Newly Qualified Teachers Protest

UCDVet

I'm sick of all these 'I want more money protests'.

If you are worth more than X euro per year - get another job. By protesting you are declaring, 'I'm worth more than X euro per year' - so prove it.

This is about as silly as me protesting because nobody will pay 2000k for my used bicycle. I can rant and rave about how great it is and how it should be worth 2000k - but that doesn't change that ultimate fact that it's worth what people will pay.

Fuinseog

mariano rivera wrote: »

I know teachers have to prepare after school


Teachers get what 3 or 4 months holidays a year!


That is the time they can pick up extra cash

there are a variety of different contracts out there.about 5% of new teachers are made permanent in their first year. the other 95% have to make do with contracts of 11 hours or less.

summer is a ball if you are permanent. otherwise its time without work and many teachers are forced to live off social welfare. what job uses you for nine months of the year like that? some schools give you a contract until may and then another one for september. you have to be available for interviews if you want work in september and very often they only given you an hour or two notice for the interview.can you really hold down another job in these circumstances?

Fuinseog

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

In theory, an unqualified teacher without a dip can no longer be employed I think....

they are not supposed to be, but it happens.

Naomh

Fuinseog wrote: »

there are a variety of different contracts out there.about 5% of new teachers are made permanent in their first year. the other 95% have to make do with contracts of 11 hours or less.

summer is a ball if you are permanent. otherwise its time without work and many teachers are forced to live off social welfare. what job uses you for nine months of the year like that? some schools give you a contract until may and then another one for september. you have to be available for interviews if you want work in september and very often they only given you an hour or two notice for the interview.can you really hold down another job in these circumstances?

Any figures available giving the age breakdown of non permanent teachers? Would be interesting to see....

donegal11

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

Training for primary teachers or those undertaking education degrees is at least 3 years long.

All degrees are at least 3 years long,the way you go on about being qualified would make anyone think you somehow climbed everest, it's not like other professions with massive failure/dropout rates. Does/can anyone fail hibernia for example ? and the B.ed is mostly an arts degree with a few months teaching practice and a few weeks in the Gaeltacht.

Miss Lockhart

donegal11 wrote: »

All degrees are at least 3 years long,the way you go on about being qualified would make anyone think you somehow climbed everest,

No, that's just your own hyperbole - but then I suppose this is AH after all.

I don't care how long it takes to get qualified - it took a lot longer to qualify in my previous profession. I'm simply talking about whether you are qualifed or not. Qualifed as in you are professionally autonomous and responsible and not having somebody sign off on your work.

donegal11 wrote: »

it's not like other professions with massive failure/dropout rates. Does/can anyone fail hibernia for example ? and the B.ed is mostly an arts degree with a few months teaching practice and a few weeks in the Gaeltacht.

Yes, because all other professions have massive failure or dropout rates.

I have no opinions or knowledge of Hibernia. Your opinions of the B. Ed are of no interest to me. I am stating facts, nothing else.

donegal11

Fuinseog wrote: »

there are a variety of different contracts out there.about 5% of new teachers are made permanent in their first year. the other 95% have to make do with contracts of 11 hours or less.

summer is a ball if you are permanent. otherwise its time without work and many teachers are forced to live off social welfare. what job uses you for nine months of the year like that? some schools give you a contract until may and then another one for september. you have to be available for interviews if you want work in september and very often they only given you an hour or two notice for the interview.can you really hold down another job in these circumstances?

Not being Permanent does mean working less then 11 hours. Not being permanent just means not being permanent and hence guaranteed your own hours.

If you work during the year you get holiday pay included which means a teacher would earn 200/160 a day upon graduation . So working 9 months means you get the exact same as a teacher working the same amount of hours over the year plus you can sign on during the summer. So you are not exactly getting used or hard done by.

Miss Lockhart

donegal11 wrote: »

Not being Permanent does mean working less then 11 hours. Not being permanent just means not being permanent and hence guaranteed your own hours.

If you work during the year you get holiday pay included which means a teacher would earn 200/160 a day upon graduation . So working 9 months means you get the exact same as a teacher working the same amount of hours over the year plus you can sign on during the summer. So you are not exactly getting used or hard done by.

You can sign on to keep your "stamps" up but if you worked a full year on the hourly rate you would receive no SW payment.

donegal11

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

You can sign on to keep your "stamps" up but if you worked a full year on the hourly rate you would receive no SW payment.

Depends on the SW office, some get paid wrongly during the summer even though they worked subbing all year.

Miss Lockhart

donegal11 wrote: »

Depends on the SW office, some get paid wrongly during the summer even though they worked subbing all year.

Maybe so - report it if you know this happens, but it's a bit rich to imply they would be legitimately entitled to payment.

donegal11

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

Maybe so - report it if you know this happens, but it's a bit rich to imply they would be legitimately entitled to payment.

Why would I, I'm surprised you never heard of teachers receiving dole during the summer even when worked all year, and as I said wrongly, I never said they were entitled to the money.

Miss Lockhart

donegal11 wrote: »

Why would I, I'm surprised you never heard of teachers receiving dole during the summer even when worked all year, and as I said wrongly, I never said they were entitled to the money.

I'm surprised you have heard of it.

Teachers working part time hours on the hourly rate can legitimately receive money for part of the summer when their holiday pay runs out - I've never heard a case of a teacher receiving payment if they have worked full hours for the year - and I've been in that situation, as have dozens of others I know.

Your initial post did not state they received it "wrongly" (bolded or otherwise) - so the implication was they could sign on and be paid, all above board. I mean, I could say college students can sign on for summer holidays - but it would be dishonest and disingenuous of me to do so - even though I know of several who have done so and received payment "wrongly".

vamos!

Naomh wrote: »

Any figures available giving the age breakdown of non permanent teachers? Would be interesting to see....

Doubt it. I am heading for 30, did not come to teaching late and am covering yet another career break. Will be (hopefully!) starting somewhere new again in September, probably part-time or another career break. Let's say I get 16 of my own hours... I will need to work 4 years in the same school to get a CID of 16 hours at the ripe old age of 34. Hoping in the meantime my hours don't get cut and that my job will be viable for the next few years. 34 is the best-case scenario for my getting job security. It could be longer That would be 11 years after I started teaching, 11 years of being afraid to buy a house or start a family in case I have to move to Cork or Donegal for work the following year, 11 years of having amazing holidays but being too afraid to leave the country in case a last-minute interview pops up, 11 years of feeling physically ill with anxiety from May to almost the end of August. Not all unemployed or part-time teachers are spoiled young pups straight from college with a sense of self- entitlement!
*I do not know many NQTs like this by the way!

fatherted1969

Amazing the way the vultures are circulating around these newly qualified teachers. The problems arent with these its the teachers that are on twice the money that is the problem. The sooner this Croke park agreement is taken on again the better. I'd sooner have a highly motivated new teacher teaching my children than some of these untouchables that are there at the moment

Brain Stroking

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

Secondary teachers don't have a dip year. I have no idea about primary.

Can you answer my question about the professional autonomy and responsibility of trainee accountants and solicitors?

Certainly. As someone who used to be a trainee solicitor i can assure you that much work is done without any supervision. Whole litigation files are handled unsupervised. That is the autonomy aspect. The main difference is that a trainee solicitor cannot be sued as he/she will not have professional indemnity insurance. Otherwise i worked alone and reached the conclusion to a lot of files.

Mr.Opti

vamos! wrote: »

Let's say I get 16 of my own hours... I will need to work 4 years in the same school to get a CID of 16 hours at the ripe old age of 34. Hoping in the meantime my hours don't get cut and that my job will be viable for the next few years. 34 is the best-case scenario for my getting job security. It could be longer That would be 11 years after I started teaching, 11 years of being afraid to buy a house or start a family in case I have to move to Cork or Donegal for work the following year, 11 years of having amazing holidays but being too afraid to leave the country in case a last-minute interview pops up, 11 years of feeling physically ill with anxiety from May to almost the end of August. Not all unemployed or part-time teachers are spoiled young pups straight from college with a sense of self- entitlement!
*I do not know many NQTs like this by the way!

Moot point - That is the same as anyone else and not only for teachers. People can loose their jobs or others can only get short term contracts so they can be moving every where.

Again anyone who is looking for a job has the same problem with interviews therefore another moot point

2011abc

fatherted1969 wrote: »

I'd sooner have a highly motivated new teacher teaching my children than some of these untouchables that are there at the moment

Untouchables?!Thats a good one !You think ALL teachers havent had savage pay cuts?We did NOT gain nearly as much as other jobs during the boom so why should WE pay for the bust?Stop swallowing government lies and propaganda.Teachers salaries are about 46% of the Dept of Ed's budget NOT 80%.

vamos!

Mr.Opti wrote: »

Moot point - That is the same as anyone else and not only for teachers. People can loose their jobs or others can only get short term contracts so they can be moving every where.

Again anyone who is looking for a job has the same problem with interviews therefore another moot point

Is it as widespread as in teaching though? I only have anecdotal evidence but my non-teacher friends are settled in skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled jobs. Even the primary teachers have some form of panel rights. It seemst o just be the secondary teachers moving all over the place, among my circle of friends anyway. I think the issue of 'hours' instead of jobs and discrepencies in hiring system need to be addressed ASAP. I am sure there are sectors where employers spread one job among 3 or 4 people, but I can;t think of many skilled jobs where this is becoming the norm. I am not quite sure why the protesters decided to focus on 32k as a figure. I was also not at all impressed with some of the people who spoke to the media. On the other hand, I was happy to see people willing to protest at inequality. I just think it backfired by focusing on only money and making it look like all teaching graduate head into permanent, full-time positions earning'only' 32k.

Brain Stroking

2011abc wrote: »

We did NOT gain nearly as much as other jobs during the boom

You work in the civil service. Stop being silly and enjoy the perks that it affords.

Brain Stroking

vamos! wrote: »

I just think it backfired by focusing on only money and making it look like all teaching graduate head into permanent, full-time positions earning'only' 32k.

It focussed on money because money was the primary concern.

Mr.Opti

vamos! wrote: »

Even the primary teachers have some form of panel rights. It seemst o just be the secondary teachers moving all over the place, among my circle of friends anyway. I think the issue of 'hours' instead of jobs and discrepencies in hiring system need to be addressed ASAP. I am sure there are sectors where employers spread one job among 3 or 4 people, but I can;t think of many skilled jobs where this is becoming the norm. I am not quite sure why the protesters decided to focus on 32k as a figure. I was also not at all impressed with some of the people who spoke to the media. On the other hand, I was happy to see people willing to protest at inequality. I just think it backfired by focusing on only money and making it look like all teaching graduate head into permanent, full-time positions earning'only' 32k.

Primary teachers have the panel if they previously had a full position in the school and they left, school lost a teaching position because of numbers etc...

I thought that the problem was the earning and only found out it was in fact the hours after reading this forum.

Japer

Rasheed wrote: »

I actually can't get over their cheek to be honest.

Complaining about €32,000 a year? After 3/4 years in college?

Again, I thought I was missing something, it seems mental that they think they are being hard done by.

the country is truly f****d when a spoiled segment of society think the world owes them a living, and that they are entitled to a starting salary of 32k a year and short working weeks and loads of holidays.
Their employer - the country - is bust. Do they still think its 2005?

Mervyn Crawford

It is completely reactionary to split workers by section. Whether within a particular group, as with new and established teachers. Or between groups - teachers and the rest; public versus private; etc.

However, it should be noted that the main facilitators of sectionalism are the unions! Union bureaucracies inherently defend sectional interests; and foster grades in the workplace so as to divide and encourage narrow self-interest as opposed to class conciousness.

http://wsws.org/articles/2012/oct2012/teac-o26.shtml

Zulu

2011abc wrote: »

...so why should WE pay for the bust?

:rolleyes: Indeed. You shouldn't have to. We should all just shoulder the burden without you, and we should all pay more so you can enjoy a more lavish lifestyle.

Catch a hold of yourself. The reason you pay: your employer has gone bust. Didn't you get the memo?

Japer

As someone else said, protesting at not being paid enough (even though it's a fine wage, more than most people and a wage they could live comfortably on), is just whinging. Many teachers I know make a fortune on the side doing nixers like grinds, running summer sports courses etc. Not a loss on them.

kincsem

I've tuned up my littlest violin and am ready to moan like everyone. When I studied chartered accountancy it was five exams during a five year training contract (or you could do a B Comm or similar, plus three years training and the final two exams.) Pay started at £4 a week (most of it went on busfares to work), rising to a staggering £17 a week in my last year. I had passed my final exams and was still on £17 for the last five months of the contract. Nobody offered me an allowance for my qualification when I started my first job after the training contract. Nobody gave increments.

I live on a cul-de-sac with a school at the top of the road. Since I moved here about 25 years ago I notice a big car park has been built in the school (primary school.) I guess the pupils don't drive. Perhaps the teachers are not so badly paid? Teachers have time to generate extra income doing grinds, state exam supervision, and marking state exam papers. My father was a teacher and did all of these.

Icepick

gosplan wrote: »

Do go on.

best paid (per hour) - http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0912/1224323911843.html
bad results - http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/education/latest-news/how-schools-are-letting-down-our-young-children-3227280.html & http://www.independent.ie/national-news/youth-unemployment-rate-hit-almost-40pc-last-year-3181380.html

evolving_doors

Mr.Opti wrote: »

Starting pay of 32k is very high for a graduate especially now and anyone who disagrees needs their head examined.

From reading this thread its the lack of hours that people are complaining about?!? Right?
Then why didn't protest the lack of hours / part time work and not complaining about money when they have no right to?

Simple

The Unions made a botch of it trying to argue for pay rates back up to established teachers, as some pathetic attempt to say they're concerned about the profession.

I'll hazard a guess that those harangued into attending were from teacher training colleges who havn;t a clue what's going on, given their misinformed comments from the vox pops.

evolving_doors

kincsem wrote: »

I've tuned up my littlest violin and am ready to moan like everyone. When I studied chartered accountancy it was five exams during a five year training contract (or you could do a B Comm or similar, plus three years training and the final two exams.) Pay started at £4 a week (most of it went on busfares to work), rising to a staggering £17 a week in my last year. I had passed my final exams and was still on £17 for the last five months of the contract. Nobody offered me an allowance for my qualification when I started my first job after the training contract. Nobody gave increments.

As a matter of interest what's your current pay? I think the same applies for people in the legal profession starting out, but when they are established I;m sure they don;t go hungry...

As regards allowances, it's a legacy issue that had become part of core pay..

kincsem wrote: »

I live on a cul-de-sac with a school at the top of the road. Since I moved here about 25 years ago I notice a big car park has been built in the school (primary school.) I guess the pupils don't drive. Perhaps the teachers are not so badly paid? Teachers have time to generate extra income doing grinds, state exam supervision, and marking state exam papers. My father was a teacher and did all of these.

Maybe parents drive...

I'd hazard a guess that your father is not a newly qualified teacher then... got full hours/full pension .. had a PROPER CAREER with normal contact time with pupils. His situation which you mention is moot as you're talking about teachers in the past... Do you think NQT's "generate extra income doing grinds, state exam supervision, and marking state exam papers"... not a hope.

evolving_doors

Icepick wrote: »

best paid (per hour) - http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0912/1224323911843.html
bad results - http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/education/latest-news/how-schools-are-letting-down-our-young-children-3227280.html & http://www.independent.ie/national-news/youth-unemployment-rate-hit-almost-40pc-last-year-3181380.html

So basically your saying that it's ok to hire a teacher and give them maybe 6 hours a week and live off it? Your figures are based on the assumption of full hours on old rates. That situation does not exist anymore...

Also your second point about bad results (which has nothing to do with teaching ability, given that teachers are required to teach religion), are you suggesting if they were paid less then this would improve standards...

What's the obsession with "I'm entitled to a full time job"? Plenty of people get hired on part time work only. That's how it goes

evolving_doors

bluewolf wrote: »

What's the obsession with "I'm entitled to a full time job"? Plenty of people get hired on part time work only. That's how it goes

Would you have faith in a part time doctor/nurse/dentist/guard?

Who would you pick to teach your kids...

(A) a part time teacher who's been on half hours for ten years moving from school to school subbing and never been given higher level exam classes..

(B) Permanent teacher who's had a chance to build their skills.

Education is not the same as other careers in the private sector.

kincsem

Armelodie wrote: »

As a matter of interest what's your current pay? I think the same applies for people in the legal profession starting out, but when they are established I;m sure they don;t go hungry...

As regards allowances, it's a legacy issue that had become part of core pay..



Maybe parents drive...

I'd hazard a guess that your father is not a newly qualified teacher then... got full hours/full pension .. had a PROPER CAREER with normal contact time with pupils. His situation which you mention is moot as you're talking about teachers in the past... Do you think NQT's "generate extra income doing grinds, state exam supervision, and marking state exam papers"... not a hope.

I am retired. I was lucky to get early retirement on 1/2 pension at age 56. I paid 20% contributions for 15 years to get to that pension. The company closed two years later. One of the benefits of working there was three years without a pay increase during the Celtic Tiger in that loss-making company. My current pension is about half of a teacher's starting salary (and no annual increases.)

Parents do drive to the school on my road. When they drop off the children and leave, the car park is still full.

My father spent some years working around the country (Mayo, Monaghan, Louth) before he got a permanent position in the midlands in his early 30s. He died a few years ago.

evolving_doors

Japer wrote: »

As someone else said, protesting at not being paid enough (even though it's a fine wage, more than most people and a wage they could live comfortably on), is just whinging. Many teachers I know make a fortune on the side doing nixers like grinds, running summer sports courses etc. Not a loss on them.

Wake up, the protest was a sham,,, the Unions made a botch of it as some type of tokenism to teachers starting out...The real issue is teachers now applying for hours instead of a job..

take a look at educationposts.ie and look at the number of permanent jobs going (and consider that these jobs are already spoken for but the employer has to advertise).

Would you say to traffic warden to come into work 1 hour today 3 hours tomorrow and maybe I'll give you a ring if another few hours come up...could you live on these wages... Do you see what is happening.

evolving_doors

kincsem wrote: »

I am retired. I was lucky to get early retirement on 1/2 pension at age 56. I paid 20% contributions for 15 years to get to that pension. The company closed two years later. One of the benefits of working there was three years without a pay increase during the Celtic Tiger in that loss-making company. My current pension is about half of a teacher's starting salary (and no annual increases.)

You talk about "teachers starting salary" do you accept that only 5% of teachers are actually on this so called "starting salary".

kincsem wrote: »

Parents do drive to the school on my road. When they drop off the children and leave, the car park is still full.

I take your point so, teachers are getting paid too much and the evidence is that they drive cars... oh no we woldn;t want that now would we

kincsem wrote: »

My father spent some years working around the country (Mayo, Monaghan, Louth) before he got a permanent position in the midlands in his early 30s. He died a few years ago.

Now consider if your father was in his 40's and still not on full hours and still travelling around the country... nothing wrong with this then eh.

kincsem

Armelodie wrote: »

You talk about "teachers starting salary" do you accept that only 5% of teachers are actually on this so called "starting salary".

Please supply a link.

delta_bravo

kincsem wrote: »

I live on a cul-de-sac with a school at the top of the road. Since I moved here about 25 years ago I notice a big car park has been built in the school (primary school.) I guess the pupils don't drive. Perhaps the teachers are not so badly paid? .

Wow this is one of the most stupid arguments on this thread. Did all the cars have four tyres too? Overpaid wastrels the lot of them, next you'll be telling us the have radios in their car and other frivolous luxuries that are only the preserve of overpaid civil servants.

evolving_doors

kincsem wrote: »

Please supply a link.

Sorry meant 10% ...Here

Also given that salaries in other countries are being mentioned on this thread (not taking costs of living into account of course!!!)
"The 2008 OECD Teaching and Learning in Schools Study (TALIS) found that 73% of Irish second-level teachers are in permanent employment – one of the lowest figures in the OECD."

Now, given that that study was in 2008, and given the amount of hours that have been split from permanent retiring teachers and divvied up between two or more teachers (as is the practice), I'd estimate that that figure of 73% has definitely gone down.

Do you think it's ok to have teaching as a part-time profession? If so then fair enough, in the near future parents should have fun trying to keep track of who their children's 'current' teachers are...

canned_ulkc

I'm an NQT and I hope you'll forgive me for not reading most of what has been said so far. I didn't read it because it's predictable.

People will always look at these issues from their own point of view rather than an objective one. In order to be objective about this topic one must take a "swings and roundabouts" approach. I'll try to do that....

According to gradireland.ie graduate starting salaries are in the region of €24-26K. For teachers the starting salary is €30,702 (not €32K as quoted earlier in the thread).

Here's comes the swings and roundabouts.....
In the private sector, graduates tend to start a career on full time work, with a contract. NQT teachers don't. Since graduating in August I've had 2 weeks of work and one unsuccessful interview that was like a class reunion.
In the private sector a graduate will sign a 6-9 month contract if not more - a teacher will get "sure we'll ring you again if we need you" and you go home hoping someone will get sick... soon....
In the private sector you're unlikely to get solid job security. In teaching there is job security - once you've slogged for 5 or 6 years kissing ass and hoping to get a CID.
In the private sector your pay is linked to your performance. And so it should be in teaching - however, I have yet to see a model that could do this.
In the private sector, graduate salaries are being kept artificially low due to the prolific use and abuse of internship schemes.
In teaching you either do a degree which incorporates your education qualification or you do a 3 year post graduate teaching diploma - i.e. the idea that you go teaching after 3/4 years is BS - it's 4 or 7 years depending on the subject/route chosen.

Often people point at teachers' working hours (I can already imagine your eyes rolling). I can understand this perception to an extent however, this is often looked at in a certain way which means it draws more fire than deserved. Teachers are contracted to contact hours and expected to be prepared and deal with all there is around those contract hours in order to deliver the completeness of education that they should.
If you can't accept that preparation and assessments etc is time that should be paid for then you'd have to wonder about an architect's bill when they arrive on site for a few moments at key times of a house build. You could wonder why you're paying a structural engineer to do some math before just getting his hands dirty on some steelworks....

There is a lot more around the working hours thing obviously - a long summer, mid terms etc. But I ask you, is it education you're after or babysitting?

Now to make it subjective and maybe set some context of the above also.
I've worked in the private sector for 12+ years. I took a voluntary redundancy and went to college to do 4 years and now here I am. In the private sector I had a few jobs, one of which was unionised, all of which paid me more than the starting teaching salary despite being qualified to LC only.

It's a fact that having had this experience that I realise the worth of teaching. The responsibility of teaching is greater than what my responsibility was in the private sector and as such, I feel I deserve more than I earned in the private sector.

Now, the reality is that there are some very strange things happening in this country. For some reason the public have allowed themselves to be blinkered. The government has artfully driven a wedge between public and private sector allowing comments like "what are they complaining about" when the real comment should be "create some f*cking jobs and stop paying off unsecured bondholders - then stop these companies abusing so called internship programmes"

In saying all that, there is much about our education system I would love to see change. Much of which should be aimed at the taxpayer getting better value from our education system. I am not adverse to working more days in the year in order to do that either. In particular I think it very possible to do a better job than has been suggested in JC reform by adding just a couple of days to each teacher's work year for visiting other schools in an attempt to cross check results for JC program.

Much could be done if only the DES would actually engage with teachers. There was no consultation on the JC reform and look at the response that's getting from unions.

Mr.Opti

canned_ulkc wrote: »

It's a fact that having had this experience that I realise the worth of teaching. The responsibility of teaching is greater than what my responsibility was in the private sector and as such, I feel I deserve more than I earned in the private sector.

Thats subjective and you haven't mentioned what job you had. If your taking this as a category then Nurses, Gardai should be paid more. Structural engineers should be paid more because of the responsibility etc... So

steddyeddy

It is an important job and there are many hard working teachers; but I think the union can often be the worst enemy of the teachers.

kincsem

Thanks for the link Armelodie. That is a report by the ASTI.

The report may be sincere:
under the "Reasons for choosing teaching as a career" 4% said salary and 2% said pension,
also "Young teachers are keenly aware of the effects of changes to entry level salaries. The majority (82%) considered that changes to employment conditions for new entrants to the public service would deter graduates from choosing teaching as a career."

Everyone wants a secure, high paid job. I started work at 19 and I began what I considered my permanent, pensionable job at age 41 and retired from that at age 56. That is the real world.

Japer

Mr.Opti wrote: »

Structural engineers should be paid more because of the responsibility etc...

but should a structural engineer be paid more than a mechanical or electronic engineer? I do not think so.
there should be other factors in determining reward ; for example risk taken, training and skill necessary, etc.
In most countries those who go in to safe, pensionable secure jobs are paid less than those who take risks, work hard , show initiative etc. Thats what makes the free market system work / capitalism work.

canned_ulkc

Mr.Opti wrote: »

Thats subjective and you haven't mentioned what job you had. If your taking this as a category then Nurses, Gardai should be paid more. Structural engineers should be paid more because of the responsibility etc... So

Yes, it is indeed subjective. I thought that would be clear by specifically including the words "I feel" and limiting it to my experiences.

The comment was meant to address the ever-present notion of what a graduate deserves as pay and my already admitted subjective opinion of what I feel the responsibility is worth.

I made no link with Gardai, Nurses etc either. You are making that link and I fail to see how you can link my words to those professions. IMO renumeration should be linked with responsibility and ability.

I'd be happy to address whatever point you're trying to make but I can't see what it is so please clarify.

In terms of the jobs I previously worked at.... Again, considering I was addressing the ever present point of graduate wage I don't really think that matters. I wasn't a graduate when I worked in the private sector.


@Steddyeddy - absolutely right. The unions are complicit in what goes on in the public sector.

@kincsem - for so many years the job people kicked into after school or college became their career. during the celtic tiger this was not the case. Upskilling is a favourite buzzword for government. I thought I was upskilling but here I am, defending a profession I'm not really even in but am committed to (not financially but maybe ethically [not the right word but I love teaching and education so here is where I want to be]), pushing myself to get to somewhere I can make some form of effort. In the mean time, whether the conditions and pay are right where they are I'm sure anyone with an ounce of sense can see how the 2 tier system is not at all healthy and in any work, while workers feel aggrieved the "product" suffers.

coillsaille

Could a teacher on here explain why they believe a newly qualified accountancy teacher or chemistry teacher deserves a better salary than a newly qualified accountant or scientist in the pharma industry?

Because neither an accountant nor a scientist has to deal with people actively trying to prevent them from doing their job on a daily basis.

To clarify what I mean, take a secondary teacher based in a school where many of the kids are from a "lower socio-economic background" and/or coming from dysfunctional family situations. An average class in such a school will contain 5 to 10 students out of 25 who have the sole aim of disrupting the class and preventing the teacher from doing his/her job. Changes in education in the last 10 years mean such students cannot just be kicked out of class (as was done when I was in school). So the teacher often has no choice but to try to teach the others while also attempting to handle the aggression and antagonism of the disruptive ones. What accountant or scientist has to put up with anything like this every day in their office or lab?

I'm not saying give teachers more money, I just found the point above rather silly.

Mr.Opti

canned_ulkc wrote: »

I made no link with Gardai, Nurses etc either. You are making that link and I fail to see how you can link my words to those professions. IMO renumeration should be linked with responsibility and ability

Pretty easy to see my point and you've backed it up with what's highlighted and they are jobs that therefore you think should be paid more because of the responsibility

PaddyORuadhan

Just sped read this forum.......

all I can say is PEOPLE COP ON....

The ruling classes and financial elites are laughing their heads off.

They are playing divide and conquer.

Employed vs. Unemployed

Public vs Private sector

New Starts vs Established employees.

Immigrant vs 'Native' workers.

Meanwhile they are not suffering, they are not seeing the working conditions undermined. They are not struggling to pay bills.

Instead of arguing.... oh the private sector is facing insecurity... therefore the public sector should face insecurity.

We should be marching side by side saying we all deserve stable secure well paying jobs, and that we should not face austerity and insecurity so that the elites of this country and across Europe can have their gambling debts paid off.

Teachers didn't cause this crisis
Librarians in your local library didn't cause the crisis
The person manning a counter in a tax office or dole office didn't cause this crisis.
as much as the person working in the tesco down the way... or in the factory in the industrial estate, or the unemployed brickie or carpenter didn't cause the crisis

Direct your anger and frustration to those that deserve it. The rich and powerful in this country that have wrecked it, yet have not been asked to be held accountable for doing this.

Japer

coillsaille wrote: »

Because neither an accountant nor a scientist has to deal with people actively trying to prevent them from doing their job on a daily basis.

but theyt sometimes face challenges teachers do not. They also typically work longer hours / get less holidays than teachers. And as regards "responsibility", do you think taxi drivers and bus drivers and lollipop ladies ( people in charge of road / zebra crossings near schools ) should be paid more than accountants and scientists, because they have more "responsibility"?

canned_ulkc

Mr.Opti wrote: »

Pretty easy to see my point and you've backed it up with what's highlighted and they are jobs that therefore you think should be paid more because of the responsibility

Mr Opti, No actually, I haven't seen your point - I'm not trying to avoid your question either, I just don't see a direct question. I'd prefer not to bore any other reader with that so if you're not willing to take me as genuine when I say I don't understand your point then I'd prefer you not suggest I am being disingenuous and stick in another cryptic clue.

I'll try though to answer what I think may be your point.
Gardai - have a very different job to teachers and nurses
Nurses - have a very different job to teachers and gardai
Teachers - have a very different job to gardai and nurses

This does not mean that the level of responsibility is different. For a nurse, it's medical, for a teacher - educational, future economy, for a Garda - public safety. All very different. An engineer? I'll put them in as a general graduate position and maybe you should read my original post again - IMO a private sector graduate starting their job is worth more than what is currently being paid. I have also alluded to some of the reasoning for this - the devious use of "internships" within the private sector.

Unfortunately due to unions who are focused in a certain way and a government who is more concerned with getting treats from europe/imf by rolling over there is little space for creativity in trying to deal with public sector pay right now.

coillsaille

Japer wrote: »

but theyt sometimes face challenges teachers do not. They also typically work longer hours / get less holidays than teachers. And as regards "responsibility", do you think taxi drivers and bus drivers and lollipop ladies ( people in charge of road / zebra crossings near schools ) should be paid more than accountants and scientists, because they have more "responsibility"?

"Responsibility"? I didn't mention the word once in my post, with or without inverted commas.

I was referring to challenges which teachers (well those dealing with rooms full of difficult teenagers) face on a daily basis.
This was in reply to another post arguing that completely different jobs should have similar salaries, despite the work involved in each job having nothing in common. You seem to follow the same "logic".