Who do the Teachers think they are fooling?

ntlbell

baglady wrote: »

where are you getting 2% from?

Brian lenihan.

Ajos

ntlbell wrote: »

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?

You value your child's education above the self interest of the teachers. Of course you do. That's entirely natural, and indeed admirable.

It doesn't make her teachers your slaves.

I don't have a problem! That's the point! I'm ok with it!

ntlbell

Ajos wrote: »

You value your child's education above the self interest of the teachers. Of course you do. That's entirely natural, and indeed admirable.

It doesn't make her teachers your slaves.

I don't have a problem! That's the point! I'm ok with it!

I know their not my slaves

We pay them extremley good money

give them fantastic holiday breaks PAID.

provide a fantastic retirement package.

Ask the Irish slaves who were sold off what they got..:rolleyes:

baglady

ntlbell wrote: »

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.

My God you are cynical!

Ajos

ntlbell wrote: »

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.

You think the profession is too full of people who are doing it because they can't be bothered doing something else, so you want to drive the smarter people out? Your solution is to lower the pay and make it even less competitive? If people were fighting for teaching jobs, the quality of successful applicants would go up, not vice versa.

ntlbell

baglady wrote: »

My God you are cynical!

It's called experience.

You'll learn about it when you're older.

baglady

ntlbell wrote: »

Brian lenihan.

link please if you wouldn't mind

baglady

ntlbell wrote: »

It's called experience.

You'll learn about it when you're older.

lol

ntlbell

Ajos wrote: »

You think the profession is too full of people who are doing it because they can't be bothered doing something else, so you want to drive the smarter people out? Your solution is to lower the pay and make it even less competitive? If people were fighting for teaching jobs, the quality of successful applicants would go up, not vice versa.

No, I don't it's the same as any other profession, some good some bad.

the benefits currently in place and the salaries are more than enough to attract good teachers and we do attract them.

I don't want to lower pay, I never mentioned that not once, can you stop making assumptions?

the levy's are not directed at teachers

they are for the WHOLE private sector we have a HUGE hole in our public finances these need to be filled and EVERYONE has to take a share of that

I want them to take thier share the same as everyone else.

that's not too much to ask is it?

ntlbell

baglady wrote: »

link please if you wouldn't mind

knock yourself out

http://budget.gov.ie/2009/budgetsummary09.html

gurramok

Ajos wrote: »

You think the profession is too full of people who are doing it because they can't be bothered doing something else, so you want to drive the smarter people out? Your solution is to lower the pay and make it even less competitive? If people were fighting for teaching jobs, the quality of successful applicants would go up, not vice versa.

Whats wrong with having fair pay and not overpay?

Ajos wrote: »

You value your child's education above the self interest of the teachers. Of course you do. That's entirely natural, and indeed admirable.

It doesn't make her teachers your slaves.

I don't have a problem! That's the point! I'm ok with it!

Of course he does value it. His kids are been used by overpaid teachers to strike in Sept instead of June, July or Aug for money while they pull in €60k.

Ajos

gurramok wrote: »

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.

Yes, because they are not idiots, as we previously established.

gurramok wrote: »

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.

So, they were happy with their lot and therefore didn't strike. Funny that. I can't understand it.

gurramok wrote: »

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.

Right, because there is no outrage against bankers in New York. I have been back, talked to people, browsed Boards, so I know such sentiment exists, although I'll admit I'm not living with it the same way you are.

The teachers are not trying to, and indeed are not capable of, bankrupting the country. They are trying to get what they can, as everybody should, and reality will dictate what they come away with. The government will either find the money by taking it from an area they consider less valuable, or the teachers will come away with nothing. It'll probably be somewhere between the two.

I'm going to be careful about this, and probably regret typing it, but I do think that this attitude of "some people are suffering, therefore nobody anywhere should be allowed improve their situation" is nothing more than, wait for it, begrudgery.

Rayan

Ajos wrote: »

"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?

If striking in September is not going to have any affect on the children's education/lives, why not strike in June then, or July? Why September?

ntlbell

Ajos wrote: »

I'm going to be careful about this, and probably regret typing it, but I do think that this attitude of "some people are suffering, therefore nobody anywhere should be allowed improve their situation" is nothing more than, wait for it, begrudgery.

oh no there it is.

Rayan

Ajos wrote: »

Yes, because they are not idiots, as we previously established.



So, they were happy with their lot and therefore didn't strike. Funny that. I can't understand it.

Ok. At least we are agreeing on 1 thing - this is solely about money. What I and most of us arguing against the teachers on this thread were angry about was, they were trying to hide behind the "oh it's such a stressful/dangerous job" etc, which is merely an excuse to throw people off their real intentions.

baglady

Rayan wrote: »

If striking in September is not going to have any affect on the children's education/lives, why not strike in June then, or July? Why September?

read back a few pages, this topic has been going around in circles

baglady

ntlbell wrote: »

knock yourself out

http://budget.gov.ie/2009/budgetsummary09.html

cheers but I though you were talking about the pension levy?

gurramok

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.
.

For a start there are not that many teachers on 60k and I will repeat that is a before tax figure.

60k before tax is not a wealthy wage. I would say it is a reasonable wage 60k after tax would be a fairly good wage. I would certainly not be happy if after years of work all I was going to be earning was 60k before the government put their hand in my pocket and that's for sure. Teachers earn decent money but its far from a very well paid job especially for most teachers who are not near this 60k figure that is being thrown around here and they are not over paid that for sure.

Ajos

gurramok wrote: »

Whats wrong with having fair pay and not overpay?



Of course he does value it. His kids are been used by overpaid teachers to strike in Sept instead of June, July or Aug for money while they pull in €60k.

My problem with it in this specific instance is that you seem to want to be the one who decides what "fair" is, and I don't believe you're in a good position to make that determination.

"Overpaid" = meaningless opinion, however widely shared.

Rayan wrote: »

If striking in September is not going to have any affect on the children's education/lives, why not strike in June then, or July? Why September?

Because they want to cause disruption. That's not the same as ruining lives. And a strike in June or July would be meaningless. The teachers realise this because they are not idiots. There seem to be a lot of people around here who can't grasp it.

gurramok

Ajos wrote: »

Yes, because they are not idiots, as we previously established.

Its called been selfish. They might not have that in New York.

Ajos wrote: »

So, they were happy with their lot and therefore didn't strike. Funny that. I can't understand it.

You do not seem to be informed. School facilities are crap over here and have been for many years and yet there was not a whimper from teachers about it as they were been paid off via benchmarking to keep them quiet.

Educate yourself on the subject excuse the pun

Ajos wrote: »

Right, because there is no outrage against bankers in New York. I have been back, talked to people, browsed Boards, so I know such sentiment exists, although I'll admit I'm not living with it the same way you are.

The teachers are not trying to, and indeed are not capable of, bankrupting the country. They are trying to get what they can, as everybody should, and reality will dictate what they come away with. The government will either find the money by taking it from an area they consider less valuable, or the teachers will come away with nothing. It'll probably be somewhere between the two.

I'm going to be careful about this, and probably regret typing it, but I do think that this attitude of "some people are suffering, therefore nobody anywhere should be allowed improve their situation" is nothing more than, wait for it, begrudgery.

Oh good god. You support teachers to get a good deal while they have a very good deal while the economy collapses at the same time!!

Thats a new one. Open your eyes.

Ajos

ntlbell wrote: »

oh no there it is.

Yes, I know! Although to be fair I didn't direct it at you.

ntlbell

Lane Substantial Vocabulary wrote: »

For a start there are not that many teachers on 60k and I will repeat that is a before tax figure.

60k before tax is not a wealthy wage. I would say it is a reasonable wage 60k after tax would be a fairly good wage. I would certainly not be happy if after years of work all I was going to be earning was 60k before the government put their hand in my pocket and that's for sure. Teachers earn decent money but its far from a very well paid job especially for most teachers who are not near this 60k figure that is being thrown around here and they are not over paid that for sure.

it is when you consider the amount of time they actually spend working do we have to keep going over this?

they work 4 month's less than anyone else.

there working day is shorter than anyone else.

so when you take into account the actual amount of hours they work then yes 60k is a lot of money

get the hourly rate based on hours worked on a 60k salary and I think you'll be pretty shocked at how highly their paid

gurramok

Lane Substantial Vocabulary wrote: »

For a start there are not that many teachers on 60k and I will repeat that is a before tax figure.

60k before tax is not a wealthy wage. I would say it is a reasonable wage 60k after tax would be a fairly good wage. I would certainly not be happy if after years of work all I was going to be earning was 60k before the government put their hand in my pocket and that's for sure. Teachers earn decent money but its far from a very well paid job especially for most teachers who are not near this 60k figure that is being thrown around here and they are not over paid that for sure.

Another who does not know how €3,500 a month is not a very good wage.

Yet again, that figure is not just banded about, its supplied by the Dept of Education.

Ajos wrote: »

My problem with it in this specific instance is that you seem to want to be the one who decides what "fair" is, and I don't believe you're in a good position to make that determination.

"Overpaid" = meaningless opinion, however widely shared.

Because they want to cause disruption. That's not the same as ruining lives. And a strike in June or July would be meaningless. The teachers realise this because they are not idiots. There seem to be a lot of people around here who can't grasp it.

Overpaid in comparison with the private sector and any other private/public sector equivalent in the EU as proven by the OECD. Have you read this thread at all?

You cannot grasp how 55,000 teachers can muster action better for 3 months in the summer than doing it at school time on 5yr olds.

Ajos

gurramok wrote: »

Its called been selfish. They might not have that in New York.

Seriously though, what's wrong with looking after yourself? You do it. It's up to the government to ensure that it doesn't happen at too high a cost to others, which hopefully they will.

Don't get me wrong - I don't necessarily believe that the teachers will or should get everything they are after, I just think they are entitled to try. Other posters here seem to feel that that is immoral or should even be completely forbidden, which is nonsense.

gurramok wrote: »

You do not seem to be informed. School facilities are crap over here and have been for many years and yet there was not a whimper from teachers about it as they were been paid off via benchmarking to keep them quiet.

Educate yourself on the subject excuse the pun

Well, I did attend these schools! Ok, not all of them, you have me there. But I still don't get your point. You're angry about the reason you believe they are striking, not the fact that they are striking? I thought it was the latter.

gurramok wrote: »

Oh good god. You support teachers to get a good deal while they have a very good deal while the economy collapses at the same time!!

Thats a new one. Open your eyes.

I don't believe these things are necessarily as related as you believe. Firing all the teachers would not save the economy. In fact in general giving people less money in their pockets to spend on goods is a bad idea, as far as helping the economy out is concerned.

Ok, I'm outta here. I may check back later. I can't wait to see how many other people think that striking when you're not supposed to be working anyway is a good idea!

caoimhe19

I advise you to stand in front of a class of teenagers for 45 mins and try to teach them something they have absolutely no interest in.
Then go and stand in front of another group of teenagers for another 45 mins and try to do this again. Repeat this another 6 times. Do try and keep your back to the blackboard all the time. if you forget you might need to duck to avoid being hit by flying objects.

Then go home and plan 6 or seven classes for the next day and correct anything from 30 to 100 pieces of work/


Do this five days a week.
Dont forget to fill in your time sheet. You will have to do this repeatedly once a week for anything from one to ten years, untill someone retires or gets sick and that permanent job coomes along.

oh, you may have the odd insult about your weight, looks thrown at you or even have to put up with sexual insults now and again.

And as for teachers stress, who do they think they are talking about stress with all those short days and holidays and big fat pay checks!!!

Now the bankers......they are the ones i have pity for, their stress levels must be something else, what with all that travelling back and forth to Switzerland!



No i am not a teacher, just using my brain!!! Something all those wonderful professional people who educated me, taught me to do.

Take care.

gurramok

Ajos wrote: »

Seriously though, what's wrong with looking after yourself? You do it. It's up to the government to ensure that it doesn't happen at too high a cost to others, which hopefully they will.

Looking after yourself? We are talking about an overpiad bunch who are paid by the public purse and yet are striking for money that does not exist.

Ajos wrote: »

Don't get me wrong - I don't necessarily believe that the teachers will or should get everything they are after, I just think they are entitled to try. Other posters here seem to feel that that is immoral or should even be completely forbidden, which is nonsense.

Being overpaid as well as their employer being nearly broke and using kids as pawns, thats immoral.

Ajos wrote: »

Well, I did attend these schools! Ok, not all of them, you have me there. But I still don't get your point. You're angry about the reason you believe they are striking, not the fact that they are striking? I thought it was the latter.

Both the timing of the strike, the reason for the strike and the fake reasons they put out when they didnt care about the kids facilities when they got pay rises year after year.

Ajos wrote: »

I don't believe these things are necessarily as related as you believe. Firing all the teachers would not save the economy. In fact in general giving people less money in their pockets to spend on goods is a bad idea, as far as helping the economy out is concerned.

Ok, I'm outta here. I may check back later. I can't wait to see how many other people think that striking when you're not supposed to be working anyway is a good idea!

Where do you think the money will come from? I'd love to hear your answer.

Yes, strike on their 3 months breaks as they don't do anything except where some earn extra money outside hols.
Teachers do not normal day to day working days like us, they get 3 months paid hols, we don't. Nothing wring with striking on hols, they can march down to the Dail and protest all they like if they had the kids at heart that is.

Ajos

gurramok wrote: »

Another who does not know how €3,500 a month is not a very good wage.

Yet again, that figure is not just banded about, its supplied by the Dept of Education.




Overpaid in comparison with the private sector and any other private/public sector equivalent in the EU as proven by the OECD. Have you read this thread at all?

I've glanced through, and I feel I've probably at least skimmed some of the main points. Why, should I?

Proven? What has been proven? "Overpaid" is a judgement. Comparisons are odious. I don't care how much people who aren't teachers earn, and I don't care how much teachers in other countries earn. What has that got to do with anything? Their wage will be decided by two things: how much money the government has, and how highly it values education as opposed to other things it needs to spend money on. All the teachers are doing is making them think long and hard about the second point.

gurramok wrote: »

You cannot grasp how 55,000 teachers can muster action better for 3 months in the summer than doing it at school time on 5yr olds.

You cannot grasp how withholding labour when you are not expected to provide it anyway isn't as effective a negotiating technique as withholding it when doing so will cause a massive inconvenience to a lot of people?

Fighting Irish

gurramok wrote: »

Being overpaid as well as their employer being nearly broke and using kids as pawns, thats immoral.

such a stupid argument, the teachers are forced into this position

Ajos

gurramok wrote: »

Looking after yourself? We are talking about an overpiad bunch who are paid by the public purse and yet are striking for money that does not exist.



Being overpaid as well as their employer being nearly broke and using kids as pawns, thats immoral.

Overpaid is a judgement. It's amazing the way that somebody's work can be both so valuable that even a moment away from it is a terrible crime against the little ones, and simultaneously so worthless that they shouldn't even be getting as much as they do, and indeed should probably be forced to live in the streets like dogs.

gurramok wrote: »

Both the timing of the strike, the reason for the strike and the fake reasons they put out when they didnt care about the kids facilities when they got pay rises year after year.

The timing - well, that's been done to death. If you're still suggesting that they should strike when they're not working, well, remind me never to employ you to negotiate on my behalf.

The reasons/fake reasons - what does that have to do with anything? I'm not a teacher, and I don't have any special insight into their motives, but I think it's ridiculous that you feel you should have the right to decide for another adult what they should strike for and what they shouldn't.

gurramok wrote: »

Where do you think the money will come from? I'd love to hear your answer.

Yes, strike on their 3 months breaks as they don't do anything except where some earn extra money outside hols.
Teachers do not normal day to day working days like us, they get 3 months paid hols, we don't. Nothing wring with striking on hols, they can march down to the Dail and protest all they like if they had the kids at heart that is.

I have no idea where the money will come from. It will either come from nowhere, ie they won't get anything, or it will come from a cut somewhere else. That will be somewhere judged less valuable by the government, or at least with worse negotiators. It all seems perfectly reasonable to me.

You're just repeating yourself. Ok, you only want them to strike when to do so would be valueless to them but convenient for you. That's fine, but you can understand why they're not doing that, right?

And it does sound a bit like you're jealous of their pay and benefits. That's not a good reason for wishing them ill, really.

Sigma Force

Teachers obviously should get paid for their job but I don't believe their job is any more difficult than other jobs otherwise why would they bother going in to the profession. Yes there are some difficult areas where students can become impossible but in general around the country schools are very strict even primary schools and they have zero tolerance.

We've all been in school pretty much and I bet ever one of us has a story about a teacher who hardly turned up, had no interest in teaching etc.
If students won't pay attention and are finding a lesson un interesting then half of it is the teachers fault and the other half the student.

I cannot remember one single teacher in school that was in any way inspiring lessons were very hum drum and boring with some teachers not bothering to turn up or turning up at the last minute because they were waffling in the hallway. In general as students we weren't a bad bunch just a regular school.

There is sometimes the exceptional teacher and in ways I can't fault our local school being smaller than a town one perhaps this helps though and I do think class sized in some schools are too big.

In most jobs the amount of actual hours you put in reflects heavily on the pay packet. I do think the amount of holidays they have are ridiculous, ok summer and Xmas everyone is off but 2 weeks for easter was just a joke and then in two weeks time there's another day off. Then there are mid terms flying around as well.

Why can't teachers have their flippin teacher meetings after school hours anyway, kids end up having a half day because of these meetings.

Yes they should be paid for their jobs but many people doing equally important jobs are getting pay cuts or pay freezes they aren't exempt.

I'm just hoping when ours is old enough and going to secondary school that teaching methods will have changed, students simply won't take to a person that has no interest in what and who they are teaching.

Yes pay them for the jobs but I think it should be partly based on their students results esp. secondary school.

themont85

caoimhe19 wrote: »

I advise you to stand in front of a class of teenagers for 45 mins and try to teach them something they have absolutely no interest in.

Perhaps the teacher cannot teach the subject or hold the discipline in the classroom enough so that a student can learn. I always find it funny when people say stuff like that, you'll often find in schools though that the good teachers can perform this remarkably well and get good results whilst others are terrible. Of course there's very little performance apprasial of teachers now is there? Yes loads of underperforming teachers are sacked every year:rolleyes:

caoimhe19 wrote: »

Then go and stand in front of another group of teenagers for another 45 mins and try to do this again. Repeat this another 6 times. Do try and keep your back to the blackboard all the time. if you forget you might need to duck to avoid being hit by flying objects.

Then go home and plan 6 or seven classes for the next day and correct anything from 30 to 100 pieces of work/

Wow like engineers, lawyers, bankers, carpenters ect who have multiple jobs/projects lined up which all need the exact same planning. Oh yeah but of course the curriculum for a subject like Histroy changes every year, major changes are had with material:rolleyes: The only chanes are done in in service days(which of course are taken not on any of many weeks of holidays but during school term and as a consequence mean students lose days of teaching:)) and those changes aren't exactly huge now are they.

Seriousley come of it, i know teachers in my old school and in the institute who took the time to do out a plan and notes when they started out. One guy i know uses powerpoint slides in the classroom, yes it took him a while at the start, but look at him now. His classes are planned forever basically, yes there are changes but they are minor and hardly earth shattering. So no planning for him is there now which will eat into his time after his 22 hours of actual teaching. Well that leaves him with a nice 18 hours a week to correct homework, much of which is question sheets which a monkey could correct. Maybe an essay a week, sounds very stressful.

caoimhe19 wrote: »

Do this five days a week.

Awwww the poor souls having to work 5 days a week.

I mean there's hardly anytime to fit grinds and coaching in to supplement my income. And the holidays, God that doesn't make up for working 5 days a week at all!

caoimhe19 wrote: »

Dont forget to fill in your time sheet. You will have to do this repeatedly once a week for anything from one to ten years, untill someone retires or gets sick and that permanent job coomes along.

Job security is a bitch isn't it? Sure nobody in the private sector would have a clue would they. I mean its really difficult to lose your job there isn't it.:rolleyes:

I mean its not as if the pension which teachers are entitled to regardless of economic fluxuations is good is it? Or the job for life once your in, God that's terrible.

And sorry, but what about young solicitors, carpenters, accountants ect? Most of them would be on one year to two training contracts much like teachers, they are in the exact same bout. Plenty of young proffessionals been let go as of late including yours truly, what is so different about teachers?

caoimhe19 wrote: »

oh, you may have the odd insult about your weight, looks thrown at you or even have to put up with sexual insults now and again.

I'll stop being sarcastic here. Sorry what now? Insults,sexual harrasment? Do teachers not report these things.

I'm sorry but all the teachers who claim they are bullied ect by students shouldn't be in the proffession. Funny how some teachers can handle students and others are so completely bereft of what could be seen as a fundemental skill to be a teacher. Of course teachers are easily moved away from the proffession now aren't they?

caoimhe19 wrote: »

And as for teachers stress, who do they think they are talking about stress with all those short days and holidays and big fat pay checks!!!

Now the bankers......they are the ones i have pity for, their stress levels must be something else, what with all that travelling back and forth to Switzerland!

Ye 2-3 months summer holidays, 2 mid terms, Christmas and Easter breaks in addition to short days are no where near ample enough for all the 'stress' they are under. Every job has stress in it but again i will say this; funny how good and respected teachers are rarely seemingly under stress, funny that.

The teachers come accross as such children in their conferences, the fact that these people are university educated baffles me, do they not understand public finances? No, they blame the 'bankers' and the 'developers' who they didn't seem to complain about during their wonderful benchmarking and supervision payments. The unions are stirring **** up to justify their existence. One thing I will say though that most of my teaching friends are quite logical about the situation, others well this post sums up my opinion of them even if they are friends.

caoimhe19 wrote: »

No i am not a teacher, just using my brain!!! Something all those wonderful professional people who educated me, taught me to do.

Take care.

Fair play, your first post defending the noble proffession to which you are clearly impartial;)

Kat Slater

Don't want to wade in to the middle of an argument but I keep seeing a "60K" figure bandied about here, the majority of teachers are not on 60K. My dad's been teaching for 30 years and he's on 60K, don't know the exact increments of the scale but most teachers would have less service and earn less.

ixoy

It's interesting that 60k is considered "not a great wage" for 9 months work. No wonder the country became so over-priced.

ntlbell

caoimhe19 wrote: »

I advise you to stand in front of a class of teenagers for 45 mins and try to teach them something they have absolutely no interest in.
Then go and stand in front of another group of teenagers for another 45 mins and try to do this again. Repeat this another 6 times. Do try and keep your back to the blackboard all the time. if you forget you might need to duck to avoid being hit by flying objects.

Then go home and plan 6 or seven classes for the next day and correct anything from 30 to 100 pieces of work/


Do this five days a week.
Dont forget to fill in your time sheet. You will have to do this repeatedly once a week for anything from one to ten years, untill someone retires or gets sick and that permanent job coomes along.

oh, you may have the odd insult about your weight, looks thrown at you or even have to put up with sexual insults now and again.

And as for teachers stress, who do they think they are talking about stress with all those short days and holidays and big fat pay checks!!!

Now the bankers......they are the ones i have pity for, their stress levels must be something else, what with all that travelling back and forth to Switzerland!



No i am not a teacher, just using my brain!!! Something all those wonderful professional people who educated me, taught me to do.

Take care.

I advise you to walk into jobstown on a saturday at around 1 am a guarda uniform blah blah blah blah

what has how hard the job is got do with anything

no one is doubting how hard it is

if your late to this thread please read over it we've been over and over all this nonsense

ntlbell

Kat Slater wrote: »

Don't want to wade in to the middle of an argument but I keep seeing a "60K" figure bandied about here, the majority of teachers are not on 60K. My dad's been teaching for 30 years and he's on 60K, don't know the exact increments of the scale but most teachers would have less service and earn less.

well according to the dept of education the average is 60k the figures speak for themselves.

some teachers would have less some would have more

that's why we call it an average

your dad thought you that i'm sure.

gurramok

Ajos wrote: »

I've glanced through, and I feel I've probably at least skimmed some of the main points. Why, should I?

Proven? What has been proven? "Overpaid" is a judgement. Comparisons are odious. I don't care how much people who aren't teachers earn, and I don't care how much teachers in other countries earn. What has that got to do with anything? Their wage will be decided by two things: how much money the government has, and how highly it values education as opposed to other things it needs to spend money on. All the teachers are doing is making them think long and hard about the second point.

You cannot grasp how withholding labour when you are not expected to provide it anyway isn't as effective a negotiating technique as withholding it when doing so will cause a massive inconvenience to a lot of people?

Ajos wrote: »

Overpaid is a judgement. It's amazing the way that somebody's work can be both so valuable that even a moment away from it is a terrible crime against the little ones, and simultaneously so worthless that they shouldn't even be getting as much as they do, and indeed should probably be forced to live in the streets like dogs.

The timing - well, that's been done to death. If you're still suggesting that they should strike when they're not working, well, remind me never to employ you to negotiate on my behalf.

The reasons/fake reasons - what does that have to do with anything? I'm not a teacher, and I don't have any special insight into their motives, but I think it's ridiculous that you feel you should have the right to decide for another adult what they should strike for and what they shouldn't.

I have no idea where the money will come from. It will either come from nowhere, ie they won't get anything, or it will come from a cut somewhere else. That will be somewhere judged less valuable by the government, or at least with worse negotiators. It all seems perfectly reasonable to me.

You're just repeating yourself. Ok, you only want them to strike when to do so would be valueless to them but convenient for you. That's fine, but you can understand why they're not doing that, right?

And it does sound a bit like you're jealous of their pay and benefits. That's not a good reason for wishing them ill, really.

In case you have not noticed, we are all taxpayers here(you're not as you are in New York), it concerns us what the teachers get up to as we pay their wages as well as they teach our children. What they do affects us directly and indirectly, the public suffers if they strike.

Using the line of begrudgery, jealously is really a loser for a discussion as you know well they are overpaid. If teachers left their jobs here, they will not get a similarly highly paid job in the EU as they would be laughed at.

You do know why they are striking don't you? Its over money. Its not over working conditions at all.

60k is well enough to live on and its downright offensive that they are crying wolf over this handsome wage with 400,000 on the dole and the country on the verge of bankrupcy.

Fighting Irish wrote: »

such a stupid argument, the teachers are forced into this position

No, they are forcing kids in that position. 3 months of paid leave and they do nothing and you know why they won't as it will affect their outside nixers.

Kat Slater wrote: »

Don't want to wade in to the middle of an argument but I keep seeing a "60K" figure bandied about here, the majority of teachers are not on 60K. My dad's been teaching for 30 years and he's on 60K, don't know the exact increments of the scale but most teachers would have less service and earn less.

The statistics say otherwise.

Lockstep

Rayan wrote: »

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

Have you ever been on a march before?
Because someone is able to make it doesn't mean that they will.
OAPs/students.

What is your point as regards to which side I'm on?

Rayan wrote: »

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

*sigh*
Once again, I missed your post. I responded to it once you brought it to my attention. You seem to think it's being deliberate.
/paranoia.

And frankly, I don't think I'm the one without any valid counter arguments, given you are comparing the succesful OAP march to the unsuccesful student one.

Rayan wrote: »

lol @ above. You are really clutching at straws now.

Pot kettle black friend.

Rayan wrote: »

THEY KNEW THEY WOULD BE WORKING WITH CHILDREN WHEN THEY CHOSE THE PROFESSION.

Well done, caps lock makes the point so much better.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2279/2056310717_ee80a7bd4e.jpg

At any rate, knowing what you will be working with doesn't change the fact it will be a tough job, although you seem to think tough/dangerous are interchangable.

Rayan wrote: »

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?

Where did I say that?
I said I support them being able to strike. As I do any sector of society.
I also said it was a tough job.
You seem to draw correlations that I think they should be exempt from pay cuts.

Rayan wrote: »

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.

Yes, they are stressful in different ways. However, personally, I'd say kids are a special case given how influential a teacher is to them. Kids are impressionable and the future of a country. I found working with kids much more stressful than I did working in sales.

Rayan wrote: »

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.

Funny, I know teachers and lecturers in the same boat (on a year to year contract)

Rayan wrote: »

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.

Teachings seems to be a lot less secure than is made to be. Last job I had (bookshop) I was working with two unemployed teachers. Friend of mine works part time (substituting), she was laid off from her teaching job.

Rayan wrote: »

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

Where did I say they couldn't handle the stress? I was achknowledging it is a stressful job.
"Simple as" as you would say.

Lockstep

gurramok wrote: »

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.

Strange, I know a few teachers who've lost their jobs.
Dell workers weren't fired on a whim, it was outsourcing. Big difference between "I think I'll fire that guy over there, for no particular reason"
And outsourcing.

Lockstep

ntlbell wrote: »

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

Not really; if you are fired for striking and other workers aren't for doing the same/are reinstated, you will win a claim against your employer for unfair dismissal.

gurramok

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Yes, they are stressful in different ways. However, personally, I'd say kids are a special case given how influential a teacher is to them. Kids are impressionable and the future of a country. I found working with kids much more stressful than I did working in sales.

Where did I say they couldn't handle the stress? I was achknowledging it is a stressful job.
"Simple as" as you would say.

Here we go again over the stress issue. Plenty of other jobs are stressful too.
Still can't see how face painting for 5yr olds is stressful.

If a teacher cannot control the behaviour of class, they are a bad teacher and deserve no sympathy.

We all had teachers who reigned over the class like dictators with resulting excellent academic results and then we had the bad ones who could not manage a class.

Lockstep

ntlbell wrote: »

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:

No unions?
Try Siptu
Or, my own union, Mandate

Ultimately, it depends on the job you're in. I worked with an ex-Pennys worker who told me they're obliged to join a union. If there's a strike, then the employer would have to fire them all and deal with training a whole no calibre of staff.

Likewise, friend of mine's bar colleagues are all in Mandate. Same situation.
You seem to apply the term as if private sector is homogenous.

gurramok

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Strange, I know a few teachers who've lost their jobs.
Dell workers weren't fired on a whim, it was outsourcing. Big difference between "I think I'll fire that guy over there, for no particular reason"
And outsourcing.

Now your been misleading here. Teachers on contracts/subs have been let go, not the permo ones. Its very hard to sack a bad teacher.

Care to head down to Limerick and tell them that?

ixoy

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Dell workers weren't fired on a whim, it was outsourcing. Big difference between "I think I'll fire that guy over there, for no particular reason"

How about this for a reason now: We haven't got the money.

Again I still haven't really got an answer to this one: The teachers are intending to strike over the levy, which they see as an unfair tax. If the levy was undone and an equal pay cut was installed instead - would they be complaining? After all there'd be no unfair tax then, just a reduced pay in line with the economic crisis that we're all involved in, to some degree or another (some worse than the equivalent cut would be, some better).

ntlbell

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Not really; if you are fired for striking and other workers aren't for doing the same/are reinstated, you will win a claim against your employer for unfair dismissal.

that's making for a lot of assumptions.

Lockstep

gurramok wrote: »

Here we go again over the stress issue. Plenty of other jobs are stressful too.
Still can't see how face painting for 5yr olds is stressful.

You're right, teachers only ever have to deal with 5 year olds.

gurramok wrote: »

If a teacher cannot control the behaviour of class, they are a bad teacher and deserve no sympathy.

Again, I'm not talking about the ones who can't control a class.

I am saying it is a tough job, given the nature and the influence they will have on children.

inb4 5 year olds.

gurramok wrote: »

We all had teachers who reigned over the class like dictators with resulting excellent academic results and then we had the bad ones who could not manage a class.

Really? Any dictator teachers I had usually ended up with fairly poor results. Best teacher I ever had was as laid back as could be.

Lockstep

ntlbell wrote: »

that's making for a lot of assumptions.

Not really.
Check out the statute.


Unfair dismissals Act

ntlbell

ixoy wrote: »

How about this for a reason now: We haven't got the money.

Again I still haven't really got an answer to this one: The teachers are intending to strike over the levy, which they see as an unfair tax. If the levy was undone and an equal pay cut was installed instead - would they be complaining? After all there'd be no unfair tax then, just a reduced pay in line with the economic crisis that we're all involved in, to some degree or another (some worse than the equivalent cut would be, some better).

I'd really like to see an answer to this too

will someone do the honors?

ntlbell

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Really? Any dictator teachers I had usually ended up with fairly poor results. Best teacher I ever had was as laid back as could be.

and for me it was the opposite

crazy isn't it people have different experiences whodha thought?

ntlbell

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Not really.
Check out the statute.


Unfair dismissals Act

your making assumptions.

That everyone would strike.

That everyone wouldn't be fired.

that some would be reinstated and some would not.

assumptions.

ntlbell

kickoutthejams wrote: »

No unions?
Try Siptu
Or, my own union, Mandate

Ultimately, it depends on the job you're in. I worked with an ex-Pennys worker who told me they're obliged to join a union. If there's a strike, then the employer would have to fire them all and deal with training a whole no calibre of staff.

Likewise, friend of mine's bar colleagues are all in Mandate. Same situation.
You seem to apply the term as if private sector is homogenous.

What good is me being in it when no one else is?

I'll strike, I'll be fired for not doing my job

end of.