Pay cuts threat to profession

Powerhouse

marienbad wrote: »

1) Teachers just are'nt fired, you know that.

2) There is no offer out there

1) Please answer the question. You said an "incredible amount of dead wood". If the amount can be described as "incredible" surely it can be quantified? Otherwise you are resorting to cant and cliché.

2) Then why talk as if there is?

Powerhouse

yosser hughes wrote: »

Nice attiude by a teacher laughing at a person's poor spelling.

I wasn't laughing at the poor spelling as such. I was laughing at the irony of such a person expounding on teachers. It'd be like Shane McGowan telling us what dentists' working conditions should be.

doc_17

chippers wrote: »

A huge amount of young teachers have had to emigrate, including myself. I'm sorry if I couldn't attend the Union meeting to voice my opinion.

I think you need to read that in the context of the discussion. Poeple involved in unions will tell you that they rarely if ever see younger or NQTs at union meetings. And this was the case long before the recent economic problems. Yes younger teachers have been targetted and if you read some posts of mine in other threads you'll see my point of view on that.

I'm sorry you've had to leave to get work but that quote of mine was directed at the younger teachers here that don't seem to want to get involved with the unions and try to get them to change tack with their strategy. As I have said before - decisions are made by those who show up - and decisions are made at union meetings as to what strategies should be adopted

Powerhouse

marienbad wrote: »

Reminds me of a comment I saw elsewhere that when you start commenting on the spelling and grammer you have lost the argument.

So if I pointed out, for example, that the word 'grammar' does not contain an 'e' then I'd have automatically lost the 'argument'? Interesting system of debate that. :P

yosser hughes

Powerhouse wrote: »

So if I pointed out, for example, that the word 'grammar' does not contain an 'e' then I'd have automatically lost the 'argument'? Interesting system of debate that. :P

No, you would just be a pedant.

Feeona

Powerhouse wrote: »

Interesting system of debate that. :P

Very interesting

E.T.

ntlbell wrote: »

Then so is mine

One of my friends is a secondary school teacher.

She claims to have one of the handiest numbers going, while she's been paid by the state she states she's in spain teaching english getting paid by another school. a large number of other teachers join her for 3 months of the summer.

These particular group pay no tax.

Surely this is a small minority group who do this and it's not all teachers?

which would lead my personal experience and hear say to have no baring on this thread?

right?

I'm very confused - how do "these particular group" pay no tax? Teachers' tax is taken directly out of our paycheque - there's no way of getting out of it or fiddling it in any way.

I would say that this type of inaccurate "hear say" posted as fact has no bearing on any thread.

marienbad

Powerhouse wrote: »

1) Please answer the question. You said an "incredible amount of dead wood". If the amount can be described as "incredible" surely it can be quantified? Otherwise you are resorting to cant and cliché.

2) Then why talk as if there is?

1-Are you saying there is no dead wood ?

2-You ask why talk about it ? Because failure to address it in the past is a large part of why teachers ( and particularly newly qualified teachers) are paying the price for it now. And sooner or later it will have to be faced.

marienbad

Powerhouse wrote: »

So if I pointed out, for example, that the word 'grammar' does not contain an 'e' then I'd have automatically lost the 'argument'? Interesting system of debate that. :P

Without question you would.

Feeona

mikemac1 wrote: »

So the minister goes after the allowances.
And the union members should be asking why wasn't there a big push to put the allowances into core pay over the last few years.
Because it's separate now it's easy to get rid of.
Unions messed up here and even if they tried they have failed. Allowances will be cut



And the minister says grand, we won't touch your pay, we'll just hit the allowance

You've got to love the wording eh? It's bizarre that things like yard supervision aren't part of a teacher's pay. And what makes it worse is that if you are on yard duty, you usually don't get any break at all during the day unless the school has cover organised for your class!

marienbad

Feeona wrote: »

You've got to love the wording eh? It's bizarre that things like yard supervision aren't part of a teacher's pay. And what makes it worse is that if you are on yard duty, you usually don't get any break at all during the day unless the school has cover organised for your class!

The problem is though that most people beleive that those extra duties are just a part of a normal day .

If you don't get a break that is illegal and should be addressed through your union.


P.S I have included the obligatory mistake(s) to satisfy the pedantic posters

Powerhouse

marienbad wrote: »

1-Are you saying there is no dead wood ?

2-You ask why talk about it ? Because failure to address it in the past is a large part of why teachers ( and particularly newly qualified teachers) are paying the price for it now. And sooner or later it will have to be faced.

1) I didn't comment on it either way. You mentioned an "incredible" (not a word to be used lightly I would think) amount of "dead wood". Now can you please amplify that remark - this is maybe your third opportunity?

2) Not sure I get the connection between these supposed lost opportunities (you might give us some examples as I don't recall them to be honest) and the current situation. I thought if (to quote one of our begrudgers here) "the employer has no money" then...er...the employer has no money, and that situation would obtain irrespective of teachers' potential terms of remuneration, no?

You appear to be angry about something but your precise argument is neither clear nor coherent.

E.T.

marienbad wrote: »

The problem is though that most people beleive that those extra duties are just a part of a normal day .

If you don't get a break that is illegal and should be addressed through your union.


P.S I have included the obligatory mistake(s) to satisfy the pedantic posters

The supervision allowance is paid for giving up your breaks to supervise. That's why it shouldn't be referred to as an allowance - only teachers who opt into the scheme are paid for it. If you opt it you take all your breaks.

Powerhouse

marienbad wrote: »

P.S I have included the obligatory mistake(s) to satisfy the pedantic posters

Oh you clever old devil - you're just trying to lure us into pointing it out and losing the argument by default (as per your self-declared and self-serving rules), aren't you?

You just couldn't be up to some people!

(Though I do admire the diplomatic bracketed 's' to allow for the non-obligatory errors you might have inadvertently included! )

noodler

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

You could, but if a person is going to do a 4 yr degree,be temporary(if lucky) for years, the brightest and best may well consider doing something else. Love of the job won't put food on the table, sadly.

According to info in the Irish Examiner today, the majority of teachers are on between 50k and 70k.

So I wish people would stop using that argument that we have the best and brighest now, expecially considering the plummeting performances in literacy and maths.

Another point actually, the lack of skilled maths teachers is a clear indicator that our current crop of teachers aren't exactly the 'best and brighest' as you would have us believe.

I am sick to death of people threatening the sky will fall in just because our public servants have to realise its 2012 and 2008.

amen

on the basis that pay has been cut by near enough to 20 per cent in recent years so it's clearly a runner

Really interesting thread and I am sure I won't get an answer but can any teacher on here show me where they have a got a cut in their Gross pay i.e. they were earning gross 40,000e a year and after the pay cut they were earning gross 38,000e a year ?

Teachers (and other PS/CS) have a had leavy applied to their salary which has impacted their Net Salary but not their Gross plus they also get paid their annual increments.

In the private sector a pay cut means your Gross salary is reduced from 40,000e to 38,000e and no increments.

Net effect is that your salary falls behind inflation.

Feeona

marienbad wrote: »

The problem is though that most people beleive that those extra duties are just a part of a normal day .

If you don't get a break that is illegal and should be addressed through your union.


P.S I have included the obligatory mistake(s) to satisfy the pedantic posters

Hmmmm that's weird. I was replying to a post by mikemac and you just decided to weigh in!

I'll wait for him to get back if you don't mind because I really would rather hear his opinion on it. Thank you for your input though

Izymunz

I don't think I've ever met a teacher that loved their job in my whole life.
and if been in a country with the most highly paid teachers in the EU i'm not sure where they're going to go or do?[/QUOTE]

That is a bit harsh..
I am sure that you my friend are engaging in hyperbole!
However, if you truly have not met any teacher who was
'happy' in their job, I am sorry.
Personally, having met many teachers who are content in their jobs would have to disagree with your point.

Powerhouse

amen wrote: »

Really interesting thread and I am sure I won't get an answer but can any teacher on here show me where they have a got a cut in their Gross pay i.e. they were earning gross 40,000e a year and after the pay cut they were earning gross 38,000e a year ?

I'm sure if you do the research you'll be able to find that yourself - no teacher should have to go digging for historical figures to justify themselves to you. You can accept bona fides or else overturn them yourself. But you do realise that a drop from 40k to 38k is 5 per cent and not 20 per cent?

Powerhouse

noodler wrote: »

According to info in the Irish Examiner today, the majority of teachers are on between 50k and 70k.

That's a bit of a blow. The Examiner was talking about 115k for a huge number of teachers yesterday which was far healthier.

It's actually quite chilling when you have insider knowledge of a workplace and read the distortion and downright inaccuracy of many journalists, and then consider the bluster we are being fed about areas of society we don't know enough about to be able to actually identify distortion and downright inaccuracy.

I presume it was better in the old days when they had to actually talk to people rather than just interrogating websites without any prior-knowledge context.

noodler

Powerhouse wrote: »

That's a bit of a blow. The Examiner was talking about 115k for a huge number of teachers yesterday which was far healthier.

It's actually quite chilling when you have insider knowledge of a workplace and read the distortion and downright inaccuracy of many journalists, and then consider the bluster we are being fed about areas of society we don't know enough about to be able to actually identify distortion and downright inaccuracy.

I presume it was better in the old days when they had to actually talk to people rather than just interrogating websites without any prior-knowledge context.

Find yourself a copy of the Irish Examiner today.

The information, which I admit I can't recall the source they used, was very detailed and in table form.

i.e. how many under 40K, how many between 40 and 50k etc etc.


I can't believe we pay teachers 70K at any stage in their career but there you go. I'll scan the information tomorrow if I don't find the source before then.

I think people should really look again think about what poorly paid actually means. Moreover, its a bit rich for an agreemento be reached two years ago to protect pay for current workers and not for new entrants but then to complain about it 2 years later.

marienbad

Powerhouse wrote: »

1) I didn't comment on it either way. You mentioned an "incredible" (not a word to be used lightly I would think) amount of "dead wood". Now can you please amplify that remark - this is maybe your third opportunity?

2) Not sure I get the connection between these supposed lost opportunities (you might give us some examples as I don't recall them to be honest) and the current situation. I thought if (to quote one of our begrudgers here) "the employer has no money" then...er...the employer has no money, and that situation would obtain irrespective of teachers' potentail terms of remuneration, no?

You appear to be angry about something but your precise argument is neither clear nor coherent.

I- are you saying there is no deadwood ? Did you not advise another poster earlier to do there own research ?

2- we are where we are today because the unions used their power to get what they could and not what was reasonable or deserved. Now the overdue corrective action is happening and is falling unfairly on the weaker parts of the profession.


On a separate issue , I don't know why you say I am angry . I really don't give a s*&^e . I am just always amazed at the lack of objectivity and we won't concede an inch mentality in any discussion from a certain section of the teaching profession in these discussions. It is as if we acknowledge any faults the roof will fall in.

marienbad

Feeona wrote: »

Hmmmm that's weird. I was replying to a post by mikemac and you just decided to weigh in!

I'll wait for him to get back if you don't mind because I really would rather hear his opinion on it. Thank you for your input though

What is weird is you think it is weird ,this is an open forum is not , but thanks for the tip on forum etiquette . Between that and the 'grammer' (sic) police we have no shortage of educators . Now if we can just get them to work on those maths results.:)

Powerhouse

noodler wrote: »

Moreover, its a bit rich for an agreemento be reached two years ago to protect pay for current workers and not for new entrants but then to complain about it 2 years later.

I never complained about the CPA. I complained only about its terms possibly being breached. There's either an agreement or there isn't. Simple as that really.

Powerhouse

marienbad wrote: »

I- are you saying there is no deadwood ? Did you not advise another poster earlier to do there own research ?

2- we are where we are today because the unions used their power to get what they could and not what was reasonable or deserved. Now the overdue corrective action is happening and is falling unfairly on the weaker parts of the profession.

1) Yes I did, and now I'm advising you to do the same. You made the claim - you defend it. This is the fourth time you've been asked and you have consistently been unable to defend the remark. As if to enhance the sense of déjà vu, I will point out to you one more time that I never commented on "dead wood" either way. Now will you please deal with my question or admit you are just making things up as you go along.

2) Unions using their power to get what they could? I thought that was the general idea of a union? Unfortunately begrudging people eaten bread will not sweeten the pill for "the weaker parts of the profession".

marienbad

Powerhouse wrote: »

1) Yes I did, and now I'm advising you to do the same. You made the claim - you defend it. This is the fourth time you've been asked and you have consistently been unable to defend the remark. As if to enhance the sense of déjà vu, I will point out to you one more time that I never commented on "dead wood" either way. Now will you please deal with my question or admit you are just making things up as you go along.

2) Unions using their power to get what they could? I thought that was the general idea of a union? Unfortunately begrudging people eaten bread will not sweeten the pill for "the weaker parts of the profession".

1-Well then do your own research , after all it is only a click of a button away as you effectively advised that poster.

2-Unions if they have any sense take account of wider society and the ability of that society to meet their demands in the long term. Teachers unions did not and that corrective action is now being imposed and in a blunt force way .

Powerhouse

marienbad wrote: »

1-Well then do your own research , after all it is only a click of a button away as you effectively advised that poster.

2-Unions if they have any sense take account of wider society and the ability of that society to meet their demands in the long term. Teachers unions did not and that corrective action is now being imposed and in a blunt force way .

1) Do my own research? What the hell are you on about. You made the point - and you have failed spectacularly to back it up. It was a stupid cliched populist comment and your bluff has been called.

2) So the unions in say, 1988, should have seen the bust coming twenty years later? Who do you think is the head of the unions - Nostradamus? I think it is usually encumbent on the employer to ensure that wages are manageable. The union does its job. That's how it works.

ntlbell

E.T. wrote: »

I'm very confused - how do "these particular group" pay no tax? Teachers' tax is taken directly out of our paycheque - there's no way of getting out of it or fiddling it in any way.

I would say that this type of inaccurate "hear say" posted as fact has no bearing on any thread.

On the money they make in Spain while there also been paid by the public purse but as I said it's hear say personal expirience and not a generlisation of the majority i'm sure

ntlbell

Feeona wrote: »

You've got to love the wording eh? It's bizarre that things like yard supervision aren't part of a teacher's pay. And what makes it worse is that if you are on yard duty, you usually don't get any break at all during the day unless the school has cover organised for your class!

How would you feel about a yard payment "benifit" and a removal of pay for the summer months and holidays?

marienbad

Powerhouse wrote: »

1) Do my own research? What the hell are you on about. You made the point - and you have failed spectacularly to back it up. It was a stupid cliched populist comment and your bluff has been called.

2) So the unions in say, 1988, should have seen the bust coming twenty years later? Who do you think is the head of the unions - Nostradamus? I think it is usually encumbent on the employer to ensure that wages are manageable. The union does its job. That's how it works.

1-so you are saying there is no deadwood in the profession then ? And that teachers can be fired ? Pull the other one

2- why pick 1988 ? We don't have to go back that far. Lets just go back to the two benchmarking agreements and all that followed from them. There was'nt a respectable economic commentator that did'nt pronounce them a step too far. But the unions assumed as always that they would be strong enough to ensure that other sections of society ( and to some extent this is still true) would continue to pay. A case of short term sectional interest if ever there was one.

But now the chickens have come home in the shape of the IMF and co.

byhookorbycrook

Teachers can and are fired, if they are unsatisfactory.

ntlbell

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

Teachers can and are fired, if they are unsatisfactory.

As has been asked all ready how many teachers have been fired for non deliverables in the last decade?

How was it measured? etc etc

Powerhouse

marienbad wrote: »

1-so you are saying there is no deadwood in the profession then ?

2- why pick 1988 ?

3) But now the chickens have come home in the shape of the IMF and co.

1) For the fifth (or is it sixth) I didn't comment on this either way. To be honest I wouldn't have the breadth of knowledge of a wide variety of schools and teachers to comment - I'm not too sure how the teacher next door to myself is doing to be honest, not to mind trying to comment on thousands of teachers.

But just to reiterate - you were asked several times to explain your comment that there is an "incredible amount of deadwood in the profession" and you singularly failed to do so time and again. It's important to keep reminding you of that.

2) Just a random year.

3) So you think the IMF are here because of teachers? Would that life were so simple.

Powerhouse

ntlbell wrote: »

As has been asked all ready how many teachers have been fired for non deliverables in the last decade?

I'm sure somebody is 'all ready' with the statistics.

byhookorbycrook

ntlbell wrote: »

As has been asked all ready how many teachers have been fired for non deliverables in the last decade?

How was it measured? etc etc

I don't have access to those figures,as I do not work in the DES.

If a complaint is submitted at primary level ,part of the procedure is that the teacher is inspected, given a time to work on improving and can then be removed.I know of two cases. Teachers are accountable to children,parents and the entire school community.

Miss Lockhart

This thread is completely pointless.

The original post was an extract from an article linking the decreased numbers applying for teaching with the recent pay cuts and reduced job opportunities and discussing worries about the knock-on effects on calibre of applicants.

One would assume the thread topic is therefore the decreasing number and possibly quality of applicants to teaching and whether the recent pay cuts and reduced job opportunities are indeed a cause for concern in this regard.

I find it difficult to believe that the topic is teacher holidays, whether very intelligent students should become teachers, whether teaching is a challenging and/or mentally stimulating job, whether teaching is a profession, whether current teachers are overpaid, whether current teachers are underperforming, whether people's spelling and grammar is correct, whether teachers' allowances are fair, whether teachers should have their holiday pay removed, whether somebody's friend who is a teacher pays tax on a second job, whether young teachers have contributed enough to the union, whether the union should consider the national interest or not, whether or not somebody knows a single teacher that loves their job, whether or not teachers have right to express concerns about pay cuts (past and/or future), whether teachers can be fired or not.

That is not an exhaustive list.

I'm obviously mistaken however and this is, in fact, a thread about every grievance anybody has ever had with a teacher or education in general.

Not to mention the endless trolling and breaches of the charter (correcting spelling and grammar, making sweeping generalisation about teachers).

ntlbell

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

I don't have access to those figures,as I do not work in the DES.

So in fact you have no idea if anyone got sacked?

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

If a complaint is submitted at primary level ,part of the procedure is that the teacher is inspected, given a time to work on improving and can then be removed.I know of two cases. Teachers are accountable to children,parents and the entire school community.

What do they have to imporve on? who makes the complaint? how do they measure a teachers performance? if a complaint is made or performance drops based on these measurables is an imporvement plan put in place? what's this based on? does it have tangible goals?

Teachers are accountable that's not in question but are they actually been held accountable by anyone? it seems you nor I know?

Hootanany

Feeona wrote: »

I don't get paid for holidays so how I 'would' feel doesn't come into it.

What do you do for a living because I'd like you to answer some questions about your job situation before I give you anymore answers about my own job situation.

Quid pro quo as they say so I think it's fair to ask.

Sorry you say you do not get payed for Holidays your Union should hang its head in shame.

Feeona

Powerhouse wrote: »

I'm sure somebody is 'all ready' with the statistics.

Or an 'article' from a newspaper which hasn't named it's 'sources' :pac:

Toto Wolfcastle

This thread has descended into a series of circular arguments and constant sniping at other posters. As such is serves no useful purpose any more. The original topic of the thread has been lost and so I'm calling an end to it.

Certain posters on both sides of the argument are very close to infractions/bans.

Let me remind you all to read the charter before you post in this forum again.

Locked.