky underhand and immoral minding of their rich friends.

Can I just appeal to people here though not to cloud their judgement with hatred of the teaching profession. Christ I try my best in my job and all I've got in the last year is abuse from all angles. I cant speak for everyone but I do my best for the children I teach, and I want the government out because of their treatment of us, and their abuse of power and our money.

Slán

But even during the boom weren't class sizes still larger than in most other EU countries? Hell one primary school I went to had 4 teachers.

oldmillgal

Alessandra wrote: »

Sorry kid, but are you suggesting that they are not free to leave before 4pm?

In case you are not aware teachers do not operate a clocking in/clocking off system. A full time teacher is contracted for no more than 22hours per week. This means they get some classes off during the day. Contrary to popular opinion the staff room is not the place where teachers sit around drinking coffee for half the day..
The 22hour working week enables the teacher to get through mountains of paperwork, copies, mocks, essays, projects, reports be that in the staffroom or the comfort of their own home.

Just to add that the 22 hours that everyone mentions is 22 hours of contact teaching time... thats standing in front of students in the classroom. All the other preparation mentioned is done outside of those hours. Also sports, competitions, concerts and all othr extra curricular activities are done outside of those 22 hours too.... so adding it all up its stands at more than 50 hours a week on average.

oldmillgal

SkepticOne wrote: »

What we need to see is public statements on their website along those line before we can say that this is the union's stance on the issue. If I was a temporary teacher I would be very wary of supporting the current action.

They can say many things at their meetings but this does not mean they are the the official demands behind their industrial action. We still don't know what they are.

The levy is not fair..... 7.5% if you earn 50k...9.5% if you earn 300k... now if i earned 300k and had to take a hit of 30k for the levy i think that i would still have more than enough with 270k with that much money would not miss it........but 4k down at the 50k mark now that makes a huge difference. Not fair that someone earning 6 times as much only gets a 2% higher levy!

ixoy

Trotter, I'll ask the same question I asked elsewhere:

Would you prefer job cuts in the PS/CS or a unilateral pay cut/levy in the PS/CS? You're probably better aware of the back-end admin jobs in education: do you think you could make the savings reforming those? I can understand you being annoyed about class sizes but really the unions again are failing, just as they have elsewhere, and seem to be making this all about the levy rather than proposing alternate solutions for raising capital (you seem fair minded, but they seem less so, at least in their publications).

Also with respect to the pay: you get 39k a year. Is the pay spread out over the year or is it just for the 9 months? Are you free to earn more money in the 3 months off or are you tied to the profession? If not, do you understand why people would see that 39k is good when calculated on a day-to-day basis (i.e. as an amount per day rather than an annual sum)?

SkepticOne

oldmillgal wrote: »

The levy is not fair..... 7.5% if you earn 50k...9.5% if you earn 300k... now if i earned 300k and had to take a hit of 30k for the levy i think that i would still have more than enough with 270k with that much money would not miss it........but 4k down at the 50k mark now that makes a huge difference. Not fair that someone earning 6 times as much only gets a 2% higher levy!

I did not say it was fair.

Godge

oldmillgal wrote: »

Just to add that the 22 hours that everyone mentions is 22 hours of contact teaching time... thats standing in front of students in the classroom. All the other preparation mentioned is done outside of those hours. Also sports, competitions, concerts and all othr extra curricular activities are done outside of those 22 hours too.... so adding it all up its stands at more than 50 hours a week on average.

50 hours a week on average????? Is that during the whole year or just during the school year?

260 working days in the year for private sector employees with 20 days holidays, leaving 240 days. 167 days for second-level schools.

Accepting your 50 hours a week (a big ask) but averaging over a full private sector year pushes the average below 35 hours a week.

Godge

95% of teachers who are not covering for others are in permanent jobs. The vast majority of temporary teachers are employed because permanent teachers are exercising their rights to parental leave, maternity leave, career breaks, study leave, one-years sick leave, job-sharing etc. and have their permanent jobs kept open while they are away.

sock puppet

Godge wrote: »

50 hours a week on average????? Is that during the whole year or just during the school year?

260 working days in the year for private sector employees with 20 days holidays, leaving 240 days. 167 days for second-level schools.

Accepting your 50 hours a week (a big ask) but averaging over a full private sector year pushes the average below 35 hours a week.

It also assumes that nobody other than teachers does work at home.

Hillel

oldmillgal wrote: »

Just to add that the 22 hours that everyone mentions is 22 hours of contact teaching time... thats standing in front of students in the classroom. All the other preparation mentioned is done outside of those hours. Also sports, competitions, concerts and all othr extra curricular activities are done outside of those 22 hours too.... so adding it all up its stands at more than 50 hours a week on average.

Teacher payscales in Ireland, well above the international average, were meant to reflect the substantial additional work put in outside the classroom. Most, but by no means all, teachers prepare adequately for their classroom work. But, the reality is that only some teachers, and always the same ones, get involved in extracurricular activities. In many schools much of the work is done by parents. In other schools, extra curricular activities are minimal.
This is one of the many problems with incremental scales and centrally negotiated pay rises. The reward system takes no cognisance of the actual contribution of the individual teacher. It also reflects badly on the INTO that they have promulgated a doctrine where all teachers are supported, regardless of interest or capability. This is NOT in the interest of the individual hardworking teacher.

oldmillgal

sock puppet wrote: »

It also assumes that nobody other than teachers does work at home.

Apologies if it came across that i implied that no one else works at home. All I am saying is that teachers are damned if they do and damned if they dont. Look everyone will only see holidays etc when it comes to teachers and yes there are many teachers who just clock in and who are not doing massive amounts of work but for those of us who do we get an unfair rap from the general public

Trotter

Its just as well they can't tax tiredness. I'd be worse skint..

sock puppet wrote: »

But even during the boom weren't class sizes still larger than in most other EU countries? Hell one primary school I went to had 4 teachers.

Yes they were. We went from class sizes that were undermining the potential of the curriculum (primary), now to class sizes that make learning so difficult for any child who can't work independently in class.

The actions this year mean that if a school had 8 classes, and lose 1 teacher due to being 2 or 3 children below the total required to have 8 teachers, that extra class of say.. 28 is now divided by 7 and the net effect is each other class rising by at least 4. 28 now becomes 32. Hard to manage just became next to impossible to manage.

ixoy wrote: »

Trotter, I'll ask the same question I asked elsewhere:
Would you prefer job cuts in the PS/CS or a unilateral pay cut/levy in the PS/CS? You're probably better aware of the back-end admin jobs in education: do you think you could make the savings reforming those?

I'm not in favour of unilateral cuts. As much as I hate to see anyone lose a job, I don't agree with how many positions were created in the CS/PS during the boom that just weren't needed. I blame senior CS management for that, and government (this government) for letting it happen.

I'm not at all familiar with back office education staff so I cant say how that works. All I work with is front line teachers and SNAs who work hard.

How would I make savings in back office? I honestly don't know. I'd hate to sack these people but I blame the people that created jobs when they had no right to create them. I suppose a complete freeze on replacing retiring people and a cut on numbers of back office staff is the only thing.. sad as it is to say it. Putting the fact that I am a teacher aside, I do want to live in a society that has a lot of front line teachers, guards and nurses. I want my kids to be the safest, healthiest, best educated in Europe. Who doesn't?

ixoy wrote: »

I can understand you being annoyed about class sizes but really the unions again are failing, just as they have elsewhere, and seem to be making this all about the levy rather than proposing alternate solutions for raising capital (you seem fair minded, but they seem less so, at least in their publications).

I disagree there. We had huge demonstrations on a Saturday about class sizes and again that was twisted into an anti teacher thing here on boards. That was organised by the union purely for the class size issue and as far as I can see, the majority of people on those marches were teachers who gave up a Saturday to protest on their school children's behalf. We took a load of anti teacher abuse for that too. We can't win really.

ixoy wrote: »

Also with respect to the pay: you get 39k a year. Is the pay spread out over the year or is it just for the 9 months? Are you free to earn more money in the 3 months off or are you tied to the profession? If not, do you understand why people would see that 39k is good when calculated on a day-to-day basis (i.e. as an amount per day rather than an annual sum)?

Thats spread out over the year. I don't get three months in the summer. I get my holidays this year in the last week of June. I'm back on the last week of August. I'll spend the week before that, maybe 2 weeks depending on what class I get, in school preparing plans and schemes of work. So I'll have 7 or 8 weeks to myself. I won't do extra work. Whatever I do would be taxed hard and besides, I love the free time, so I'll go walking in the mountains etc. The time off is a great perk of the job. When I worked in the private sector, I did the 9-5 with a half hour for lunch and a 20 minute break. My average day now is 8:30 to around 4:30 most days with about a half hour in total for breaks. Sometimes I go early , i.e. when the kids go home at 3, but not very often.

Yes I get 2 weeks off at Christmas and 2 at Easter. I'm in class 183 days of the year (I think) plus say, another 10-15 for planning that I put in myself.

I can honestly say though that I work harder now, and put more of myself into this job than I did in the private sector job. I can honestly say without a trace of guilt that I give 39k worth of service to the state. Maybe other teachers don't. There's plenty that work harder than me too.

I have a great job compared to some in the private sector. I knew it was a great and rewarding job, so I left my private sector job, retrained and got the one I wanted. I am well paid for what I do. If some day I move into primary school management, I expect to be paid even more. Nothing strange there. I get the impression some people are waiting for teachers to admit they think they have it good? I have it great! I love my job. Regardless, paying the bills is very hard and I can only barely pay the mortgage because house prices were huge when I tried to better myself and bought a share in a home. I'm not loaded with money. I'm not out tonight because I haven't the cash lying around. Big deal. Yes, I have it good, but yes I am under real money pressure like most others.

I just wish my tax (whatever amount I need to pay) wasn't going to a load of crooks who are engaged in the ass cover of the century, and making a mess of that on top of everything else.

On that ridiculous burst of honesty.. I gotta sleep. Imagine.. a teacher who had a hard week. Shocking