Who do the Teachers think they are fooling?

drusk

Ace2007 wrote: »

If you think its just the governments fault alone that we are in this mess and not the people's fault - then might as well give up on this thread cause you haven't a clue.

Okay - I'll concede that people's greed has had a role to play in this. But I do not believe that teachers have been, or were ever greedy. Buying a house for 300k? That is not greed - that is the average cost of a house, for a person on an average salary.

It was not the teachers driving around in brand new SUVs and pricey beamers during the boom days. So why should they be made to pay now? And don't give me the whole - everybody needs to pay - crap. Cowen is being paid more than Obama. Batt O' Keefe was driven around in a helicopter yesterday to talk to the unions which cost the taxpayer €8000. The same minister has two chauffers and a beamer, and a salary three times the amount of a teacher on the highest point of the salary scale.

The government most certainly has a major role in this mess. To say they are innocent is ludicrous.

Teachers' salaries are NOT enormous. Teachers have NOT been greedy. Teachers should NOT be hit for more than anybody else.

And the whole - "oh my god, they're holding my child's education to ransom" is bullsh*t. A few days of a strike will not result in your five year old child going on to become a failure in life. Jesus.

gurramok

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I think I just facepalmed so hard my face will be permanently stuck to my forehead.

The entire point of a strike is to not do your job to express dissatisfaction.
Do you honestly think much notice will be taken of someone not doing their job when it's at a time the bulk of their work isn't on?

I worked in Dunnes and the bulk of the work was in the day; would you say people would take more of a notice if there was a strike by day or by night?

Same here about the facepalm

Yes, they have 3 months in which to protest and air their grievances in public
before Sept.
They can march, lobby their TD's, go on radio shows whatever to state their case but they chose not to do that.

Teachers don't work over night. The one's that work evenings(schools) are mostly grinders who are earning extra cash so it has no affect with your Dunnes analogy

drusk wrote: »

Okay - I'll concede that people's greed has had a role to play in this. But I do not believe that teachers have been, or were ever greedy. Buying a house for 300k? That is not greed - that is the average cost of a house, for a person on an average salary.

It was not the teachers driving around in brand new SUVs and pricey beamers during the boom days. So why should they be made to pay now? And don't give me the whole - everybody needs to pay - crap. Cowen is being paid more than Obama. Batt O' Keefe was driven around in a helicopter yesterday to talk to the unions which cost the taxpayer €8000. The same minister has two chauffers and a beamer, and a salary three times the amount of a teacher on the highest point of the salary scale.

The government most certainly has a major role in this mess. To say they are innocent is ludicrous.

They had a choice not to pay 300k for a house. Ever hear of renting?

Teachers' salaries are NOT enormous. Teachers have NOT been greedy. Teachers should NOT be hit for more than anybody else.

And the whole - "oh my god, they're holding my child's education to ransom" is bullsh*t. A few days of a strike will not result in your five year old child going on to become a failure in life. Jesus.

The first few days of a child life is very important, its just mean striking then.

Omg. 63k is not enormous? Cry us a river. Actually, head down to your dole office and tell the jobless that.

gnxx

No. They will become a banker or politician and the whole mess will start again :-)

drusk wrote: »

A few days of a strike will not result in your five year old child going on to become a failure in life. Jesus.

Ace2007

drusk wrote: »

Okay - I'll concede that people's greed has had a role to play in this. But I do not believe that teachers have been, or were ever greedy. Buying a house for 300k? That is not greed - that is the average cost of a house, for a person on an average salary.

It was not the teachers driving around in brand new SUVs and pricey beamers during the boom days. So why should they be made to pay now? And don't give me the whole - everybody needs to pay - crap. Cowen is being paid more than Obama. Batt O' Keefe was driven around in a helicopter yesterday to talk to the unions which cost the taxpayer €8000. The same minister has two chauffers and a beamer, and a salary three times the amount of a teacher on the highest point of the salary scale.

The government most certainly has a major role in this mess. To say they are innocent is ludicrous.

Teachers' salaries are NOT enormous. Teachers have NOT been greedy. Teachers should NOT be hit for more than anybody else.

And the whole - "oh my god, they're holding my child's education to ransom" is bullsh*t. A few days of a strike will not result in your five year old child going on to become a failure in life. Jesus.

My point is not that teachers alone are to blame but everyone(teachers included) - the only reason why a house was worth 300K was cause of the people's demand, demand > supply - therefore price increases.

If greed didn't become part of ireland then the standard of living wouldn't have gotten so high. Do the simple math buy what you can afford to - gamble what you can afford to lose - people(teachers included) paid way to much for houses - therefore there took out a loan (which i may add they signed something saying "if you do not meet repayments, the house will be taken off you") - which is just gamblin with money you don't have - they've lost the gamble - prices of houses have gone down, but they already have this huge debt - the government have already bailed out people by forcing the banks not to sell anyone's home for 2 years if they fall behind on repayments.

Was it fair that the government did this?

The argument about the holidays only came in when someone said look at xyz in the private sector - you can't compare a teacher to someone who works in the private sector unless its a fair example.

GreeBo

BubbleWrap85 wrote: »

Teachers didn't cause this crisis. People who took out loans who couldn't pay for them caused the recession, along with idiotic bankers who didn't check credit ratings and forked out thousands of euros on loans for people who could barely rub 2 euros together. Greedy people who put life savings into shares that flopped and now can't earn enough to put 2 litres of milk on the table caused this recession. Families who went on 3 or 4 holidays a year whilst paying for houses worth a third of their mortgage caused this recession. In short, GREED caused the recession, and teachers cannot be accused of being greedy.

Im fascinated to hear how you have removed all the burden of responsibility from the teachers. So no teachers bought expensive houses, took out expensive loans, have children or bought shares?
Are you actually for real?
No one is saying its an easy job, but I dont have an easy job either.
Thats not the argument. The argument is why teachers feel they they have some right to absolve themselves of all blame regarding the recession and thus remain unaffected by any salary cuts?

I think the time has come to start firing anyone who strikes and replace them with cheaper, foreign, english speaking replacements. I know of a crap load of poles who would and could do the job.

Rayan

drusk wrote: »

It was not the teachers driving around in brand new SUVs and pricey beamers during the boom days. So why should they be made to pay now?

Such rubbish. I am only working full-time less than 3 years and took a 12% pay cut in January (private sector). I never had SUVs or beamers. If I told my manager I wasn't taking the pay cut because I didn't cause the recession, he would show me the door. This is the way things happen in the real world.

Lockstep

gurramok wrote: »

Same here about the facepalm

Yes, they have 3 months in which to protest and air their grievances in public
before Sept.
They can march, lobby their TD's, go on radio shows whatever to state their case but they chose not to do that.

I don't know about you, but I only really take notice of things when they are unavailable. I'd say most people are the same. I could do a strike at 3am in the corner of a field, as people aren't affected, they wouldn't take notice.

gurramok wrote: »

Teachers don't work over night. The one's that work evenings(schools) are mostly grinders who are earning extra cash so it has no affect with your Dunnes analogy

The Dunnes thing was an analogy, y'know; not meant to be used directly on teachers?
The point being; Dunnes do most of their work by day.
Teachers do their during term.
Do you see the correlation? Dunnes and teachers aren't meant to be used interchangably.
Striking at a time when no-one will miss them achieves nothing.

Rayan

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Striking at a time when no-one will miss them achieves nothing.

All the OAPS (regarding medical card for over 70s) and students protesting last October were listened to by the government, yet nobody missed the function they were providing to society that day.

drusk

gurramok wrote: »

They had a choice not to pay 300k for a house. Ever hear of renting?

The first few days of a child life is very important, its just mean striking then.

Omg. 63k is not enormous?

So, you're saying that a teacher on an average salary should not have paid the average amount for an average house? That they should have rented? By that logic, you're saying that teachers should not be allowed to afford a house... Your begrudgery is disgusting.

If the teachers go on strike for the first week in september, you won't bring the child into school. It will be as though the summer were one week longer. Hence, the child will be none the wiser. That is such a retarded, pointless thing to say. The first few days of a child's life. Jesus. You'd swear the teachers were planning to beat the kids with their pickets.

63k is the highest point on a teachers salary scale. Teachers on this salary are in their late fifties, early sixties. That figure does NOT represent the salary of the average teacher. And no, when compared with the salaries of skilled, educated workers in their fifties in the private sector, that is not enormous.

Lockstep

Rayan wrote: »

All the OAPS (regarding medical card for over 70s) and students protesting last October were listened to by the government, yet nobody missed the function they were providing to society that day.

OAPs aren't a trade. So it wasn't a strike.
And the student strike doesn't seem that effective (I was at it and it seems fees are on the cards anyway) I believe you'll find that students skipped college for the day to attend the march.

Teachers are a profession, not based around age. You're comparing apples and oranges.

ntlbell

drusk wrote: »

ntlbell - Your begrudgery is testament to everything that is wrong with Irish society. Reading through your venemous posts that vilify teachers is absolutely shocking. You are so utterly jealous, it's pathetic.

What's pathetic that you have not one valid point so instead try to insult.

That is pathetic.

Can you explain what exactly I begrudge these teachers of?

If the job is so hard and they have to deal with so much crap surely compared to them I have it handy no?

On my big private wages, driving my SUV no?

drusk wrote: »

The government is at fault here. For all of your moronic, spiteful commentary, you are oblivious to this blatantly obvious fact.

Tell me the teacher who was talking to BL on RTE did the goverment make her buy a holiday home in croatia that has caused her now to be financially embarrassed on 63k a year :rolleyes:

drusk wrote: »

Coming out with this crap - "everybody needs to feel the hit". This is the utter sh*te spouted by the government every day. Everybody DOESN'T need to feel the hit. Those responsible do. Teachers are not responsible. Begrudging them their average pay and holidays shows nothing but pathetic jealousy on your part.

another attempt at t rying to insult me?

Of course teachers are partly responsible what the f*ck was a 26yr old teacher doing buying a 300k home? did the goverment force her to that? did I? did my daughter? no, but it's fair for her to be punished?

drusk wrote: »

Your name wouldn't happen to be Batt O' Keeffe by any chance? Brian Lenihan...?

if you want to continue to discuss the issue with me lets see some intelligent arguments and less of the insults.

gurramok

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I don't know about you, but I only really take notice of things when they are unavailable. I'd say most people are the same. I could do a strike at 3am in the corner of a field, as people aren't affected, they wouldn't take notice.

The Dunnes thing was an analogy, y'know; not meant to be used directly on teachers?
The point being; Dunnes do most of their work by day.
Teachers do their during term.
Do you see the correlation? Dunnes and teachers aren't meant to be used interchangably.
Striking at a time when no-one will miss them achieves nothing.

You do not seem to get it. withdrawing service is not the only solution. They have 3 months to do a pensioners job on the issue as after all you said they do nothing productive on 3 months off.

drusk wrote: »

So, you're saying that a teacher on an average salary should not have paid the average amount for an average house? That they should have rented? By that logic, you're saying that teachers should not be allowed to afford a house... Your begrudgery is disgusting.

No its not. They like everyone else had a choice to stay out of a housing bubble by renting and renting was far cheaper(and still is) than buying that house.
Common sense says paying 300k for a standard house is madness but they refused to listen.

drusk wrote: »

If the teachers go on strike for the first week in september, you won't bring the child into school. It will be as though the summer were one week longer. Hence, the child will be none the wiser. That is such a retarded, pointless thing to say. The first few days of a child's life. Jesus. You'd swear the teachers were planning to beat the kids with their pickets.

Thats more lost crucial days for that childs first education. They could easily strike in the first week of June but oh no, that would interfere with their lifestyle.

63k is the highest point on a teachers salary scale. Teachers on this salary are in their late fifties, early sixties. That figure does NOT represent the salary of the average teacher. And no, when compared with the salaries of skilled, educated workers in their fifties in the private sector, that is not enormous.

Yes it is the average. Ring up RTE and the Dept of Education. They supplied the stat, not me.

Are they liars?:rolleyes:

ntlbell

drusk wrote: »

So, you're saying that a teacher on an average salary should not have paid the average amount for an average house? That they should have rented? By that logic, you're saying that teachers should not be allowed to afford a house... Your begrudgery is disgusting.

If the teachers go on strike for the first week in september, you won't bring the child into school. It will be as though the summer were one week longer. Hence, the child will be none the wiser. That is such a retarded, pointless thing to say. The first few days of a child's life. Jesus. You'd swear the teachers were planning to beat the kids with their pickets.

63k is the highest point on a teachers salary scale. Teachers on this salary are in their late fifties, early sixties. That figure does NOT represent the salary of the average teacher. And no, when compared with the salaries of skilled, educated workers in their fifties in the private sector, that is not enormous.

Speaking of attitudes that have irish society the way it is.

Anyone at 26 should not be buying something 8/9/10 times their salary because they can't afford it them being a teacher is not relevant if you can't afford to buy a home you rent, owning a home is not a RIGHT it's a previlage it's THAT attitude that has a huge part to blame for the mess.

so you know for a fact the strike will only be the first week?

What does the term "rolling" mean ?

can you explain?

ntlbell

kickoutthejams wrote: »

The Dunnes thing was an analogy, y'know; not meant to be used directly on teachers?
The point being; Dunnes do most of their work by day.
Teachers do their during term.
Do you see the correlation? Dunnes and teachers aren't meant to be used interchangably.
Striking at a time when no-one will miss them achieves nothing.

people keep saying but the teachers are responsible for educating irelands youth it's a very important job etc etc

well flipping it on your analogy, people in dunnes are not responsible for the kids of todays future TEACHERS are

if dunnes are on strike i can get food elsewhere

if teachers are on strike i can't send my daughter to another school

it's apples and oranges

and you keep flipping it to suit you

They want to be treated as fairly as the private sector but wont take the same conditions

they want people to realise how important teachers are and how they have the kids best interests at heart, they're not acting like it.

Lockstep

gurramok wrote: »

You do not seem to get it. withdrawing service is not the only solution. They have 3 months to do a pensioners job on the issue as after all you said they do nothing productive on 3 months off.

I could say the same about you mate.
Withdrawing service is the best solution;
If you are striking, the best way to do this is to hit the employer. As the state is the employer, the teachers refuse to do their job. The government has to come to an agreement with them or the strike continues.

I never said they nothing productive on their time off (if you read my posts, you'd see I said they mostly do summer schools/grinds/research etc)
But put words in my mouth if it makes you feel better.

drusk

gurramok wrote: »

Thats more lost crucial days for that childs first education. They could easily strike in the first week of June but oh no, that would interfere with their lifestyle.

Crucial days??? Oh for God's sake. What planet do you live on!

Their lifestyle??? Again, you're showing your begrudgery and jealousy. Pathetic.

Are you that stupid that you can't see that industrial action would have no effect in June?! Seriously. Are you?

Rayan

kickoutthejams wrote: »

OAPs aren't a trade. So it wasn't a strike.
And the student strike doesn't seem that effective (I was at it and it seems fees are on the cards anyway) I believe you'll find that students skipped college for the day to attend the march.

Teachers are a profession, not based around age. You're comparing apples and oranges.

Nope.

The OAPS protested and marched upon Leinster House, and achieved success in their cause,
Government backs down on medical cards and 1% levy

link: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2008/1022/1224625076839.html

They achieved this just by marching on Leinster House, not holding the country to ransom and potentially screwing up thousands of young childrens educations by doing so.

If the teachers really gave a feck about the childrens education and future , they would march on Leinster House during the 3 months summer holidays, so as not to screw up the childrens education. Instead they decide to wait until September when protesting WILL screw up the childrens education.

What does that tell you about their TRUE reasons behind this protest/striking? Money. And dont' give me that "striking without affecting the childrens education won't achieve anything" crap, because that's all it is - absolute crap. Refer to my link above about the medical card decision reversal for proof.

ntlbell

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I could say the same about you mate.
Withdrawing service is the best solution;
If you are striking, the best way to do this is to hit the employer. As the state is the employer, the teachers refuse to do their job. The government has to come to an agreement with them or the strike continues.

I never said they nothing productive on their time off (if you read my posts, you'd see I said they mostly do summer schools/grinds/research etc)
But put words in my mouth if it makes you feel better.

the best solution for whom? not the kids.

if i refuse to do my job i get fired.

gurramok

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I could say the same about you mate.
Withdrawing service is the best solution;
If you are striking, the best way to do this is to hit the employer. As the state is the employer, the teachers refuse to do their job. The government has to come to an agreement with them or the strike continues.

Whats best to you is cruel to others, namely toddlers.

I never said they nothing productive on their time off (if you read my posts, you'd see I said they mostly do summer schools/grinds/research etc)
But put words in my mouth if it makes you feel better.

Yes, must be hard work alright:rolleyes:

Lockstep

ntlbell wrote: »

people keep saying but the teachers are responsible for educating irelands youth it's a very important job etc etc

well flipping it on your analogy, people in dunnes are not responsible for the kids of todays future TEACHERS are

Lolwut?

ntlbell wrote: »

if dunnes are on strike i can get food elsewhere


if teachers are on strike i can't send my daughter to another school

it's apples and oranges

and you keep flipping it to suit you

You're taking it out of context to suit you. Flipping it you say? At any rate, most members of Dunnes tend to be in the same trade union as other stores so you'd most likely see sympathy strikes in other stores.

my point being; you strike when it'll hit the employer. Not when they couldn't give a damn.
You're flipping the argument to suit yourself.

ntlbell wrote: »

They want to be treated as fairly as the private sector but wont take the same conditions

they want people to realise how important teachers are and how they have the kids best interests at heart, they're not acting like it.

And private sector workers are unable to strike?
Or maybe they should do it in the middle of the night. As y'know, nobody will be disrupted then.

ntlbell

drusk wrote: »

Crucial days??? Oh for God's sake. What planet do you live on!

Their lifestyle??? Again, you're showing your begrudgery and jealousy. Pathetic.

Are you that stupid that you can't see that industrial action would have no effect in June?! Seriously. Are you?

He seems to be on the same planet as the majority of the public the teachers don't seem to be getting much backing.

why is he showing begrudrey, jealosy etc by stating a fact?

are you that stupid that you don't f*cking realise the financial mess we're in?

you have no idea how bad things are if you did you'd stfu.

this is only the start and if teachers think they're going to bully there way to more investment properties in croatia they have another thing coming

You do realise who pays their ****ing wages yes?

Lockstep

gurramok wrote: »

Whats best to you is cruel to others, namely toddlers.

Strikes will always affect someone.

gurramok wrote: »

Yes, must be hard work alright:rolleyes:

Never worked with kids have you?
If it's such an easy job, maybe you should give teaching a go. Seeing as the pay and work is so easy,
I'd imagine it's fairly tough.

gurramok

drusk wrote: »

Crucial days??? Oh for God's sake. What planet do you live on!

Earth.

drusk wrote: »

Their lifestyle??? Again, you're showing your begrudgery and jealousy. Pathetic.

No its not. You cannot disprove what i'm saying as its the truth.

drusk wrote: »

Are you that stupid that you can't see that industrial action would have no effect in June?! Seriously. Are you?

Then prove what do teachers do on 3 months holidays then?

I'll help you. Kicko says they do grinds & summer schools and research, what do you say?

ntlbell

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Lolwut?


You're taking it out of context to suit you. Flipping it you say? At any rate, most members of Dunnes tend to be in the same trade union as other stores so you'd most likely see sympathy strikes in other stores.

my point being; you strike when it'll hit the employer. Not when they couldn't give a damn.
You're flipping the argument to suit yourself.



And private sector workers are unable to strike?
Or maybe they should do it in the middle of the night. As y'know, nobody will be disrupted then.

It's a very simple point

people trying to justify teachers wages and actions is how important they're to this country and the future of it?

people working in dunnes are not responsible for our kids future? if they go on strike the kids are not affected?

there's nothing lolwut complicated about the above is there?

you might see strikes in other dunnes, if dunnes go on strike you won't see tesco on strike? it will be possible to buy food, it's not possible for me to get someone else to educate my child?

answer me this

why didn't the teachers strike over the years for better conditions for the kids?

why are they only doing it now that their pockets are hit

can anyone answer this?

gurramok

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Strikes will always affect someone.

How nice of you. Hope you do not see the tears of that 5yr old kid. :mad:

Never worked with kids have you?
If it's such an easy job, maybe you should give teaching a go. Seeing as the pay and work is so easy,
I'd imagine it's fairly tough.

I've 2 nephews and they are grand. Some kids are tough, most fall in line. a good teacher can control a class, it happened in my school years ago.

We had this discussion already, they are not striking over tough 5yr olds but money.

Ace2007

Here lads yous are talking sh!te now - both of yous - both arguments are equally as bad as the other.

Fwiw i have no idea what a teacher gets paid or a nurse - but what i do know is that if i had a choice of jobs tomorrow - it would be the public sector i would be going into regadless of the pay levy's etc, job security is a huge plus in this day and age - i'm sure 100's in the private sector would gladly take cuts or pay more tax if they had the same security.

The economy is only going to get worse for a year or two more - take the pain now or else we're going to have alot of pain for 5/10 years to come -
choice is simple - take pain now or suffer for years to come.

Rayan

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Strikes will always affect someone.



Never worked with kids have you?
If it's such an easy job, maybe you should give teaching a go. Seeing as the pay and work is so easy,
I'd imagine it's fairly tough.

Who did they think they were gonna work with when they became teachers, - giraffes or something? I also noticed you didn't address any of the points in my last post.

I'm sick of this rubbish about teachers having such a tough job. If you want to see a tough job, look at the gardai or prison officers.

State funeral for Garda killed by stolen car

http://new.u.tv/News/State-funeral-for-Garda-killed-by-stolen-car/b213a535-f122-4af9-be35-bc425656c944

Officer's hand sliced to bone in prison attack

http://www.herald.ie/national-news/city-news/officers-hand-sliced-to-bone-in-prison-attack-1708973.html

These are both in the last 2 weeks alone. Both public sector jobs like teachers, but ooh boo hoo hoo the poor teachers get verbal abuse of a small minority of students.

Yet they don't hold the country to ransom because of the dangers of their job? As regards teachers jobs being "tough", nearly every job on earth is tough. Sales, IT, finance, doctors, etc can be extremely stressful jobs at times too, and also have to deal with levels of abuse. But they are the occupations we choose, and if we don't like them we do something else.

ntlbell

if anyone would like to listen to a poor school teachers problems

have a listen to this

about 10 minutes in

I had a tear in my eye

http://www.rte.ie/podcasts/2009/pc/pod-v-080409-44m56s-todaypk.mp3

GreeBo

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I never said they nothing productive on their time off (if you read my posts, you'd see I said they mostly do summer schools/grinds/research etc)
But put words in my mouth if it makes you feel better.

and presumably these other productive activities are paid activities and are not included in the teachers wages previously mentioned?

Ajos

gurramok wrote: »

How nice of you. Hope you do not see the tears of that 5yr old kid. :mad:



I've 2 nephews and they are grand. Some kids are tough, most fall in line. a good teacher can control a class, it happened in my school years ago.

We had this discussion already, they are not striking over tough 5yr olds but money.

I had to laugh at this. Tears! Tell me at the age of 5 that I had an extra week of summer holidays and I'd have smiled so hard the top of my head would have fallen off. That goes for 6, 7 all the way up to 18. Two weeks? Even better! Oh, the poor kids. Whatever will they do? They may learn joined up writing a week later than they otherwise would have!

And you seem to keep asking why they're striking for the money and they didn't strike for the conditions. Um, because they are human beings? Teaching is a job, not a genetic mutation. Of course they look out for their own self interest first. Why shouldn't they? Nobody will die because they go on strike.

And to those who say they had to take a pay cut or they would have been fired, well, I guess you calculated that you were not worth that much to your employer, so you felt lucky to get what you can. Good for you. If you genuinely felt you were worth the money to your employer, you would threaten to walk. It's called negotiating.

It seems the teachers feel like it's time they tested their value to the State. What's the problem? If the money really isn't there, or the State feels they aren't worth it, then they won't get it. If they do get it, then it's because they successfully made the case that they were worth it.

Times are tight, and the competition for resources (tax revenue) has hotted up because the pool is smaller. The teachers have responded by negotiating harder. It seems entirely sensible to me. Anyone who loses out because they are afraid to negotiate deserves what they get.

ntlbell

GreeBo wrote: »

and presumably these other productive activities are paid activities and are not included in the teachers wages previously mentioned?

i wonder what their avg wage is when you take in the months they spend doing other paid "activities"

ntlbell

Ajos wrote: »

I had to laugh at this. Tears! Tell me at the age of 5 that I had an extra week of summer holidays and I'd have smiled so hard the top of my head would have fallen off. That goes for 6, 7 all the way up to 18. Two weeks? Even better! Oh, the poor kids. Whatever will they do? They may learn joined up writing a week later than they otherwise would have!

And you seem to keep asking why they're striking for the money and they didn't strike for the conditions. Um, because they are human beings? Teaching is a job, not a genetic mutation. Of course they look out for their own self interest first. Why shouldn't they? Nobody will die because they go on strike.

And to those who say they had to take a pay cut or they would have been fired, well, I guess you calculated that you were not worth that much to your employer, so you felt lucky to get what you can. Good for you. If you genuinely felt you were worth the money to your employer, you would threaten to walk. It's called negotiating.

It seems the teachers feel like it's time they tested their value to the State. What's the problem? If the money really isn't there, or the State feels they aren't worth it, then they won't get it. If they do get it, then it's because they successfully made the case that they were worth it.

Times are tight, and the competition for resources (tax revenue) has hotted up because the pool is smaller. The teachers have responded by negotiating harder. It seems entirely sensible to me. Anyone who loses out because they are afraid to negotiate deserves what they get.

But the teachers claim that their priorities are the kids?

your saying it's self interest and their pocket?

which is it?

Ajos

ntlbell wrote: »

i wonder what their avg wage is when you take in the months they spend doing other paid "activities"

Who cares? This isn't about you or I deciding what we think is a reasonable wage for an entire profession, this is about the teachers negotiating with their employer, the State, as to their value.

gurramok

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Ajos wrote: »

I had to laugh at this. Tears! Tell me at the age of 5 that I had an extra week of summer holidays and I'd have smiled so hard the top of my head would have fallen off. That goes for 6, 7 all the way up to 18. Two weeks? Even better! Oh, the poor kids. Whatever will they do? They may learn joined up writing a week later than they otherwise would have!

And you seem to keep asking why they're striking for the money and they didn't strike for the conditions. Um, because they are human beings? Teaching is a job, not a genetic mutation. Of course they look out for their own self interest first. Why shouldn't they? Nobody will die because they go on strike.

And to those who say they had to take a pay cut or they would have been fired, well, I guess you calculated that you were not worth that much to your employer, so you felt lucky to get what you can. Good for you. If you genuinely felt you were worth the money to your employer, you would threaten to walk. It's called negotiating.

It seems the teachers feel like it's time they tested their value to the State. What's the problem? If the money really isn't there, or the State feels they aren't worth it, then they won't get it. If they do get it, then it's because they successfully made the case that they were worth it.

Times are tight, and the competition for resources (tax revenue) has hotted up because the pool is smaller. The teachers have responded by negotiating harder. It seems entirely sensible to me. Anyone who loses out because they are afraid to negotiate deserves what they get.

You are missing something. They never striked over conditions for years while getting yearly pay rises via benchmarking but only do it now because their inflated wages are under threat. These unions don't care a sh1t about the kids but only lining their own pockets.

They do not want pay cuts on their average wage of 56-64k pa.

And thats why they are striking at the start of the school year in Sept despite having 3 months off from June to August inclusive.

Ajos

ntlbell wrote: »

But the teachers claim that their priorities are the kids?

your saying it's self interest and their pocket?

which is it?

I don't care. There are lots of them. I'm sure they are motivated by lots of different things. Those two issues are not mutually exclusive.

Are you saying it's ok to strike in one instance, but not the other? What difference does it make?

ntlbell

Ajos wrote: »

Who cares? This isn't about you or I deciding what we think is a reasonable wage for an entire profession, this is about the teachers negotiating with their employer, the State, as to their value.

Because the rep that was put out into the public's main point was that they have very little money to spend on socialising and clothes

so if we knew the true wage it would give us some transparency?

As I go to work to pay their wages I think I'm entitled to know the truth of the situation. no?

GreeBo

kickoutthejams wrote: »

And private sector workers are unable to strike?

The most recent info I can find states that less than 1/3rd or private workers are in a union. so I would put it to you that this means that "no" private sectors are not able to strike. They (We) do not have the firepower to make a difference and would likely be laughed at, right up to the point that we were fired; especially if we were to base our strike on "We didnt cause the recession"

Ajos

gurramok wrote: »

kickoutthejams wrote: »

You are missing something. They never striked over conditions for years while getting yearly pay rises via benchmarking but only do it now because their inflated wages are under threat. These unions don't care a sh1t about the kids but only lining their own pockets.

They do not want pay cuts on their average wage of 56-64k pa.

And thats why they are striking at the start of the school year in Sept despite having 3 months off from June to August inclusive.

I'm not missing anything. I take your point completely. Who cares? If they want to strike over their wages why shouldn't they?

And it's been often said in this thread that striking during the holidays would be completely pointless, so I fear it's useless to mention it again, but you keep bringing it up as a reasonable alternative so I suppose it must keep being struck down.

ntlbell

Ajos wrote: »

I don't care. There are lots of them. I'm sure they are motivated by lots of different things. Those two issues are not mutually exclusive.

Are you saying it's ok to strike in one instance, but not the other? What difference does it make?

Again they state they have the kids welfare at heart their using the kids as pawns to try and gain for themselves, but they only strike when it's about money.

I don't think they should strike in either case, I think they should use the 3 months that I and other people pay them for to protest.

gurramok

ntlbell wrote: »

if anyone would like to listen to a poor school teachers problems

have a listen to this

about 10 minutes in

I had a tear in my eye

http://www.rte.ie/podcasts/2009/pc/pod-v-080409-44m56s-todaypk.mp3

You can hear the violins on that one.

Investments can go up and down, that woman is blaming Lenihan for her own bad investment decisions.

GreeBo

Ajos wrote: »

Who cares? This isn't about you or I deciding what we think is a reasonable wage for an entire profession, this is about the teachers negotiating with their employer, the State, as to their value.

I care when a general teacher strike (while great for traffic) will bring the country even further to its knees. In fact the only thing worse than a teacher strike would be the government folding to the unions....again.

ntlbell

gurramok wrote: »

You can hear the violins on that one.

Investments can go up and down, that woman is blaming Lenihan for her own bad investment decisions.

Sure didn't he help pick it out? :rolleyes:

GreeBo

Ajos wrote: »

Are you saying it's ok to strike in one instance, but not the other? What difference does it make?

Because in one case you might have a valid point (like an employees unfair dismissal) versus the pathetic "Im only part of the economy when I want to be" ****e that the teachers are now spouting.

Ajos

ntlbell wrote: »

Because the rep that was put out into the public's main point was that they have very little money to spend on socialising and clothes

so if we knew the true wage it would give us some transparency?

As I go to work to pay their wages I think I'm entitled to know the truth of the situation. no?

Sure, why not. I'm not sure I understand your point. The thread is full of information about how much teachers earn at various stages of their careers. That's what they are threatening to strike over. What does how much they earn on top of that have to do with it?

If you worked two jobs, and your first boss found out how much you were making on the other job, is it ok for him to subtract that amount from what he pays you? Of course not - the two things have nothing to do with each other, assuming you don't allow one to interfere with the other yourself.

Additionally, it's entirely possible that the work they do during the summer isn't for the State, in which case no, you don't have any right to know about it.

As I said, this is not about you or I deciding what teachers should be allowed to make based on our own prejudices. That's between them and their employer.

ntlbell wrote: »

Again they state they have the kids welfare at heart their using the kids as pawns to try and gain for themselves, but they only strike when it's about money.

I don't think they should strike in either case, I think they should use the 3 months that I and other people pay them for to protest.

Well, if your position is that teachers should not be allowed to strike, then we disagree, but you should just say that clearly. Suggesting that they should strike when they are not working is clearly ridiculous.

Ajos

GreeBo wrote: »

Because in one case you might have a valid point (like an employees unfair dismissal) versus the pathetic "Im only part of the economy when I want to be" ****e that the teachers are now spouting.

Really? They are just negotiating. Is it unpatriotic to negotiate now? No wonder the economy is in the toilet.

ntlbell

Ajos wrote: »

Sure, why not. I'm not sure I understand your point. The thread is full of information about how much teachers earn at various stages of their careers. That's what they are threatening to strike over. What does how much they earn on top of that have to do with it?

It means that people they have sent to represent them are lying?

If you claim you only have 93e a week left when the reality is you have another job which leaves you very comofrtable then you're trying to gain public support under false pretences. Very serious I would have thought

Ajos wrote: »

If you worked two jobs, and your first boss found out how much you were making on the other job, is it ok for him to subtract that amount from what he pays you? Of course not - the two things have nothing to do with each other, assuming you don't allow one to interfere with the other yourself.

I couldn't care less what they earn in the second job as long as they don't lie about it, The goverment is not applying the levy because they can work two jobs they're applying the levy to ALL PS workers not JUST TEACHERS

Ajos wrote: »

Additionally, it's entirely possible that the work they do during the summer isn't for the State, in which case no, you don't have any right to know about it.

I do if they're using the balance of there over all pay cheques to drum public support? it means they're liying?

Ajos wrote: »

As I said, this is not about you or I deciding what teachers should be allowed to make based on our own prejudices. That's between them and their employer.

But they don't have a problem with what they're being paid, they have a problem with an unfair tax system compared to the private sector taxes

so they want equality in the tax system but dont want to do the same hours and have the same conditions? you can't have it both ways

Ajos wrote: »

Well, if your position is that teachers should not be allowed to strike, then we disagree, but you should just say that clearly. Suggesting that they should strike when they are not working is clearly ridiculous.

I have said it, I also said they should as they call it "campaign" during the 4 months that we pay them to do nothing and put that time to some use for the KIDS and if they feel the need their own pocket

not affecting my childs education while i work hard donate to their wages and their solid pensions.

GreeBo

Ajos wrote: »

Really? They are just negotiating. Is it unpatriotic to negotiate now? No wonder the economy is in the toilet.

sorry but I dont really see that striking is negotiating. Or are they just shooting a few hostages so that we know they are serious?


Anyway, they are trying to negotiate their way out of responsibility not for changes in the workplace.

If they job is so hard and so taxing, why on earth are they doing it in the first place? For the love of the kids?:cool:

ntlbell

Ajos wrote: »

Really? They are just negotiating. Is it unpatriotic to negotiate now? No wonder the economy is in the toilet.

there not negotiating they want to be exempt from an "unfair" tax system when the tax system is the same for all PS workers based on the case that

"we didn't cause the recession"

that's not neotiating

If I say that to my employer i would be out on my ear

people really need to wake up to the serious situation their employer is in

heading towards bankruptcy and they're worried abut their holiday homes

your right this country is in the toilet

GreeBo

ntlbell wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/podcasts/2009/pc/pod-v-080409-44m56s-todaypk.mp3

For the lazy:

51 year old teacher working for the last 25+ years earning €63k a year from teaching and undisclosed from a second post.
She bought a second property abroad (Croatia?) 4 years ago by remortgaging her house. She also still takes trips to Croatia (despite her breadline living)
Some of her quotes were

"What did I do to deserve this?"
"The minister keeps taking my money"
"I have to pay for everything..doctors fees, dentists fees"
"Im treated as if Im wealthy"
"I am financially insecure for the rest of my life"
"the minister keeps taking more and more of my money"

In summary, she over-extended herself in the blind faith that the good times would keep on coming and they didnt and she got caught out.

On a personal note I find it rather scary that a teacher wouldnt have the wherewithal to figure out that maybe if times are tough and I cant afford to go to the dentist, maybe I should sell the holiday home in Croatia, or perhaps just stop going over there for a bit?

Rayan

Ajos wrote: »

Well, if your position is that teachers should not be allowed to strike, then we disagree, but you should just say that clearly. Suggesting that they should strike when they are not working is clearly ridiculous.

It worked for the OAPS, they successfully got the medical card decision reversed just by protesting. They weren't disrupting any public services or holding children's education to ransom.

Answer me this - why don't the teachers at least try the protesting during their 3 month holiday? Even for a day or 2? God forbid they should give up a day of their precious 3 months off.