redeployment-croke park deal

linguist

Solerina, gaeilgebeo: If that's the case, why are the ACCS and TUI, making the points they are? Of course I understand that a fixed term contract can be terminated when it ends. Of course I don't think that it's automatically unfair dismissal. What we are discussing here is jobs that are viable and would ordinarily continue. And there is a view, to which the unions appear to subscribe 100% and which the management bodies seem very open to, that these jobs should not be regarded as vacancies under the redeployment scheme. That's where this all started and that's where we need to go back to.

You know, I was watching the EU Commission president Barroso on TV last week referring to the 'pragmatism' of the Irish people. What that really means is the 'roll over and die' that has been all too apparent since this recession started. I personally find this 'there's nothing we can do' attitude really depressing. We're discussing people's livelihoods here and we need to stand up and fight. It's one thing to hold new vacancies for people being redeployed, but these are jobs that people won in open competitions. Could you imagine what our French counterparts would do?!

peanuthead

linguist wrote: »

Solerina, gaeilgebeo: If that's the case, why are the ACCS and TUI, making the points they are? Of course I understand that a fixed term contract can be terminated when it ends. Of course I don't think that it's automatically unfair dismissal. What we are discussing here is jobs that are viable and would ordinarily continue. And there is a view, to which the unions appear to subscribe 100% and which the management bodies seem very open to, that these jobs should not be regarded as vacancies under the redeployment scheme. That's where this all started and that's where we need to go back to.

You know, I was watching the EU Commission president Barroso on TV last week referring to the 'pragmatism' of the Irish people. What that really means is the 'roll over and die' that has been all too apparent since this recession started. I personally find this 'there's nothing we can do' attitude really depressing. We're discussing people's livelihoods here and we need to stand up and fight. It's one thing to hold new vacancies for people being redeployed, but these are jobs that people won in open competitions. Could you imagine what our French counterparts would do?!

Not to sound like a complete tool here, but there is a whole lot more than our jobs at stake here.

It's really not fair on students to do this either. I know teachers come and go, but lets face it, from my understanding of things anyone who is surplus to requirement will be gone. Principals seem to have control over who they let go, but not who they take.

This is dangerous. I envisage principals in schools letting go their worst teachers (which is only fair enough) only for them to whip another job from under the nose of a casual or RPT who may very well also be bad, but could also be very good.

I cannot imagine how any principal is going to stand by and allow his school to be flooded with absolute skivers who will eventually tear down the good reputation of that school.

I am of course looking at the worst case scenario here, but it's a scenario nonetheless, and one that worries me greatly.

I'm also wondering about the profiles of these teachers and the schools they have been teaching in - will they only be redeployed to schools similar to the one they find themselves in? I'm thinking of disadvantaged schools where a high turnover of staff exists, mainly due to the fact that some teachers don't wish to work there.

Teachers who teach in these schools need to have a strong desire to work there - only teachers who want to be there will put the effort into those kinds of students. What is going to happen if those schools are sent teachers who wouldn't normally set foot in that place, and are given the places of those who, despite the serious challenges they face every day, love their school and do such fantastic work?

floating voter

linguist wrote: »

Solerina, gaeilgebeo: If that's the case, why are the ACCS and TUI, making the points they are? Of course I understand that a fixed term contract can be terminated when it ends. Of course I don't think that it's automatically unfair dismissal. What we are discussing here is jobs that are viable and would ordinarily continue. And there is a view, to which the unions appear to subscribe 100% and which the management bodies seem very open to, that these jobs should not be regarded as vacancies under the redeployment scheme. That's where this all started and that's where we need to go back to.

You know, I was watching the EU Commission president Barroso on TV last week referring to the 'pragmatism' of the Irish people. What that really means is the 'roll over and die' that has been all too apparent since this recession started. I personally find this 'there's nothing we can do' attitude really depressing. We're discussing people's livelihoods here and we need to stand up and fight. It's one thing to hold new vacancies for people being redeployed, but these are jobs that people won in open competitions. Could you imagine what our French counterparts would do?!

I actually agree with you, there are occasions where RPT teachers cannot be let go if their job continues.

The point I would like to make is that very often they way schools use hours to provide subject choices may give the impression that a particular class belongs to a particular teacher. In reality the shape of a timetable owes a lot to decisions made by a principal. For example a principal with perhaps 5 class groups in a year may use resources to create 6 class groups for a subject like maths. eg Top Hons class, 2 more middle hons classes, 2 pass classes and a foundation class. Any one of these classes could disappear if the principal decides to and the class would not necessarily belong to anyone even though you had been teaching it in the previous year.

Furthermore I believe the vast majority of RPT contracts now contain limiting statements. These were included to prevent teachers getting cid rights. You have time limited contracts, specific purpose contracts. These contracts all now say you are not being offered cid because... and they explicitly state that the contract will end when some objective condition has been met.

There are rpt contracts without conditions and if you have one of these and your school is within quota you should be ok.

peanuthead

what exactly is a specific purposes contract?

I have one of these and to be fair to my principal, he pointed this out to me when I was signing my contract, but I didn't think anything of it. I was just glad to have the job.

Can I still be given a CID after 4 years service with one of these contracts, its just that I'm not automatically entitled to it? Or is it that there is no hope of one at all?

Thanks,

floating voter

Short answer, no. It is a contract for a specific purpose which when it is completed the job ceases to exist.

Example... maternity leave. The purpose is to cover a maternity leave.
career break.... purpose to cover a career break
acting cover... if a teacher in a school steps up to cover a principal or deputy ona career break. Their job must be kept open in case they have to drop back down.
list is not exhaustive. Basic principle is the hours belong to someone else or the hours are not there long term.

peanuthead

floating voter wrote: »

Short answer, no. It is a contract for a specific purpose which when it is completed the job ceases to exist.

Example... maternity leave. The purpose is to cover a maternity leave.
career break.... purpose to cover a career break
acting cover... if a teacher in a school steps up to cover a principal or deputy ona career break. Their job must be kept open in case they have to drop back down.
list is not exhaustive. Basic principle is the hours belong to someone else or the hours are not there long term.

Thanks

Oh that doesn't sound great.

My contract doesn't fall into any of those categories, but as you mentioned there could be other situations.

Thing is my hours are mine, they belong to nobody else and I was specifically told this at interview stage, the words "has a future" were used.

But I am well aware of the fact that a future is relative to how the economy is and all that!

If I find myself here in year four can a principal offer me a cid for following year if he wants to or are his hands tied by the 'specific purposes' though?

Thanks.

rainbowtrout

peanuthead wrote: »

Not to sound like a complete tool here, but there is a whole lot more than our jobs at stake here.

It's really not fair on students to do this either. I know teachers come and go, but lets face it, from my understanding of things anyone who is surplus to requirement will be gone. Principals seem to have control over who they let go, but not who they take.

This is dangerous. I envisage principals in schools letting go their worst teachers (which is only fair enough) only for them to whip another job from under the nose of a casual or RPT who may very well also be bad, but could also be very good.

I cannot imagine how any principal is going to stand by and allow his school to be flooded with absolute skivers who will eventually tear down the good reputation of that school.

I am of course looking at the worst case scenario here, but it's a scenario nonetheless, and one that worries me greatly.

I'm also wondering about the profiles of these teachers and the schools they have been teaching in - will they only be redeployed to schools similar to the one they find themselves in? I'm thinking of disadvantaged schools where a high turnover of staff exists, mainly due to the fact that some teachers don't wish to work there.

Teachers who teach in these schools need to have a strong desire to work there - only teachers who want to be there will put the effort into those kinds of students. What is going to happen if those schools are sent teachers who wouldn't normally set foot in that place, and are given the places of those who, despite the serious challenges they face every day, love their school and do such fantastic work?

You're painting a very negative picture of permanent teachers peanuthead, and it's a little unfair. I'm amazed that you're referring to teachers as skivers. There's enough people on boards who love to bash the PS to do that already. Yes, there are people in the system who should not be there but that does not mean that all teachers that are redeployed will be the 'worst' in the school.

We had 2 teachers redeployed last year, they weren't there the longest and both are very good teachers. However the teachers who came in behind them had specialist subjects that were needed (Chemistry, Engineering etc) and they were the next up the line.


Redeployment under CPA works similar to regular redeployment, first principal has to find out if anyone will volunteer to be redeployed if the school is over quota. If there are volunteers (teachers perhaps who want a job closer to their home) that's all well and good. If not then the principal has to look at compulsory redeployment, he/she looks at the last person in and sees can the school timetable function without that person, if it can, they are redeployed, if they are the only teacher of a particular subject they they look at the next most junior person.

Also under CPA, efforts are to be made to accommodate redeployed teachers within the scheme they work in - VEC, voluntary secondary or comprehensive. If there are no suitable vacancies within their own area then a suitable vacancy will be sought in one of the other areas.

As for the comment on ' will they only be redeployed to schools similar to the one they find themselves in?' I'm astonished really, if the redeployed teachers/skivers are as work shy as you make out they won't want to work in any school, disadvantaged or not. You could also be a bit more positive about it. Maybe none of those schools will have vacancies and won't have positions to be filled.

Christ, peanuthead, I know you're concerned about your job but you could have just summed up your post in one sentence 'All permanent teachers are a bunch of dossers who are just clocking in each day until they get their pension' as that's pretty much what you are saying.

Have you considered that there are many teachers who will be redeployed and don't want to be? Because our two teachers were not jumping for joy last May when they were told they'd be on the move.

floating voter

peanuthead wrote: »

Thanks

Oh that doesn't sound great.

My contract doesn't fall into any of those categories, but as you mentioned there could be other situations.

Thing is my hours are mine, they belong to nobody else and I was specifically told this at interview stage, the words "has a future" were used.

But I am well aware of the fact that a future is relative to how the economy is and all that!

If I find myself here in year four can a principal offer me a cid for following year if he wants to or are his hands tied by the 'specific purposes' though?

Thanks.

Sounds strange. As I said specific purpose is used for specific purposes. Generally speaking when the purpose has finished the hours are gone. Does your contract say 'you are not being offered a cid because....' Your contract will be renewed subject to funding remaining in place...' or some similar formula of words.

You said you have your own hours. Well your principal should have given you a Fixed Term Regular Part Time contract. Have a look around your school are there other teachers without their own hours? concessionary hours,special needs, EFL etc.

One of these teachers may be well in with the principal and getting a proper fixed term contract. You might be holding the hours open with no rights until this favoured teacher has four years done. Then its cid for this teacher. No problem with the department because the hours are there. Then its goodbye you because you only held specific purpose contracts

drusk

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Christ, peanuthead, I know you're concerned about your job but you could have just summed up your post in one sentence 'All permanent teachers are a bunch of dossers who are just clocking in each day until they get their pension' as that's pretty much what you are saying.

To be fair, if you put yourself in a principal's shoes, and you've got to redeploy some staff, you're gonna want to keep the best teachers, and redeploy the ones that aren't the best.

I don't believe for a second that peanuthead was criticising ALL permanent teachers.

As a teacher AND a critic of the operations of the public sector, I believe that the reason the public sector is in such a state is because of the culture that exists within it.

In the private sector, workers are not afraid observe when colleagues are not performing to an acceptable level. But in the public sector, it is seen as an abhorrent thing to do. Teachers turn a blind eye to colleagues who are simply not suited to the job. Case in point - peanuthead mentioned that there are SOME permanent teachers who should not be in the profession whose jobs will be secure next September, while there will be SOME excellent, passionate non-permanent teachers who will be forced to join the dole queues. And he was lambasted for it!

In short, seniority and amount of years served counts more in teaching than the quality of the job you do. Redeployment has really served to highlight this. And unless the culture of ignoring under-performing work in teaching changes, then we're stuck with it.

peanuthead

rainbowtrout wrote: »

You're painting a very negative picture of permanent teachers peanuthead, and it's a little unfair. I'm amazed that you're referring to teachers as skivers. There's enough people on boards who love to bash the PS to do that already. Yes, there are people in the system who should not be there but that does not mean that all teachers that are redeployed will be the 'worst' in the school.

We had 2 teachers redeployed last year, they weren't there the longest and both are very good teachers. However the teachers who came in behind them had specialist subjects that were needed (Chemistry, Engineering etc) and they were the next up the line.


Redeployment under CPA works similar to regular redeployment, first principal has to find out if anyone will volunteer to be redeployed if the school is over quota. If there are volunteers (teachers perhaps who want a job closer to their home) that's all well and good. If not then the principal has to look at compulsory redeployment, he/she looks at the last person in and sees can the school timetable function without that person, if it can, they are redeployed, if they are the only teacher of a particular subject they they look at the next most junior person.

Also under CPA, efforts are to be made to accommodate redeployed teachers within the scheme they work in - VEC, voluntary secondary or comprehensive. If there are no suitable vacancies within their own area then a suitable vacancy will be sought in one of the other areas.

As for the comment on ' will they only be redeployed to schools similar to the one they find themselves in?' I'm astonished really, if the redeployed teachers/skivers are as work shy as you make out they won't want to work in any school, disadvantaged or not. You could also be a bit more positive about it. Maybe none of those schools will have vacancies and won't have positions to be filled.

Christ, peanuthead, I know you're concerned about your job but you could have just summed up your post in one sentence 'All permanent teachers are a bunch of dossers who are just clocking in each day until they get their pension' as that's pretty much what you are saying.

Have you considered that there are many teachers who will be redeployed and don't want to be? Because our two teachers were not jumping for joy last May when they were told they'd be on the move.

rainbowtrout

First of all, I'm sorry if you feel that I am bashing the teaching profession. I'm really not. I'm bashing the idea of people being automatically redeployed to positions that could be considered, in some way, not vacant.

Not to sound too rude here, but if you read back over my posts, I'm not actually saying any of the things you accuse me of.

Firstly, I'm amazed that you seem to think that there are no skivers in the teaching profession. There are skivers in all walks of life. Teaching is no exception to this rule. Are you telling me that a principal who cares about the reputation of his school won't let go of the non-performing teachers first?

Secondly, my point on disadvantaged schools is that when you are there you are working with a higher concentration of some of the most vulnerable students you could ever meet. Team that up with a teacher who doesn't want to be there and that has disaster written all over it. And of course the work-shy ones are not going to be happy with that, that is my concern and my reason for bringing it up.

Also, in reference to your claim that I think all redeployed teachers are the lazy ones - If I recall correctly (which I do) I said myself that I was looking at a worst case scenario.

Thirdly, yes I completely do understand that teachers being redeployed don't want to go. I actually made reference to that in one of my earlier posts if you look back.

And as for asking me to be positive about the possibility of not having a job - to be fair that's a hard thing to ask me. However, I also have said on numerous occasions over this thread how fair my principal has been, how upfront he has been about the issue and I have even mentioned that we all should be glad we are finding out about this now rather than in August - I think thats about as positive as I can get to be fair.

Godge

peanuthead wrote: »

Thanks

Oh that doesn't sound great.

My contract doesn't fall into any of those categories, but as you mentioned there could be other situations.

Thing is my hours are mine, they belong to nobody else and I was specifically told this at interview stage, the words "has a future" were used.

But I am well aware of the fact that a future is relative to how the economy is and all that!

If I find myself here in year four can a principal offer me a cid for following year if he wants to or are his hands tied by the 'specific purposes' though?

Thanks.

What you are told at interview or any other time has little weight unless you are being formally advised. What is in writing whether in the contract or in a covering letter is more important. Even then, the courts are not always awarding a CID. For example, let's say, you know, the principal knows and everyone knows that you are covering for a career break but it is not put in writing at the appropriate time i.e. the renewal of the contract. You then seek a CID because there are no objective grounds in writing at the correct time. At one time, a Rights Commissioner would award you a CID, nowadays they are more likely to look at the actual situation i.e. is there an ongoing need or is it a covering for career break contract. If they believe the school, they will only award you a small amount of compensation rather than a CID.

That said, these are only general rules. The Fixed Term Act is an individual rights based piece of legislation and no two cases are identical. Despite everything I and others may have said, the nature of your position and your contract may protect you.

floating voter

Godge wrote: »

What you are told at interview or any other time has little weight unless you are being formally advised. What is in writing whether in the contract or in a covering letter is more important. Even then, the courts are not always awarding a CID. For example, let's say, you know, the principal knows and everyone knows that you are covering for a career break but it is not put in writing at the appropriate time i.e. the renewal of the contract. You then seek a CID because there are no objective grounds in writing at the correct time. At one time, a Rights Commissioner would award you a CID, nowadays they are more likely to look at the actual situation i.e. is there an ongoing need or is it a covering for career break contract. If they believe the school, they will only award you a small amount of compensation rather than a CID.

That said, these are only general rules. The Fixed Term Act is an individual rights based piece of legislation and no two cases are identical. Despite everything I and others may have said, the nature of your position and your contract may protect you.

Any links to up to date rights commissioner judgements that show this? All I can find is 2008 report.

floating voter

Found one! Here is a recent decision and shows how complicated the whole fixed term issue is. Its certainly a complex area of law.

http://www.byrnewallace.com/uploadedFiles/Media/Publications/Publications_List/Public%20Affairs%20Ireland%20-%20Moratorium%20and%20fixed-term%20workers%20Dec%202010.pdf?n=7714


There is hope for fixed term workers if this kind of process has to be gone over for every teacher.

MathsManiac

floating voter wrote: »

Found one! Here is a recent decision and shows how complicated the whole fixed term issue is. Its certainly a complex area of law.

http://www.byrnewallace.com/uploadedFiles/Media/Publications/Publications_List/Public%20Affairs%20Ireland%20-%20Moratorium%20and%20fixed-term%20workers%20Dec%202010.pdf?n=7714


There is hope for fixed term workers if this kind of process has to be gone over for every teacher.

It's clear that in that case, the Department made a dog's dinner of terminating the contract, since they (unbelievably) stated in writing that the only reason to refuse to renew his contract was to prevent him from gaining rights. It's the plonker who wrote that letter who probably needs to be downsized!

It would seem to me that the legality of the teacher scenario hinges on whether or not the DES can argue that it's entitled to treat the whole system as though it was a single employer ebven though it's not, and make the case thereafter that the "extra" posts no longer exist.

peanuthead

I'll root out my contract, have a read of it and then I'll post back.

Well, one thing for sure, its great having this thread - a place for us to talk about all of this and let off the steam we can't get rid of in the staffroom!!

rainbowtrout

peanuthead wrote: »

Firstly, I'm amazed that you seem to think that there are no skivers in the teaching profession. There are skivers in all walks of life. Teaching is no exception to this rule. Are you telling me that a principal who cares about the reputation of his school won't let go of the non-performing teachers first?

Read my post again. I clearly said a couple of times that there are people in the system who should not be there. I did not say that there are no skivers in the teaching profession.

peanuthead wrote: »

Secondly, my point on disadvantaged schools is that when you are there you are working with a higher concentration of some of the most vulnerable students you could ever meet. Team that up with a teacher who doesn't want to be there and that has disaster written all over it. And of course the work-shy ones are not going to be happy with that, that is my concern and my reason for bringing it up.

And my point is that you are being overly negative. Lazy teachers will not work wherever they are. Good teachers will work wherever they are. Good teachers have as much chance of being redeployed. Despite the fact that another post suggests that a principal will want to keep on his best staff, he might not have that option due to seniority of staff. Not all staff redeployed will be the worst so stop painting worst case scenarios, it's scare mongering at best.

peanuthead wrote: »

And as for asking me to be positive about the possibility of not having a job - to be fair that's a hard thing to ask me. However, I also have said on numerous occasions over this thread how fair my principal has been, how upfront he has been about the issue and I have even mentioned that we all should be glad we are finding out about this now rather than in August - I think thats about as positive as I can get to be fair.

I also think people need to stand back and look at the situation. Not all schools are over quota, those that are will lose their part time teachers before their permanent ones in many cases, or cut back on hours. It's not a nice situation to be in, but this happened in all schools before CPA. That situation has not changed.

If a teacher is being redeployed a school has to be found within a 30 mile radius of school or home. So not much good to the surplus teacher in Dublin when there is a vacancy on Achill Island. Schools will not have all their part time teachers jobs filled by permanent teachers. Many part time teachers teach specialist subjects - woodwork, art, music, home economics. Many schools only have 1 teacher for each of these subjects, so regardless of their status they are not going to be let go. I doubt there are lots of schools with over quota with a few permanent home economics teachers going spare.

The part time teachers most in danger are those that teach core subjects unfortunately as there is a greater likelihood of surplus teachers in these areas in schools.

Fizzical

peanuthead wrote: »

Not to sound like a complete tool here, but there is a whole lot more than our jobs at stake here.

It's really not fair on students to do this either. I know teachers come and go, but lets face it, from my understanding of things anyone who is surplus to requirement will be gone. Principals seem to have control over who they let go, but not who they take.

This is dangerous. I envisage principals in schools letting go their worst teachers (which is only fair enough) only for them to whip another job from under the nose of a casual or RPT who may very well also be bad, but could also be very good.

I cannot imagine how any principal is going to stand by and allow his school to be flooded with absolute skivers who will eventually tear down the good reputation of that school.

I am of course looking at the worst case scenario here, but it's a scenario nonetheless, and one that worries me greatly.

I'm also wondering about the profiles of these teachers and the schools they have been teaching in - will they only be redeployed to schools similar to the one they find themselves in? I'm thinking of disadvantaged schools where a high turnover of staff exists, mainly due to the fact that some teachers don't wish to work there.

Teachers who teach in these schools need to have a strong desire to work there - only teachers who want to be there will put the effort into those kinds of students. What is going to happen if those schools are sent teachers who wouldn't normally set foot in that place, and are given the places of those who, despite the serious challenges they face every day, love their school and do such fantastic work?

I find your post objectionable. It's arrogant and insulting to people who have been teaching long enough and well enough to have been granted CID or permanent status, which you apparently haven't. When you have been teaching longer than a wet week, you'll have a more grounded view of the education system.

We are to take seriously that you are greatly worried that various nebulous schools out there will lose their reputation because of redeployment, and that it has nothing to do with your shaky tenure?

That you're worried about the poor students out there in 'school land' that will get these dreadful redeployed teachers - instead of you.

That you're concerned about disadvantaged schools being foisted with uncaring fastidious teachers who won't love the school or do fantastic work there. Of course the teachers already there chose 'these schools' above all others to work in - the fact of getting offered a job in a scarce market had nothing at all to do with it, and of course they're totally different to the normal skiving type of teacher to be found in other schools - who are keeping you out of a job.

You are also very naive about principals and their reasons for keeping some teachers and letting others go. Principals don't only choose teachers for their school's reputation. They choose them because they are co-operative and flexible and fully supportive of the principal's values and decisions. In other words easy for the principal to work with. Not because of their ability in their subject, or their capability in teaching it, or their vision of education, or their commitment to their students. Dedicated and principled teachers are not always so useful to a principal.

I know you're worried about your job. But it's up to the government to allow more teaching jobs in schools and it's up to you to prove you're worthy of one. It's not up to people who have a job to bow out to let you in.

You sound like the son of a principal, who has only ever heard one side of the story.

NewHillel

Godge wrote: »

On your other point, the employer issue, the Department of Education is the employer for the Payment of Wages Act and the BOM is the employer for the Unfair Dismissals Act - both of those have been settled in law for some time. So it is not clear who is the employer.

What I found, was that the BOM was the employer - when it suited the department!

Godge wrote: »

P.S. I do have a lot of sympathy for the plight of young teachers on part-time temporary contracts but I am only trying to draw attention to some dangers for them.

Me too.

drusk

Fizzical wrote: »

You are also very naive about principals and their reasons for keeping some teachers and letting others go. Principals don't only choose teachers for their school's reputation. They choose them because they are co-operative and flexible and fully supportive of the principal's values and decisions. In other words easy for the principal to work with. Not because of their ability in their subject, or their capability in teaching it, or their vision of education, or their commitment to their students. Dedicated and principled teachers are not always so useful to a principal.

I know you're worried about your job. But it's up to the government to allow more teaching jobs in schools and it's up to you to prove you're worthy of one. It's not up to people who have a job to bow out to let you in.

This makes absolutely NO sense. How is it up to a young teacher to PROVE him/herself worthy of a job when it all comes down to seniority/amount of years served?

It's absolute bollocks. It defies logic that someone that is good at their job MAY be let go, while someone that isn't MAY be kept on.

Permanent teachers seem to think that they've earned their permanency through years of service - this is a fundamental flaw in the employment procedures in Irish schools.

In the private sector, there is no such thing as 'permanency' as we teachers know it. If you're good at your job, you're kept in it. In teaching, you sign a contract after four years service and that's it - a job for life, you can put up the feet, there's no getting rid of you. THIS IS WRONG!!!!!

Redeployment has highlighted how ineffectual the department and schools are in rewarding good teachers, for the very fact that some good teachers will be out of a job come September while some incompetent teachers will continue on unaffected.

Take a step back for a second and look at the system objectively. Forget about the unions, the circulars and the politics of it. Imagine you were a businessman (principal) running an enterprise (school) and you needed to employ people. The success of your enterprise (school) would depend on the competence and passion of your employees (teachers). Now look at the system of employment, tenure, contracts, etc that we've got, and try to blend the two. Fucking ridiculous.

Toto Wolfcastle

drusk wrote: »

In the private sector, there is no such thing as 'permanency' as we teachers know it. If you're good at your job, you're kept in it. In teaching, you sign a contract after four years service and that's it - a job for life, you can put up the feet, there's no getting rid of you. THIS IS WRONG!!!!!

I know someone who is working for a private company and who is permanent. I just asked him if he can be let go. He can be if his company closes down. I asked him if he can be fired for being bad at his job and he said that he can't unless he is grossly negligent. So it does happen in the private sector too.

However, I agree with you that it's wrong.

peanuthead

Fizzical wrote: »

It's arrogant and insulting to people who have been teaching long enough and well enough to have been granted CID or permanent status, which you apparently haven't.

This makes me laugh. You assume so much from my post. Not that its any of your business but I am 5 years in teaching. It may not be a lifetime but it's more than what you call a "wet week". I gave up my CID entitlements this year to move schools. Some people would call this a stupid decision but I was surrounded by the type of teacher I don't want to be (the type of teacher that a lot of people here don't seem to want to admit exists) so I got out.

That should prove that I am not at all worried about my "shaky tenure" as you like to put it. I am well aware, and have been since I started this contract, of the implications of a one year PRPT contract. I am annoyed that I might lose my job, and will be terribly sad to leave the school I'm in, but I believe things happen for a reason and I'm still young with no financial ties.

Fizzical wrote: »

We are to take seriously that you are greatly worried that various nebulous schools out there will lose their reputation because of redeployment, and that it has nothing to do with your shaky tenure?

That you're worried about the poor students out there in 'school land' that will get these dreadful redeployed teachers - instead of you.

That you're concerned about disadvantaged schools being foisted with uncaring fastidious teachers who won't love the school or do fantastic work there.

If I read you right here you seem to be amazed that my only concern in all this doesn't revolve around myself. I think that says more about you than it does about me.

Fizzical wrote: »

But it's up to the government to allow more teaching jobs in schools and it's up to you to prove you're worthy of one. It's not up to people who have a job to bow out to let you in.

Sorry, but I don't think you understand. If I do my job this year to the ultimate best of my ability and then some, yet theres a teacher 10k away who is (for arguments sake) not as suitable for the position as me but is being redeployed I LOSE MY JOB REGARDLESS. So how in hell:

(A) Am I supposed to successfully prove I'm worth the job when no matter what I do, if theres a teacher who teaches my subject in need of redeployment she gets it no matter what.

(B) Is anyone bowing out to let me in? It's the other bloody way around!!!!!

Fizzical wrote: »

You sound like the son of a principal, who has only ever heard one side of the story.

Wrong Wrong and Wrong. I'm female, the daughter of a postal worker and I am very much aware of both sides of the story.

And just to throw something else in that I'm sure you'll deny, but I'm fairly confident that if I was the son of a principal I wouldn't be too worried about my job!



Fizzical - If it were as easy as proving yourself worthy for the job - I'll be back in September. But it's not. So I might not be. And that is the bottom line and the reason this whole thing is not fair.

peanuthead

floating voter wrote: »

Sounds strange. As I said specific purpose is used for specific purposes. Generally speaking when the purpose has finished the hours are gone. Does your contract say 'you are not being offered a cid because....' Your contract will be renewed subject to funding remaining in place...' or some similar formula of words.

You said you have your own hours. Well your principal should have given you a Fixed Term Regular Part Time contract. Have a look around your school are there other teachers without their own hours? concessionary hours,special needs, EFL etc.

One of these teachers may be well in with the principal and getting a proper fixed term contract. You might be holding the hours open with no rights until this favoured teacher has four years done. Then its cid for this teacher. No problem with the department because the hours are there. Then its goodbye you because you only held specific purpose contracts

Hi

I had a look through my contract.

Nowhere does it mention 'specific purposes' but neither does it mention 'non-specific'. Should it?

What it does say is that it is PRPT and the only mention of CID in the contract is that extra hours "will not be eligible for CID purposes at a later date"

How does that sound?

rainbowtrout

peanuthead wrote: »

Some people would call this a stupid decision but I was surrounded by the type of teacher I don't want to be (the type of teacher that a lot of people here don't seem to want to admit exists) so I got out.
.

I'm genuinely curious. In an area where there aren't many jobs and there haven't been for some time, why would you let the abilities and attitudes of other teachers influence you much that you would give up your job and move schools? Surely their behaviour shouldn't affect your way of teaching?

peanuthead

rainbowtrout wrote: »

I'm genuinely curious. In an area where there aren't many jobs and there haven't been for some time, why would you let the abilities and attitudes of other teachers influence you much that you would give up your job and move schools? Surely their behaviour shouldn't affect your way of teaching?

Well it was more of a management issue than a problem with my colleagues. They were good people, but management and other things that just got them so down that they hated going to work, and I started to hate it too. There was one girl there on CID who cried every year, hated it that much, but didn't want to leave, she had security and needed it for her mortgage and children. I honestly thought to myself that if I didn't leave now I would become her and the only thing I want from my job other than security is to love it.

spurious

I work for a VEC and was redeployed in 1990 and then sort of redeployed (school closure) in 1999. In the VEC it is repeatedly made clear that we are employed by the VEC, not the school, so the possibility of someone being transferred in (or out) is always there.

There is always some fall-out, be it in terms of part-timers losing hours, or more experienced people having to be slotted into a subject department, but I must say in both cases my VEC tried as much as they could to lessen the impact on the 'receiving' school. They've had more experience with it, but I'm sure the Department will learn from the VECs.

Fizzical

drusk wrote: »

This makes absolutely NO sense. How is it up to a young teacher to PROVE him/herself worthy of a job when it all comes down to seniority/amount of years served?

It's absolute bollocks. It defies logic that someone that is good at their job MAY be let go, while someone that isn't MAY be kept on.

Permanent teachers seem to think that they've earned their permanency through years of service - this is a fundamental flaw in the employment procedures in Irish schools.

In the private sector, there is no such thing as 'permanency' as we teachers know it. If you're good at your job, you're kept in it. In teaching, you sign a contract after four years service and that's it - a job for life, you can put up the feet, there's no getting rid of you. THIS IS WRONG!!!!!

Redeployment has highlighted how ineffectual the department and schools are in rewarding good teachers, for the very fact that some good teachers will be out of a job come September while some incompetent teachers will continue on unaffected.

Take a step back for a second and look at the system objectively. Forget about the unions, the circulars and the politics of it. Imagine you were a businessman (principal) running an enterprise (school) and you needed to employ people. The success of your enterprise (school) would depend on the competence and passion of your employees (teachers). Now look at the system of employment, tenure, contracts, etc that we've got, and try to blend the two. Fucking ridiculous.

You prove yourself worthy of a job in your probationary year, or in your four years. That's when you earn your permanency. If you're not worthy of it, you're not hired!

Your anger is misplaced. Don't blame your colleagues for your problems. It's not up to them to hire or fire you - it's not in their power either way. Do look at management and higher.

The reason teachers that are starting out have few hours and insecurity is due to the way VECs, BOMs, principals and the DES have interpreted and applied the part-time workers Act to their advantage. Schools are full of teachers on few hours because it's easier to run a school with teachers who are jockeying for more hours and some security, who will therefore agree to horrendous and unfair workloads. I've seen it in my own school for years, and my colleagues in other schools have seen it in theirs.

The reason redeployment is being applied so severely is because the country has no money. Look where you will for blame for this.

Fizzical

Peanuthead, here are some of the things you posted:

I gave up my CID entitlements this year to move schools. Some people would call this a stupid decision but I was surrounded by the type of teacher I don't want to be (the type of teacher that a lot of people here don't seem to want to admit exists) so I got out.

Surrounded by the absolute skivers who would tear down the good reputation of a school?

Well it was more of a management issue than a problem with my colleagues. They were good people, but management and other things that just got them so down that they hated going to work, and I started to hate it too.

So, good teachers but bad management.

You then claim you're not worried at all about your shaky tenure but go on to be quite angry that someone else may get your job in your stead.

If I do my job this year to the ultimate best of my ability and then some, yet theres a teacher 10k away who is (for arguments sake) not as suitable for the position as me but is being redeployed I LOSE MY JOB REGARDLESS. So how in hell:

(A) Am I supposed to successfully prove I'm worth the job when no matter what I do, if theres a teacher who teaches my subject in need of redeployment she gets it no matter what.

(B) Is anyone bowing out to let me in? It's the other bloody way around!!!!!

I hear that you're worried, and I hear that you're angry you may not have a job in your new school in September.

But it's not the fault of other teachers!

(1) You left your previous school where you were building up CID status and took a one year contract in a new school. I know you had good reason but you still chose to do that.

(2) No teacher wants to be redeployed into your school (unless for family reasons). They want to stay where they are, like you do.

Other teachers aren't your enemies in this, Peanuthead. Look elsewhere.

(And apologies for thinking you're the son of a principal - it was an attempt to understand the vitriolic anti-teacher message in your post. I couldn't, and can't, fathom how a fellow teacher could feel such antipathy to their colleagues.)

drusk

Fizzical wrote: »

Your anger is misplaced. Don't blame your colleagues for your problems.

You have totally misunderstood what I have said in my posts. NOWHERE do I blame my colleagues for the faults present in the employment operations in Irish schools.

And by the way, I don't have any "problems".

Fizzical

drusk wrote: »

You have totally misunderstood what I have said in my posts. NOWHERE do I blame my colleagues for the faults present in the employment operations in Irish schools.

And by the way, I don't have any "problems".

I'm glad you have no problems, drusk.

I assumed your job is also in danger from redeployment and that's where your anger/vehemence came from - happy to be corrected.

But my points still stand.

Where does your anger come from? Your post seems very personal, rather than objective.

peanuthead

Fizzical wrote: »

Peanuthead, here are some of the things you posted:



Surrounded by the absolute skivers who would tear down the good reputation of a school?



So, good teachers but bad management.

You then claim you're not worried at all about your shaky tenure but go on to be quite angry that someone else may get your job in your stead.


I hear that you're worried, and I hear that you're angry you may not have a job in your new school in September.

But it's not the fault of other teachers!

(1) You left your previous school where you were building up CID status and took a one year contract in a new school. I know you had good reason but you still chose to do that.

(2) No teacher wants to be redeployed into your school (unless for family reasons). They want to stay where they are, like you do.

Other teachers aren't your enemies in this, Peanuthead. Look elsewhere.

(And apologies for thinking you're the son of a principal - it was an attempt to understand the vitriolic anti-teacher message in your post. I couldn't, and can't, fathom how a fellow teacher could feel such antipathy to their colleagues.)

Look, this is descending into a bit of a row now, and its down to things being misinterpreted or taken out of context.

First of all, you are right about it being my decision to leave my previous job. One that I am not sorry I did. You are also right that I am somewhat worried about my job, but not to the extent that you were making out. I am covering a position that was made by someone leaving - not career break - and my subject is a minority subject.

The management/staff thing is a bit of confusion for you I get, that is down to the ambiguity of my post, but not really something I'm willing to go into for fear of other posters maybe figuring out who I am etc... Let's just say that management in schools are teachers too, they're just teachers who may either not be teaching much or at all anymore.

I do also agree with you that other teachers are not the problem. I can only imagine how much they don't want to go. And I did make reference to that a few posts back. I remember a teacher in my old school being redeployed and it broke her heart to leave the place, although that was totally for the wrong reasons.

All the other teachers in Ireland are not my enemies, but they're not my friends either.


Anyway, I think this thread is great for those who, like me, are probably more angry-concerned-sad and others who are more terrified/worried about this whole thing. I for one am hoping to get advice from floating voter about my contract.

I don't want to see this thread locked because of bickering or going off topic, which I am probably most guilty of here at the moment.

But to summarise, all of my friends who are not in the teaching profession all think that teachers don't work hard enough for their money, we're moaners, etc.. All the usual. I get dagger eyes when there's a mid-term coming up. And this is despite me being very hardworking - I'm in preparing notes for the week after next as we speak!

Believe me, I spend most of my year defending teachers and I am in no way bashing them here. We will just have to wait and see how this pans out and yes, redeployment has been done before so I'm sure it will work fine again. It's just that small issue of "You prove you're worthy of your job in your probationary year" - Are you telling me that if I knock my principals socks off this year that I will be back next year, regardless of redeployment? Because I'm not sure that's the case.

drusk

Fizzical wrote: »

Where does your anger come from? Your post seems very personal, rather than objective.

Again, you have misinterpreted my posts. I am not angry. I'm just passionate about this issue.

The fact is - some good teachers will be replaced by some bad teachers in September. Anyone who denies this is turning a blind eye to basic logic. The employment system is rubbish and redeployment has highlighted this.

People need to stop looking at their own personal situation - temporary OR permanent. Look at the system objectively. It is totally ridiculous and irrational that permanency exists in teaching the way it does. We all moan about the few bad teachers that give ALL teachers a bad name, yet most of us ignore the fact that nothing is ever done about these few bad teachers. I'm not saying they should be sacked - I'm just saying that a shake-up of the contracts and guaranteed permanency would go a long way in weeding out complacency in teaching.

A degree, a dip, and four years hard work is all it takes to be guaranteed an income for life in teaching. If you decide to sit back and do nothing after that - there's no stopping you!! The mere fact that this is allowed to happen should set off alarm bells in principals' offices and in the department. But it doesn't. And it's a crying shame for our profession.

Rosita

drusk wrote: »

A degree, a dip, and four years hard work is all it takes to be guaranteed an income for life in teaching. If you decide to sit back and do nothing after that - there's no stopping you!!

In practice though it seems very unlikely that someone would work ferociously hard for four years and then decide to put their feet up. It's a scenario which suits your argument but I wouldn't be sure it's a fair reflection of human nature. The person who'll try to sit back and do nothing will probably try to do it from day one - the person who works hard for four years will probably continue to do so because it's in their nature too. Four years is a long time for a Principal to judge someone's calibre.

I don't necessarily disagree with the idea that permanence should unchallengable (though I can see an argument that for continuity in schools it is not a bad thing) but I work in a school with forty odd teachers and I cannot genuinely think of one that does not appear to work hard. I would say it is difficult to know one way or the other for sure as I am not in their classes but they seem to me to be up the walls with work most of the time. I'm not sure there's as much skiving as you seem to think. It is a job where it is very difficult to hide as you have 30 invigilators in front of you day in day out.

Fizzical

drusk wrote: »

Again, you have misinterpreted my posts. I am not angry. I'm just passionate about this issue.

I'm not trying to interpret - just trying to read through points made in capital letters and bad language. It feels like someone shouting at me!

You made some valid points in your last post, much more reasonably.

This redeployment deal has the potential to upset a lot of teachers and schools. I've heard of at least one school where there's a query over a teacher taking leave as the management don't want an outsider redeployed into the school, so it may effect more teachers in more ways than people think.

But I don't know if a solution to the insecurity of employment of newer teachers would be the compulsory insecurity of all teachers. I don't see how one would fix the other?

To me the injustice lies in keeping people for years on part-time hours while keeping them on tenterhooks as to their job the following year, and pitting them in competition one against the other.

This is the polar opposite of how it should be - a full-time professional staff who run the school together as a team and develop it year on year.

Godge

peanuthead wrote: »

Hi

I had a look through my contract.

Nowhere does it mention 'specific purposes' but neither does it mention 'non-specific'. Should it?

What it does say is that it is PRPT and the only mention of CID in the contract is that extra hours "will not be eligible for CID purposes at a later date"

How does that sound?

Sounds strange. Are you sure you are fixed term?

it is possible that you are CID already because your previous service with another school may have been taken into account.

peanuthead

Godge wrote: »

Sounds strange. Are you sure you are fixed term?

it is possible that you are CID already because your previous service with another school may have been taken into account.

I doubt that as I moved VECs, from one county to another, and the lady in my previous VEC was fairly adamant that those years wouldn't carry over.

My contract states that I am a Pro-Rata Part-time teacher. Contract is up 31st August.

rainbowtrout

Godge wrote: »

Sounds strange. Are you sure you are fixed term?

it is possible that you are CID already because your previous service with another school may have been taken into account.

Service is not carried from school to school unless it is within the same VEC.

sjms

Found this in the indo today....

http://www.independent.ie/education/latest-news/transfer-of-170-surplus-teachers-to-save-euro10m-2588942.html


Thought it may be of interest to some to see where the surpluses are...

mazken

sjms wrote: »

Found this in the indo today....

http://www.independent.ie/education/latest-news/transfer-of-170-surplus-teachers-to-save-euro10m-2588942.html


Thought it may be of interest to some to see where the surpluses are...

Just read the article....pity it doesn't mention the areas/schools with a surplus of teachers! I'd be happy to even read their "unofficial" list!

sjms

mazken wrote: »

Just read the article....pity it doesn't mention the areas/schools with a surplus of teachers! I'd be happy to even read their "unofficial" list!

Sorry! I read the physical paper today and it had schools listed in it!! From what I remember there were only two Dublin schools on the list! One was in ballyfermot I remember!

I'm sorry! I thought they were on the link!

linguist

Well here it is!

Eight surplus teachers: St Joseph's, Summerhill, Athlone.

Seven surplus teachers: St Joseph's, Castlebar, Co Mayo; Nagle Rice, Doneraile, Co Cork.

Six surplus teachers: St Joseph's College, Borrisoleigh; St Louis Secondary School, Monaghan; Mountrath Secondary School, Co Laois.

Five surplus teachers: St Vincent's, Cork city; Mercy Secondary School, Galway city; St Mary's College, Ballisodare, Co Sligo; Franciscan College, Gormanstown, Co Meath.

Four surplus teachers: Bruff Secondary School, Co Limerick; Scoil Carmel, Limerick; Mount Sion, Waterford; St Enda's Community School, Limerick.

Three surplus teachers: Patrician Brothers, Finglas, Dublin; St Jarlath's, Tuam, Co Galway; St Michael's Secondary School, Listowel, Co Kerry; St Joseph's, Spanish Point, Co Clare; Colaiste Mhuire, Ballygar, Co Galway; Presentation School, Listowel, Co Kerry.

Two surplus teachrs: Presentation School, Galway city; St. Mary's, Galway city; St Mel's school, Longford; Caritas College, Ballyfermot, Dublin; Boherbue Comprehensive, Co Cork; Passage West Community School, Co Cork; Our Lady's, Belmullet, Co Mayo; Mayfield School, Cork; Mercy College, Sligo.

So first observation: this is about 60 short of 170. There will be ones and twos dotted around the country. Let's hope they've accounted for the big ones.

The voluntary secondary sector accounts for the overwhelming majority of cases. The C&C sector escapes virtually unscathed - as long as things don't go cross-sectoral.

The lack of Dublin representation will come as a big relief to those of us in the capital. The Gormanston five will definitely hold things up in Drogheda and Fingal in particular you'd imagine.

Cork, Limerick and Galway would appear to be fairly hard hit.

Not all of this will happen - there will be retirements which will bring some of the affected schools back into quota. There will also be appeals for curricular concessions etc...

I think everyone will take some heart from the wide geographical spread here.

sjms

linguist wrote: »

Well here it is!

Eight surplus teachers: St Joseph's, Summerhill, Athlone.

Seven surplus teachers: St Joseph's, Castlebar, Co Mayo; Nagle Rice, Doneraile, Co Cork.

Six surplus teachers: St Joseph's College, Borrisoleigh; St Louis Secondary School, Monaghan; Mountrath Secondary School, Co Laois.

Five surplus teachers: St Vincent's, Cork city; Mercy Secondary School, Galway city; St Mary's College, Ballisodare, Co Sligo; Franciscan College, Gormanstown, Co Meath.

Four surplus teachers: Bruff Secondary School, Co Limerick; Scoil Carmel, Limerick; Mount Sion, Waterford; St Enda's Community School, Limerick.

Three surplus teachers: Patrician Brothers, Finglas, Dublin; St Jarlath's, Tuam, Co Galway; St Michael's Secondary School, Listowel, Co Kerry; St Joseph's, Spanish Point, Co Clare; Colaiste Mhuire, Ballygar, Co Galway; Presentation School, Listowel, Co Kerry.

Two surplus teachrs: Presentation School, Galway city; St. Mary's, Galway city; St Mel's school, Longford; Caritas College, Ballyfermot, Dublin; Boherbue Comprehensive, Co Cork; Passage West Community School, Co Cork; Our Lady's, Belmullet, Co Mayo; Mayfield School, Cork; Mercy College, Sligo.

So first observation: this is about 60 short of 170. There will be ones and twos dotted around the country. Let's hope they've accounted for the big ones.

The voluntary secondary sector accounts for the overwhelming majority of cases. The C&C sector escapes virtually unscathed - as long as things don't go cross-sectoral.

The lack of Dublin representation will come as a big relief to those of us in the capital. The Gormanston five will definitely hold things up in Drogheda and Fingal in particular you'd imagine.

Cork, Limerick and Galway would appear to be fairly hard hit.

Still, I think everyone will take some heart from the wide geographical spread here.

I must say I am delighted! although they are *speculative* Dublin is not hit hard at all. Good for everyone involved I think. I just have to pray that no geography/irish teachers are waiting to snatch up my possibility of a job in September!

Relief is not the word!!

floating voter

Are these figures not the schools that were already over quota. ie as calculated by number of students enrolled December 2010. 170 odd teachers. These are FIRST to go.

Last Decembers budget budget calls for 800 fewer secondary teachers. and a similar number of primary teachers??

The traveller resource hours, english as a foreign language teachers and the change in LCVP pupil teacher ratio will have an impact next september??

linguist

The projected total loss of secondary posts this autumn is about 150 as I recall. It will then begin to increase from next year.

The traveller and EFL posts issue will affect temporary people, particularly if a permanent teacher is going back into mainstream teaching or of course if the temporary teachers work involved the groups of students concerned. There will certainly be some impact from the change in PTR for LCVP.

However, right now, the issue for people on RPT contracts that would have otherwise expected to continue is all about redeployment.

mazken

sjms wrote: »

Sorry! I read the physical paper today and it had schools listed in it!! From what I remember there were only two Dublin schools on the list! One was in ballyfermot I remember!

I'm sorry! I thought they were on the link!

Not to worry....thanks for bringing it to our attention though and to linguist for giving the stats
Could be affected but hopefully not....just hoping that my subject combination isn't popular!
Thanks again

floating voter

linguist wrote: »

The projected total loss of secondary posts this autumn is about 150 as I recall. It will then begin to increase from next year.

The traveller and EFL posts issue will affect temporary people, particularly if a permanent teacher is going back into mainstream teaching or of course if the temporary teachers work involved the groups of students concerned. There will certainly be some impact from the change in PTR for LCVP.

However, right now, the issue for people on RPT contracts that would have otherwise expected to continue is all about redeployment.

just to clear things up in my head.
There are 150-170 full time/ cid teachers over quota who will be redeployed and may displace part-time teachers/ replace retired teachers/ fill 'new posts' because of increasing numbers. This is happening under Croke Park Deal.

In Tandem with that there will be OTHER job losses because of Traveller hours , English as a foreign language and LCVP cuts. These cuts are because of last Decembers budget. The vast majority of these cuts will be 'silent' cuts and will fall on part-time teachers. We are to lose 1.5 posts because of this for example.

spurious

170 teachers - 10 million euro.

They are all on the top of the scale?
What happened last in, first out?

linguist

floating voter, what you're doing is counting only the cuts.

Let's go through the facts of what Budget 2011 proposed:

170 redeployments, as we are discussing here

1200 posts to go (700 primary and 500 post-primary) this summer (including the above redeployments)

875 new posts across primary and secondary to take account of demographic pressures.

So a total loss of 325 posts this summer. However, this takes no account of retirements or career breaks.

The last thing I would want to do is deny the significant effect each and every one of these losses will have on valued and gifted colleagues. As most of you will know, I myself am hoping the redeployments will not affect my RPT contract. However, you would have to conclude that the vast majority of teachers currently employed should be back in September and there will be significant recruitment once the redeployment logjam is cleared. From next year, there will be a net increase in teaching posts each year and this will become more evident at post-primary as the booming primary enrollment finally works its way through.

Inspector Coptoor

This situation is really beginning to rankle with me.

I am a teacher of almost 5 years experience. 28 this summer.
In those 5 years, I have covered 1 RPT career break and 4 maternity leaves.
So essentially, I havent a leg to stand on anywhere and I know and understand that.

I can understand why everyone/anyone who could be redeployed are upset about what's could potentially or is going to happen to them and I sympathise.

What annoys me so much is all the different contracts out there for so many different people. All the different acronyms, all the beaurocracy and all the bull$h1t that goes with it.

The fear people on contracts have every June being called into the principal's office one by one to see if there is anything for them the following year while the people on the CIDs/permanent jobs sit in the staff room drinking coffee with their fingers crossed for you.

The crux of the issue is this.
Our profession is being downgraded and denigrated year on year, less pay, less security, less respect in society.
We are heading down the road of becoming a semi-profession.
The public think we have it handy, our unions are ineffective and as a group, we lack balls.
We lack balls because the people with the contracts dont want to rock the boat, and the people on the verge of getting one are immbolised by fear of rocking the boat.

To all those people about to be put in limbo due to redeployment, I empathise, I really do.

But spare a thought for all the people on sub contracts out there, all the newly qualified graduates etc.
If you guys are about to be put in limbo due to this, we are in a vortex miles below limbo and the redeployment will impact us even more severely, as if you guys do get redeployed, at least you will have a job.

Now, even If I'm a better candidate than someone on a redeployment panel, I cant be given the job, so much for equal oppurtunities.

I came back from UK in 2007, leaving 3 permanent contracts offers behding me over there, and even one in an International school in Portugal only to be bouncing around from school to school here.

No wonder people are leaving the country in droves.

floating voter

You dont have to tell most permanent and cid teachers because they were in the same position when they started out.

Secondary teaching is a nightmare to get established in.

The minefield of contracts have clarified things a lot though. (strangely).4 years of fixed term contracts now may lead to a cid. This is a huge improvement.

You know where you stand. You have been doing mostly maternity leaves. There will be no full time job from them. You have had special purpose contracts. Contracts with a limiting condition and they end when that condition has been met. In your case the woman comes back to work.

*Unsolicited advice* You need to really get you own hours in a school to have any hope. Covering Maternity leave is essentially the same thing as being taken on by Tesco to cover the christmas rush.

Inspector Coptoor

Not everyone with a CID or permanent contract went through the same thing.
I know all that re: mat leaves and covering career breaks, you are covering a need for a limited time.
Not once did I say I expected anything else to come of it.

My point is that it's not an even playing field out there and when you bring the primary sector into it and how many permanent primary positions were given out to 21 year old graduates during the celtic tiger after 3 years in Pats or Marys compared to the 5 years plus a lot secondary teachers have put in in third level, it exacerbates the problem further.

I know full well I need to get my own hours, but bills need to be paid and I take "seasonal rush" work to pay them.