Who do the Teachers think they are fooling?

ntlbell

GreeBo wrote: »

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?

I think it's also very important to mention that she was just at the end of the mortgage for her own home and would have been debt free for the rest of her life and sitting very pretty before the dollar signs went of and bought the investment property in croatia

Lockstep

Rayan wrote: »

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

Uh...I never said the OAPs weren't successful. I said the students weren't.

They went about their business the best way they knew how, they managed to get together and achieve something. However, teachers are a profession, and striking is what trades do when they are dis-satisfied.

Rayan wrote: »

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.

Right, well if you are purely doing a march, you'll need a lot of marchers. Something like 15,000 OAPs and 12,000 students from across Ireland who marched on the Dail. There are 75,000 students in my university alone which shows the percentage who go on marches.
There around 55,000 teachers in Ireland in total. I doubt as many of them would come out in a march when you look at the percentages of students alone.

You honestly think that a few days strike will screw up thousands of children's education?

Lol.

Rayan wrote: »

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.

I'm not defending the teachers, I am however,defending their right to strike and think that striking is an effective way of going about things.

Although it seems these days that in any way defending the teachers means I support them and all their actions.

ntlbell wrote: »

the best solution for whom? not the kids.

if i refuse to do my job i get fired.

If you strike, I doubt you will get fired purely on that point. Easy enough action to bring against an employer.

ntlbell wrote: »

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?

I'm not a teacher, what I am saying is that I understand why they are striking and that they are going about in a fairly effective way, as professions do when striking.
Once again, you miss the point of my analogy; workers will strike at a time when they are most needed. It's how strikes work. Be they in Dunnes, the schools or septic tank cleaners. Exactly what they do was not what I was getting at.

gurramok wrote: »

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

You honestly think a 5 year old will cry because they miss a few days of school?
I remember whenever I was told I had a few days off school because the teachers were striking I was all like
Maybe kids in English schools are brought up differently.

gurramok wrote: »

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.

Uh, we were talking about their summer work? You were saying they did no work over the holidays, I disagreed pointing out they do, you said it didn't sound too easy.

Rayan wrote: »

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 fail to see your point on the giraffes.

Actually I didn't see your post, but I have done now, although quite frankly I don't understand people on AH who get all shirty about people not adressing their posts thinking it is being deliberately ignored.
Why is it so important to you that someone adresses your posts?

Rayan wrote: »

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


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.

What the hell are you on about?
I wasn't referring to it as being tough because of verbal abuse.
I'd say it's tough because you have such a huge impact on the students. Whenever I worked with kids, it was extremely stressful knowing that these were children and the impact I'd be having on their lives.

A tough job isn;t necessarily one where you run the risk of being knifed.

Rayan wrote: »

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.

Where did anyone talk of the dangers of the job?

I'd view it as a tough job based on the fact these are kids. Future of the country and all that.

GreeBo wrote: »

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

Yes, so?
I was referring to his claim that teachers do nothing over the summer. Not how much they are paid.

baglady

Can I just point out that that woman and her attitude are not a microcosm for all teachers? I mean I too agree that it's idiotic to have a holiday home when she can't afford the dentist. Doesn't mean all teachers here are the same.

According to the times the other day, a lot of the new graduates from the teaching college are unlikely to find employment

So perhaps all these moany unhappy striking teachers should get sacked and their jobs be given to people who are actually grateful to have some employment without throwing away their sweets in a hissyfit.
Particularly miss second home in croatia. Coping with no job for a while might bring her back to reality.

nobody I have spoken to, nobody, has any sympathy whatsoever. pension levy? Don't make me laugh - we'd have to pay a f* ton more hefty % of our salaries for those level of pensions, and still it could all get wiped out by investments - no guarantees.


edit: I'm sure there are some out there for whom it is genuinely very difficult and not through bad planning decisions of their own, but all this messing around and hissyfits and yelling at the minister and storming out - that unfortunately is removing any sympathy I may have had for em

Ajos

ntlbell wrote: »

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

Really? She was claiming that every single teacher had exactly 93e a week to spend? You're right, that would be an outrageous thing to claim. She was probably talking about her own finances, though, and I don't see that you have any reason to believe that she was lying. Just because they can work during the summer doesn't mean they do, and either way it's irrelevant to how much they get paid during the school year.

ntlbell wrote: »

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




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



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

Well, they can if they can negotiate it. Wages, taxes, conditions... it's all the same thing in the end. They want improvement in their lot, or at least they want to minimise the dis-improvement, so they're negotiating. Why shouldn't they?

GreeBo wrote: »

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:

If you don't think that striking (and more importantly, threatening to strike) is negotiating, then you know nothing about negotiating.

Hostages... well, that's a ridiculous comparison. Hmmm... I guess you could compare threatening to strike to threatening to shoot a hostage in the sense that they are both negotiating, but really they are not equivalent in any other way.

Why does it have to be the love of the kids OR for the money? Can't you love both kids and money? Does the fact that you enjoy your job mean that that you shouldn't expect to be paid appropriately for it?

ntlbell wrote: »

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

They're negotiating. So is the government. They'll come to an understanding. If it's not there to get, they won't get it. What are you worried about? What are you angry about?

ntlbell

baglady wrote: »

Can I just point out that that woman and her attitude are not a microcosm for all teachers? I mean I too agree that it's idiotic to have a holiday home when she can't afford the dentist. Doesn't mean all teachers here are the same.

she wasn't the only one, the teacher of the union rep her point was she had just bought a 300k house and is now only left with 93e for socialising and clothes?

There was a male teacher on in the same situation and was adamant that his colleagues are in the same position

someone is telling lies.

who is it?

Lockstep

GreeBo wrote: »

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"

You honestly think a worker will be dismissed purely for striking?
Ever hear of unfair dismissals? You cannot be dismissed for engaging in trade union activities including strikes provided protocols are followed.


Private sector workers are still capable of striking, 1/3 of a workforce is still a significant amount.

GreeBo

baglady wrote: »

Can I just point out that that woman and her attitude are not a microcosm for all teachers? I mean I too agree that it's idiotic to have a holiday home when she can't afford the dentist. Doesn't mean all teachers here are the same.

you sure can, but the point was already made on this thread that "the teachers didnt cause the recession"
Im just pointing out that it appears that this one did.

And if continue to listen you can hear the woman at the end who has a family (husband, wife +1 kid) income of €1100 a week and spend €600 of that on housing costs.
Now I dont know if she is renting the palace or she actually owns it but her argument that she would be better off if she was on the dole is so far out off its funny.
€2400 on mortgage equates to at least a €600k house.
If its rent then they are just 'tards.

Perhaps its time to move dearie?

ntlbell

Ajos wrote: »

They're negotiating. So is the government. They'll come to an understanding. If it's not there to get, they won't get it. What are you worried about? What are you angry about?

I've skipped the rest because I'm getting a bit tired of rattling out the same answers page after page.

I'm worried about "rolling" strikes I'm worried about my daughter missing days/weeks of her education because her teacher wants to line her pockets and use my daughter as a pawn to get more spendable income when their all ready very well paid averaging 60k a year in very secure jobs with great pensions when the country is in termoil

it's fairly obvious

"do you have kids"?

gurramok

kickoutthejams wrote: »

You honestly think a 5 year old will cry because they miss a few days of school?
I remember whenever I was told I had a few days off school because the teachers were striking I was all like
Maybe kids in English schools are brought up differently.

I was actually looking forward to my first day in school when i was 4. It was very tough and needed lots of love to get over the being away from my parents. Lots of kids go through the same.

Uh, we were talking about their summer work? You were saying they did no work over the holidays, I disagreed pointing out they do, you said it didn't sound too easy

Grinds, research & summer schools was the excuse. Are these activities outside their paid job?

You are defending their strike. They have no moral right to strike during school term affecting 5yr olds in Sept with an economic collapse and pulling in 60k year wages, simple as.

baglady

ntlbell wrote: »

she wasn't the only one, the teacher of the union rep her point was she had just bought a 300k house and is now only left with 93e for socialising and clothes?

There was a male teacher on in the same situation and was adamant that his colleagues are in the same position

someone is telling lies.

who is it?

oh come on, seriously. So you have two examples and one semi-example. There are TENS OF THOUSANDS of teachers in the country. What do you mean about the lies? These people were probably telling the truth. But they were speaking for themselves, not every teacher in every union!

Ajos

Rayan wrote: »

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.

For the same reason that if you are about to be attacked by a bear, and you are carrying both a pea shooter and a shotgun, you don't reach for the pea shooter first. Sure, you could still move on to the shotgun when it didn't work, but why waste your time?

My name is URL

Taking Industrial action and threatening to not attend PT and staff meetings is low by the ASTI, imho. Especially for the time that's in it.

Why is everyone else expected to make sacrafices to get the nation out of this hole and yet it's always the 'vocational' workers that throw tantrums and use bullying tactics to side-step their own part in it?

Yeah, vocation my arse

ntlbell

kickoutthejams wrote: »

You honestly think a worker will be dismissed purely for striking?
Ever hear of unfair dismissals? You cannot be dismissed for engaging in trade union activities including strikes provided protocols are followed.


Private sector workers are still capable of striking, 1/3 of a workforce is still a significant amount.

I've heard of them, refusing to do your job seems fair grounds to me.

GreeBo

kickoutthejams wrote: »

You honestly think a worker will be dismissed purely for striking?
Ever hear of unfair dismissals? You cannot be dismissed for engaging in trade union activities including strikes provided protocols are followed.


Private sector workers are still capable of striking, 1/3 of a workforce is still a significant amount.

Erm, that doesnt mean that in every company 1/3 of the workforce are in a union yunno? They are spread out in a very unrandom pattern depending on the industry and the size of the company. If I said that I was striking tomorrow, Id get a verbal warning on monday, written on tuesday, another written on wednesday and would be gone before the end of the week. HOw exactly would that be unfair dismissal? Im refusing to work under the terms of my contract. If my contract is being changed then I have to choice to either sign the new contract or quit.

Just face it, on this one you are wrong. Private Sector employees cannot strike. It just doesnt work.

gurramok

kickoutthejams wrote: »

You honestly think a worker will be dismissed purely for striking?
Ever hear of unfair dismissals? You cannot be dismissed for engaging in trade union activities including strikes provided protocols are followed.


Private sector workers are still capable of striking, 1/3 of a workforce is still a significant amount.

Private sector workers can indeed strike but they can either be sacked or their employer will close their business as hey they go broke.. Some of us are glad to have a job in the first place with inferior pay conditions.

Where you getting 1/3 from?

Close to 75-80% of the workforce are in the private sector and there was about 1.8m in the private sector and thats shrunk by 100,000 or so recently.

Lockstep

gurramok wrote: »

I was actually looking forward to my first day in school when i was 4. It was very tough and needed lots of love to get over the being away from my parents. Lots of kids go through the same.

I doubt 5 year olds will be crying because their first day is put forward a few days.

gurramok wrote: »

Grinds, research & summer schools was the excuse. Are these activities outside their paid job?

Yes, which goes against your claim they do nothing over the summer.

gurramok wrote: »

You are defending their strike. They have no moral right to strike during school term affecting 5yr olds in Sept with an economic collapse and pulling in 60k year wages, simple as.

Quite frankly, I don't give a ****e about moral arguments, given how subjective morality is. I defend anyone's right to strike as if it's a bad idea, they will deal with the fallout.

ntlbell

baglady wrote: »

oh come on, seriously. So you have two examples and one semi-example. There are TENS OF THOUSANDS of teachers in the country. What do you mean about the lies? These people were probably telling the truth. But they were speaking for themselves, not every teacher in every union!

Well she was sent as the spokes person for the teachers union and her buddy claimed a LOT of their colleagues were in the same situation

so if there not she was liying?

if they are, i have to ask why they're in the situation?

it's not adding up

if there in the same situation then why are they so worried about a small % of a levy? that ALL ps have to pay?

why don't you do some maths for us

if the avg take home for a teacher is 60k

taken in the levy's etc

what's the take home?

Ajos

gurramok wrote: »

You are defending their strike. They have no moral right to strike during school term affecting 5yr olds in Sept with an economic collapse and pulling in 60k year wages, simple as.

And there we have it. That's the entire argument.

Except it isn't an argument, it's a statement.

Why is it immoral? Strikes always effect somebody. Somebody is always inconvenienced. That's the point. Is it your position that nobody should ever be allowed to strike? Goodbye weekend, minimum wage etc.

Nobody will die if the teachers go on strike. One or two weeks missed from an entire school career is not going to screw up anybody's life. Why should they be forbidden?

And what does their wage have to with it? As I've said more than once, this is not about anybody other than the teachers and their employer deciding what they are worth. Your opinion of what is "enough" or "too much" is completely irrelevant.

"Simple as". yes, whatever.

ntlbell

Ajos wrote: »

And there we have it. That's the entire argument.

Except it isn't an argument, it's a statement.

Why is it immoral? Strikes always effect somebody. Somebody is always inconvenienced. That's the point. Is it your position that nobody should ever be allowed to strike? Goodbye weekend, minimum wage etc.

Nobody will die if the teachers go on strike. One or two weeks missed from an entire school career is not going to screw up anybody's life. Why should they be forbidden?

And what does their wage have to with it? As I've said more than once, this is not about anybody other than the teachers and their employer deciding what they are worth. Your opinion of what is "enough" or "too much" is completely irrelevant.

"Simple as". yes, whatever.

a few weeks?

someone else said a few days

someone else said a day

so we have moved from a day to a few days to a few weeks

what does "rolling strikes" mean to you?

how long is that?

copacetic

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Yes, which goes against your claim they do nothing over the summer.
.

Heh, So now, being paid by us and then doing other work for more money at the same time is something we should thank them for?

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Quite frankly, I don't give a ****e about moral arguments, given how subjective morality is. I defend anyone's right to strike as if it's a bad idea, they will deal with the fallout.

Of course they have a right to strike, but they should cop on to themselves, the last little bit of respect that the public have for teachers is hanging by a thread. When they claim that ICTU is not left wing enough for them, they've really gone off the deep end and are living in a alternate reality.

They want everyone else to take the burden of the recesssion except themselves. It's not going to happen.

gurramok

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I doubt 5 year olds will be crying because their first day is put forward a few days.

Its a rolling action. Thats a few days lost of a childs first steps in education and god knows how many more days will be lost to strikes. Its disgraceful.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Yes, which goes against your claim they do nothing over the summer.

Ah, so we have it that they work on their paid holidays, hope revenue will chase this
Those activities can easily be dropped for strike action as they have..

-lots of free time
-don't need the money as they are on 60kpa
-IF they have a moral conscience

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Quite frankly, I don't give a ****e about moral arguments, given how subjective morality is. I defend anyone's right to strike as if it's a bad idea, they will deal with the fallout.

Yes, mé féin attitude. Same as when they did NOT strike for conditions of schools when Bertie was handing them pay rises year after year.

copacetic

ntlbell wrote: »

a few weeks?

someone else said a few days

someone else said a day

so we have moved from a day to a few days to a few weeks

what does "rolling strikes" mean to you?

how long is that?

Sure with them all being on the edge of defaulting on their second home mortgages they couldn't afford to strike for more than a day or two.

Lockstep

GreeBo wrote: »

Erm, that doesnt mean that in every company 1/3 of the workforce are in a union yunno? They are spread out in a very unrandom pattern depending on the industry and the size of the company.

Right, and the manager would have to fire all of them for taking part in the strike.
They'd also get into a long and lengthy fight with the employee union.

It costs the company more to retrain new workers than it does to just keep the workers they already have. Not to mention there is a lot of paperwork involved.

GreeBo wrote: »

If I said that I was striking tomorrow, Id get a verbal warning on monday, written on tuesday, another written on wednesday and would be gone before the end of the week. HOw exactly would that be unfair dismissal? Im refusing to work under the terms of my contract. If my contract is being changed then I have to choice to either sign the new contract or quit.

Depends if the rest of your group is unionised or not.
Then the employer would either have to fire all of you or keep you all on.

GreeBo wrote: »

Just face it, on this one you are wrong. Private Sector employees cannot strike. It just doesnt work.

Oh dear. Someone on the net told me so. THey must be right. I suppose next you'll be putting FACT at the end of each of your points.

What exactly is preventing a private sector worker from striking?

ntlbell wrote: »

I've heard of them, refusing to do your job seems fair grounds to me.

Not really, as striking does not allow unfair dismissal if done properly, unless the employer wants to fire everyone who strikes.

gurramok wrote: »

Private sector workers can indeed strike but they can either be sacked or their employer will close their business as hey they go broke.. Some of us are glad to have a job in the first place with inferior pay conditions.

They can only be sacked if they are all sacked.
Does that sound likely from an employer? To sack so many workers in one go.

gurramok wrote: »

Where you getting 1/3 from?

From Greebo's estimate, at less than a third, using it as an example as he didn't give the exact figures.

gurramok

Ajos wrote: »

And there we have it. That's the entire argument.

Except it isn't an argument, it's a statement.

Why is it immoral? Strikes always effect somebody. Somebody is always inconvenienced. That's the point. Is it your position that nobody should ever be allowed to strike? Goodbye weekend, minimum wage etc.

Nobody will die if the teachers go on strike. One or two weeks missed from an entire school career is not going to screw up anybody's life. Why should they be forbidden?

And what does their wage have to with it? As I've said more than once, this is not about anybody other than the teachers and their employer deciding what they are worth. Your opinion of what is "enough" or "too much" is completely irrelevant.

"Simple as". yes, whatever.

Now your ranting against facts. Everyone can strike if they want to. What galls people of the immorality of this strike is the following:

-they will not strike during their holidays where they pull in extra outside pay but in Sept in Primary schools affecting 5yr olds
-they are grossly overpaid at 60kpa
-they never striked over school conditions when Bertie gave them yearly pay rises for nothing as you see their pockets were more important.

Their wage is relevant as they are a wealthy bunch using kids to strike on pay, simple as.

gurramok

kickoutthejams wrote: »

They can only be sacked if they are all sacked.
Does that sound likely from an employer? To sack so many workers in one go.

Irish Ferries

kickoutthejams wrote: »

From Greebo's estimate, at less than a third, using it as an example as he didn't give the exact figures.

Ah ok, it looks genuine. It just shows how the private sector can be fired at will unlike the overpaid teachers.

beezkneez

if the teachers are so worried about the kids and class sizes, lets ask them all to make a 10% pay cut for the kids sake - see how they respond then. i am sick to death of them - they have a very inflated sense of their own importance.
The teachers that teach kids to read and write when they are infants are of crucial importance in my opinion - but other than that they are hyped up babysitters with too much time off and too much money.
And the ones that go on about how they are losing out twice as much because they are married to a teacher really annoys me - who they marry is not the tax payers problem.

Lockstep

copacetic wrote: »

Heh, So now, being paid by us and then doing other work for more money at the same time is something we should thank them for?

Not really, I was going against the ideas that they do nothing over the summer.

copacetic wrote: »

Of course they have a right to strike, but they should cop on to themselves, the last little bit of respect that the public have for teachers is hanging by a thread. When they claim that ICTU is not left wing enough for them, they've really gone off the deep end and are living in a alternate reality.

They want everyone else to take the burden of the recesssion except themselves. It's not going to happen.

Yes, I am saying why they should be allowed strike; they'll have to dela with the consequences.

gurramok wrote: »

Its a rolling action. Thats a few days lost of a childs first steps in education and god knows how many more days will be lost to strikes. Its disgraceful.

Really? I learned nothing in my first few days of school.

gurramok wrote: »

Ah, so we have it that they work on their paid holidays, hope revenue will chase this
Those activities can easily be dropped for strike action as they have..

-lots of free time
-don't need the money as they are on 60kpa
-IF they have a moral conscience

Right, but your point was that they did nothing over the holidays.
They do, and it wouldn;t be an effective strike for them to do so over the holidays.

gurramok wrote: »

Yes, mé féin attitude. Same as when they did NOT strike for conditions of schools when Bertie was handing them pay rises year after year.

As I said, I don't care about any moral arguments.
I do think trades should be allowed strike, provided they deal with consequences from it.

Lockstep

gurramok wrote: »

Irish Ferries

yeah, and that generated quite a ****, untl an agreement was involved.

gurramok wrote: »

Ah ok, it looks genuine. It just shows how the private sector can be fired at will unlike the overpaid teachers.

You cannot be fired "at will"

Once againl; unfair dismissal etc etc

Ajos

gurramok wrote: »

Now your ranting against facts. Everyone can strike if they want to. What galls people of the immorality of this strike is the following:

-they will not strike during their holidays where they pull in extra outside pay but in Sept in Primary schools affecting 5yr olds

Yes, because striking when they are not working for the employer they are negotiating with would be completely pointless. Keep up.

gurramok wrote: »

-they are grossly overpaid at 60kpa

Purely your opinion, and meaningless as such. Their worth has been and will continue to be decided by continuous negotiations with their employer, the State.

gurramok wrote: »

-they never striked over school conditions when Bertie gave them yearly pay rises for nothing as you see their pockets were more important.

But that's irrelevant, because you don't believe they should be allowed to strike for any reason, as you've said. It comes off better if you stick to just one argument at a time.

gurramok wrote: »

Their wage is relevant as they are a wealthy bunch using kids to strike on pay, simple as.

"Wealthy" = your opinion, and, as before, meaningless as such.

ntlbell

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Not really, as striking does not allow unfair dismissal if done properly, unless the employer wants to fire everyone who strikes.

We have no unions we can join, it would be

Verbal warning - come back to work

no

written warning - come back to work

no

You're fired.

k/thnx

dole queue

unfortunately I'm not in a job where i can hold the countries future to ransom :mad:

ntlbell

kickoutthejams wrote: »

yeah, and that generated quite a ****, untl an agreement was involved.




You cannot be fired "at will"

Once againl; unfair dismissal etc etc

it's not unfair if you refuse to complete your contractual obligations?

it must be a bit of a comedy show in your work place

gurramok

kickoutthejams wrote: »

yeah, and that generated quite a ****, untl an agreement was involved.
You cannot be fired "at will"

Once againl; unfair dismissal etc etc

A recent example is Dell. A few thousand thrown on the dole, you cannot do that with teachers as its very hard to sack even a bad teacher.

Ajos wrote: »

Yes, because striking when they are not working for the employer they are negotiating with would be completely pointless. Keep up.

They are on paid hols, they are still been paid by the state according to posters here. They are picky when to strike and are disrupting kids in Sept and not June.

Ajos wrote: »

Purely your opinion, and meaningless as such. Their worth has been and will continue to be decided by continuous negotiations with their employer, the State.

No its not. Its the opinion of the Dept of Education, have you seen the stats?

Ajos wrote: »

But that's irrelevant, because you don't believe they should be allowed to strike for any reason, as you've said. It comes off better if you stick to just one argument at a time.

Not in this current climate when they have one of the best pay rates in the EU while the Irish economy is in severe recession and they will not contribute to its recovery but instead want to bleed us dry.

Ajos wrote: »

"Wealthy" = your opinion, and, as before, meaningless as such.

60k is a wealthy wage. Its nearly double the mean/average wage.

Ajos

ntlbell wrote: »

unfortunately I'm not in a job where i can hold the countries future to ransom :mad:

So you're jealous that you're not in a position to negotiate with your employer to better your lot, and the teachers are. I think that explains it.

Rayan

kickoutthejams wrote: »

There around 55,000 teachers in Ireland in total. I doubt as many of them would come out in a march when you look at the percentages of students alone.

hahahaha. So if they protest in summer, numbers of them coming out to march is the problem. Which side are you on here?

Actually I didn't see your post, but I have done now, although quite frankly I don't understand people on AH who get all shirty about people not adressing their posts thinking it is being deliberately ignored.
Why is it so important to you that someone adresses your posts?

Simple. Because you had no valid counter-argument against any of those points. And you still don't.

What the hell are you on about?
I wasn't referring to it as being tough because of verbal abuse.
I'd say it's tough because you have such a huge impact on the students. Whenever I worked with kids, it was extremely stressful knowing that these were children and the impact I'd be having on their lives.

Where did anyone talk of the dangers of the job?

I'd view it as a tough job based on the fact these are kids. Future of the country and all that.

lol @ above. You are really clutching at straws now. THEY KNEW THEY WOULD BE WORKING WITH CHILDREN WHEN THEY CHOSE THE PROFESSION. It's not rocket science. You think they shouldn't get pay cuts (despite almost every profession in the country taking pay cuts), because they work with children? Yes working with children might be stressful, so is working in finance (especially in the current climate), so is working in sales (one of the most high-pressure jobs in the world), doctors (where literally people can live or die based on their decisions), pilots, builders (who have no jobs now), etc. etc.

If you want to know what a stressful work environment is, talk to some of the 1.8 million private sector workers who are not even sure they will have a job in 1 years time. Or the 400,000 unemployed people with families to feed who are looking for jobs.

I'm sure they would trade places with the "poor" teachers with their secure jobs, 60k wages and holiday homes in Croatia any day of the week.

If teachers can't handle the "stress" of children, they shouldn't be teachers. Simple as.

gurramok

Ajos wrote: »

So you're jealous that you're not in a position to negotiate with your employer to better your lot, and the teachers are. I think that explains it.

Nope, that's called self-serving interest over the national interest.

Ajos

gurramok wrote: »

They are on paid hols, they are still been paid by the state according to posters here. They are picky when to strike and are disrupting kids in Sept and not June.

They are striking when it will have an affect, and not when it won't, because they are not idiots. You seem to feel they should strike when it won't.

In fact, they are holding back. It would be far more effective to strike during the exams.

gurramok wrote: »

No its not. Its the opinion of the Dept of Education, have you seen the stats?

So the employer thinks the employee is overpaid, and the employee thinks they are underpaid. Whoulda think it? I bet this has never happened before in the entire history of labour relations. I guess they'll have to, I dunno, negotiate or something.

gurramok wrote: »

Not in this current climate when they have one of the best pay rates in the EU while the Irish economy is in severe recession and they will not contribute to its recovery but instead want to bleed us dry.



60k is a wealthy wage. Its nearly double the mean/average wage.

Pay rates in other EU countries are irrelevant. The economy is not a charity. What's the worry? If it isn't there they won't get it. Why are you angry about it? It will work itself out.

Wealth is relative, not absolute. You consider that someone earning 60k is wealthy, I do not. Both of our opinions are irrelevant.

gurramok

Ajos wrote: »

They are striking when it will have an affect, and not when it won't, because they are not idiots. You seem to feel they should strike when it won't.

In fact, they are holding back. It would be far more effective to strike during the exams.

You see, right there is the attitude that will not get any sympathy from the public at all.

Ajos wrote: »

So the employer thinks the employee is overpaid, and the employee thinks they are underpaid. Whoulda think it? I bet this has never happened before in the entire history of labour relations. I guess they'll have to, I dunno, negotiate or something.

Not that simple. We are talking about Primary school teachers not rocket scientists.
Do you know what Primary school is as you are in New York?

Ajos wrote: »

Pay rates in other EU countries are irrelevant. The economy is not a charity. What's the worry? If it isn't there they won't get it. Why are you angry about it? It will work itself out.

Wealth is relative, not absolute. You consider that someone earning 60k is wealthy, I do not. Both of our opinions are irrelevant.

60k is a wealthy wage. Its in the top 33% of the workforce if not the top 25%. If one cannot be comfy on 60k , they have competency issues.

Economy is not a charity. Now thats a contradiction yet you support them to bleed us dry acting against kids straight out of kindergarten starting their first few days in school.

ntlbell

Ajos wrote: »

So you're jealous that you're not in a position to negotiate with your employer to better your lot, and the teachers are. I think that explains it.

oh when all else fails roll out the jealously card.

I can negotiate how I do it is once a year I sit down with my employer and we go over the previous year, they have their bargaining tools I have mine.

If I'm not happy I have a number of options open to me, what I don't do is hold young kids education to ransom in order to get my increase.

I'm very well paid, work for a company that's voted in the top 10 company's to work for year after year and I'm very well looked after.

So jealous? me? nope.

Where will you go no?

irish begrudger right?

Ajos

gurramok wrote: »

Nope, that's called self-serving interest over the national interest.

I really don't understand how it's in the national interest to make it illegal for teachers to strike. It may be in the government's interest, but the government is not the country. Personally, I can think of several ways that having teachers' salaries be high and their work conditions improved would be in the national interest, both short and long term.

I'm not sure, even after all this time, what your issue is with the teachers.

Do you think they earn too much? Would you prefer if anybody with any ambition decided against teaching? Or that good teachers realise they could earn more money elsewhere? You'd like your kids to be taught only by people who had no other choice?

ntlbell

Ajos wrote: »

I really don't understand how it's in the national interest to make it illegal for teachers to strike. It may be in the government's interest, but the government is not the country. Personally, I can think of several ways that having teachers' salaries be high and their work conditions improved would be in the national interest, both short and long term.

I'm not sure, even after all this time, what your issue is with the teachers.

Do you think they earn too much? Would you prefer if anybody with any ambition decided against teaching? Or that good teachers realise they could earn more money elsewhere? You'd like your kids to be taught only by people who had no other choice?

I would of thought 4 months holidays (paid)
complete job security
fantastic pension would be enough?

it's not like we're asking for them to take a 50% pay cut

it's a 2% levy

let me write that again

2% levy

gurramok

Ajos wrote: »

I really don't understand how it's in the national interest to make it illegal for teachers to strike. It may be in the government's interest, but the government is not the country. Personally, I can think of several ways that having teachers' salaries be high and their work conditions improved would be in the national interest, both short and long term.

I'm not sure, even after all this time, what your issue is with the teachers.

Do you think they earn too much? Would you prefer if anybody with any ambition decided against teaching? Or that good teachers realise they could earn more money elsewhere? You'd like your kids to be taught only by people who had no other choice?

I had said not 'illegal' but an immoral strike when they pull in 60k a year. Yes they are overpaid, they have the gall to strike over their high pay!

Look, if they left the profession they have nowhere else to go on those wages as they woul be laughed at in the private sector in Ireland and the public/private sectors in the EU.

Did you see the UK equivalents i posted earlier and the OECD article stating they are among the highest paid in the EU?

There needs to be a fair balance on pay on conditions, that is not happening at the moment. There will always be good teachers that are fairly paid, overpaying them may make some lazy as they are unsackable.
They are on the gravy train milking the system while striking in Sept and not during the 3 month holidays.

baglady

ntlhell et al., listen, no child's education or life is no going to be severely impacted because of a strike. A lot of us have experienced strikes when we were in school ourselves and we are no worse off. Also, I would say that a very high percentage of teachers are parents themselves. Out of the teachers in my school and those that I know elsewhere I would say 90 - 95 % have children and many of those who do not are quite young, unmarried etc. A lot of you seem to have this notion that teacher don't give a **** about the kids but that is simply not true. No one in their right mind would ever train for and enter a profession such as teaching if they did not genuinely like and like being around children.

Ajos

gurramok wrote: »

You see, right there is the attitude that will not get any sympathy from the public at all.

Very possibly, although I'm not a teacher so it would be unjust to imply that this is, in fact, their attitude.

gurramok wrote: »

Not that simple. We are talking about Primary school teachers not rocket scientists.
Do you know what Primary school is as you are in New York?

"Primary School Teacher" and "Rocket Scientist" are both jobs. They both have bosses. They both negotiate their wage. I imagine rocket scientists negotiate individually rather than collectively, and that they earn more, but I don't see the point of your comparison.

Indeed I do know what a primary school is. I lived in Ireland until I was 28, and was entirely educated there (apart from some additional tuition in the school of life).

Oh, and no, I don't have any kids.

gurramok wrote: »

60k is a wealthy wage. Its in the top 33% of the workforce if not the top 25%. If one cannot be comfy on 60k , they have competency issues.

Economy is not a charity. Now thats a contradiction yet you support them to bleed us dry acting against kids straight out of kindergarten starting their first few days in school.

I didn't say it's not enough to live comfortably - it certainly is. But it doesn't fit with my idea of "wealth". Not even close. Yours is different, obviously. That's cool. But surely the fact that the word is open to such widely different interpretations renders it useless in terms of your argument.

Contradiction? I don't believe the teachers have a duty to balance the budget. That's the government's job. It's the job of the union to get as much as they can for their members.

The teachers are not "bleeding you dry". If they do succeed at negotiating more than you personally feel they are entitled to from the government, then that is to do with the government being worse negotiators than the teachers. Go for it - post something nasty about them on a message board.

spudster101

Sry but this is getting ridiculas. Why the peolple in the PS and CS seem to not understand this concept.

If the Private Sector SHRINKS (and shrank dramatically it has in this country)which generates(most if nearly all as far as i know) revenue for State coffers. Public expendature(unfortuately public sector salaries are apart of this) will SHRINK in accordance because at the moment is not sustainable in this finacial climate.

Teachers are not fighting the government on this, its the people of this country. As much of a balls Berty and Co. made of things, there the guys we voted in at the begin when things took off. Stop playin the blame game and take a look to the left and right of ya cause every1s to blame for this mess.

Every1 that could put there hand up and ask for more did, teachers included.
Now were asking to put back!

A lot of arguements being made that teachers main concern is welfare of children.
What has salaries and levies got to do with education of kids?
1 more question what do teachers believe is fair?

Rant terminated:D

baglady

where are you getting 2% from?

Ajos

ntlbell wrote: »

oh when all else fails roll out the jealously card.

I can negotiate how I do it is once a year I sit down with my employer and we go over the previous year, they have their bargaining tools I have mine.

If I'm not happy I have a number of options open to me, what I don't do is hold young kids education to ransom in order to get my increase.

I'm very well paid, work for a company that's voted in the top 10 company's to work for year after year and I'm very well looked after.

So jealous? me? nope.

Where will you go no?

irish begrudger right?

Good for you. You're right, you have no reason to be jealous.

So what is your problem?

"Holding young kids' education to ransom"? Please. Do you seriously believe that missing a week or two of school (probably at worst) is really going to ruin anybody's life? That's an extraordinary bit of hyperbole you've got going there.

ntlbell

baglady wrote: »

ntlhell et al., listen, no child's education or life is no going to be severely impacted because of a strike. A lot of us have experienced strikes when we were in school ourselves and we are no worse off. Also, I would say that a very high percentage of teachers are parents themselves. Out of the teachers in my school and those that I know elsewhere I would say 90 - 95 % have children and many of those who do not are quite young, unmarried etc. A lot of you seem to have this notion that teacher don't give a **** about the kids but that is simply not true. No one in their right mind would ever train for and enter a profession such as teaching if they did not genuinely like and like being around children.

sure they would.

The majority of my teachers were not very good with children

When i was 5 i watched one use her wedding ring to hit a guy in the back of the head, yeah she really must have loved kids.

I'll say it again

a lot of people will get into something when they have 4 months off paid

job security and a great pension.

I'm sure there is a lot of good teachers that geuinley care but there is a lot that don't and to assume there isn't is frankly, ****ing stupid.

ntlbell

Ajos wrote: »

Good for you. You're right, you have no reason to be jealous.

So what is your problem?

"Holding young kids' education to ransom"? Please. Do you seriously believe that missing a week or two of school (probably at worst) is really going to ruin anybody's life? That's an extraordinary bit of hyperbole you've got going there.

I think kids currently don't get enough time in school I think holidays are far too long as they are so yes, every day my daughter is in school I consider to be very precious.

I'm a real prick of a father as you can tell wanting the best for my child.

I've told you my problem.

what's yours?

gurramok

Ajos wrote: »

Very possibly, although I'm not a teacher so it would be unjust to imply that this is, in fact, their attitude.

"Primary School Teacher" and "Rocket Scientist" are both jobs. They both have bosses. They both negotiate their wage. I imagine rocket scientists negotiate individually rather than collectively, and that they earn more, but I don't see the point of your comparison.

Indeed I do know what a primary school is. I lived in Ireland until I was 28, and was entirely educated there (apart from some additional tuition in the school of life).

Oh, and no, I don't have any kids.

You do not seem to understand. They are striking in Sept during the school term and will not strike during the summer as it will affect their outside money activities like grinds.

They had no threat to strike until now as they were bought off by Bertie Ahern with successive yearly pay rises through benchmarking without any return in productivity.

Ajos wrote: »

I didn't say it's not enough to live comfortably - it certainly is. But it doesn't fit with my idea of "wealth". Not even close. Yours is different, obviously. That's cool. But surely the fact that the word is open to such widely different interpretations renders it useless in terms of your argument.

Contradiction? I don't believe the teachers have a duty to balance the budget. That's the government's job. It's the job of the union to get as much as they can for their members.

The teachers are not "bleeding you dry". If they do succeed at negotiating more than you personally feel they are entitled to from the government, then that is to do with the government being worse negotiators than the teachers. Go for it - post something nasty about them on a message board.

Huh? As you are in New York, you do not know the dept of outrage on the streets over here not just at bankers but at overpaid public servants who will would rather see the country go bankrupt than to grasp reality.

60k is a bloody good wage to get by on, no arguments there. Before you reply, think of the posters here who are unemployed and on Min wage, never mind the ones struggling to make ends meet on less than 60k.