Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

CID v Permanent

Options
24

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    implausible
    Registered Users Posts: 3,937 ✭✭✭implausible


    Rainbow, I was surprised to hear of permanency being advertised in your VEC.

    In the context of my present and previous VEC employers, the distinction is fairly clear. Existing permanent teachers have permanent contracts. Eligible people who started in the last 5ish years and who has completed their 4 years has been given a CID. The difference is almost universally regarded as semantic. I have not seen a 'permanent' job advertised in either VEC since CIDs came in. In fact, the term seems to have disappeared.

    The term came into usage as a result of the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act, 2001 and as far as I can see, VECs jumped on this as an opportunity to bring in a long probation period and avoid overstaffing (this has obviously back-fired in many cases).


  • Options
    #33
    EoghanRua
    Closed Accounts Posts: 134 ✭✭EoghanRua


    deemark wrote: »

    In the context of my present and previous VEC employers, the distinction is fairly clear. Existing permanent teachers have permanent contracts. Eligible people who started in the last 5ish years and who has completed their 4 years has been given a CID. The difference is almost universally regarded as semantic. I have not seen a 'permanent' job advertised in either VEC since CIDs came in. In fact, the term seems to have disappeared.


    I have seen a number of jobs advertised in recent months and they were described as 'permanent'. Not sure if any were VEC jobs but the term has certainly not disappeared in the wider sense anyway.

    To raise a question asked earlier again do you have any idea why two terms meaning exactly the same thing representing the precise terms and conditions and contract (if they in fact do) co-exist?


  • Options
    #34
    implausible
    Registered Users Posts: 3,937 ✭✭✭implausible


    EoghanRua wrote: »
    I have seen a number of jobs advertised in recent months and they were described as 'permanent'. Not sure if any were VEC jobs but the term has certainly not disappeared in the wider sense anyway.

    To raise a question asked earlier again do you have any idea why two terms meaning exactly the same thing representing the precise terms and conditions and contract (if they in fact do) co-exist?

    I thought my post clearly expressed that I was referring to two particular VECs...

    The problem seems to be that individual VECs and schools are interpreting this term in their own way. The only explanation I could think of was the one I offered above in relation to these two VECs - that Permanent is the old term and CID replaces it.


  • Options
    #35
    Miss Lockhart
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,639 ✭✭✭Miss Lockhart


    I was told by the TUI that CID came from European law, and comes into play when an employer fails to give permanency to someone (who is not covering for somebody else's work) after 4 years. You must be working those hours for 4 years first. A permanent contract can be given immediately if the employer is sure they want to hold on to the person right away.

    Someone in my school was given a PWT contract by the VEC straight after her PGDE two years ago, so they are still on the go.

    One issue has caused some unrest among CID staff on less than 18 hours in my school. They feel they should be given any suitable hours that arise to add on to their CID hours. Then, if they are still teaching those extra hours after 4 years their CID should be increased to the higher number of hours. At the moment temporary staff are being given hours that could have gone to CID staff so effectively CID staff on part time hours have no hope of gaining CID for full time hours.


  • Options
    #36
    EoghanRua
    Closed Accounts Posts: 134 ✭✭EoghanRua


    deemark wrote: »
    I thought my post clearly expressed that I was referring to two particular VECs...

    The problem seems to be that individual VECs and schools are interpreting this term in their own way. The only explanation I could think of was the one I offered above in relation to these two VECs - that Permanent is the old term and CID replaces it.


    Indeed it was clear you were referring to two particular VECs which is why I mentioned that permanent jobs have not stopped being advertised in a wider sense.

    I just thought it was important to note that on the basis that not everyone here will be applying for jobs in those two particular VECs. I thought it was better to keep the discussion broader.

    Maybe I am missing something are VECs entitled to do solo-runs on these matters relating to contracts - does the Department of Education not have the say in that respect?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    EoghanRua
    Closed Accounts Posts: 134 ✭✭EoghanRua


    Miss Lockhart wrote: »

    One issue has caused some unrest among CID staff on less than 18 hours in my school. They feel they should be given any suitable hours that arise to add on to their CID hours. Then, if they are still teaching those extra hours after 4 years their CID should be increased to the higher number of hours. At the moment temporary staff are being given hours that could have gone to CID staff so effectively CID staff on part time hours have no hope of gaining CID for full time hours.


    This seems to suggest a difference between CID and permanent contracts if it is the case that CID people are scrapping around for hours with temporary staff.


  • Options
    #38
    Miss Lockhart
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,639 ✭✭✭Miss Lockhart


    EoghanRua wrote: »
    This seems to suggest a difference between CID and permanent contracts if it is the case that CID people are scrapping around for hours with temporary staff.

    Yes, but those on CID 18+ hours are treated exactly the same as permanent staff and other CID staff are treated the same in regard to their contract hours.


  • Options
    #39
    EoghanRua
    Closed Accounts Posts: 134 ✭✭EoghanRua


    Miss Lockhart wrote: »
    Yes, but those on CID 18+ hours are treated exactly the same as permanent staff and other CID staff are treated the same in regard to their contract hours.


    Not sure if I understand this fully - is it fair to say that a person on CID is entitled only to the same proportion of salary as the proportion of hours they work?

    And what happens the CID person if there are no hours available in their subject?


  • Options
    #40
    Miss Lockhart
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,639 ✭✭✭Miss Lockhart


    EoghanRua wrote: »
    Not sure if I understand this fully - is it fair to say that a person on CID is entitled only to the same proportion of salary as the proportion of hours they work?

    I'm not sure what part of my post is unclear for you.

    People on CID are entitled only to the same proportion of salary as the proportion of hours they work, but afaik, the exception is those on 18+ hours - they are paid for full time (22 hours). Obviously, this means the cost effective thing to do is give those on 18 hours 22 hours to teach if hours are available - and that is what happens in my school anyway.

    The problem in my school is where, for example, a teacher on CID 14 hours English and History wants to be given any extra English/History hours that arise, and then if they still have those hours in 4 years, be given CID for all their hours. However, it seems that often temporary staff are give the extra hours, and then in 4 years they become CID for those hours. So we end up with a person on CID 14 hours English and History and a person on CID 5 hours English and History, instead of one person on 19 hours CID English and History.
    EoghanRua wrote: »
    And what happens the CID person if there are no hours available in their subject?

    I don't know any school in which this has arisen so far. So, like other posters, I don't know whether CID could lose their job if a school could show that hours were no longer available.


  • Options
    #41
    ulysses32
    Registered Users Posts: 147 ✭✭ulysses32


    EoghanRua wrote: »

    And what happens the CID person if there are no hours available in their subject?

    The same thing that happens the PWT person if there are no hours available in their subject.

    That is the point!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    EoghanRua
    Closed Accounts Posts: 134 ✭✭EoghanRua


    Miss Lockhart wrote: »
    I'm not sure what part of my post is unclear for you.

    People on CID are entitled only to the same proportion of salary as the proportion of hours they work, but afaik, the exception is those on 18+ hours - they are paid for full time (22 hours). Obviously, this means the cost effective thing to do is give those on 18 hours 22 hours to teach if hours are available - and that is what happens in my school anyway.

    The problem in my school is where, for example, a teacher on CID 14 hours English and History wants to be given any extra English/History hours that arise, and then if they still have those hours in 4 years, be given CID for all their hours. However, it seems that often temporary staff are give the extra hours, and then in 4 years they become CID for those hours. So we end up with a person on CID 14 hours English and History and a person on CID 5 hours English and History, instead of one person on 19 hours CID English and History.



    I don't know any school in which this has arisen so far. So, like other posters, I don't know whether CID could lose their job if a school could show that hours were no longer available.


    I never said any of your post was unclear. What I was referring to when I said I wasn't sure I fully understood was the role of a CID person.

    Assuming what has been written is accurate and a person on CID might have only a few hours and be paid only that proportion of their salary then that is a very clear and important distinction between CID and 'Permanence'.

    Ergo, CID and Permanent contracts are a bit like a horse and a zebra - though sharing many characteristics they are clearly not the same thing.
    It seems remarkable that anyone could have claimed they were when something as essential to a job as hours workable and salary payment can be so different.

    Now I understand why they have different terminology i.e. because they are different.


  • Options
    #43
    Miss Lockhart
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,639 ✭✭✭Miss Lockhart


    EoghanRua wrote: »
    Assuming what has been written is accurate and a person on CID might have only a few hours and be paid only that proportion of their salary then that is a very clear and important distinction between CID and 'Permanence'.

    Ergo, CID and Permanent contracts are a bit like a horse and a zebra - though sharing many characteristics they are clearly not the same thing.
    It seems remarkable that anyone could have claimed they were when something as essential to a job as hours workable and salary payment can be so different.

    Now I understand why they have different terminology i.e. because they are different.

    But there was always Permanent Part Time and CID for less than full hours is seemingly no different than that. Obviously if your CID is for part time hours then it is different to CID for full time hours. Salary payment for someone on CID 10 hours is exactly the same as somebody on PPT 10 hours.


  • Options
    #44
    implausible
    Registered Users Posts: 3,937 ✭✭✭implausible


    Miss Lockhart wrote: »
    The problem in my school is where, for example, a teacher on CID 14 hours English and History wants to be given any extra English/History hours that arise, and then if they still have those hours in 4 years, be given CID for all their hours. However, it seems that often temporary staff are give the extra hours, and then in 4 years they become CID for those hours. So we end up with a person on CID 14 hours English and History and a person on CID 5 hours English and History, instead of one person on 19 hours CID English and History.

    That's mad! It sounds like the school is deliberately trying to hold onto an extra member of staff in this case, maybe for subbing or extra-curricular activities or the future possibility of more hours. What the school should be doing is giving the person with the shortfall the extra hours in the fourth year and letting the temporary person go; schools are being told to fully timetable every member of staff, hence the 18+ being paid for 22.
    EoghanRua wrote: »
    ...a person on CID might have only a few hours and be paid only that proportion of their salary then that is a very clear and important distinction between CID and 'Permanence'.

    Well, yes, that is the one definite difference - you don't need 22 hours for a CID.


  • Options
    #45
    implausible
    Registered Users Posts: 3,937 ✭✭✭implausible


    EoghanRua wrote: »
    Indeed it was clear you were referring to two particular VECs which is why I mentioned that permanent jobs have not stopped being advertised in a wider sense.

    I just thought it was important to note that on the basis that not everyone here will be applying for jobs in those two particular VECs. I thought it was better to keep the discussion broader.

    Maybe I am missing something are VECs entitled to do solo-runs on these matters relating to contracts - does the Department of Education not have the say in that respect?

    The VECs are often a law onto themselves! The distinction (if any) between CID and permanent is being interpreted differently by different employers. That was the point I was tryingto make.


  • Options
    #46
    EoghanRua
    Closed Accounts Posts: 134 ✭✭EoghanRua


    Miss Lockhart wrote: »
    But there was always Permanent Part Time and CID for less than full hours is seemingly no different than that. Obviously if your CID is for part time hours then it is different to CID for full time hours. Salary payment for someone on CID 10 hours is exactly the same as somebody on PPT 10 hours.


    Obviously (I would have thought) when we are talking about permanent in the context of this discussion we mean PWT.

    Naturally we can stress the similarities between the two but there is no way CID = PWT as has been claimed.

    The inclusion of the word 'effectively' in the Dept of Ed circular was certainly not the result of sloppy prose but very deliberately chosen to distinguish between two situations that can have strong similarities but are in fact different.

    It also answers the question the other poster steadfastly refused to tackle all day i.e. if they are exactly the same then why are they nominally different? Answer: They are nominally different because they are in fact different. Same reason we call a zebra a zebra rather than a horse.


  • Options
    #47
    Miss Lockhart
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,639 ✭✭✭Miss Lockhart


    deemark wrote: »
    That's mad! It sounds like the school is deliberately trying to hold onto an extra member of staff in this case, maybe for subbing or extra-curricular activities or the future possibility of more hours. What the school should be doing is giving the person with the shortfall the extra hours in the fourth year and letting the temporary person go; schools are being told to fully timetable every member of staff, hence the 18+ being paid for 22.

    I'm not sure why they do it! Sometimes the extra hours only arose after the person was already CID. They took on a whole new person to cover the extra hours.


  • Options
    #48
    Miss Lockhart
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,639 ✭✭✭Miss Lockhart


    EoghanRua wrote: »
    Obviously (I would have thought) when we are talking about permanent in the context of this discussion we mean PWT.

    Naturally we can stress the similarities between the two but there is no way CID = PWT as has been claimed.

    The inclusion of the word 'effectively' in the Dept of Ed circular was certainly not the result of sloppy prose but very deliberately chosen to distinguish between two situations that can have strong similarities but are in fact different.

    It also answers the question the other poster steadfastly refused to tackle all day i.e. if they are exactly the same then why are they nominally different? Answer: They are nominally different because they are in fact different. Same reason we call a zebra a zebra rather than a horse.

    I don't think anyone claimed CID=PWT. I think they claimed CID=Permanent.

    We have no evidence to suggest otherwise really - and I suppose we wont until someone tries to make a CID teacher redundant.


  • Options
    #49
    implausible
    Registered Users Posts: 3,937 ✭✭✭implausible


    EoghanRua wrote: »
    It also answers the question the other poster steadfastly refused to tackle all day i.e. if they are exactly the same then why are they nominally different? Answer: They are nominally different because they are in fact different. Same reason we call a zebra a zebra rather than a horse.

    If 'the other poster' is me, I am not defending the messing that the Dept are up to with the wording of the definition. I think they should clarify the position and use one term. The term CID came from EU law and seeing as that is what we are bound by, it make sense that they should use it. Continuing to use a (legally) obsolete term to describe a new type of contract only causes confusion. By posting, I was merely offering examples of where there is no distinction made between the two and trying to rationalise why the two terms are used. Are they different

    From a personal point of view, this issue directly affects me. I left a permanent job after 7 years and am currently going into my 4th year in my present school. I replaced a permanent member of staff, but I am not expecting to hear the magic word 'permanent'. My CID will do me fine, thank you very much! I don't care what the EU or the VEC or the Dept. calls it or if there are technical differences, to me it means permanent and I will be 'effectively' happy:cool:


  • Options
    #50
    implausible
    Registered Users Posts: 3,937 ✭✭✭implausible


    Miss Lockhart wrote: »
    ...the extra hours only arose after the person was already CID. They took on a whole new person to cover the extra hours.

    As far as I know, your CID is based on a certain amount of hours and can't be changed. That would explain why they had to do it.
    Miss Lockhart wrote: »
    I don't think anyone claimed CID=PWT. I think they claimed CID=Permanent.

    PWT = permanent whole time.


  • Options
    #51
    Miss Lockhart
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,639 ✭✭✭Miss Lockhart


    deemark wrote: »
    As far as I know, your CID is based on a certain amount of hours and can't be changed. That would explain why they had to do it..

    A relative of mine working in another VEC originally had CID 16 hours. She later taught an extra 4 hours for 4 years and was then give CID for 20 hours.
    deemark wrote: »
    PWT = permanent whole time.

    I know PWT is permanent whole time, but afaik there are people on Part Time contracts that are permanent too.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    EoghanRua
    Closed Accounts Posts: 134 ✭✭EoghanRua


    Miss Lockhart wrote: »

    I don't think anyone claimed CID=PWT. I think they claimed CID=Permanent.


    As far as I am concerned the entire debate has occurred because that claim (CID = PWT) has been made both explicitly and implicity.

    To give just one example of an explicit claim, Ulysses32 wrote @ 23.26 yesterday: Please take note of what is highlighted in bold above. This direct quote is completely unambiguous. I have posted elsewhere on further proof from this departmental circular that PWT and CID are the same thing.

    As far as I am aware the Permanent Part-Time issue has been introduced by yourself. My assumption all along and that of others I would guess was that the 'permanent' being referred to was shorthand for PWT unless stated otherwise.


  • Options
    #53
    EoghanRua
    Closed Accounts Posts: 134 ✭✭EoghanRua


    deemark wrote: »
    If 'the other poster' is me, I am not defending the messing that the Dept are up to with the wording of the definition. I think they should clarify the position and use one term. The term CID came from EU law and seeing as that is what we are bound by, it make sense that they should use it. Continuing to use a (legally) obsolete term to describe a new type of contract only causes confusion. By posting, I was merely offering examples of where there is no distinction made between the two and trying to rationalise why the two terms are used. Are they different

    From a personal point of view, this issue directly affects me. I left a permanent job after 7 years and am currently going into my 4th year in my present school. I replaced a permanent member of staff, but I am not expecting to hear the magic word 'permanent'. My CID will do me fine, thank you very much! I don't care what the EU or the VEC or the Dept. calls it or if there are technical differences, to me it means permanent and I will be 'effectively' happy:cool:


    The 'other poster' wasn't you as it happens.

    With respect, your personal circumstances are irrelevant in terms of the broader discussion. The issue was never about personalities/personal situations though presumably some of the contributors were arguing with an eye on their own situation.


  • Options
    #54
    Miss Lockhart
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,639 ✭✭✭Miss Lockhart


    EoghanRua wrote: »

    With respect, your personal circumstances are irrelevant in terms of the broader discussion. The issue was never about personalities/personal situations though presumably some of the contributors were arguing with an eye on their own situation.

    To be fair, the original poster spoke about their own personal situation. It is hardly unreasonable for others to also discuss their own personal experiences as they discuss the issue.


  • Options
    #55
    rainbowtrout
    Registered Users Posts: 15,382 ✭✭✭✭rainbowtrout


    Miss Lockhart wrote: »
    I'm not sure why they do it! Sometimes the extra hours only arose after the person was already CID. They took on a whole new person to cover the extra hours.

    But it shouldn't really matter what the status of their contract is in that situation using the example you gave. if someone is on 14 hours English and History and 5 extra hours become available in those subjects, they should be given to that person rather than hire another teacher for the extra 5 hours. They would have seniority on those subjects. Obviously it affects CIDs in the long run.


    All the people going into their fourth year in my school had 17h 20 mins last year. So none of them can get the magic 18 needed this September to be paid for 22.

    In response to deemark: I don't know why Roscommon and Sligo VECs gave/are giving out permanent jobs, but it would certainly suggest that the distinction between PWT and CID exists.


  • Options
    #56
    Miss Lockhart
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,639 ✭✭✭Miss Lockhart


    rainbowtrout wrote: »
    But it shouldn't really matter what the status of their contract is in that situation using the example you gave. if someone is on 14 hours English and History and 5 extra hours become available in those subjects, they should be given to that person rather than hire another teacher for the extra 5 hours. They would have seniority on those subjects. Obviously it affects CIDs in the long run.

    I agree - but that is not what has happened. I don't know why they are so eager to keep bringing in temporary staff on few hours. Maybe it is, as Deemark suggested, for covering deputy work or for extra-curricular reasons.


  • Options
    #57
    drusk
    Closed Accounts Posts: 134 ✭✭drusk


    If after four years RPT in a school, you are offered a 16 hours CID, would it be better to hold out for another year before signing?

    Presuming you are fairly certain that your hours won't decline, but may go up...

    If I were offered a CID for 17hrs 20mins, I think I'd cry...

    It seems so unfair that a 16hr CID teacher should have no opportunity to get more hours on a permanent basis.

    Anywho, what's the story with waiting a year? Can you? Is it advisable if you're really close to the 18 hr mark?


  • Options
    #58
    spurious
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 27,180 CMod ✭✭✭✭spurious


    rainbowtrout wrote: »
    All the people going into their fourth year in my school had 17h 20 mins last year. So none of them can get the magic 18 needed this September to be paid for 22.

    That's messing about - has it been brought to the attention of the union?


  • Options
    #59
    ulysses32
    Registered Users Posts: 147 ✭✭ulysses32


    CID >18hrs= PWT (Permanent Whole Time)
    CID<18hrs= PPT (Permanent Part Time)

    PS: I must change my name to "the other poster", I really like it!


  • Options
    #60
    gaeilgegrinds1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,071 ✭✭✭gaeilgegrinds1


    In our school you can wait a year to see can your hours go up, it's an unwritten rule that those heading into CIDs get as many hours as possible, almost all get 22, all get 18 or over. Mean newer teachers often take a cut but what harm when it will be them getting the hours in a few years.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    roxychix
    Registered Users Posts: 286 ✭✭roxychix


    just wondering if you can take a career break on CID.


Advertisement