Haddington Road Discussion ASTI/TUI/Non Union at Second Level

Villain

Not union members are classed outside HRA so that means at present ASTI members can't sign up so your statement is redundant

Peter Flynt

Villain wrote: »

Not union members are classed outside HRA so that means at present ASTI members can't sign up so your statement is redundant

No they're not. . . Non union members are classified as being in or out of HR depending on what type of school they're in.

whiteandlight

Whether members can or can't move or should leave is not necessary to a HR discussion and just causes agro. Please feel free to start a new thread on that topic, or the numbers who voted yes/no in the different ballots.


I expect to see a simple concession given to get the ASTI, the easiest is possibly to reduce the s and s to its original number of hours. It's a straightforward climb down and it can be argued by the government that it's not a concession as the work will still be done for free instead of paid

Villain

Peter Flynt wrote: »

No they're not. . . Non union members are classified as being in or out of HR depending on what type of school they're in.

Well in mixed union schools non members are outside HRA

Peter Flynt

Musicmental85 wrote: »

Nobody can move union.

And both yes and no voters have the right to have their opinion heard at branch meetings.

Yeah but the YES people LOST.......and some have now started turning up at branch meetings (for the first time in some cases) because they cannot accept the result.

Imagine going down to the bookies and backing a loser. . . .and then returning seeking to have the race re-run.

Peter Flynt

Villain wrote: »

Well in mixed union schools non members are outside HRA

No. . .it depends on the type of school they're in.

whiteandlight

It is perfectly acceptable for all members of a union to have their own opinion. Yes or no camp.

While I'm not a fan of the latest Irish trait of re-running ballots until the result is 'correct'. The situation has changed quite significantly. ASTI is the only union in the country to reject and particularly now that TUI have accepted it is reasonable for people to be concerned that a yes vote is possibly the only way forward now. I don't agree with it, but I understand

Peter Flynt

Musicmental85 wrote: »

I expect to see a simple concession given to get the ASTI, the easiest is possibly to reduce the s and s to its original number of hours. It's a straightforward climb down and it can be argued by the government that it's not a concession as the work will still be done for free instead of paid

. . .and I'd campaign for the THIRD time for a NO vote.

whiteandlight

Peter Flynt wrote: »

. . .and I'd campaign for the THIRD time for a NO vote.

Which is your right to do. But equally others would have the right to speak for a yes vote

Peter Flynt

Musicmental85 wrote: »

It is perfectly acceptable for all members of a union to have their own opinion. Yes or no camp.

While I'm not a fan of the latest Irish trait of re-running ballots until the result is 'correct'. The situation has changed quite significantly. ASTI is the only union in the country to reject and particularly now that TUI have accepted it is reasonable for people to be concerned that a yes vote is possibly the only way forward now. I don't agree with it, but I understand

Mad stuff altogether. . . Why bother running ballots then?

Come the revolution. . . You won't be leading it - I'd say that's safe to say.

God forbid that anyone should take an independent decision and fight a cause on their own as the paddies don't do protest.

Peter Flynt

Musicmental85 wrote: »

Which is your right to do. But equally others would have the right to speak for a yes vote

How many NO results are required before a NO is accepted?

Will the third ballot be re-run if it's a YES?

whiteandlight

Peter Flynt wrote: »

Come the revolution. . . You won't be leading it - I'd say that's safe to say.

If this is related to me which I assume it is, I have already stated I do not agree with re-running ballots. I do not agree with HR as I have made perfectly clear.

However I do not have an issue with members speaking/turning up at a union meeting. I view that as a positive, at least members are awake and paying attention.

Peter Flynt

Musicmental85 wrote: »

If this is related to me which I assume it is, I have already stated I do not agree with re-running ballots. I do not agree with HR as I have made perfectly clear.

However I do not have an issue with members speaking/turning up at a union meeting. I view that as a positive, at least members are awake and paying attention.

Of course it's nice to see some people taking an active role in their unions. . . .some for the first time in their careers.

I've no doubt they'll fück off again when they get the result they want.

"See you in three years" when they come back scabbing for more money.

Villain

What about the young teachers who signed up to the ASTI and want to sign up to HRA for many reasons including CID after 3 years are the older members going to listen to them?

whiteandlight

Peter Flynt wrote: »

Of course it's nice to see some people taking an active role in their unions. . . .some for the first time in their careers.

I've no doubt they'll fück off again when they get the result they want.

"See you in three years" when they come back scabbing for more money.

Right I've made my point and I'm done with the tit for tat.

As a moderator I will warn you that you are already on a red card and using language and deliberately inflammatory language will result in a ban. There is no need for it

Peter Flynt

Musicmental85 wrote: »

As a moderator I will warn you that you are already on a red card and using language and deliberately inflammatory language will result in a ban. There is no need for it

Off you go. . .Ban me!

What's stopping you?

Sorry you want to ban people who you don't agree with.

Vote YES.


Poster banned. Please think twice everyone before you post. Stay on topic and do not resort to personal abuse

fall

teacherhead wrote: »

In an ideal world every absence that attracts substitution would be covered by a sub. It's not always easy to get subs in to cover. Wherever it's doable we would get a sub or give the hours to someone who is part time but in some cases IT has to be covered by voluntary supervision.

There is nothing to say it can't be covered by s&s, in fact the department would say that you should make full use of the s&s scheme before getting a sub. It is my view that we should pay a sub when subbing is available but like I said it can't always be done.

Actually if you read the FAQ s on the department website s and s is to cover uncertified leave and the first day of force majeure or family leave. I think this should be enforced. S and s should not be used for certified leave as there is payment available as the leave is certified. The unions should issue a directive in this.

Miss Lockhart

Villain wrote: »

What about the young teachers who signed up to the ASTI and want to sign up to HRA for many reasons including CID after 3 years are the older members going to listen to them?

I'd say they are as likely to listen as the older (or more correctly the more secure) members of TUI were to listen to younger (less secure) members who wanted a NO vote as a part time CID isn't good enough when the trade off is no subbing to supplement income due to S&S changes.

Also, your point about short term pain is nonsense. ASTI members are worse off in terms of finances and security outside this agreement but they still want to be able to fight the detrimental changes being brought in under this agreement. The short term monetary pain would be alleviated for many by agreement but the long term damage it will cause is not worth it.

acequion

Villain wrote: »

I think people are a little deluded if they believe the Government are going to give anything, the agreement isn't going to change when the TUI have accepted it. The most I would expect is clarifcation which might highlight some benefits and then a recast of votes but this isn't Bertie time and the unions need to get real the agreement is some short term pain.

It's high time the Irish Government got real and start to respect the result of a democratic ballot instead of bullying for a different result.

It's also high time they got real and realised that their narrow focus on austerity and balancing books is doing long term damage to this country.

The fact of the matter is that a majority of ASTI voters rejected HR for a number of very real reasons. Ceding to pressure from some sort of cartel of JMB, NAPD and Independent newspapers is disrespecting that result.

Nothing has changed,folks.The HRA represents a savage assault on working conditions,though TUI people have to live with it now.But ASTI people don't. So, I would appeal to all ASTI members reading this to stand firm!!

deiseindublin

implausible wrote: »

I reckon that'd be worth a thread of its own.

Yeah, great idea for a thread. Would love to see good use of the CP hours, pita having to be there but at least if I felt they benefited the school in some way they wouldn't stick in my gut so badly.

deiseindublin

Also, where would I find some info on teachers providing substitute cover when their own class is out on Work Experience?

I have it in the back of my head that we are only to provide cover when our colleagues are out with said pupils, at a match, exhibition, tour etc. I thought that Work Experience was different because there is no teacher that I need to substitute for.

If anybody has a link or somewhere I could look for it I'd appreciate it.
Thanks.

teacherhead

fall wrote: »

Actually if you read the FAQ s on the department website s and s is to cover uncertified leave and the first day of force majeure or family leave. I think this should be enforced. S and s should not be used for certified leave as there is payment available as the leave is certified. The unions should issue a directive in this.

I agree that a sub should be used but as I said before its not always possible. S&s should cover all uncertified leave and and the first day of both other types of leave as outlined above in addition to the other types of leave but its not compulsory to get a sub.

I could not agree that a directive should be issued as this would cause schools to close if a sub is not available. Thats not a good place to go iny opinion unless there is a subs panel that exists where a condition of membership is tgat you attend a school when requested to sub even if its only for an hour or two in th e whole day.

teacherhead

deiseindublin wrote: »

Also, where would I find some info on teachers providing substitute cover when their own class is out on Work Experience?

I have it in the back of my head that we are only to provide cover when our colleagues are out with said pupils, at a match, exhibition, tour etc. I thought that Work Experience was different because there is no teacher that I need to substitute for.

If anybody has a link or somewhere I could look for it I'd appreciate it.
Thanks.

Well if theres a match on or something and a teacher is out fir that making you free you can be asked to cover that as far as I know.

teacherhead

REASSIGNMENTWITHIN TIMETABLEDHOURS Incircumstanceswhereateacheristimetabledfor aclassperiod(s)withagroupofstudentsthatare participatinginanoutofschoolactivitywhich requirestheabsencefromschoolofanotherteacher orteachers,theteachermaybereassigned,in accordancewithhis/hertimetable,tofacilitatethat absence

Theres the quote from the original croke park agreement. Sorry about the way IT pasted I'm on the phone. Google TUI croke park agreement.

If this is clarified that you can't cover while a class is away on work experience IT means that acolleague will have to cover under s&s. If theres not s&s left and you won't cover it where aRe we then?

Pwpane

Article on TUI website:
http://www.tui.ie/news-events/teachers-frustrated-by-overly-bureaucratic-professionally-demeaning-usage-of-33-hours.4735.html

I wonder would this be some of what Pat King has in mind:

Speaking today, TUI President Gerard Craughwell said:

“In too many cases, the manner in which the 33 hours are being used in schools and the constraints that apply to that usage are regarded by our members professionally demeaning. This sense of frustration and professional slight at the bureaucratic and coerced nature of the usage of the hours is growing with each passing week. Too often, management appear to display more of an obsession with ticking off these blocks of time rather than ensuring that the resource is of any real benefit in supporting education within the school............During the negotiations that led to the Haddington Road Agreement in May 2013, the TUI and our colleagues in the ASTI were at pains to impress upon the Department of Education and Skills the need for a more creative, imaginative and educationally useful and valid application of the 33 hours.

At least, they also criticised the NAPD's recent statement:

On a not entirely unrelated matter, it is most unhelpful that the National Association of Principals and Deputies (NAPD) has chosen to offer unsolicited comment on industrial relations issues in recent days.

I'm worried about what Pat King is planning to talk to the DES about. Apparently he's concerned about educational matters. I would agree, if it's teacher assessment within the new Junior Cert.

That wouldn't be enough for me though. The 33 hours would want to remain gone and any S&S would want to remain paid.

Otherwise, leave well enough alone. It's quite enjoyable, a little harking back to the way things were just a few years ago.

endakenny

Pwpane wrote: »

Article on TUI website:
http://www.tui.ie/news-events/teachers-frustrated-by-overly-bureaucratic-professionally-demeaning-usage-of-33-hours.4735.html

I wonder would this be some of what Pat King has in mind:


At least, they also criticised the NAPD's recent statement:


I'm worried about what Pat King is planning to talk to the DES about. Apparently he's concerned about educational matters. I would agree, if it's teacher assessment within the new Junior Cert.

That wouldn't be enough for me though. The 33 hours would want to remain gone and any S&S would want to remain paid.

Otherwise, leave well enough alone. It's quite enjoyable, a little harking back to the way things were just a few years ago.

Then you should lobby Mr King, via your ASTI representative, for discretion to be allowed in the 33 hours, which would not be a prima facie change to HRA.

Pwpane

teacherhead wrote: »

REASSIGNMENTWITHIN TIMETABLEDHOURS Incircumstanceswhereateacheristimetabledfor aclassperiod(s)withagroupofstudentsthatare participatinginanoutofschoolactivitywhich requirestheabsencefromschoolofanotherteacher orteachers,theteachermaybereassigned,in accordancewithhis/hertimetable,tofacilitatethat absence

Theres the quote from the original croke park agreement. Sorry about the way IT pasted I'm on the phone. Google TUI croke park agreement.

If this is clarified that you can't cover while a class is away on work experience IT means that acolleague will have to cover under s&s. If theres not s&s left and you won't cover it where aRe we then?

This must be source of the recent ASTI position statement that was included with the directives.

It was obviously considered necessary to put in written form into an an agreement that if your class was taken away by another teacher, that you can be called on to substitute for that teacher. They didn't even get near to calling on you to be available for general substitution if you have a free class because your students are gone on work experience.

Of course there is no onus on you to be available for general substitution work. I assume you're already on the list for S&S, and you can't be asked to increase that. If there is insufficient cover for S&S for any particular period, then that should have been addressed at the start of the year - it has nothing to do with you.

If there is a unexpected problem on a particular day, it could be covered on a goodwill basis, on the understanding that there will a quid pro quo at some later stage, or the Principal / DP could stand in.

fall

teacherhead wrote: »

I agree that a sub should be used but as I said before its not always possible. S&s should cover all uncertified leave and and the first day of both other types of leave as outlined above in addition to the other types of leave but its not compulsory to get a sub.

I could not agree that a directive should be issued as this would cause schools to close if a sub is not available. Thats not a good place to go iny opinion unless there is a subs panel that exists where a condition of membership is tgat you attend a school when requested to sub even if its only for an hour or two in th e whole day.

There are lots of schools with teachers on small contracts who are available to supervise. The s and s roster is being used instead of paying these teachers for additional hours. That is the issue I have. The directive could state that if a part time teacher is available that they must be offered the hours. I never want a school to close but I also have a huge issue with teachers on 6 and 7 hour contracts. Substitution is relied on by these teachers to survive.

endakenny

Villain wrote: »

What about the young teachers who signed up to the ASTI and want to sign up to HRA for many reasons including CID after 3 years are the older members going to listen to them?

They'll find their jobs not worth doing if they have to assess their own pupils' academic ability under the new Junior Cycle curriculum. In such a case, they'd be better off going to Canada or Australia.

Pwpane

endakenny wrote: »

Then you should lobby Mr King, via your ASTI representative, for discretion to be allowed in the 33 hours, which would not be a prima facie change to HRA.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'discretion' - unless in the use of them? The 33 hours are part of HRA as they were part of CP1, according to Mr Quinn not a tittle of HRA shall change.

Non-payment of S&S is also part of HRA.

Villain

endakenny wrote: »

They'll find their jobs not worth doing if they have to assess their own pupils' academic ability under the new Junior Cycle curriculum. In such a case, they'd be better off going to Canada or Australia.

That is your opinion which you are entitled to but I think a lot of young graduates who are looking for any kind of security would be very happy to do that rather than emigrate.

endakenny

Pwpane wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by 'discretion' - unless in the use of them? The 33 hours are part of HRA as they were part of CP1, according to Mr Quinn not a tittle of HRA shall change.

Non-payment of S&S is also part of HRA.

That's exactly what I mean. Schools should be allowed to decide what is done during the 33 hours.

endakenny

Villain wrote: »

That is your opinion which you are entitled to but I think a lot of young graduates who are looking for any kind of security would be very happy to do that rather than emigrate.

Are they not concerned about the wider education system?

Villain

endakenny wrote: »

Are they not concerned about the wider education system?

The system is a joke tbh I work in I.T. and the eduction system is at least 10 years behind the economy, the knowledge economy that is talked about is nonsense and when you look at the resistance to HRA changes you would almost give up hope of any real change unless the economy booms again and we can pay teachers to change. I have to change and adapt to the requirements of my employer every day, I've seen big pay cuts over the past years and increased work load from someone who is looking in from outside and engaged to a part time teacher I think HRA is a fair deal but doesn't go enough to allow change.

endakenny

Villain wrote: »

The system is a joke tbh I work in I.T. and the eduction system is at least 10 years behind the economy, the knowledge economy that is talked about is nonsense and when you look at the resistance to HRA changes you would almost give up hope of any real change unless the economy booms again and we can pay teachers to change. I have to change and adapt to the requirements of my employer every day, I've seen big pay cuts over the past years and increased work load from someone who is looking in from outside and engaged to a part time teacher I think HRA is a fair deal but doesn't go enough to allow change.

The problem is that the extra 33 hours consist mostly of bureaucratic meetings, meaning that teachers have less time for extra-curricular activities that are beneficial to pupils

Pwpane

endakenny wrote: »

That's exactly what I mean. Schools should be allowed to decide what is done during the 33 hours.

I agree.

But that has nothing to do with HRA, or 'resolving' our 'dispute'.

endakenny

Pwpane wrote: »

I agree.

But that has nothing to do with HRA, or 'resolving' our 'dispute'.

The 33 hours were part of CPA and, by default, are part of HRA.

Pwpane

endakenny wrote: »

The 33 hours were part of CPA and, by default, are part of HRA.

As I said. No matter, we're going around in circles.

You seem to think that changing the use of the CP hours would be an incentive to teachers to accept HRA.

These hours were a nuisance and caused annoyance and frustration, even a feeling of being disrespected. But they didn't add to my workload or make my job more difficult. I do admit that relaxing the rules for using them could make my job easier.

From my viewpoint, however, these hours had already been accepted. They weren't an issue in the rejection of HRA except as an undercurrent of dissatisfaction.

Far more important in the rejection was S&S and the requirement to comply with change in the light of recent and future initiatives, some of which seemed to need no consultation.

Relaxing the rules on the use of the CP hours is an interesting thought, but wouldn't change the fundamentals on acceptance or rejection of HRA - which is what I meant by 'nothing to do with it'. It wouldn't solve the problem.

f3232

So it goes, in little Ireland the dissenting voice is marginalized. The conservative don't rock the boat brigade standing up for establishment. Afraid to show passion afraid to say like it is. As teachers we are getting screwed and the guy who is pointing that out most clearly gets it in the neck on here.

Shame. its little wonder our unions are so emasculated.

spurious

Since you're a relatively new poster f3232, please remember if you have a problem with a moderator's decision there is a proper Dispute Resolution Process.
Please do not discuss moderator decisions on thread.

acequion

Villain wrote: »

The system is a joke tbh I work in I.T. and the eduction system is at least 10 years behind the economy, the knowledge economy that is talked about is nonsense and when you look at the resistance to HRA changes you would almost give up hope of any real change unless the economy booms again and we can pay teachers to change. I have to change and adapt to the requirements of my employer every day, I've seen big pay cuts over the past years and increased work load from someone who is looking in from outside and engaged to a part time teacher I think HRA is a fair deal but doesn't go enough to allow change.

This whole attitude that we absolutely must keep doing more for less really infuriates me and it's the citizens who are doing the Government's bidding by facilitating the race to the bottom. I champion the rights of workers to have decent pay and working conditions and it's very annoying to have to keep arguing as if that wasn't a fundamental right.

Teachers have taken pay cuts, teachers have agreed to do more for less, teachers constantly embrace change,new timetables, new classes, new students, new components on the curriculum. Teachers are constantly having to adapt,upgrade,use new work practices and teachers are ok about that,but for many,the HRA is a step too far.If the Government want to go that far,then yes teachers should be paid more,as all workers should, when the work burden increases and job description changes so dramatically.Why would anyone have a problem with that? And please don't spin "the country is broke" line.If there is enough money around to be paying people like Ruari Quinn a pension since he was in his 30's, there's enough money to treat workers with dignity!

Oh and to be clear. This is not about money.We'll stay with what pay we have and even less.We don't want HR, because we feel that enough is enough.

acequion

Pwpane wrote: »

As I said. No matter, we're going around in circles.

You seem to think that changing the use of the CP hours would be an incentive to teachers to accept HRA.

These hours were a nuisance and caused annoyance and frustration, even a feeling of being disrespected. But they didn't add to my workload or make my job more difficult. I do admit that relaxing the rules for using them could make my job easier.

From my viewpoint, however, these hours had already been accepted. They weren't an issue in the rejection of HRA except as an undercurrent of dissatisfaction.

Far more important in the rejection was S&S and the requirement to comply with change in the light of recent and future initiatives, some of which seemed to need no consultation.

Relaxing the rules on the use of the CP hours is an interesting thought, but wouldn't change the fundamentals on acceptance or rejection of HRA - which is what I meant by 'nothing to do with it'. It wouldn't solve the problem.

I agree. While we resented those hours, we went along with them and would have continued to do so. However I heard, from a source within the union, that that's what Pat King is focusing on and I'm worried. I,too would want to see him holding out for major concessions to S&S and junior cycle reform.

We definitely need to lobby our Standing Committee reps.

implausible

I was attended a TUI meeting at which John MacGabhann was present and some of what he had to say about the present situation was very interesting. On CP hours, he referred to the Dept knowing full well that these coerced hours are not being well used. The union wrote asking for a change in usage and the reply from the Dept was that there would be a review outside of HRA and JMG added "it may form part of what allows ASTI back into discussions."

On JC reform, he reminded us that as it is not covered under HRA, TUI can take industrial action against its implementation. We can't take action against the syllabus, but we can act if the Dept plans to start inservice without any detail of the mechanics of its implementation.

acequion

implausible wrote: »

I was attended a TUI meeting at which John MacGabhann was present and some of what he had to say about the present situation was very interesting. On CP hours, he referred to the Dept knowing full well that these coerced hours are not being well used. The union wrote asking for a change in usage and the reply from the Dept was that there would be a review outside of HRA and JMG added "it may form part of what allows ASTI back into discussions."

On JC reform, he reminded us that as it is not covered under HRA, TUI can take industrial action against its implementation. We can't take action against the syllabus, but we can act if the Dept plans to start inservice without any detail of the mechanics of its implementation.

Thanks implausible. When was that meeting?

teacherhead

Unfortunately reform around here = more work. Not different work or better work or better teaching and better learning just more hours.

Until the department changes the mentality that time spent in the school building improves schools we will never get anywhere.

Red Hare

A headline in tomorrows paper should read " Millions of hours are being wasted in schools doing meaningless work instead of extra curricular work "

f3232

implausible wrote: »

I was attended a TUI meeting at which John MacGabhann was present and some of what he had to say about the present situation was very interesting. On CP hours, he referred to the Dept knowing full well that these coerced hours are not being well used. The union wrote asking for a change in usage and the reply from the Dept was that there would be a review outside of HRA and JMG added "it may form part of what allows ASTI back into discussions."

On JC reform, he reminded us that as it is not covered under HRA, TUI can take industrial action against its implementation. We can't take action against the syllabus, but we can act if the Dept plans to start inservice without any detail of the mechanics of its implementation.

With all due respect tough talking now, or making protestations etc is a bit lame at this point from Mr Macgabhann.

implausible

Meeting was on Thursday.

f3232 wrote: »

With all due respect tough talking now, or making protestations etc is a bit lame at this point from Mr Macgabhann.

Fair enough, but I am so fed up of listening to the blame game about no recommendation and who voted for what, that it was refreshing to hear about doing something from within the agreement.

km79

acequion wrote: »

I agree. While we resented those hours, we went along with them and would have continued to do so. However I heard, from a source within the union, that that's what Pat King is focusing on and I'm worried. I,too would want to see him holding out for major concessions to S&S and junior cycle reform.

We definitely need to lobby our Standing Committee reps.

If that's the basis on which he is going to "negotiate" we will be better off if he stays away

implausible

It sounds to me like they're close enough on their positions (MacGabhann + King.) Talks could hinge on the dept engaging on JC reform and reviewing the use of the CP hours in exchange for acceptance of HRA.

Another thing that JMG referred to was the lack of a budget to pay s/s in 2014. Everyone knows that it is not going to be paid, so negotiations are going to have to focus on something else.