Standing up for Teachers.

The_Honeybadger

#15 wrote: »

Really? Because the 2009 report says that in order to attract good teachers, it is necessary for teachers to be well paid. Thats in the actual report

This is of course true, but do they really need such a high wage starting out? I absolutely agree they should get a decent salary but close to 38k just after graduating is madness IMO. People that have a passion for teaching will be drawn to the profession regardless, once there is a decent wage for it, especially given the holidays, pension and job security (majority of teachers are permanent, I know some aren't) and generous pay increments thereafter. I subbed in a primary school for a while after travelling, money was good, work was ok but it wasn't for me, it is a tough job and I know this first hand, not trying to dismiss what teachers have to put up with but I still think they are overpaid compared to other similarly qualified people, especially given the generous perks of the job.

#15

mickeyk wrote: »

This is of course true, but do they really need such a high wage starting out? I absolutely agree they should get a decent salary but close to 38k just after graduating is madness IMO. People that have a passion for teaching will be drawn to the profession regardless, once there is a decent wage for it, especially given the holidays, pension and job security (majority of teachers are permanent, I know some aren't) and generous pay increments thereafter. I subbed in a primary school for a while after travelling, money was good, work was ok but it wasn't for me, it is a tough job and I know this first hand, not trying to dismiss what teachers have to put up with but I still think they are overpaid compared to other similarly qualified people, especially given the generous perks of the job.

Good post mate. No I don't think they need such a high wage starting out.

Also, I take your point about teachers being drawn to the job regardless. But I think it would apply to a minority rather than the majority.

OMD

#15 wrote: »

Why would you compare teaching to unrelated jobs?

It has no relevance.

I have shown you 3 ways in which teachers are overpaid and have used figures and reports to back up each statement.

1 Compared to median wages in Ireland
2 Compared to University Graduates pay in Ireland
3 Compared to teachers in other parts of the world.

You maintain that when you consider the amount of hours worked Ireland's teachers are not overpaid. So show us.

#15

OMD wrote: »

I have shown you 3 ways in which teachers are overpaid and have used figures and reports to back up each statement.

1 Compared to median wages in Ireland
2 Compared to University Graduates pay in Ireland
3 Compared to teachers in other parts of the world.

You maintain that when you consider the amount of hours worked Ireland's teachers are not overpaid. So show us.

The OECD report shows that Irish primary teachers work more hours than teachers in every country but two. They are well above the EU and OECD averages.
I have showed you already. Are you deliberately not looking at it?

There is little value comparing teachers to other jobs in Ireland, why would you compare teachers pay to the pay of a doctor or a shop assistant?

Benchmarking against other teachers is fine by me.

There is no point in discussing this any further, neither of us are going to change our minds.

OMD

#15 wrote: »

The OECD report shows that Irish primary teachers work more hours than teachers in every country but two. They are well above the EU and OECD averages.
I have showed you already. Are you deliberately not looking at it?

You need to compare hours worked to earnings. As I said a teacher with 15 years service after pay cuts will earn €58 an hour. Unless you can compare this (or average teacher or whatever) to other countries then you cannot say Irelands teachers are not overpaid. To simply say they work more so should be paid more is a very flimsy argument.

#15 wrote: »

There is little value comparing teachers to other jobs in Ireland, why would you compare teachers pay to the pay of a doctor or a shop assistant?

Benchmarking against other teachers is fine by me.

I accept you are not a union member but they seem to accept Irelands teachers are higher paid than international teachers but they say it is due to high cost of living in Ireland. Indeed benchmarking compared teachers to other groups in Ireland. I think it is relavent.

kangaroo

#15 wrote: »

The OECD compares at three points, beginning and end of the scale, as well as at 15 years. The OECD does not give figures for primary teachers, its stats are for lower secondary. We can't debate primary, as we don't have the facts.

I'm not sure what OECD document you are referring to.

At this one, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/35/38/43618334.pdf the pay of primary teachers is compared along with lower and upper secondary teachers (separately).
Table X2.3a. (continued)
Reference statistics used in the calculation of teachers’ salaries, by level of education (1996, 2007)1

kangaroo

kippy wrote: »

The golden pension, not any more kid.

According to what I have read, it is still a golden pension that is not paid for sufficiently by the contributions because of the way it is calculated, not on the amount of the salary that was earned in each year of work but on the final salary which is designed to increase each year. Also the fact that it is guaranteed at a level.

kangaroo

kippy wrote: »

Banks, their top level staff and their shareholders are appearing to get off with limited or no punishment for their part in the debacle.

kippy wrote: »

When you buy shares in a company you take on risk.
The majority of thise shares are still worth something and unless they get taken over by the state those share WILL do up in value again.

I very much doubt the bank shares will reach the values they were at.
If you think they will, you could always invest some money. You would make a massive profit if they did reach the value they were at.

I'm not an expert but I imagine that many in banks got share options which aren't worth much.

The banks may be partly to blame for the problems and particularly the sudden losses etc. But the costs and wages in Ireland were going to have to come down eventually.

Muinteoireamonn

I would not be even bothered to defend myself here. I am a Teacher, I do what I love and I enjoy it. I cant wait for the summer holidays. I am the one who did the arts degree and was told it was a waste of time while everyone around me took the Celtic Tiger Train. Teacher- Bashing is for the bitter...off now for the last class of the day...Slán libh!!!!

meditraitor

Muinteoireamonn wrote: »

I would not be even bothered to defend myself here. I am a Teacher, I do what I love and I enjoy it. I cant wait for the summer holidays. I am the one who did the arts degree and was told it was a waste of time while everyone around me took the Celtic Tiger Train. Teacher- Bashing is for the bitter...off now for the last class of the day...Slán libh!!!!

Im sure the real teachers around here will be delighted by your contribution eammo. The tone does not inspire hatred at all;)

Stark

It makes a refreshing change from all the pourmouthing imo.

The_Honeybadger

Stark wrote: »

It makes a refreshing change from all the pourmouthing imo.

Yup, great to hear a teacher on here who appreciates what they have instead of claiming they are some sort of victim.

doc_17

Muinteoireamonn wrote: »

I would not be even bothered to defend myself here. I am a Teacher, I do what I love and I enjoy it. I cant wait for the summer holidays. I am the one who did the arts degree and was told it was a waste of time while everyone around me took the Celtic Tiger Train. Teacher- Bashing is for the bitter...off now for the last class of the day...Slán libh!!!!

Completely agree with you sir. Some people only see what they want to see and are not worth the trouble because they onlywant to start an arguement.. There was a teacher basher on another thread who made an outrageous allegation about how much a teacher got paid for correcting a state exam (His source was a friend told him that, so it must be true!!!). Whether we agree or not with each other is one thing, but making up things to bolster your point of view shows 2 things:
1) Your arguement is not strong enough so you have to lie to make it sound better
2) You have a real bitterness towards whatever it is you are opposing and will go to any lengths to attack it.

At least people are discussing an OECD report here and the level of debate here is, in general, quite good this past few days, although some are on this thread because they do not like teachers. Plain and simple. And because of that maybe MuinteoirEamonn is right not to engage!!

kangaroo

doc_17 wrote: »

There was a teacher basher on another thread who made an outrageous allegation about how much a teacher got paid for correcting a state exam (His source was a friend told him that, so it must be true!!!).

So what is the going rate? Dare I mention a figure I read (I think on boards.ie)?

kippy

kangaroo wrote: »

I very much doubt the bank shares will reach the values they were at.
If you think they will, you could always invest some money. You would make a massive profit if they did reach the value they were at.

I'm not an expert but I imagine that many in banks got share options which aren't worth much.

The banks may be partly to blame for the problems and particularly the sudden losses etc. But the costs and wages in Ireland were going to have to come down eventually.

Also in response to Diarmuid,
The share holders still have their shares, whatever the value of them is. Do you not think that the banks will be back making profits again in the medium term (and paying a dividend) once all the bad loans are namaed (the bad loans that made the profits, dividends and share increases for stockholders)
No one is saying the values of the shares will ever go up to the highs of the past few years but the share holders still have what they paid for, the shares and have gotten their companies worst assets off the books.
The banks are "partly to blame". Are you serious? Do you know how much money the state has and is going to pump into them through NAMA and other mechanisms and also what would happen if the guarentee scheme was called in?
The banks are almost entirely to blame for the issues, together with slack regulation, over reliance on housing and much more.
Whats going to slow down our recovery to sustainable levels are costs and wages.
SOrry, have pulled this thread OT - but at least I hope people can see there are far more "evil" people out there than teachers.

kippy

kangaroo wrote: »

According to what I have read, it is still a golden pension that is not paid for sufficiently by the contributions because of the way it is calculated, not on the amount of the salary that was earned in each year of work but on the final salary which is designed to increase each year. Also the fact that it is guaranteed at a level.

Indeed, however that is set to change for new entrants.....

Also the state (non contributary I believe it is called) pension, no matter how long you worked, or if you never worked, or what money you earned is paid on the same basis. Would you be for changing this also?
(this is also part of a standard PS pension, which a lot of calculations fail to take into account I believe)

kangaroo

kippy wrote: »

Also in response to Diarmuid,
The share holders still have their shares, whatever the value of them is. Do you not think that the banks will be back making profits again in the medium term (and paying a dividend) once all the bad loans are namaed (the bad loans that made the profits, dividends and share increases for stockholders)
No one is saying the values of the shares will ever go up to the highs of the past few years but the share holders still have what they paid for, the shares and have gotten their companies worst assets off the books.

This is a matter of quantity. A share is equivalent to money so talking about "still having shares" is fairly meaningless.

The shares might well go up in the future. But if somebody bought say Irish Life at €20+ a share* (currently €3.93) or AIB at €15+ a share (currently €1.53)** they are going to make losses. And if they bought Anglo ...

But as I say, if you think they will go up to those values, you are as free as the next person to buy the shares (you can borrow the money and you will still make a profit if you think they will reach those values in the coming years).

So let's not talk rubbish like:

kippy wrote: »

their top level staff and their shareholders are appearing to get off with limited or no punishment for their part in the debacle.

Shareholders are being punished.

* Went to over €24 at one stage - not sure the peak and not sure where to look
** Went to over €18 at one stage - not sure the peak and not sure where to look

kangaroo

kippy wrote: »

Indeed, however that is set to change for new entrants.....

That may well be the case. But if we are discussing current teachers salaries, it is relevant to discuss the system that applies to them.

kippy wrote: »

Also the state (non contributary I believe it is called) pension, no matter how long you worked, or if you never worked, or what money you earned is paid on the same basis. Would you be for changing this also? (this is also part of a standard PS pension, which a lot of calculations fail to take into account I believe)

The State contributory pension is capped at €230.30 a week per person http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/social-welfare/social-welfare-payments/older-and-retired-people/oap_contributory as far as I know and it does not go up based on your final salary. The non-contributory pension is similar so I'm not sure what your point is, they do not appear to be similar to the PS pension.

kangaroo

kippy wrote: »

Whats going to slow down our recovery to sustainable levels are costs and wages.

This is what the debate is about i.e. whether cuts in the salaries of PS workers such as teachers were necessary given the situation we are in. Teachers' representative bodies/unions would like the budget cuts overturned.

I'm quite happy to talk about banks. But I believe the fact remains that the PS wage bill pre-budget was unsustainable given the situation the country finds itself in.

kippy

kangaroo wrote: »

This is what the debate is about i.e. whether cuts in the salaries of PS workers such as teachers were necessary given the situation we are in. Teachers' representative bodies/unions would like the budget cuts overturned.

I'm quite happy to talk about banks. But I believe the fact remains that the PS wage bill pre-budget was unsustainable given the situation the country finds itself in.

I agree, they were and still are in some cases, unsustainable........
Just trying myself to point out that there are more evil people in society than teachers who have taken far more from the teat of the Celtic tiger and who have rode off into the sunset.

kippy

kangaroo wrote: »

This is a matter of quantity. A share is equivalent to money so talking about "still having shares" is fairly meaningless.

The shares might well go up in the future. But if somebody bought say Irish Life at €20+ a share* (currently €3.93) or AIB at €15+ a share (currently €1.53)** they are going to make losses. And if they bought Anglo ...

But as I say, if you think they will go up to those values, you are as free as the next person to buy the shares (you can borrow the money and you will still make a profit if you think they will reach those values in the coming years).

So let's not talk rubbish like:
Shareholders are being punished.

* Went to over €24 at one stage - not sure the peak and not sure where to look
** Went to over €18 at one stage - not sure the peak and not sure where to look

A share is only equivalent to money when you sell it.
All of these people using them as a retirement, were basing the income on the annual dividend, which for a decent bank can be significant.
The people who took the risks in buying the share STILL HAVE THOSE SHARES and when the banks start making a profit again (WHICH THEY WILL) they will get their dividend, still have the shares and see them rise.
The taxpayer will have saved those shareholders from HAVING to sell for a lot less than they bought for.

And not all shareholders bought at the excessive levels, a lot would probably have bought at lower prices and not sold on but held out for even higher prices.
And as for taking out a loan to buy shares.......are you serious, thats the kinda stuff that got the country up the swanny in the first instance.

Shareholders, outside of Anglo, havent taken ANY punishment yet, we've just bailed them out.

kippy

kangaroo wrote: »

That may well be the case. But if we are discussing current teachers salaries, it is relevant to discuss the system that applies to them.

The State contributory pension is capped at €230.30 a week per person http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/social-welfare/social-welfare-payments/older-and-retired-people/oap_contributory as far as I know and it does not go up based on your final salary. The non-contributory pension is similar so I'm not sure what your point is, they do not appear to be similar to the PS pension.

I think it was more this one thinking off.
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/social-welfare/social-welfare-payments/older-and-retired-people/oap_non_contributory
The contributary pension by the way is INCLUDED in a public service pension.

Anyway, the reason I mention the non contributory pension is that it is NOT BASED on earnings through out your career and is standard for all.
Do you think that this is fair?

kangaroo

kippy wrote: »

A share is only equivalent to money when you sell it.
All of these people using them as a retirement, were basing the income on the annual dividend, which for a decent bank can be significant.
The people who took the risks in buying the share STILL HAVE THOSE SHARES and when the banks start making a profit again (WHICH THEY WILL) they will get their dividend, still have the shares and see them rise.
The taxpayer will have saved those shareholders from HAVING to sell for a lot less than they bought for.

I'm no expert on banks or shares but I can't imagine that the dividend on (say) an AIB share that is of value of €1.50 (approx. current value) will be the same as a dividend of the share when it was €15+. So the dividend they get will be a lot less.

Also, I imagine many people buy shares as a way of saving that can be accessed when needed and this saving will have taken a major hit and so it will affect them.

kangaroo

kippy wrote: »

I think it was more this one thinking off.
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/social-welfare/social-welfare-payments/older-and-retired-people/oap_non_contributory
The contributary pension by the way is INCLUDED in a public service pension.?

Yes, I knew that. Most private pensions are based on what one puts in to them. If a PS pension worked like that, it might be a percentage of workers' salaries over the time which they worked (although one should probably have to pay extra for guaranteeing that it did not decrease). The difference is that PS pension isn't done like that but is based on a percentage of final salary. That was the point I was making and I'm not sure how the non-contributory pension is like that.

kippy wrote: »

Anyway, the reason I mention the non contributory pension is that it is NOT BASED on earnings through out your career and is standard for all. Do you think that this is fair?

I can see pluses and minuses. It's a means-tested payment so not everyone qualifies. It is basically a way of supporting the poor. Whether there are better ways, I'm not sure. I do have a bit of a problem with means-tested payments which mean one is somewhat rewarded for not saving money. By the time one gets to retirement age or during retirement, a lot of people will have got money from somewhere e.g. an inheritance. But the system seems to reward people who spend it.

kangaroo

kippy wrote: »

And not all shareholders bought at the excessive levels, a lot would probably have bought at lower prices and not sold on but held out for even higher prices.

I don't know when bank shares were at those levels - early/mid 1990s?

kippy wrote: »

And as for taking out a loan to buy shares.......are you serious, thats the kinda stuff that got the country up the swanny in the first instance.

Well you were the person who was so certain they would go up by the massive amount you were suggesting (it seemed if you said they didn't have any punishment). Personally I don't think borrowing for shares is usually a good idea but if you believe what you say, I don't know why you don't do it. Or do you actually have some doubt?

kippy wrote: »

Shareholders, outside of Anglo, havent taken ANY punishment yet, we've just bailed them out.

Strange world you live in. I don't know how a 90%+ loss on the value of shares isn't some sort of punishment.

kippy

kangaroo wrote: »

I'm no expert on banks or shares but I can't imagine that the dividend on (say) an AIB share that is of value of €1.50 (approx. current value) will be the same as a dividend of the share when it was €15+. So the dividend they get will be a lot less.

Also, I imagine many people buy shares as a way of saving that can be accessed when needed and this saving will have taken a major hit and so it will affect them.

Dividends are based on profits in general, not share price, the two dont HAVE to be directly linked.

If people are using shares as a form of saving, they need their heads examined.

kangaroo

kippy wrote: »

Dividends are based on profits in general, not share price, the two dont HAVE to be directly linked.

And I imagine if a share price is a tenth of its value, the company is worth probably around a tenth of its value. I think on average the dividend will not be the same in similar situations. And hence people don't get the same dividend.

You seem to have been saying in this thread dividends were very good in banks. If a bank gave a 5% dividend when their shares were at €15.00, it would not have been seen as excessive. That's 75c. I can't see AIB giving dividends of 75c on its shares that are at €1.50 (approx.).

kippy wrote: »

If people are using shares as a form of saving, they need their heads examined.

Why? I think a lot of people would think it is reasonable to, say, have a mixture of money on deposit and money invested in shares and see the combination as one's savings.

kippy

kangaroo wrote: »

I don't know when bank shares were at those levels - early/mid 1990s?

Well you were the person who was so certain they would go up by the massive amount you were suggesting (it seemed if you said they didn't have any punishment). Personally I don't think borrowing for shares is usually a good idea but if you believe what you say, I don't know why you don't do it. Or do you actually have some doubt?

Strange world you live in. I don't know how a 90%+ loss on the value of shares isn't some sort of punishment.

Probably mid 90's all right.

I dont have any doubt to be honest.

Do you not think that banks will make profits and share prices will begin to rise again in the next 4-5 years, mainly as a result of NAMA?

Provided these guys didn't take out a loan for said shares, I dont think you can call it a loss unless they HAVE to sell the shares........they still have an asset that has potential to bring in an annual dividend.

I wont be buying anything until I am sure that the state wont take over the remaining banks, which I think they should have done ages ago. Then the shareholders get punished.

kippy

kangaroo wrote: »

And I imagine if a share price is a tenth of its value, the company is worth probably around a tenth of its value. I think on average the dividend will not be the same in similar situations. And hence people don't get the same dividend.

Why? I think a lot of people would think it is reasonable to say have a mixture of money on deposit and money invested in shares and see the combination as one's savings.

Shares are a risk, a gamble. Thats what I class them as. I dont class them as savings.
Anyone who hasnt seen that over time shouldnt be "investing" in shares.


Ah listen, its a friday evening, you're probably right but to be honest I know I am getting screwed, bent over, shafted etc because I didnt take out a couple of hundred million in loans to buy overpriced property but I know that if I cant pay my "not excessive" mortgage in a few months I'll be out on my ear.

sheehyskeff

OMD wrote: »

The figures came from the OECD survey you are quoting;). You listed a number of countries working more hours than Irish teachers. All of them earn less than Irish teachers.
More Hours=less money

Why not compare Irish hourly wage to other countries? The OECD takes as its "average" a teacher with 15 years experience. In Ireland a teacher with 15 years experience earns €50,000 a year. If we just take one allowance the honours degree allowance that adds €5000 extra. (I know not all teachers have honours but many do and I am ignoring all the other allowances). That gives €55,000 a year. According to you Irish teachers work 946 hours a year. That means they earn €58 an hour. How does this compare internationally?

Brian Lenihan offered teachers the chance to be benchmarked against teachers in other countries instead of a pay cut. Unions seem to back away from this. I wonder why?

A teacher with an honours degree (again ignoring all other allowances) earns €36,000 on day one. This is higher than the median wage of all workers in this country. It is also over 30% higher than average starting salary for University Graduates. (according to Grad Ireland the average starting salary of graduates in 2008 was €27,224). Obviously the teacher works substantially less hours.

The OECD report refers purely to contact teaching time. It is appallingly badly informed to assume that any teacher's workload is limited to contact time alone. Your "per hour" figure is simply ridiculous as it demonstrates an almost wilful misunderstanding of what teaching actually entails.

By all means disagree with salary levels such as they are - but if you are going to talk about the profession that is teaching at least demonstrate some understanding of the contact and non-contact elements of the job.