Teachers union on rte news last night

femur61

Geuze wrote: »

A teacher's pay is made up of three elements.

Basic pay + degree allowance + H.Dip.Ed. allowance.

Also, you may be looking at the new, 10% lower scales.

On the old scales, with an honours degree and a honours H.Dip.Ed, starting at point 3, the salary was about 40k.

Please explain to me why someone is called a teacher and then getting a H.Dip.Ed allowance?

Isn't a teacher a teacher or not?

amacca

MysticalRain wrote: »

Does it not occur to you that it was inflated salaries during the boom which helped drive up the cost of those services and inflation in general?

yes.........now if you re-read my post does it occur to you that

I'm not simply arguing for keeping inflated wages but I am arguing that if we are making a comparison to finland...lets make a fair like for like one taking into account all of the factors at play (a lot more than just wage levels) - not simply that students of finnish teachers rank higher in the pisa stats while the teachers themselves get paid less..... therefore irish teachers must be worse with no reference to the environment they operate in etc.......its lowbrow stuff tbh and reeks of people with chips on their shoulders to me

(as an aside, despite the fact inflated salaries drove up costs, those costs do not seem have not come down in line with drops in wages in both public and private sectors albeit to differing degrees so perhaps its more than just salaries that need to be tackled.......I dont care what the consumer price index says btw ......I know from my own budget that the cost of living has increased if you take into account insurance, fuel etc etc......as far as I can see one of the few things that have come down significantly in price is the cost of buying a house outright and even then not enough imo)

antoobrien

padser12345 wrote: »

If you think the Teachers pay is high .....go to the TUI website and look at the Benefits!!! 26 Weeks Maternity Leave PAID.......that's approx. 20 weeks more than the national industrial average.



Brings a whole new meaning to cloud cuckoo land, eh?

You're the only one that's in cloud cuckoo land buddy, that's a statutory benefit available to all women in employment.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/employment_rights_and_conditions/leave_and_holidays/maternity_leave.html

If you become pregnant while in employment in Ireland, you are entitled to take maternity leave. The entitlement to a basic period of maternity leave from employment extends to all female employees in Ireland (including casual workers), regardless of how long you have been working for the organisation or the number of hours worked per week. You can also avail of additional unpaid maternity leave. The Maternity Protection Act 1994 and the Maternity Protection (Amendment) Act 2004 provide your statutory minimum entitlements in relation to maternity at work including maternity leave.

If you start maternity leave on or after 1 March 2007, you are entitled to 26 weeks’ maternity leave together with 16 weeks additional unpaid maternity leave.

Under the Maternity Protection (Amendment) Act 2004 at least 2 weeks have to be taken before the end of the week of your baby's expected birth and at least 4 weeks after. You can decide how you would like to take the remaining weeks. Generally, employees take 2 weeks before the birth and the remaining weeks after. If you qualify for Maternity Benefit (see below) at least 2 and no more than 16 weeks must be taken before the end of the week the baby is due.

Sleepy

anto, there's a huge difference between "26 weeks maternity leave" and "26 weeks paid maternity leave"

Maura74

paddy147 wrote: »

Retired teachers being rehired is not helping out anyone.

Its taking away jobs and positions from the young generation of teachers who are looking for a teaching job or position.

Why pay retired teachers, they should give their services free as it is supposed to be a vocational occupations, these teachers that was well paid with a good pension should give back a little of their expertise free that they gained over the years.

PhoenixParker

antoobrien wrote: »

You're the only one that's in cloud cuckoo land buddy, that's a statutory benefit available to all women in employment.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/employment_rights_and_conditions/leave_and_holidays/maternity_leave.html

As Sleepy said, there's a big difference between maternity leave and paid maternity leave.

Teachers get full pay, as do the rest of the public sector.
In the private sector, you are entitled to the same time off, but very few employers offer full pay, most people get the government payment (maternity benefit) which I think is E270 a week.
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/social_welfare_payments_to_families_and_children/maternity_benefit.html

folan

amacca wrote: »

not to mention backup in terms of discipline, support services, equipment and class sizes

So you are agreeing that if we made more money available for support services, equipment and class sizes, it would be ok for teachers to be paid less, a point I've made along with a couple of other posters a couple of times.

antoobrien

Sleepy wrote: »

anto, there's a huge difference between "26 weeks maternity leave" and "26 weeks paid maternity leave"

PhoenixParker wrote: »

but very few employers offer full pay

I have not heard of anyone in any of the companies I have worked for not getting 26 weeks paid leave (all private companies).

Sleepy

Tbh, I'd be the opposite, none of the companies I've worked for (Software companies) have had paid maternity leave. Obviously the ladies got their maternity benefit and some of the companies used to allow an extra few weeks unpaid leave if they wanted to take it but it's not something I've personally seen outside of PS, semi-states or former semi-states.

antoobrien

Sleepy wrote: »

Tbh, I'd be the opposite, none of the companies I've worked for (Software companies) have had paid maternity leave. Obviously the ladies got their maternity benefit and some of the companies used to allow an extra few weeks unpaid leave if they wanted to take it but it's not something I've personally seen outside of PS, semi-states or former semi-states.

At this stage it must be 10 different companies I've worked for, they've all, had the attitude that it's more bother than it's worth trying to justify not paying it (currently work for a software company, two of my colleagues are just back from fully paid maternity)

folan

Sleepy wrote: »

Tbh, I'd be the opposite, none of the companies I've worked for (Software companies) have had paid maternity leave. Obviously the ladies got their maternity benefit and some of the companies used to allow an extra few weeks unpaid leave if they wanted to take it but it's not something I've personally seen outside of PS, semi-states or former semi-states.

you should join a union that would fight for such paid leave.

Sleepy

No thanks. I'd rather be paid what I'm worth for my job than an aggregate that involves lazier colleagues getting a share of the value I bring to the organisation.

Heroditas

antoobrien wrote: »

I have not heard of anyone in any of the companies I have worked for not getting 26 weeks paid leave (all private companies).

My company gives the mothers full pay for 18 weeks and then they receive the statutory amount for the remaining amount.

Hill Bicks

Simples: Another round of Benchmarking will sort this whole mess out. Link PS pay to the average industrial wage.

bbsrs

antoobrien wrote: »

Sleepy wrote: »

anto, there's a huge difference between "26 weeks maternity leave" and "26 weeks paid maternity leave"

PhoenixParker wrote: »

but very few employers offer full pay

I have not heard of anyone in any of the companies I have worked for not getting 26 weeks paid leave (all private companies).

It depends on the company but nearly all the women I know including my other half got nothing from their employer while on maternity leave and just got the state maternity leave payment of 270 . Most small business's couldn't afford to pay full wages during ML and hire a temp replacement .

juan.kerr

Maura74 wrote: »

Why pay retired teachers, they should give their services free as it is supposed to be a vocational occupations, these teachers that was well paid with a good pension should give back a little of their expertise free that they gained over the years.

Or stay away and give new teachers an opportunity to do the job they trained for.

There should be a blanket public sector / semi state rule that once retired they can't be rehired across the entire public sector / semi state etc in any capacity on any basis. Including election workers etc.

padser12345

antoobrien wrote: »

You're the only one that's in cloud cuckoo land buddy, that's a statutory benefit available to all women in employment.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/employment_rights_and_conditions/leave_and_holidays/maternity_leave.html

Hey anto.....you didn't actually go to the tui website did you??? Don't worry no offence taken......sometimes when I quote this to various people......I do actually have to go back afterwards and check it again, again...


Quote on quote...

Maternity Leave
Maternity leave will consist of 26 consecutive weeks on full pay less any social welfare allowance payable on foot of a n employee’s social insurance. This paid leave is available to all permanent whole-time employees and to temporary whole-time and pro-rata employees.

At the end of maternity leave, an employee will be given the option of:
(a) up to 16 additional weeks without pay, or
(b) leave of absence without pay, to the end of the academic year, subject to discretion of the managerial authority concerned. (For this purpose the end of the school year is the end of August.)

Agreement has been reached between the teacher unions and the Department to give leave during the school term in lieu of holidays that overlap with maternity leave, subject to a maximum of 30 working days.

PhoenixParker

bbsrs wrote: »

It depends on the company but nearly all the women I know including my other half got nothing from their employer while on maternity leave and just got the state maternity leave payment of 270 . Most small business's couldn't afford to pay full wages during ML and hire a temp replacement .

Also, I didn't actually realise that most private companies don't offer pay during maternity leave until my friends started having babies. Up until that point, I assumed that all companies offered full pay during maternity leave, it was something I never even thought to check.

It's something I think everyone should have, I also think couples should have the option to split maternity leave between the mother and the father, but I also think it's something that public service workers seem to have absolutely no appreciation for.

That, the sick pay conditions, the rules around parental leave, the rules around career breaks, the defined benefits pension are all massive benefits worth tens of thousands over the course of a career, above and beyond the simple pay check.

amacca

folan wrote: »

So you are agreeing that if we made more money available for support services, equipment and class sizes, it would be ok for teachers to be paid less, a point I've made along with a couple of other posters a couple of times.

No..I did'nt necessarily "agree" to anything...I made my point, a portion of which would be in line with your statement but certainly that's not my opinion in its entirety

you are simply isolating the bit that suits you and ignoring the bits that you either dont like or you cant summarize into a nice simplistic one sentence solution to a more complex situation

padser12345

antoobrien wrote: »

I have not heard of anyone in any of the companies I have worked for not getting 26 weeks paid leave (all private companies).

Your on a different thread to the rest of us......It's teachers - who mentioned (private companies)

padser12345

antoobrien wrote: »

At this stage it must be 10 different companies I've worked for, they've all, had the attitude that it's more bother than it's worth trying to justify not paying it (currently work for a software company, two of my colleagues are just back from fully paid maternity)

The Thread is about Teachers......stick to the program!

kippy

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'd agree with that but would like to clarify something.
The "guaranteed job in the public sector, immune from cutbacks and layoffs" is long gone. How many cutbacks have there been in the past 4 years, both in salary cuts and indeed in certain types of job?
When the CPA runs out these will happen again, with a straight choice of job cuts for a few or salary cuts for all.

antoobrien

padser12345 wrote: »

Your on a different thread to the rest of us......It's teachers - who mentioned (private companies)

Go back to bed padser, if you woke up and read back a little you'd realise that I was talking about a benefit that is (to my experience) also available in the private sector.

kippy

Also, the arguments on maternity leave are rather strange to say the least.

I don't mind a discussion about wages and paid perks but why is there a race to the bottom here? Paid maternity leave should be available to all women (and it be split with the men as well) it really is a race to the bottom.
Fully paid maternity leave does not cost the state as much as one would think, when you consider it is their wages minus €270 and minus standard taxes etc.

hmmm

On the day when the government announces cuts to elderly and disabled homecare funding, in a brave attempt to prioritise and maintain health service salaries, the teacher unions would be well advised to keep their heads down.

The same unions will march under a banner of Larkin, all while they feather their own nests at the expense of new entrants and the taxpaying public. Do they believe their own rhetoric?

padser12345

kippy wrote: »

Also, the arguments on maternity leave are rather strange to say the least.

I don't mind a discussion about wages and paid perks but why is there a race to the bottom here? Paid maternity leave should be available to all women (and it be split with the men as well) it really is a race to the bottom.
Fully paid maternity leave does not cost the state as much as one would think, when you consider it is their wages minus €270 and minus standard taxes etc.

I fundamentally agree with that! But when you actually work out what may be a fair or standard or adequate measure of time for any Woman and or Man to receive. Put it this way .....if every Man and Woman in the PS and Private Sector and any other sector got the same as the PS.....regarding just maternity leave alone..... now give mean honest answer here.....how much productivity would there be?

Jolly Red Giant

I see Boards is not immune to teacher-bashing like other internet forums.

Some points for clarification -

Pay for newly qualified teachers has been cut dramatically. This is a fact. It is a contributing factor to the drop in the number of students applying to teacher training course this year. The net result will be that the best people will in all likelihood end up looking for a career in a more lucrative field rather than working to educate your children.

I work as a teacher - I earn €628 per week before tax and I take home €429. There are a significant number of teachers who do not have full-time jobs - in my school 15 out of 45 teachers are part-time and most have had their hours cut dramatically this year because of cutbacks. I became a teacher in later life and will have approximately another 15 years before I retire. I will retire with a 'gold plated' pension worth approximately €220 per week (assuming the government doesn't hack the pension to bits in the meantime). Full-time teachers (after a couple of decades of service) get decent wages - for this they work hard in a very stressful job, and operate within a system that is pretty decent for all its flaws. I would expect nothing less for people who work to educate my children.

For decades the best teachers left the education system because they could earn more money in other employment. Fortunately this situation changed in recent years - but now the government and the teacher bashers want to row back the advances that results in many excellent remaining in the education system. As a parent I want my children taught by the best teachers that are available - and I want the teacher to be paid properly for looking after and educating my children. Bankers, spivs and speculators don't deserve to make millions on the back of financial gambling - teachers, doctors, nurses etc deeserve a decent wage. They are the ones looking after the health and welfare of the people in the country.

The education cuts are biting deep this year. I went to secondary school in the 1970s and we had 30 pupils in our class. Today I walked into a classroom with 30 students, then I walked into a different classroom with 30 students and so on for the entire day. The necessity to increase class sizes as a result of government cuts will lead to increased disruption, increased disciplinary proplems, decreased learning and in the wider community increased anti-social behaviour etc. So much for educating our way out of the recession.

The teacher-bashers can go on about the overpaid, underworked, fat, lazy, holiday grabbing teachers (incidently my summer holidays was five days in a holiday cottage in Cork using a pigsback voucher) - but the teacher-bashers have little concern for the education and well-being of the young people in this country.

hmmm

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

the teacher-bashers have little concern for the education and well-being of the young people in this country.

If you were paid more, would this have an impact on the "education and well-being of the young people in this country"? If so, why?

padser12345

antoobrien wrote: »

Go back to bed padser, if you woke up and read back a little you'd realise that I was talking about a benefit that is (to my experience) also available in the private sector.

Yes you said that after you blasted my comment...... my very valid and correct comment you you failed to acknowledge your mistake. I was very gracious to you about your mistake......but now I realise your full of it!

Go back to your cave.... BUDDY!

woodoo

I don't see a problem with new teachers starting on this new rate. The can take the job or they can refuse it. That is their choice.

padser12345

antoobrien wrote: »

Go back to bed padser, if you woke up and read back a little you'd realise that I was talking about a benefit that is (to my experience) also available in the private sector.

Tell me the name of the company in the Private Sector, that has 26 weeks PAID maternity leave PLUS a further entitlement of 16 weeks UNPAID leave

K-9

antoobrien wrote: »

Go back to bed padser, if you woke up and read back a little you'd realise that I was talking about a benefit that is (to my experience) also available in the private sector.

padser12345 wrote: »

Yes you said that after you blasted my comment...... my very valid and correct comment you you failed to acknowledge your mistake. I was very gracious to you about your mistake......but now I realise your full of it!

Go back to your cave.... BUDDY!

Cut it out and grow up.

antoobrien

padser12345 wrote: »

Tell me the name of the company in the Private Sector, that has 26 weeks PAID maternity leave PLUS a further entitlement of 16 weeks UNPAID leave

My one, PM me for the name if you want.

Sleepy

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

For decades the best teachers left the education system because they could earn more money in other employment. Fortunately this situation changed in recent years - but now the government and the teacher bashers want to row back the advances that results in many excellent remaining in the education system. As a parent I want my children taught by the best teachers that are available - and I want the teacher to be paid properly for looking after and educating my children.

Ask any Arts graduate with a H.Dip and they'll be quick to tell you that this is no longer the case. They'll do well to get administrative jobs paying in or around 22k a year in the private sector and most, in this economy, will end up on welfare.

As such, the basic laws of supply and demand mean we no longer need to pay our teachers bubble-time salaries. In fact, the position most newly-qualified teachers are in perfectly demonstrates that we have an over-supply of teachers in the labour market.

The new salary scale is a marked improvement but it's application to new entrants only is inherently unfair: the best trained of our teachers are paid less than their colleagues (if they can even find a position) based on nothing more than a protectionist union. Of course it makes sense that an experienced teacher is paid more than a new entrant but no one can argue that it's fair that the new entrant is paid on a lower scale than someone who simply was lucky enough to get the job before them.

Geuze

Retired teachers = 1 cut to net pension (typical pension = 700pw)

Existing teachers = 2 cuts to pay

New teachers = 3-4 cuts to pay

Where is the solidarity??

folan

Geuze wrote: »

Retired teachers = 1 cut to net pension (typical pension = 700pw)

Existing teachers = 2 cuts to pay

New teachers = 3-4 cuts to pay

Where is the solidarity??

the view to the outside is that the unions in this case dont care about that, or didnt at the time, and looked after themselves.

now their back-pedalling and cross talk is making them look worse, and greedy, to those of us outside the profession.

where is the solidarity indeed?

mikemac1

Geuze wrote: »

Where is the solidarity??

A union is supposed to do most for the weakest members
Or at least that's the noble thing to do

The opposite happened here and the strongest members looked after themselves

No solidarity here

later12

While I agree this is a distasteful situation, the Unions might argue on the other hand that what they did would help minimise financial difficulties like mortgage arrears and other pre-existing commitments of their membership, whereas new graduates would be entering the workforce without such financial burdens, as well as being more likely to be in a position to avail of falls in property values.

I'm not defending them, but there is another side to it. Solidarity can work both ways.

bbsrs

padser12345 wrote: »

antoobrien wrote: »

Go back to bed padser, if you woke up and read back a little you'd realise that I was talking about a benefit that is (to my experience) also available in the private sector.

Tell me the name of the company in the Private Sector, that has 26 weeks PAID maternity leave PLUS a further entitlement of 16 weeks UNPAID leave

The 16 weeks unpaid is available to all women after their 26 weeks of maternity leave , public or private sector .

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/social_welfare_payments_to_families_and_children/maternity_benefit.html

'You can take a further 16 weeks unpaid maternity leave. This period is not covered by Maternity Benefit but you will be entitled to a credited social insurance contribution for each week of unpaid leave you take (up to the maximum of 16).'

Sleepy

later12 wrote: »

While I agree this is a distasteful situation, the Unions might argue on the other hand that what they did would help minimise financial difficulties like mortgage arrears and other pre-existing commitments of their membership, whereas new graduates would be entering the workforce without such financial burdens, as well as being more likely to be in a position to avail of falls in property values.

I'm not defending them, but there is another side to it. Solidarity can work both ways.

Is that not simply an argument for "We made bad decisions, everyone should pay for them" or exactly what unions have been railing against doing for the banks?

I don't think they're in a position to make that argument.

later12

Sleepy wrote: »

Is that not simply an argument for "We made bad decisions, everyone should pay for them"

aka solidarity.

But first, what bad decisions did the Unions make prior to this agreement

It's their job to seek the best possible deal for their members, not to maintain sound fiscal policy. The latter is the role of the Government.

Specifically what previous union decision are you talking about, for which everyone must pay?

antoobrien

later12 wrote: »

Specifically what previous union decision are you talking about, for which everyone must pay?

Preventing benchmarking from being fully implemented. It was supposed to be a two way street but instead we got a box ticking system.

later12

antoobrien wrote: »

Preventing benchmarking from being fully implemented. It was supposed to be a two way street but instead we got a box ticking system.

Again, their job is to get the best deal for their members ; ultimately it was the responsibility of the Government to decide what to do about recommendations or findings of the PSBB and how to implement reform.

Not sure how the benchmarking issue was ultimately a "decision" of the Unions, are you?

Sleepy

later12 wrote: »

aka solidarity.

But first, what bad decisions did the Unions make prior to this agreement

It's their job to seek the best possible deal for their members, not to maintain sound fiscal policy. The latter is the role of the Government.

Specifically what previous union decision are you talking about, for which everyone must pay?

The union members who bit off more than they could chew with regards to property are the ones who made bad decisions and the argument that their younger colleagues should bail them out is the same argument they make about not wanting to "bail out bond-holders"...

murphaph

later12 wrote: »

It's their job to seek the best possible deal for their members, not to maintain sound fiscal policy.

The two things are certainly not mutually exclusive and indeed bear a strong corroboration to each other. That is clear to anyone who takes anything than the shortest of views of the matter. The unions of course are incredibly short sighted, so to them it is this simple: "give us as much money as you can today and to hell with tomorrow".

later12 wrote: »

The latter is the role of the Government.

In a mature society it is the role of all parties at the social partnership table

Social "partnership" has failed Ireland.

later12

Hmm; I'm answering what I imagine the Unions would say in response to the question "where is the solidarity". It seems that in the event of that question being answered the unions would just come in for criticism in promoting solidarity.

Lesson: do whatever you want; people are going to whine either way.

murphaph wrote: »

In a mature society it is the role of all parties at the social partnership table

Social "partnership" has failed Ireland.

Why are you winking at me?

I know social partnership failed. I wouldn't doubt that for a second.

antoobrien

later12 wrote: »

Not sure how the benchmarking issue was ultimately a "decision" of the Unions, are you?

Blocking it was their decision.

I remember hearing a story on the Radio in 2009/2010 (can't remember which). The DSP/DSW trailed a new document processing setup to increase the productivity of the workers in one office. The union agreed. Trial was a success, nobody was put out - there were no extra hours or different training involved - so the department attempted to have it rolled out nationwide. Union says no, we're processing more documents, you'll have to pay us more.

I lost any sympathy for unions when stories like this started popping up the the late 90s.

later12

antoobrien wrote: »

Blocking it was their decision.

Fair enough, that's your opinion.

I for one am delighted that you guys are so understanding of Fianna Fail's impossible position at the time. Blocking it was the Union's decision. Fianna fail were helpless.

antoobrien

later12 wrote: »

Fair enough, that's your opinion.

I for one am delighted that you guys are so understanding of Fianna Fail's impossible position at the time. Blocking it was the Union's decision. Fianna fail were helpless.

The union failed to hold up their side of the deal - reforms. Regardless of the "helplessness" of any government involved in hindsight it appears that they negotiated benchmarking an other "productivity" deals in bad faith.

later12

antoobrien wrote: »

The union failed to hold up their side of the deal - reforms.

What are you talking about specifically here, in a teaching context?

Which stated & refused reforms do you have in mind, for which correction was not possible by Government?