Behaviour at the ASTI conference and Pat King's response

r3nu4l

Note my response to the points raised by Peter Flynt are not necessarily a response directly to him but a comment on the sentiment expressed by him as I'm sure others may feel that I'm 'singling out' Andrew Phelan.

Peter Flynt wrote: »

Have you anything to say which doesn't involve an attack on one person - Andrew Phelan?

Not really, no. It's his behaviour that is the problem here, not necessarily his opinions but how he went about expressing them. That's where I have the problem. I applaud the fact that he can think for himself but not how he chose to raise his objections. It was childish and immature.

Teaching needs more Andrew Phelans.

I think teaching needs zero Andrew Phelan's tbh. Let him stick to his PE classes until he learns how to conduct an argument correctly.

Powerhouse wrote: »

To be honest your repeated use of a person's name and the reference to political affiliation damages your claim to be an 'outsider' with the concomitant 'voice of reason' implication. The motivation behind the ad hominem nature of your comments will, presumably, remain concealed but is poor form.

First off, thanks to Powerhouse for responding with a detailed post. My repeated use of his name is because his is the only name I know and he is the one whose behaviour I find so objectionable. I also referred to those who support him, if I knew their names I'd name them too, however, at least they weren't so boorish as to use a megaphone I really have no other hidden motivation. Apart from having a brother who is a teacher (and some friends of my wife's who are teachers) I've no affiliation to teaching and would certainly not want to be a teacher.

How dare you have the arrogance to say you'd be horrified that someone whose only 'crime' is to be exercised enough about their job to demonstrate to the relevant Minister was to teach you children. Chances are you might instead be lucky if they came into the ambit of someone with principles and a bit of backbone.

Again, had he conducted himself in a less confrontational manner I'd have no problem with him. You can have principles and backbone without resorting to the underhand and low tactics he employed. I'd have more respect for him had he remained silent and instead formed a coherent rebuttal once the Minister had finished speaking. I'm also actually a former pupil of the school in which Andrew Phelan works although he's a desperately young lad so was probably still in his nappies when I attended the school. I'm glad that he is interested enough in his career to be so frustrated with the current situation but he went about it all in the most childish manner possible. It could only have been worse if he'd balled his fists and screamed and cried while rolling on the floor in a tantrum...screaming 'it's not fair, I hate you!' So again I'd rather not have someone like that teaching my children. No sense of decorum or etiquette and an inability to conduct himself appropriately.

On the broader point many people need to be far more mature and politically aware when commenting on the teacher conference. Even Quinn himself, in reference to the incident, said he accepted the nature of robust debate and frankly seemed to have far less of a problem with it than many knee-jerk opinion-givers who inappropriately and lazily try to draw an analogy with a classroom situation.*

Oh Quinn may have accepted that it was 'robust' but again you only have to look at the idiocy in the Dáil where these morons harass one another and shout all over one another as if they are in an episode of Eastenders, they often behave like chavs in suits (unless you are like Ming or Wallace who wear whatever the hell they like).

This is an adult situation where an employer is addressing a union. In the real world - as oppose to the notional one where the Minister is the 'teacher' taking a 'class' - such relationships are often strained.

Ah but he didn't address the Minister in an adult way at all though did he. How often do you shout all over someone else with a megaphone? Perhaps we should all buy megaphones so we can shout someone down when we don't agree with them. Better than to address the points one by one I suppose...

The Gardaí don't even invite the Minister in their area. People need to get a grip on the reality of this situation and stop making lazy comparisons. This sort of thing happens once in a blue moon - civilisation as we know it is hardly threatened.

No but whether you like it or not, Andrew Phelan's actions have damaged the perception of the teaching profession in some people's eyes. Many years ago I shared a house with some teachers and I know what they get up to and how they talk about their pupils so my eyes were opened a long time ago as to how some in the profession behave In fairness to my brother and at least one other teacher I know, they care deeply about the kids they teach, even ones that I would probably hang from a lamp post if I thought I'd get away with it, so that's not me painting all teachers in the same light.

Finally, as a parent myself I would wholeheartedly encourage my children to stand up for themselves if they felt they were the victim of unfair and unjust behaviour. Anyone who has dealt with bullying situations would concur. The idea that you always, irrespective of the circumstances, sit down and be seen and not heard belongs in the dark ages.

You're either putting words in my mouth now, or you didn't comprehend my point. I never said that teachers should sit down and be seen and not heard. I encourage my daughter to stand up for herself. I'm sadly only too aware that as a girl she is already disadvantaged in some areas of life (while being advantaged in others). I'm raising her not just to stand up for herself but for others too and so far, so good, she seems to be learning. However, the manner in how that is done, dictates the person and I abhor Andrew Phelan's methods, if not the message he tried to deliver.

Incidentally, I make that point only to answer the point already made. I think the 'I'm a parent myself' line is a tad conceited (many parents are walking disasters with appalling judgement as many teachers who have to co-exist daily with those young people under their influence will attest, so we would not want to overplay that line and imply that parents have superior judgement) and irrelevant. But if we are going to indulge ourselves on the matter of our parenthood, let it at least be said that not everyone wants to raise a generation of quislings and cap-doffers who know to be seen and not heard.

Again, you are putting words in my mouth and misunderstand my point with the trite and overplayed cap-doffing line. It's true there are many people who should never be parents, let's trot out the cliché about needing a license to own a dog but not to have a child while we're at it.

Equally there are truly terrible teachers out there and in fact I had shining examples of both the best and worst of teachers in Ireland during my time in the school that Andrew Phelan teaches in. One of my teachers put on extra classes for us in Maths and 24 of us got As and 6 got B's in a class that would have otherwise had about 10 A's, a smattering of B's, a few C's and even a couple of D's. His passion and energy inspired us. That same class went on to Leaving Cert Maths and had the most truly abysmal excuse for a teacher I've ever encountered. He spent at least 50% of all classes supervising our 'arm wrestling' games or our games of Poker (long before Poker was fashionable!), telling us stories about his (completely made up) time as a GI in Vietnam and how he used to beat up skinheads on London buses when he worked as a conductor. As a class, in 6th year we barricaded the classroom door one day as a form of protest against him because our complaints went unheard. We were each and every one suspended for two or three days (and I never so much as had a 'booking' before that). We stood up for ourselves and got punished. We weren't seen but not heard and were punished accordingly (and rightfully so imo). Thankfully I've grown up and have learned that that sort of behaviour does nothing to enhance an argument, Andrew Phelan it seems appears to have not yet learned this lesson. Perhaps when he's older he will.

Powerhouse

r3nu4l wrote: »

Oh Quinn may have accepted that it was 'robust' but again you only have to look at the idiocy in the Dáil where these morons harass one another and shout all over one another as if they are in an episode of Eastenders, they often behave like chavs in suits (unless you are like Ming or Wallace who wear whatever the hell they like).

You have a very good line in name-calling for someone who overtly promotes decorum and etiquette, but you make my point for me that this was something and nothing for a government Minister. What Quinn encountered is standard for politicians. This is a fuss only among those with an agenda and those who like to feel morally superior. Of course, few of the same hypocrites criticised a government Minister being shouted down by a group of pensioners at the Mansion House a few years ago.

Ah but he didn't address the Minister in an adult way at all though did he. How often do you shout all over someone else with a megaphone? Perhaps we should all buy megaphones so we can shout someone down when we don't agree with them. Better than to address the points one by one I suppose...

Can you confirm that he was actually afforded the opportunity to address the Minister's point one by one in the manner you suggest?

r3nu4l

Powerhouse wrote: »

You have a very good line in name-calling for someone who overtly promotes decorum and etiquette, but you make my point for me that this was something and nothing for a government Minister. What Quinn encountered is standard for politicians. This is a fuss only among those with an agenda and those who like to feel morally superior. Of course, few of the same hypocrites criticised a government Minister being shouted down by a group of pensioners at the Mansion House a few years ago.

The difference is that in fraught situations I wouldn't be name-calling. In those sorts of situations (and I've been in them), I'm the one who let's others make a fool of themselves with ranting and raving and then I enter into discussion with reason. I may agree with the person doing the ranting but my methods usually have a greater impact and better results.

As to my making your point for you, have you ever heard the phrase 'two wrongs don't make a right'? Just because people in the Dáil are used to this aggressive, bullying behaviour does not mean it's okay. There is also the difference that, in the Dáil, even during the most vociferous discussion, the delegates do not bring megaphones.

Can you confirm that he was actually afforded the opportunity to address the Minister's point one by one in the manner you suggest?

I think we both know that someone who comes to a meeting armed with a megaphone has no intention of engaging in adult behaviour whether afforded the opportunity or not. It's very evident that Phelan went to that meeting with the sole intention of being disruptive and that is the real core of the matter. He had no intention of engaging in any sort of debate or rebuttal, he was there solely to disrupt. Having not been at the meeting I don't know if there was any Q&A session planned. I do know that his Union had an opportunity to comment on what the minister had to say but Phelan took it upon himself to bypass his union. Great discipline there.

I've absolutely no doubt in my mind that you and I are not going to find a level of agreement on this. I find his behaviour disgusting, you seem to find it heroic or noble (?). There are several ways to 'fight da power', many I agree with, many I do not. However, I would hope that deep inside you probably know that even if you agreed with his message, his delivery was overly aggressive, cack-handed and did the 'cause' no favours.

Powerhouse

r3nu4l wrote: »

Powerhouse wrote: »

Having not been at the meeting I don't know if there was any Q&A session planned.

Then why reference the possibility by saying it the points should have been addressed 'one by one'?

r3nu4l

Powerhouse wrote: »

Then why reference the possibility by saying it the points should have been addressed 'one by one'?

I was referring to the general approach to debate that normally occurs but as I've pointed out Andrew Phelan seems to think that he's special and that normal social etiquette doesn't apply to him.

So are you just going to ignore everything else I've said and avoid the arguments and conclusions I've laid out regarding Andrew Phelan's appalling behaviour or are you going to try and pick minor holes in my responses as a way to try and discredit everything else and distract from Phelan's behaviour? I know that this is standard practice in a certain school of argument but it's not really effective.

As I said, I don't really see us coming to any agreement as you appear to emphatically condone Phelan's 'radical' approach. I've made my point, said what I have to say now you tell me why Phelan's behaviour was right, taking into account everything I've said before.

Powerhouse

r3nu4l wrote: »

I was referring to the general approach to debate that normally occurs but as I've pointed out Andrew Phelan seems to think that he's special and that normal social etiquette doesn't apply to him.

But what general approach to debate? The point being made is that Quinn appears to brook no debate, hence a person being driven to such tactics as are being discussed here. The nebulousness of your own response says it all - there appears to be no specific mechanism to address grievances directly and you were being disingenuous in suggesting there was.

You seem to think that the person in question is special too. You can scarcely finish a paragraph without name-checking him. It is no longer credible that you are just a rubber-necking outsider. There's clearly far more at stake for you given how exercised you are by the topic. There can be no other explanation for the consistent personalisation of the issue.

ytareh

Epic trolling (even by boards.ie standards )by 'admin' with near15,000 posts ?!Somebody pinch me I must be dreaming this !
So dissenting teachers should be struck off and recruitment strategies revised to introduce a better class of entrant -maybe from local Ogra Fine Gael branches ? And all this from someone who barricaded themselves into a classroom !?
This stuff is actually getting entertaining !

r3nu4l

Powerhouse wrote: »

But what general approach to debate? The point being made is that Quinn appears to brook no debate, hence a person being driven to such tactics as are being discussed here. The nebulousness of your own response says it all - there appears to be no specific mechanism to address grievances directly and you were being disingenuous in suggesting there was.

Am I right or wrong in thinking that the ASTI has Union people who talk with government and relay the points of their members? If so then why did Phelan stick his oar in with the megaphone and circumvent the union he's presumably a paid-up member of? It appears as though there is a mechanism to address grievances but the man with the megaphone felt that he was the special one who could bypass those mechanisms and use the megaphone to hijack proceedings for himself.

You seem to think that the person in question is special too. You can scarcely finish a paragraph without name-checking him.

As for name-checking him well he was the one with the megaphone, right? Whose name am I supposed to be using? Should I refer to him as 'Megaphone Man'? 'He who shall not be named'? 'The man with the tinny voice?'

As I've repeatedly said...and will keep saying because you seem incapable of understanding, this is not about his message or about his politics, my disgust with him (see I've not namechecked him in this paragraph ) is simply about his method, his manner and his tactics, all of which I find equally abhorrent.

It is no longer credible that you are just a rubber-necking outsider. There's clearly far more at stake for you given how exercised you are by the topic. There can be no other explanation for the consistent personalisation of the issue.

Heh, I live in England and have done for 10 years now. I'm not a teacher, I've no affiliation with teacher's unions and I'm certainly not interested in the politics between unions or between the Government and Unions, I haven't paid tax in Ireland for over 10 years so I don't even care where Irish taxpayers money goes to. I do however work in Communications so my interest here is academic. Phelan chose to deliver his message in a ham-fisted and amateur manner that made him look extremely unprofessional. The man let himself down badly. His method of communication was dire and set a bad example, that's where I have the biggest problem.

I'm not particularly fond of his brand of politics but leaving that aside I feel that he absolutely has a right to convey his message. I simply believe that he did it poorly and set a horrendous example for the children he teaches and damaged the profession as a whole.

I can't make it simpler for you, if you want to believe I'm some sort of TUI/ASTI member or a government 'agent' then fire away

Finally, are you going to try and address my points at all and tell me why you think Megaphone Man was correct in his actions or are you going to continue to try and discredit me or insinuate that I'm some sort of super-secret sleeper agent representing unknown forces of evil and doom? :pac:

If your next post here doesn't try in any intelligent way to actually debate the man's actions then I won't bother responding. Not because I'm running away from the debate but because there is no debate to be had with you (at least not so far) and I won't waste my time with people who aren't interested in tackling the issue but instead seek to sidestep and misdirect.

r3nu4l

ytareh wrote: »

Epic trolling (even by boards.ie standards )by 'admin' with near15,000 posts ?!Somebody pinch me I must be dreaming this !
So dissenting teachers should be struck off and recruitment strategies revised to introduce a better class of entrant -maybe from local Ogra Fine Gael branches ? And all this from someone who barricaded themselves into a classroom !?
This stuff is actually getting entertaining !

I'd rather see teachers with zero political affiliations tbh.

Also, I'm really not trolling. I've yet to see a single reply to any of my posts on this thread actually debate the issue instead of hero worshipping the megaphone man.

Powerhouse

r3nu4l wrote: »

Whose name am I supposed to be using? Should I refer to him as 'Megaphone Man'? 'He who shall not be named'? 'The man with the tinny voice?'

You could discuss appropriate behaviour and other issues in the abstract? I have managed to post five or six times now without mentioning the person's name at all - it's not that complicated. I find it extraordinary that someone so unconnected and apparently unaffiliated regarding the issue would post at such length. Usually such energy is maintained by relevance of a topic to one's self. People will make up their own minds of course.

Incidentally it's not clear to me what more 'debate' there is to be had on 'the man's actions'? There's been enough repetition already don't you think?

r3nu4l

Powerhouse wrote: »

You could discuss appropriate behaviour and other issues in the abstract? I have managed to post five or six times now without mentioning the person's name at all - it's not that complicated. I find it extraordinary that someone so unconnected and apparently unaffiliated regarding the issue would post at such length. Usually such energy is maintained by relevance of a topic to one's self. People will make up their own minds of course.

Incidentally it's not clear to me what more 'debate' there is to be had on 'the man's actions'? There's been enough repetition already don't you think?

I repeatedly name check him for a simple enough reason. He was the one who behaved entirely inappropriately. I don't want to tarnish his Union, nor the profession in general by saying 'ASTI were deplorable' or 'typical of teachers' or any such nonsense. I want it very clear and not in any way misconstrued or misinterpreted as to who I'm talking about. I've already seen in this thread that some people are very, very good at misinterpreting my posts so I'm keeping it crystal clear.

Also, this is about him (Phelan ) and nobody else. His actions. As for repetition, I've yet to see a reasoned or logical narrative that can reasonably defend his crass behaviour. All I see is defensiveness and very partisan posting from people who seem to think that almost any sort of behaviour is acceptable once the message being delivered matches their own beliefs.

Your reply here is yet more side-stepping and misdirection. That's a pity. Well I've said my piece and I stand by it. I knew we would never agree but I was hoping for more.

f3232

As for repetition, I've yet to see a reasoned or logical narrative that can reasonably defend his crass behaviour

See below for an example of logical narrative explaining his actions.

The point being made is that Quinn appears to brook no debate, hence a person being driven to such tactics as are being discussed here.

MrJones1973

No offence but kids some close to 18 do much much worse daily. Of course the Media dont care about such incidents - unless a stabbing occurs as it s did tragically in leeds. Whether Andrew used his mega phone or not would not change the ignoring of the yobbish behavior in schools. We could have politely clapped the minister or sat silently. What exactly did TUI get for that? Nothing. The only thing Mr Quinn will take note of is Industrial action. Plain and simple.

The mega phone is a side issue. Andrew and Fightback have been influential in ASTI and are a welcome shot in the arm to an otherwise " lead me to the slaughterhouse" membership. I didnt think the mega phone was a good idea but its a side issue. Do any of you really think its changed anything? Hardly.

r3nu4l

f3232 wrote: »

See below for an example of logical narrative explaining his actions.

Does that excuse his actions though? I'm really looking for a reasoned and logical answer that excuses his behaviour. I'm trying to get to the point where at least someone will admit that his actions were wrong but given the (perhaps understandably) partisan nature of posters here I doubt I'll get that

f3232

r3nu4l wrote: »

Am I right or wrong in thinking that the ASTI has Union people who talk with government and relay the points of their members?

Who capitulate to the government you mean.

If so then why did Phelan stick his oar in with the megaphone and circumvent the union he's presumably a paid-up member of?

because he is fed up with this capitulation?

It appears as though there is a mechanism to address grievances but the man with the megaphone felt that he was the special one who could bypass those mechanisms and use the megaphone to hijack proceedings for himself.

When these mechanisms are proven to be a sham he takes brave action. Well done Mr Phelan

I do however work in Communications so my interest here is academic. Phelan chose to deliver his message in a ham-fisted and amateur manner that made him look extremely unprofessional. The man let himself down badly. His method of communication was dire and set a bad example, that's where I have the biggest problem.

Yet since this action Ive noticed a broader more nuanced debate about education policy emerging in the media.

I dare say "looking professional" was not the least of his worries at the time.

f3232

r3nu4l wrote: »

Does that excuse his actions though? I'm really looking for a reasoned and logical answer that excuses his behaviour. I'm trying to get to the point where at least someone will admit that his actions were wrong but given the (perhaps understandably) partisan nature of posters here I doubt I'll get that

He did not kill any one? He used a symbolic action to highlight how Quinn is not listening to the voice of teachers over his so called "reforms" and his 3 years of horrendous cutbacks.

Seems logical and clever to me as a symbolic action.

2011abc

r3nu4l wrote: »

Does that excuse his actions though? I'm really looking for a reasoned and logical answer that excuses his behaviour. I'm trying to get to the point where at least someone will admit that his actions were wrong but given the (perhaps understandably) partisan nature of posters here I doubt I'll get that

Ah well ,at least you tried .Thanks for your contribution.
Andrew went to the trouble of travelling to Wexford to make his point /stage his protest and is to be highly commended .

MrJones1973

Andrew was wrong to use his Mega phone. Happy now!

seavill

r3nu4l wrote: »

Does that excuse his actions though? I'm really looking for a reasoned and logical answer that excuses his behaviour. I'm trying to get to the point where at least someone will admit that his actions were wrong but given the (perhaps understandably) partisan nature of posters here I doubt I'll get that

People don't agree with your stance on the issue, they have their opinions as to whether the person was right or wrong, why should they agree with you?

They don't think he was wrong, going on and on about the "partisan nature of posters here" is trying to have a dig at people without going so far as to get in trouble for attacking people.

They don't agree with you on this why must they admit they do?

I earlier disagreed with how your initial posts were responded to here as everyone is entitled to their opinion, however now it has turned completely the other direction where as you cannot accept anyone elses view, and they must eventually agree that you are right because you keep going on about it.??

You think one thing, others think another, get on with it we don't have to agree with your stance, we also don't have to justify our opinions to you just accept a difference of opinions and move on

Powerhouse

r3nu4l wrote: »

Am I right or wrong in thinking that the ASTI has Union people who talk with government and relay the points of their members? If so then why did Phelan stick his oar in with the megaphone and circumvent the union he's presumably a paid-up member of? It appears as though there is a mechanism to address grievances but the man with the megaphone felt that he was the special one who could bypass those mechanisms and use the megaphone to hijack proceedings for himself.

Unlike much of what is being dealt with by you - your own Martin Luther King impression back in the day in the classroom for example - the following point is actually relevant and important to make.

You are, as I understand it, essentially wrong "in thinking that the ASTI has Union people who talk with government and relay the points of their members". The Chief of the ASTI, in direct contravention of the democratically expressed wishes of the executive of that union actively campaigned for acceptance of the Haddington Road agreement, in essence taking the part of the Minister rather than the union. The spectacle of the Union leader going around behind the scenes addressing groups of teachers urging them to vote against the official advice of the Union in question was utterly extraordinary and, naturally, makes the position of the individual involved untenable by any reasonable assessment. Yet, he soldiers on and is the one who is, in the first instance, relied upon to engage with government on behalf of union members.

The only inference to be drawn from this incredible situation is that the ASTI people who deal directly with government do not reflect or cannot be relied upon to reflect the wishes of the broader union. This is an important element to understanding the nuances - as opposed to the black and white - of the issue that arose at the ASTI conference. The ASTI leadership has quite simply lost the confidence of many of its members as an honest broker in dealings with government. That might be why that union member "stuck his oar in with his megaphone" to use your curious phrase.

Rather than seeking to "emphatically condone" what went on (you are not behind the door when it comes to distortion and putting-words-in-mouths yourself are you?) I have always sought only to suggest a particular context for the protest. And that context is clear enough to anyone following the union's activities in recent times.

If you are as disinterested and objective as you claim you might not have been aware of the background, however it is difficult to reconcile this claimed disinterest and objectivity with your veritable fetishisation of the issue so we must allow for the possibility that you are utterly au fait with these goings-on for unacknowledged reasons.

r3nu4l

Mrwhite1970 wrote: »

No offence but kids some close to 18 do much much worse daily. Of course the Media dont care about such incidents - unless a stabbing occurs as it s did tragically in leeds. Whether Andrew used his mega phone or not would not change the ignoring of the yobbish behavior in schools. We could have politely clapped the minister or sat silently. What exactly did TUI get for that? Nothing. The only thing Mr Quinn will take note of is Industrial action. Plain and simple.

The mega phone is a side issue. Andrew and Fightback have been influential in ASTI and are a welcome shot in the arm to an otherwise " lead me to the slaughterhouse" membership. I didnt think the mega phone was a good idea but its a side issue. Do any of you really think its changed anything? Hardly.

Don't get me wrong, one of the reasons I could never be a teacher is because hands are tied when it comes to bad behaviour and that would drive me insane

I've also no problem with industrial action once it's mandated by ballot, so it's not like I think Unions should go quietly to slaughter. I just felt that the megaphone was a bad idea. I'm glad at least someone else acknowledges that even if they don't actually actively disagree with what he did.

f3232 wrote: »

Who capitulate to the government you mean.

because he is fed up with this capitulation?

When these mechanisms are proven to be a sham he takes brave action. Well done Mr Phelan

Yet since this action Ive noticed a broader more nuanced debate about education policy emerging in the media.

I dare say "looking professional" was not the least of his worries at the time.

Thanks. I've no idea how ASTI or TUI work or what discussions have taken place with Government already so as a genuine outsider, all I saw in the papers was a boorish, angry-looking yob with a megaphone. I know I'm not the only one who thought that. You see, as an outsider, I know there are frustrations but I don't know how deep they run or whether any serious attempts at discussion have taken place. I also feel that it's detrimental to the union leadership for a member to take unilateral, unsanctioned action such as this. However, I take it from your post that you view this as a positive. Is Phelan setting himself up as a potential new leader of the union? Was this also part of a militant muscle flexing that will benefit him politically? I ask genuinely, not insinuatingly.

Mrwhite1970 wrote: »

Andrew was wrong to use his Mega phone. Happy now!

I genuinely laughed at this post (In a good way, not mockingly or sarcastically, I found it genuinely funny [whether it was intended to be or not])

seavill wrote: »

People don't agree with your stance on the issue, they have their opinions as to whether the person was right or wrong, why should they agree with you?

They don't think he was wrong, going on and on about the "partisan nature of posters here" is trying to have a dig at people without going so far as to get in trouble for attacking people.

They don't agree with you on this why must they admit they do?

I earlier disagreed with how your initial posts were responded to here as everyone is entitled to their opinion, however now it has turned completely the other direction where as you cannot accept anyone elses view, and they must eventually agree that you are right because you keep going on about it.??

You think one thing, others think another, get on with it we don't have to agree with your stance, we also don't have to justify our opinions to you just accept a difference of opinions and move on

I don't want anyone to agree with me, I want to understand why they think militant (potentially self-serving) undermining of union leadership and boorish behaviour is justifiable in this event. As I've said countless times now, as an outsider I don't understand the nuances but here's the kicker in communications: "Perception is the reality".

I once managed a fantastic medical writer who was quick to produce high-quality, medically accurate materials. When I put her forward for promotion my boss immediately said No. I put forward all the reasons why she deserved promotion but it got rejected twice. It turned out that when he arrived at 9.30 each morning (his start time) he saw her sitting in her car in the car park when her start time was 9, and assumed that she was being lazy and arriving late. He also assumed that I was allowing this to happen. When I explained that she arrived at 8 every day, as did I and that she took a meditation break every day from 9.25 to 9.35 his perception of her changed and she finally got the promotion.

His perception of her was the reality in his head. She was lazy and a latecomer on a daily basis.

Long story short, you folk seem to forget that there are people out there who haven't an iota what is going on in your little teaching world, their own little worlds are full of more pressing concerns and a picture of a yob acting disgracefully (as I instantly perceive it in my head when I first see it) speaks a thousand words. I'm closer to understanding the feelings that you have and to understanding your perceptions thanks to my active participation in this thread. That said I still think what Phelan did was very poor form and detrimental to the teaching profession (while probably enhancing his place in the Union) but I can accept that there are those in the profession who are delighted with his approach.

It's been interesting and I'm happy to disagree if only because we would all be very bored very quickly if we all agreed with one another. However, I'd hope that you can at least appreciate that there are others with different perspectives out there and aren't too upset that someone like that has come in here to your part of the world to disrupt the back-slapping and engage with you

seavill

r3nu4l wrote: »

Does that excuse his actions though? I'm really looking for a reasoned and logical answer that excuses his behaviour. I'm trying to get to the point where at least someone will admit that his actions were wrong but given the (perhaps understandably) partisan nature of posters here I doubt I'll get that

r3nu4l wrote: »

I don't want anyone to agree with me, I want to understand why they think militant (potentially self-serving) undermining of union leadership and boorish behaviour is justifiable in this event. As I've said countless times now, as an outsider I don't understand the nuances but here's the kicker in communications: "Perception is the reality".



Long story short, you folk seem to forget that there are people out there who haven't an iota what is going on in your little teaching world, their own little worlds are full of more pressing concerns and a picture of a yob acting disgracefully (as I instantly perceive it in my head when I first see it) speaks a thousand words. I'm closer to understanding the feelings that you have and to understanding your perceptions thanks to my active participation in this thread. That said I still think what Phelan did was very poor form and detrimental to the teaching profession (while probably enhancing his place in the Union) but I can accept that there are those in the profession who are delighted with his approach.

It's been interesting and I'm happy to disagree if only because we would all be very bored very quickly if we all agreed with one another. However, I'd hope that you can at least appreciate that there are others with different perspectives out there and aren't too upset that someone like that has come in here to your part of the world to disrupt the back-slapping and engage with you

I refer you back to your previous post, you were indeed trying to keep going to get people to say yes you are right. Now you are changing as you probably see the flaws in doing this.

If you go back a few pages you will see I was the person to jump in and defend your right to have a different opinion on this thread however your constant little jibes and smilies are leading me to think that the others were right all along

Powerhouse

r3nu4l wrote: »

As I've said countless times now, as an outsider I don't understand the nuances but here's the kicker in communications: "Perception is the reality".

So, by the logic of this highly original rhetorical gem, if someone - for example - perceives the actions of the union conference delegate in question to be reasonable and understandable given the peculiar backdrop involved then that is in fact the reality? At least that sorts that argument out anyway. For a while there I thought it was going to drag on. It's handy to be able to give your opinion and then tell people it's reality, and that presumably the rest of the world is operating in a twlight zone of unreality.

r3nu4l

Powerhouse wrote: »

Unlike much of what is being dealt with by you - your own Martin Luther King impression back in the day in the classroom for example, the following point is actually relevant and important to make.

You are, as I understand it, essentially wrong "in thinking that the ASTI has Union people who talk with government and relay the points of their members". The Chief of the ASTI, in direct contravention of the democratically expressed of the executive of that union actively campaigned for acceptance of the Haddington Road agreement, in essence taking the part of the Minister rather than the union.

I've never been a member of a Union (private sector worker all my working life) so am I to understand from this that there is an executive 'board' in the Union who voted against supporting this agreement but the union president recommended supporting it?

If so then that makes no sense. Can the board not remove the President? (As in the same way the Board of a Company can fire a CEO?)

The only inference to be drawn from this is that the ASTI people who deal directly with government do not reflect or cannot be relied upon to reflect the wishes of the broader union. This is an important element to understanding the nuances - as opposed to the black and white - of the issue that arose at the ASTI conference. The ASTI leadership has quite simply lost the confidence of many of its members as an honest broker in dealings with government.

Again, knowing noting about Unions, can those members not simply leave the union, form a new union and campaign for themselves? I've a vague feeling that I've heard that it can take a while for a Union to get formal recognition so I'm guessing, that would take far longer than it might seem it should take?

Rather than seeking to "emphatically condone" what went on (you are not behind the door when it comes to distortion and putting-words-in-mouths yourself are you?)

I've yet to see anyone (apart from one poster) actually say, that was a bad idea, or, that was wrong, and have seen loads of people say that they applaud him, we need more of him etc, so I've taken that as fairly emphatically condoning it. You yourself have consistently sidestepped the issue when I've directly asked you about it. What else am I to assume?

I have always sought only to suggest a particular context for the protest. And that context is clear enough to anyone following the union's activities in recent times.

I first heard of the ASTI many, many moons ago when they were first set up and I think at that time they went on strike fairly quickly. That's the last I heard of them. I'm not a teacher, have no interest in becoming one (waste of a PhD tbh - yes I know how arrogantly that comes across ) and even right now have very little interest in the politics behind all of this. I saw the reports of a 'professional' acting unprofessinally, thanks to this thread I'm getting a better understanding of what he might have been up to and how he has been lauded for that.

If you are as disinterested and objective as you claim you might not have been aware of the background, however it is difficult to reconcile this claimed disinterest and objectivity with your veritable fetishisation of the issue so we must allow for the possibility that you are utterly au fait with these goings-on for unacknowledged reasons.

Allow for it as much as you like. I will be returning to Ireland later this year for good (at last!) with my family and the offer is on the table for you and I to meet up for a beer or a coffee whereupon I will prove to you that I've no interest in teaching or teaching politics or unions.

If you do decide to take me up on that offer (and it's genuine) then I only ask that you come back to this thread, hold your hand up and say 'okay, I was wrong on that score, I was cynical but I was wrong to be, he's not a secret agent for a Union/Government, he's actually much more boring and humdrum than that'. It's a genuine offer and that's the only string attached to it so it's over to you on that score.

If you really, really think I'm being underhanded here then I'm offering you the chance to find out for sure. I can't do any more than that. I've no hard feelings on this thread or about anyone who has posted in it and I've no links to the profession (apart from a brother who is a teacher as mentioned earlier) so I've nothing to lose.

So your choice. You've repeatedly made the insinuation and accusation for everyone reading this to see that I'm lying, underhanded and probably not being truthful in how I present myself and are very vocal on that so here's your chance to put your money where your mouth is and I'll do the same.

seavill

There must be an award for the oldest poster on boards to be around when the asti was founded 105 years ago and still be posting here

evolving_doors

I'm on both sides of the fence here!!

On one hand I would agree wholeheartedly that what Andrew Phelan did was idiotic, rude, crass, moronic, bad exampleish, cack handed, predetermined etc. so I would totally agree with r3nu4l's description of what he did. Plain and simple it was rude (+ the sound quality was so terrible on the megaphone you culdn;t really make out what he was shouting about... perhaps if he stood up and shouted he might have come across better!).

However, a few things to remember... The previous years teachers did the silent treatment and placards but I felt the Minister went up, delivered his speech and left without any commentary from the media apart from the "greedy teachers looking for more money" tosh. This year I felt the reporting of Andrew Phelan's actions + the ASTI fightback argy post conference + Pat King paltry applause from the floor resulted in commentators examining the causes of the teacher's anger into a bit more depth. A few media joes went on about teachers shooting themselves in the foot but funnily enough most of the commentary seemed to be highlighting people's dissatisfaction with RQ and the real issue of cutbacks (not honours maths, feminisation or whatever other distraction Ruairi Quinn was trying to pedal).
When the minister delivers the speech there is never an opportunity to respond or question from the floor.. he has his spake and promptly leaves. That's the way it goes and that's the way it has always gone. So for the Minister to then say that he is always open to listen to views is a little disingenuous as we all know...

Getting back to r3nu4l's posts, I totally agree that what he did was wrong, however I think maybe the end justified the means in this case. I've found more non-teacher's willing to consider the real issues once they've seen a visual manifestation of the anger that is out there.

Also I don;t think it's fair to deduce that he shouldn;t teach because of conveying a bad impression of teachers to students namely for the following reasons.
1. Do we seriously believe that students are watching the news and listening to debates over the Easter? Do they care that much... really?
2. If we take it that, yes they do care that much then I'd be delighted.
3. If we take it that they care that much and are influenced to the extent that they would undertake such methods of protest in the future then I'm all for it.


If you put this...


against something like this..


which is more 'rude' ?

r3nu4l

seavill wrote: »

I refer you back to your previous post, you were indeed trying to keep going to get people to say yes you are right. Now you are changing as you probably see the flaws in doing this.

If you go back a few pages you will see I was the person to jump in and defend your right to have a different opinion on this thread however your constant little jibes and smilies are leading me to think that the others were right all along

No, I was hoping that someone would agree with me (and still do) but recognise that this isn't going to happen. However, that will not stop me arguing my case or just shutting up and staying quiet (I'm a bit like you know who in that regard!).

Powerhouse wrote: »

So, by the logic of this highly original rhetorical gem, if someone - for example - perceives the actions of the union conference delegate in question to be reasonable and understandable given the peculiar backdrop involved then that is in fact the reality? At least that sorts that argument out anyway. For a while there I thought it was going to drag on. It's handy to be able to give your opinion and then tell people it's reality, and that presumably the rest of the world is operating in a twlight zone of unreality.

Yes absolutely, you get it! So for you folk, you have an understanding that leads to you perceiving that he is absolutely spot-on in what he did so that is your reality. However, my reality (and others), not understanding or knowing the situation as you do, leads to a different reality for us. It's important to understand that. Now I have a clearer idea of your day-to-day reality, however, I still don't condone the action, even if I understand it a bit better. I do understand however that what is happening in the world of teachers does not effect me, my salary or my daily life and as such I can afford to be far more 'objective'. I get that, don't worry about that. Hell I've been up in arms about things that I know you wouldn't give a flying fiddle about. It's a paradox but it's how it works.

Powerhouse

r3nu4l wrote: »

Allow for it as much as you like. I will be returning to Ireland later this year for good (at last!) with my family and the offer is on the table for you and I to meet up for a beer or a coffee whereupon I will prove to you that I've no interest in teaching or teaching politics or unions.

This is an anonymous internet discussion forum. I think you may be teetering on the brink of taking this matter too seriously.

evolving_doors

ytareh wrote: »

Epic trolling (even by boards.ie standards )by 'admin' with near15,000 posts ?!Somebody pinch me I must be dreaming this !
So dissenting teachers should be struck off and recruitment strategies revised to introduce a better class of entrant -maybe from local Ogra Fine Gael branches ? And all this from someone who barricaded themselves into a classroom !?
This stuff is actually getting entertaining !

Mod Warning:
Please do not accuse anyone of trolling, as per usual, use the report button if you feel that someone is trolling.
Member has been infracted.
Please read the charter.
Do not respond to this post etc

r3nu4l

seavill wrote: »

There must be an award for the oldest poster on boards to be around when the asti was founded 105 years ago and still be posting here

Heh, you see? If that doesn't show that I don't know about teaching unions in Ireland then nothing will Perhaps it was a new president who took them to industrial action. All I know is that ASTI hit the headlines years ago over a strike action and that was when I first heard of them.

Armelodie wrote: »

I'm on both sides of the fence here!!

On one hand I would agree wholeheartedly that what Andrew Phelan did was idiotic, rude, crass, moronic, bad exampleish, cack handed, predetermined etc. so I would totally agree with r3nu4l's description of what he did. Plain and simple it was rude (+ the sound quality was so terrible on the megaphone you culdn;t really make out what he was shouting about... perhaps if he stood up and shouted he might have come across better!).

However, a few things to remember... The previous years teachers did the silent treatment and placards but I felt the Minister went up, delivered his speech and left without any commentary from the media apart from the "greedy teachers looking for more money" tosh. This year I felt the reporting of Andrew Phelan's actions + the ASTI fightback argy post conference + Pat King paltry applause from the floor resulted in commentators examining the causes of the teacher's anger into a bit more depth. A few media joes went on about teachers shooting themselves in the foot but funnily enough most of the commentary seemed to be highlighting people's dissatisfaction with RQ and the real issue of cutbacks (not honours maths, feminisation or whatever other distraction Ruairi Quinn was trying to pedal).
When the minister delivers the speech there is never an opportunity to respond or question from the floor.. he has his spake and promptly leaves. That's the way it goes and that's the way it has always gone. So for the Minister to then say that he is always open to listen to views is a little disingenuous as we all know...

Getting back to r3nu4l's posts, I totally agree that what he did was wrong, however I think maybe the end justified the means in this case. I've found more non-teacher's willing to consider the real issues once they've seen a visual manifestation of the anger that is out there.

Also I don;t think it's fair to deduce that he shouldn;t teach because of conveying a bad impression of teachers to students namely for the following reasons.
1. Do we seriously believe that students are watching the news and listening to debates over the Easter? Do they care that much... really?
2. If we take it that, yes they do care that much then I'd be delighted.
3. If we take it that they care that much and are influenced to the extent that they would undertake such methods of protest in the future then I'm all for it.


If you put this...


against something like this..


which is more 'rude' ?

Thank you. From the bottom of my heart, thank you. NOT because you agree that what he did was crass etc but for putting across the argument in logical terms that allow me a better understanding, particularly of the back story. That's what I've been trying to understand (while also seeking how anyone could support the use of the megaphone). That's clearer. I still won't agree with the use of the megaphone but that gives a much better understanding. I wish I could thank that post twice! For what it's worth, I think that his stnading up and shouting would probably have been better but yes the megaphone is a nice little device for attention-seeking, even if ironically, you can rarely make out what people are saying when using them because they don't know how to use them properly.

Powerhouse

r3nu4l wrote: »

Yes absolutely, you get it! So for you folk, you have an understanding that leads to you perceiving that he is absolutely spot-on in what he did so that is your reality. However, my reality (and others), not understanding or knowing the situation as you do, leads to a different reality for us. It's important to understand that. Now I have a clearer idea of your day-to-day reality, however, I still don't condone the action, even if I understand it a bit better. I do understand however that what is happening in the world of teachers does not effect me, my salary or my daily life and as such I can afford to be far more 'objective'. I get that, don't worry about that. Hell I've been up in arms about things that I know you wouldn't give a flying fiddle about. It's a paradox but it's how it works.

The irony in my comments on your incredibly cliched 'perception is reality' intervention clearly passed you by.

r3nu4l

Powerhouse wrote: »

This is an anonymous internet discussion forum. I think you may be teetering on the brink of taking this matter too seriously.

Nah, not at all. I've enjoyed the back and forth so far but honestly man/woman (person of unspecified gender), I'm no union/government agent and have no involvement in teaching whatsoever. I wish you could accept that tbh. The offer still stands and I'm happy to prove it to you because you seem to genuinely believe that I'm some sort of spy or at least an untruthful liar. The former is kind of funny, the latter is unfair though.

EDIT: Just saw the comment on the irony of perception...
This thread has been full of cliches on both sides so one more isn't going to hurt. However, it is true...cliche or not.

Powerhouse

Armelodie wrote: »

You wrote this:

On one hand I would agree wholeheartedly that what Andrew Phelan did was idiotic, rude, crass, moronic, bad exampleish, cack handed, predetermined etc. so I would totally agree with r3nu4l's description of what he did.

Getting back to r3nu4l's posts, I totally agree that what he did was wrong,

and then you wrote:

however I think maybe the end justified the means in this case.

With respect, if the means are justified how can they be wrong? Of course someone wielding a megaphone in such a situation is not ideal and nobody would suggest it is (including the wielder I have no doubt) but I'm not sure it's really possible to be able to credibly straddle both sides.

If the method is benign enough to be retrospectively considered justifiable by what transpires as a result (which after all is what is meant by the end justifying the means)I think it is unfair to use adjectives as strong and insulting as rude, idiotic, moronic etc.

r3nu4l

Wrong thing, right reason? Seems clear enough to me what was meant. It's possible to be very sincere while still being wrong and it's possible to do something badly wrong but for an extremely good reason.

Powerhouse

r3nu4l wrote: »

Wrong thing, right reason? Seems clear enough to me what was meant. It's possible to be very sincere while still being wrong and it's possible to do something badly wrong but for an extremely good reason.

This does not answer the question I asked. The question I asked was if the means can be described as justified can they simultaneously be reasonably described as moronic, idiotic, crass, rude, etc.? The language being used is important. I'd have preferred if the actual poster had replied to this.

r3nu4l

Powerhouse wrote: »

This does not answer the question I asked. The question I asked was if the means can be described as justified can they simultaneously be reasonably described as moronic, idiotic, crass, rude, etc.? The language being used is important. I'd have preferred if the actual poster had replied to this.

I'm sure you would have but that's the beauty of the internet and all that

I've used similar words to describe the activity by 'Megaphone man' you see and I've explained above, my take on it. I still stand by those words, he may have been sincere but it was crass. The end may justify the means but that does not exclude the means from being idiotic, crass etc, etc. How many stupid publicity stunts have you seen or heard of and thought 'That's plain moronic!' and yet it got people talking? Same thing here.

Powerhouse

r3nu4l wrote: »

I'm sure you would have but that's the beauty of the internet and all that

I've used similar words to describe the activity by 'Megaphone man' you see and I've explained above, my take on it. I still stand by those words, he may have been sincere but it was crass. The end may justify the means but that does not exclude the means from being idiotic, crass etc, etc. How many stupid publicity stunts have you seen or heard of and thought 'That's plain moronic!' and yet it got people talking? Same thing here.

I'm beginning to see how you've managed to rack up nearly 15,000 posts.

r3nu4l

Powerhouse wrote: »

I'm beginning to see how you've managed to rack up nearly 15,000 posts.

Now now, play nice! Attack the post not the poster and all that. I know you've been in spats on other threads but there's no need for that here.

seavill

In fairness they have a point ye are going around in circles with the exact same comments over and back for the lasts 2 pages. Going no where just repeating

r3nu4l

seavill wrote: »

In fairness they have a point ye are going around in circles with the exact same comments over and back for the lasts 2 pages. Going no where just repeating

In fairness, we both have been and as such his own postcount is racking up nicely too yet he blithely chooses to ignore that when choosing the easy target of my postcount. In fairness too, approximately 3000 of my posts are in 'background forums' related to the running of this site, so I contribute far more to this site than just discussion. However, I'm not surprised, more misdirection, sidestepping and smart-arsed answers in an attempt at 'points-scoring' instead of addressing the issue directly.

seavill

r3nu4l wrote: »

In fairness, we both have been and as such his own postcount is racking up nicely too yet he blithely chooses to ignore that when choosing the easy target of my postcount. In fairness too, approximately 3000 of my posts are in 'background forums' related to the running of this site, so I contribute far more to this site than just discussion. However, I'm not surprised, more misdirection, sidestepping and smart-arsed answers in an attempt at 'points-scoring' instead of addressing the issue directly.

Read my post properly I said "ye " not you. Ye being both of ye or you and the other people going around in circles.
I have both defended and criticised you but it's getting silly at this stage. And as a neutral to the discussion between ye there has been smart arsed comments from both sides so no point in playing the victim.
The discussion on those points raised has come to its natural conclusion and I think that could be accepted by everyone rather than keeping it going on and one just to try get the last word in.

They think he was justified you don't. Points and been explained over and over by both sides. No one is willing to give in. Leave it at that. Stop needlessly dragging it out

r3nu4l

seavill wrote: »

Read my post properly I said "ye " not you. Ye being both of ye or you and the other people going around in circles.
I have both defended and criticised you but it's getting silly at this stage. And as a neutral to the discussion between ye there has been smart arsed comments from both sides so no point in playing the victim.
The discussion on those points raised has come to its natural conclusion and I think that could be accepted by everyone rather than keeping it going on and one just to try get the last word in.

They think he was justified you don't. Points and been explained over and over by both sides. No one is willing to give in. Leave it at that. Stop needlessly dragging it out

Proper teacher scolding there! I'm impressed
Ha ha, fair enough. Sounds like a plan to me. I'll leave it at that.

seavill

r3nu4l wrote: »

Proper teacher scolding there! I'm impressed
Ha ha, fair enough. Sounds like a plan to me. I'll leave it at that.

Not a scolding at all just an opinion on the issues. Again more smart arsed, as you say, comments needlessly.

r3nu4l

seavill wrote: »

Not a scolding at all just an opinion on the issues. Again more smart arsed, as you say, comments needlessly.

Ah now, it was a joke, not a dig at you.

MrJones1973

Powerhouse wrote: »

Unlike much of what is being dealt with by you - your own Martin Luther King impression back in the day in the classroom for example - the following point is actually relevant and important to make.

You are, as I understand it, essentially wrong "in thinking that the ASTI has Union people who talk with government and relay the points of their members". The Chief of the ASTI, in direct contravention of the democratically expressed wishes of the executive of that union actively campaigned for acceptance of the Haddington Road agreement, in essence taking the part of the Minister rather than the union. The spectacle of the Union leader going around behind the scenes addressing groups of teachers urging them to vote against the official advice of the Union in question was utterly extraordinary and, naturally, makes the position of the individual involved untenable by any reasonable assessment. Yet, he soldiers on and is the one who is, in the first instance, relied upon to engage with government on behalf of union members.

The only inference to be drawn from this incredible situation is that the ASTI people who deal directly with government do not reflect or cannot be relied upon to reflect the wishes of the broader union. This is an important element to understanding the nuances - as opposed to the black and white - of the issue that arose at the ASTI conference. The ASTI leadership has quite simply lost the confidence of many of its members as an honest broker in dealings with government. That might be why that union member "stuck his oar in with his megaphone" to use your curious phrase.

Rather than seeking to "emphatically condone" what went on (you are not behind the door when it comes to distortion and putting-words-in-mouths yourself are you?) I have always sought only to suggest a particular context for the protest. And that context is clear enough to anyone following the union's activities in recent times.

If you are as disinterested and objective as you claim you might not have been aware of the background, however it is difficult to reconcile this claimed disinterest and objectivity with your veritable fetishisation of the issue so we must allow for the possibility that you are utterly au fait with these goings-on for unacknowledged reasons.

Pat king did go on a roadshow funded by the ASTI and promoted a vote contradictory to ASTI policy. However I still have a feeling it would have still been a Yes. The redundancy threat mainly. Pat King could have done a bit more than say "We would fight this". He could have highlighted the discriminatory and ironic nature of A labor Minister saying he would fire members of a particular union. He could have added that he would not be certain of the outcome of cases taken against such dismissals. That would have been an honest over view.

acequion

Mrwhite1970 wrote: »

Pat king did go on a roadshow funded by the ASTI and promoted a vote contradictory to ASTI policy. However I still have a feeling it would have still been a Yes. The redundancy threat mainly. Pat King could have done a bit more than say "We would fight this". He could have highlighted the discriminatory and ironic nature of A labor Minister saying he would fire members of a particular union. He could have added that he would not be certain of the outcome of cases taken against such dismissals. That would have been an honest over view.

Pat King is a hopelessly ineffective union leader and that's putting it mildly.I was present at one of the branch meetings in December at which he was quite openly touting a yes vote and I said as much to him and he didn't like it. He cannot take any criticism and appears to get very defensive when challenged.One example is the victim approach ie banging on at convention about so called death threats and at that branch meeting he whinged about how poorly he had been treated in one particular school, where, presumably he met his match when he went touting for a yes. I actually feel that that campaign, which was countrywide, went a long way towards the swing to yes.

So,it really is in no way surprising that many people of strong principle voted with their feet and left the union following that capitulation. The only reason I'm still hanging in there is because of astifightback.

endakenny

Mrwhite1970 wrote: »

Pat king did go on a roadshow funded by the ASTI and promoted a vote contradictory to ASTI policy. However I still have a feeling it would have still been a Yes. The redundancy threat mainly. Pat King could have done a bit more than say "We would fight this". He could have highlighted the discriminatory and ironic nature of A labor Minister saying he would fire members of a particular union. He could have added that he would not be certain of the outcome of cases taken against such dismissals. That would have been an honest over view.

I find it hard to believe that the number of teachers whose jobs are out of line with the pupil-teacher ratio was big enough to swing the majority vote to Yes.

I am also baffled as to why the ASTI didn't consider legal action with regard to the redundancy threat and the retrospective changes to teachers' contracts that took place under CPA.

Rosita

Mrwhite1970 wrote: »

Pat king did go on a roadshow funded by the ASTI and promoted a vote contradictory to ASTI policy. However I still have a feeling it would have still been a Yes.

The problem with this is that you make it seem as if King's behaviour doesn't matter because you can speculate on the ballot result otherwise. His behaviour matters a lot.

evolving_doors

Powerhouse wrote: »

You wrote this:

Armelodie wrote: »

On one hand I would agree wholeheartedly that what Andrew Phelan did was idiotic, rude, crass, moronic, bad exampleish, cack handed, predetermined etc. so I would totally agree with r3nu4l's description of what he did.

Getting back to r3nu4l's posts, I totally agree that what he did was wrong,

and then you wrote:

Armelodie wrote: »

however I think maybe the end justified the means in this case.

With respect, if the means are justified how can they be wrong? Of course someone wielding a megaphone in such a situation is not ideal and nobody would suggest it is (including the wielder I have no doubt) but I'm not sure it's really possible to be able to credibly straddle both sides.

If the method is benign enough to be retrospectively considered justifiable by what transpires as a result (which after all is what is meant by the end justifying the means)I think it is unfair to use adjectives as strong and insulting as rude, idiotic, moronic etc.

Well personally I don't think there is any difference between him making an incomprehensible noise on a megaphone and dropping his trousers and mooning the minister (to me both are just as rude!!)... Either way there's no real message that I can discern other than seeing that the teacher is 'angry' and then maybe a follow up interview afterwards will 'clarify' his stunt.

Subsequently though, I feel he did get his message across (post conference/RQ speech) because of his stunt. I think the oddity of the megaphone got people talking a bit more than say the 'silent treatment' or the 'placards' because the wierdness of it all drew people in a bit more into the debate.

It was rude, but could have been a little less rude if he just shouted at the minister (sans silly megaphone). Idiotic in that he didn;t soundcheck the equipment or maybe it was a substandard megaphone so he might have been better to use one of these...


I'll take back the moronic comment because he seems like an astute guy who'll put himself out there for the 'common good'.

I do sincerely hope though that they will come back to him next year for a comment.

Rosita

Armelodie wrote: »

Well personally I don't think there is any difference between him making an incomprehensible noise on a megaphone and dropping his trousers and mooning the minister (to me both are just as rude!!)...

Sorry for butting in (no pun intended) as you were replying to someone else but this is the most extraordinary thing I've read for a long time. You must have a serious backstory about megaphones if they equate to someone exposing themselves.