Allowances cut for everyone - is it coming?

theoldbreed

Hi guys, I'm relatively new to teaching and I'm not on full hours. I'm surviving - just - but from listening to older teachers at my school they all seem to think that the allowance cut will soon apply to ALL teachers in the next few years. What do you all believe?
Personally I really don't know how I'll manage if that happens......

Powerhouse

Impossible to say really. But here's few points:

Ruairí Quinn has conceded (in April in fact) that in the case of teachers allowances are essentially part of core pay. Now, as we have seen with regard to other matters, what Ruairí Quinn says and what he subsequently does are not necessarily the same thing but it is a straw in the wind anyhow - albeit one floated at the time of the teacher conferences.

The tendency - as we saw with pay already - has been to cut the pay of newer teachers on the basis that they will not have financial reponsibilities based on previous pay, and also the small matter of avoiding industrial action. It is fine to take the Ed Walsh view of 'let the b*stards strike and see how much we save while they are out' but as we head towards General Election territory in the next few years the government will be mindful of that. However unpopular the teachers might become they are not the ones who'll be looking to be re-elected.

Thirdly, while you will get people here who'll say 'definitely, allowances will be cut for all' - there were also people here who predicted confidently that there would be a pay-cut by the end of last year and it didn't happen.

lestat21

I recently found out that my starting salary will be about 3000 euro more than my sisters starting salary, when she becomes a fully qualified teacher next year... Its ridiculous that someone who qualifies five years after me will face such a huge cut. And thats assuming that she is very lucky and finds a job. I'm living paycheck to paycheck at the moment and if there are further cuts, I dont know how I will afford travelling around the country when I do get interviews.

In my current school, theres a lot of speculation that the dept are moving away from cutting pay and are targetting hours instead, pushing up the class sizes and cutting down on teachers. Once again affecting younger teachers. We'll have to wait and see which way they go with it because as powerhouse pointed out, theres no guarantees.

But.. I really dont think the government can make any more cuts to education without it resulting in strike action. And that shouldnt just apply to cuts for permanent teachers!! If they allow newly qualified teachers to take the cuts, next it will be the part timers and then suddenly CIDs wont seem so permanent afterall. Unions have to get off their backsides and draw the line somewhere.

kippy

Pay will be cut across the public sector/civil service again, whether this is as a result of a direct pay cut or a mix of other cuts. There is no way this won't happen. There is at least (I would think) 7-15% in cuts in salaries coming in the next 2-5 years, especially if the economy and the global economy continue to "behave" as they are.

Strikes, while they may happen, will be essentially pointless. The money has to be cut somewhere.

evolving_doors

lestat21 wrote: »

... the dept are moving away from cutting pay and are targetting hours instead, pushing up the class sizes and cutting down on teachers. Once again affecting younger teachers.

That's it in a nutshell, in terms of the 'Optics' of the situation (which is what the politician will look at first and foremost) this is definitely the way Ruairi is going to go and is going... the 'no teachers wages have been cut' arguement will be used over and over again as a stick to beat us with as the public perception of Teachers = Permanent Jobs. In reality it's becoming a part time profession for the majority of teachers just out in the last 5 years or so. Maybe the thinking is that if you hang in there long enough the impending Baby Boom tsunami will iron it all out!

lestat21 wrote: »

But.. I really dont think the government can make any more cuts to education without it resulting in strike action.

There's Absolutely zero appetite for strike action on the part of the ASTI and most 'established 22hr' teachers. And in fairness if I was teaching for the last 20 years or so I;d be sick to death of the same old guff trotted out everytime secondary teachers try and assert their professional status. As for the ASTI, they just don't do media panels/debates in the media and when they do they're as meek as watery milk.. it's usually INTO or TUI that you see...

Powerhouse

kippy wrote: »

There is at least (I would think) 7-15% in cuts in salaries coming in the next 2-5 years,

There's no way of knowing this with such specificity (i.e. why 15% and not 20% - and why start at 7% and not 6% or 10%? And why wait 2 years if strikes are of no consequence? And what magic will happen in 5 years time to end it all?....these are top-of-the-head fabricated figures).

Attention is beginning to turn gradually to the demand side of things so I don't think swingeing cuts are inevitable. As I said earlier we have people here who predicted this would happen last year and they were wrong.

I think it's impossible to say what will happen into the future at this point.

kippy

Powerhouse wrote: »

There's no way of knowing this with such specificity (i.e. why 15% and not 20% - and why start at 7% and not 6% or 10%? And why wait 2 years if strikes are of no consequence? And what magic will happen in 5 years time to end it all?....these are top-of-the-head fabricated figures).

Attention is beginning to turn gradually to the demand side of things so I don't think swingeing cuts are inevitable. As I said earlier we have people here who predicted this would happen last year and they were wrong.

I think it's impossible to say what will happen into the future at this point.

The reason it didn't happen last year was the CPA.
The reason I put a lower limit of 2 on the time line was that the CPA runs out in 2014. The reason I put a 5 on the upper limit (although this could of course be extended) is I believe that is how long from now it will take the local and world economy to stabilise (at the very least).
The fiscal deficit is still in the order of 14 odd billion. Theres no sing of people getting back to work anytime soon, demand is actually dropping in the world economy. A lot of the cuts already taken/implemented are as much as can be done without hitting wages (again).
7-15 % is the figures I came up with to put a dent into the after tax net savings to the exchequer required across the board to assist with bring salaries into line with similiar economies.

Yeah, sure, there's speculation on my behalf but isn't this thread and any thread reflecting on the future purely speculative?

Powerhouse

kippy wrote: »

The reason it didn't happen last year was the CPA.
The reason I put a lower limit of 2 on the time line was that the CPA runs out in 2014.

But what's the worst that could happen if the CPA was ignored? Strikes, presumably...and as you wrote earlier..."strikes, while they may happen, will be essentially pointless".

If strikes are pointless then why are the government informed by the possibility? I'm not sure you can have it both ways.

kippy

Powerhouse wrote: »

But what's the worst that could happen if the CPA was ignored? Strikes, presumably...and as you wrote earlier..."strikes, while they may happen, will be essentially pointless".

If strikes are pointless then why are the government informed by the possibility? I'm not sure you can have it both ways.

The longer the government manage without strikes, the longer the government will stay in government and the longer the government have in hoping beyond all hope that the deficit will be cut by other means in the mean time.
At some point in the next few years (2 years +) more cuts will have to be made, strikes or no strikes.
That is my point.

It's either going to be redundancies or salary cuts in state funded jobs in the next number of year.

Powerhouse

kippy wrote: »

The longer the government manage without strikes, the longer the government will stay in government and the longer the government have in hoping beyond all hope that the deficit will be cut by other means in the mean time.

This makes little sense. Politically the time for the government to have strikes is now - when they are relatively new, have a huge majority, and are still far enough away from the next election that they do not have to start providing election budgets. If strikes are undesirable for government they should have them when in a positon of strength. The last thing they need is strikes the year before an election and the main opposition party which has already presented itself as the anti-austerity party gaining political capital from the situation. If this is their thinking they need to think again.

kippy

Powerhouse wrote: »

This makes little sense. Politically the time for the government to have strikes is now - when they are relatively new, have a huge majority, and are still far enough away from the next election that they do not have to start providing election budgets. If strikes are undesirable for government they should have them when in a positon of strength. The last thing they need is strikes the year before an election and the main opposition party which has already presented itself as the anti-austerity party gaining political from the situation. If this is their thinking they need to think again.

Well I don't see them doing anything at the moment so I can only assume they only way they will do something is when:
a. the EU/IMF dictates that they have to do something,
b. the **** really hits the fan

doc_17

I'd expect something to happen on allowances in July. Quiet time...teachers out of school...less time to organize and rally etc. The only good thing about a cut in allowances is that the Croke Park hours are then dead in the water I'd imagine.

Darwin

I wouldn't count for one second the CPA being dead in the water if pay is cut further. I have absolutely no faith in any of the teaching unions to protect the pay and conditions of members at this stage. The CPA itself actually introduced pay cuts by the back door - working additional hours for no extra remuneration is a pay cut no matter what way you dress it up.

kippy

Darwin wrote: »

I wouldn't count for one second the CPA being dead in the water if pay is cut further. I have absolutely no faith in any of the teaching unions to protect the pay and conditions of members at this stage. The CPA itself actually introduced pay cuts by the back door - working additional hours for no extra remuneration is a pay cut no matter what way you dress it up.

Being 100% honest, can you not see that this country cannot afford wages at the level that they are? (Not just teahcers, right across the board)
Unions have to work within world of reality.

Powerhouse

kippy wrote: »

Being 100% honest, can you not see that this country cannot afford wages at the level that they are? (Not just teahcers, right across the board)
Unions have to work within world of reality.

In the context of finance, 'reality' is merely an artifical construct agreed between payer and payee, whether that is someone buying/selling a good or negotiating wages. Among the sub-plots here is the 'reality' that the government has decided to pay some people €240 a week dole for doing nothing (not unaturally the payees have agreed to this) - and this was with no union involvement.

A very civilised way of a nation treating its most vulnerable citizens, and all the rest of it, but that's almost a €1,000 a month net - which is as much/nearly as much as many teachers on 'hours' will be paid in the coming year. At a certain price point the government is faced with the 'reality' that they have to choose whether to pay people to work or to do nothing. While the government leaves social welfare untouched it's not as simple 'take what you are given and be glad of it' however superficially attractive an argument it might be.

And the 'working poor' are the same people who live in a 'reality' where fuel prices have doubled in the past couple of years and the government is dreaming up new taxes by the day to take money off them. The same people who are learning the fallacy of the the economic 'reality' that when money supply lessens prices fall - (Economics 101 ain't all its cracked up to be when you think about it.)

Reality is a many headed hydra - best not to chuck the term about without understanding its complexity and expect everyone to stand to attention.

kippy

Powerhouse wrote: »

In the context of finance, 'reality' is merely an artifical construct agreed between payer and payee, whether that is someone buying/selling a good or negotiating wages. Among the sub-plots here is the 'reality' that the government has decided to pay some people €240 a week dole for doing nothing (not unaturally the payees have agreed to this) - and this was with no union involvement.

A very civilised way of a nation treating its most vulnerable citizens, and all the rest of it, but that's almost a €1,000 a month net - which is as much/nearly as much as many teachers on 'hours' will be paid in the coming year. At a certain price point the government is faced with the 'reality' that they have to choose whether to pay people to work or to do nothing. While the government leaves social welfare untouched it's not as simple 'take what you are given and be glad of it' however superficially attractive an argument it might be.

And the 'working poor' are the same people who live in a 'reality' where fuel prices have doubled in the past couple of years and the government is dreaming up new taxes by the day to take money off them. The same people who are learning the fallacy of the the economic 'reality' that when money supply lessens prices fall - (Economics 101 ain't all its cracked up to be when you think about it.)

Reality is a many headed hydra - best not to chuck the term about without understanding its complexity and expect everyone to stand to attention.

If the dole were cut to half it's current rate and social welfare extras cut by the same, the country would still be approximately 5 billion short of balancing the books.
That's reality.

Powerhouse

kippy wrote: »

If the dole were cut to half it's current rate and social welfare extras cut by the same, the country would still be approximately 5 billion short of balancing the books.
That's reality.

That's not reality - that's an extreme form of delusion which believes you can change one side of the equation and avoid unintended consequences for the other.

Dole is money which is usually spent in its entirity by recipients so it is very useful active money which usually goes quickly back to the government in the form of VAT receipts and general cash-flow in the economy. Half that and you torpedo tax-receipts commensurately.

The same argument goes a significant way to negating arguments (though they are usually too unpopular with the "There.Is.No.Money" brigade to be articulated) for continual public-sector pay cuts - you get to the stage where the benefits on one side of the balance sheet are offset by the damage to the other. We probably are at that stage now.

This is, unfortunately for all of us, an infinitely more complicated issue than you appear to realise.

TheDriver

I suppose its hard sometimes when you see parents on the dole driving up the gates in nice cars, nice clothes, affording lots of cigarettes and holidays. Worse again is when parents can't come to school because they "are busy" i.e. working. And don't get me started on Cheltenham when they talk about how much their Dad won on the horses...........

But then again, there are plenty who struggle on the money

To ensure it does go back to the Govt, maybe food cards etc would be the better way to go where nothing can be spent in bookies, travel agents etc.

kippy

Powerhouse wrote: »

That's not reality - that's an extreme form of delusion which believes you can change one side of the equation and avoid unintended consequences for the other.

Dole is money which is usually spent in its entirity by recipients so it is very useful active money which usually goes quickly back to the government in the form of VAT receipts and general cash-flow in the economy. Half that and you torpedo tax-receipts commensurately.

The same argument goes a significant way to negating arguments (though they are usually too unpopular with the "There.Is.No.Money" brigade to be articulated) for continual public-sector pay cuts - you get to the stage where the benefits on one side of the balance sheet are offset by the damage to the other. We probably are at that stage now.

This is, unfortunately for all of us, an infinitely more complicated issue than you appear to realise.

Its not really. Ultimately, the country is spending more than it earns.
That has to be balanced.

Powerhouse

kippy wrote: »

Ultimately, the country is spending more than it earns.
That has to be balanced.

Welcome to 2008.

kippy

Powerhouse wrote: »

Welcome to 2008.

So it's okay to continue borrowing 15 Billion (ish) per annum? You really think someone is gonna keep financing us like that over the long term?
(the deficit in 2008, wasnt actually as bad as it is now)

Powerhouse

kippy wrote: »

So it's okay to continue borrowing 15 Billion (ish) per annum? You really think someone is gonna keep financing us like that over the long term?
(the deficit in 2008, wasnt actually as bad as it is now)

You are completely missing the point. You are also falling into the trap of attempting to 'solve' the problem simply by restating the problem.

First of all, what you are saying is not new - everybody in the country realises that there is a problem with the public finances. That's what my 'welcome to 2008' reference was meant to convey - it's old news.

The point is that the deficit will not be solved by cutting. It's a mathematically attractive idea but unfortunately (as I alluded to earlier)the economy is far more complicated than a mathematical equation. For every economic measure that is taken there is a commensurate reaction throughout the economy. That's why, past a certain point, cutting won't work.

Put simply, if you take too much money out of the economy you reduce spending power/demand. Thereby reducing the level of business taking place. Thereby reducing income from taxes. Thereby reducing government revenue, and ending up with by and large the same deficit with which you started.

That was tried here in the mid '80s - it didn't work then and it won't work now. If things were as simple as you suggest and the solution so obvious we'd be home and dry at this stage. You can posit all the fantastic figures you like and ask me the greatest six-markers you can think of, but what you are suggesting just does not work because of the dual economic effect.

kippy

Powerhouse wrote: »

You are completely missing the point. You are also falling into the trap of attempting to 'solve' the problem simply by restating the problem.

First of all, what you are saying is not new - everybody in the country realises that there is a problem with the public finances. That's what my 'welcome to 2008' reference was meant to convey - it's old news.

The point is that the deficit will not be solved by cutting. It's a mathematically attractive idea but unfortunately (as I alluded to earlier)the economy is far more complicated than a mathematical equation. For every economic measure that is taken there is a commensurate reaction throughout the economy. That's why, past a certain point, cutting won't work.

Put simply, if you take too much money out of the economy you reduce spending power/demand. Thereby reducing the level of business taking place. Thereby reducing income from taxes. Thereby reducing government revenue, and ending up with by and large the same deficit with which you started.

That was tried here in the mid '80s - it didn't work then and it won't work now. If things were as simple as you suggest and the solution so obvious we'd be home and dry at this stage. You can posit all the fantastic figures you like and ask me the greatest six-markers you can think of, but what you are suggesting just does not work because of the dual economic effect.

So you continue to borrow, hoping for the best (I realise that "cutting" isn't the entire answer, but at some point cuts are required) income is certainly not improving at a fast enough rate to ensure we can run the economy without IMF intervention.

We are in an EU/IMF programme, ultimately they will be calling the shots and unfortunately, at some point, they are going to request a reduction in public sector spending, right now wages are about the only thing that can take a further cut.
The mid 80's didn't see a deficit of 15+Billion and a national debt increasing by a similiar amount annually.
People were getting taxed at over 60 also.
I'm not saying that we shouldnt learn any lessons from it, but you obviously don't appreciate the level of sh1t this country is in. (Neither do the government for that matter, chosing to try wait it out for as long as possible and avoid the tough decisions)

(The solution is that obvious by the way, reduce spending, increase income)
The problem in the way is politics.

Powerhouse

kippy wrote: »

at some point cuts are required

What an utterly ludricous comment to make at this stage of the discussion. Nobody has suggested otherwise. Not sure about your pay but mine certainly has been cut significantly in the last few years* - that 'some point' was passed quite some time ago.

Powerhouse

TheDriver wrote: »

I suppose its hard sometimes when you see parents on the dole driving up the gates in nice cars, nice clothes, affording lots of cigarettes and holidays. Worse again is when parents can't come to school because they "are busy" i.e. working. And don't get me started on Cheltenham when they talk about how much their Dad won on the horses...........

But then again, there are plenty who struggle on the money

To ensure it does go back to the Govt, maybe food cards etc would be the better way to go where nothing can be spent in bookies, travel agents etc.

My favourite one along these lines was hearing about the ex-student of my school who boasted to a teacher that he works three days a week, draws the dole, gets rent allowance despite living at home (and laughs uproariously while telling the stories of his occasional interviews with the authorities to confirm his arrangments) and is (inevitably) in Poland at the moment - a trip which I considered by could not afford.

I am also fascinated by lads in my school who don't have a text-book ('cause me ma can't afford it') but answer my question as to how they can afford a chicken fillet roll from Spar for their lunch every day by saying that's different as they (the rolls) are "addictive" (evidently the school books are not, which I suppose is just as well or they'd have a 'claim' against the government).

But I suppose it makes the point I was making earlier - if you give free money to some people at least it goes straight back into the economy immediately.

kippy

Powerhouse wrote: »

What an utterly ludricous comment to make at this stage of the discussion. Nobody has suggested otherwise. Not sure about your pay but mine certainly has been cut significantly in the last few years* - that 'some point' was passed quite some time ago.

Why is it ludricous?
You don't see any further salary cuts in the next few years? If you don, you are deluded in my opinion.

bdoo

kippy wrote: »

Powerhouse wrote: »

What an utterly ludricous comment to make at this stage of the discussion. Nobody has suggested otherwise. Not sure about your pay but mine certainly has been cut significantly in the last few years* - that 'some point' was passed quite some time ago.

Why is it ludricous?
You don't see any further salary cuts in the next few years? If you don, you are deluded in my opinion.

Powerhouse has made the point that cutting only works to a point. To further cut teacher pay combined with the cuts to hours would make it more attractive to be unemployed than employed as a teacher.

You seem determined to drive your agenda of cutting public service pay as the answer to all our woes regardless of any argument against it. So in a way my reply is a waste of time.

kippy

bdoo wrote: »

Powerhouse has made the point that cutting only works to a point. To further cut teacher pay combined with the cuts to hours would make it more attractive to be unemployed than employed as a teacher.

You seem determined to drive your agenda of cutting public service pay as the answer to all our woes regardless of any argument against it. So in a way my reply is a waste of time.

I've put forward numerous methods of balancing the books over the past 4 years in various threads. Cutting public sector pay, combined with cutting other payments made by the state is just one part however it is something that will have to be tackled "properly" in the next few years. The cuts in the past were not enough and pensioners were left alone (pretty much).
The argument that cutting pay further will reduce the amount of "spending" in the economy us just crazy, of course people will spend less, but it will save the government millions over the medium term. If this argument were the case all civil servants should be on 100K a year so they can spend more.

I have yet to see ANYONE on this thread point out that if further cuts to salary are not needed, how does one bring the deficit under control?

Powerhouse

kippy wrote: »

Why is it ludricous?

I explained why in my last post. Why do you keep replying without reading and digesting what I have written in reply previously?. You'd save us both a lot of time if you did that. There is nothing new being said here at this stage.

kippy

Powerhouse wrote: »

I explained why in my last post. Why do you keep replying without reading and digesting what I have written in reply previously?. You'd save us both a lot of time if you did that. There is nothing new being said here at this stage.

You are saying that cutting wages is not an efficient way of saving money and that wages have been cut already. I get it.
You seem unwilling to fathom the mess we are in, the fact that we need to borrow 15 billion per annum to support the country and are unwilling to accept that fact that wages WILL be cut again, in fact they HAVE to be cut again. Obviously in conjunction with a number of other cuts/increases.
Teachers wages is just one area for cuts, but surely at times when teachers are seeing increasing class numbers, they must realise that for education it would be better to have more teachers on less pay, that fewer teachers on more pay.

bdoo

kippy wrote: »

Teachers wages is just one area for cuts, but surely at times when teachers are seeing increasing class numbers, they must realise that for education it would be better to have more teachers on less pay, that fewer teachers on more pay.

And how would that save Money? pay twice the number half the money? same amount of money.

bring all those into the net for medical cards etc. because of their low income then... that should work.

kippy

bdoo wrote: »

And how would that save Money? pay twice the number half the money? same amount of money.

bring all those into the net for medical cards etc. because of their low income then... that should work.

It wouldn't necessarily save money if done on a like for like basis but it would:
Lead to smaller classes and higher employment (with a few obvious spin off positives), both of those, I am sure you will agree are a good thing.

bdoo

kippy wrote: »

bdoo wrote: »

And how would that save Money? pay twice the number half the money? same amount of money.

bring all those into the net for medical cards etc. because of their low income then... that should work.

It wouldn't necessarily save money if done on a like for like basis but it would:
Lead to smaller classes and higher employment (with a few obvious spin off positives), both of those, I am sure you will agree are a good thing.

I agree alright very worthy in theory but the pupil teacher ratio doesn't work as simply as it sounds. Even you can see the error of all the cuts it seems. But yet you call for more?

spurious

Small Irish country towns with up to four second level schools being funded by the DES, duplicating resources all over the place.
How that is seen as sustainable, I really don't know.

kippy

bdoo wrote: »

I agree alright very worthy in theory but the pupil teacher ratio doesn't work as simply as it sounds. Even you can see the error of all the cuts it seems. But yet you call for more?

Of course it works as simply as it sounds. If there are less teachers (caused mainly by retirements) then the ratio has to increase. That's the broad theory and practice of it. Less teachers caused by needs to reduce headcount.
If the governments hands are tied on wages, it goes without saying that.
I am not necessarily calling for anything, in an ideal world salary cuts would not be an option however it is a reality that is going to hit the public service again in the next few years.
Unfortunately pupil teacher ratio has gone up and many teachers out of college are finding it difficult to get work.

kippy

spurious wrote: »

Small Irish country towns with up to four second level schools being funded by the DES, duplicating resources all over the place.
How that is seen as sustainable, I really don't know.

That is a major issue, in the primary school area as well.

Jane98

Anyone know if there has been a decision made regarding allowances for new entrants?

bdoo

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0725/1224320763732.html

No decision yet.