16 teachers suspended for cooperating with Jobbridge

rightofwayed

Article for front page of todays Examiner:

A teachers’ union has suspended 16 members for up to five months over the last two years for breaking a ban on co-operation with the JobBridge internship scheme.

The Irish National Teachers’ Organisation (INTO) said 31 teachers, mostly principals, were the subject of 63 complaints in 2013 and 2014 when teaching jobs were advertised through the internship scheme. It has not taken action against any teachers who took up positions filled by primary schools through JobBridge in breach of the policy.

The union introduced a directive prohibiting its 35,000 members from participating in any work for the scheme in December 2011. It says qualified teachers should be allowed to gain experience through fully-paid work, instead of the weekly €50 paid in addition to social welfare that JobBridge participants receive.

Many complaints were resolved locally after INTO officers raised the issue with school management, usually resulting in the ad being withdrawn. However, complaints against 24 members went to hearings of an arbitration committee, with the findings in seven of those cases being referred to an appeal.

As a result, suspensions were imposed by the central executive committee on 16 members, ranging from one to five months.

“The overwhelming majority of INTO members continue to support the union’s directive on the JobBridge scheme and try to ensure newly-qualified teachers are able to build a path to permanent employment through temporary and substitute work,” said a spokesperson.

Fine Gael TD and former primary principal Jim Daly said the policy prevents newly-qualified teachers from getting experience. However, a recently-qualified West Cork teacher told the Irish Examiner in 2013, despite the experience it could provide, the inability to count time on a JobBridge internship towards access to teaching-job panels would discourage him from applying.

Niall Carmody, president of the student union at Mary Immaculate College in Limerick — one of the two biggest training institutions for primary teachers — said it has not been brought to his attention as a major concern for students, but only 30 will graduate with teaching qualifications this year.

“It could come up as a much bigger issue next year, when there will be 460 students graduating,” he said. “They are more worried this year about issues like accommodation and the here and now.”

The INTO figures emerge as the National Youth Council of Ireland called yesterday on the Department of Social Protection to review whether real jobs are being displaced by JobBridge internships.

super_furry

Misleading headline there. Suspended from their Union, not teaching.

rightofwayed

super_furry wrote: »

Misleading headline there. Suspended from their Union, not teaching.

It is, but it's not my headline!

peckerhead

Pity the papers don't name some of the "quality" schools availing of this. Perfectly legally, of course.

Pity too that student teachers seem only to be exercised by issues that directly affect them, here and now. IMHO much of the deterioration in teacher's conditions over the last few years is due at least in part to the kind of "I'm alright, Jack" mentality that tends to set in once people become permanent & pensionable; it's a pity to see it reflected in those who are only just about to enter the profession.

Any working teachers I've asked about these dubious uses of JobBridge have responded with the verbal equivalent of a broad wink — "grand job, that's me finished at 10 on a Friday" kind of stuff. Maybe the ones I know are more cynical than most.

CosmicSmash

rightofwayed wrote: »

It is, but it's not my headline!

But it's your thread title.

kidneyfan

peckerhead wrote: »

Pity the papers don't name some of the "quality" schools availing of this. Perfectly legally, of course.

This is my biggest bugbear about news reporting in Ireland. WHO are the principals? WHICH schools?
Otherwise who cares?

rightofwayed

Monkeykube wrote: »

But it's your thread title.

The thread title is the article headline, I'm sorry if you have a problem with this.

jank

If the graduate teachers entered the job bridge scheme out of their own free will, knowing what it entailed then why should a Union act in this autocratic manner?

evolving_doors

jank wrote: »

If the graduate teachers entered the job bridge scheme out of their own free will, knowing what it entailed then why should a Union act in this autocratic manner?

believe me jank, you'd get NQT teachers desperate enough to sell their granny to get into a school. Its the action of the unions against the principal's thats the issue.

A principal is putting a fully trained professional to work full hours for free. While a colleague next door (who could have graduated the same day) gets full pay/holidays/pension/increments. That to my mind is exploitation, pure and simple.

Schools saying they are doing teachers a favour are being economical with the truth. I've yet to see a jobbridge add for teachers that hasn't breeched the rules of jobbridge.

Pay the man for the work.

katydid

jank wrote: »

If the graduate teachers entered the job bridge scheme out of their own free will, knowing what it entailed then why should a Union act in this autocratic manner?

Because it's union policy not to undermine their members, and principals are union members. If you're a union member, you go along with union directives.

katydid

rightofwayed wrote: »

The thread title is the article headline, I'm sorry if you have a problem with this.

But you could have made a more accurate heading for the thread. That's all.

rightofwayed

katydid wrote: »

But you could have made a more accurate heading for the thread. That's all.

You could let it go.

Tails142

What actual ramifications does being suspended from a union have? If you got to stop paying the union dues it actually sounds like a boon.

evolving_doors

Tails142 wrote: »

What actual ramifications does being suspended from a union have? If you got to stop paying the union dues it actually sounds like a boon.

In this case its principal's suspended... totally different animal to teachers.

They's always a question of why are principal's in the regular teachers union and why dont they form their own etc.... basically its less hassle for a teachers union to be going between management/principals and govt during negotiations so the way I see it, its an attempt to keep 'former teachers' included with their fellow colleagues. Makes sense to me.

But will the suspended principals care about the suspension? We shall await a response.

Don't get me wrong, I know every principal is in a bind with exploding class sizes. But not every one is following suit abusing jobbridge.

Edit: Apologies, I was referring to secondary principals as 'former teachers' (and yes some of them do still teach too!)

katydid

Armelodie wrote: »

In this case its principal's suspended... totally different animal to teachers.

They's always a question of why are principal's in the regular teachers union and why dont they form their own etc.... basically its less hassle for a teachers union to be going between management/principals and govt during negotiations so the way I see it, its an attempt to keep 'former teachers' included with their fellow colleagues. Makes sense to me.

But will the suspended principals care about the suspension? We shall await a response.

Don't get me wrong, I know every principal is in a bind with exploding class sizes. But not every one is following suit abusing jobbridge.

Well, they are Principal Teachers - the myth, at least, of collegiality, persists.

It is difficult for them to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds, and it is tempting to suggest they go of and form their own union. But, as a union colleague pointed out to me, in the long run maybe it's better to have them where you can have some kind of influence over them. I know people who are principles and very strong and committed union members. Few and far between, but they exist.

katydid

Tails142 wrote: »

What actual ramifications does being suspended from a union have? If you got to stop paying the union dues it actually sounds like a boon.

Well, no one forces you to join the union in the first place, but many workers actually think it's important to be in solidarity with their colleagues and, of course, to have recourse to union advice and financial support should they need it.

joebloggs32

Tails142 wrote: »

What actual ramifications does being suspended from a union have? If you got to stop paying the union dues it actually sounds like a boon.

Most people think they don't need a union until the day comes when they really do need a union

peckerhead

Ireland has (or had, I'm too lazy to post a reference) an unusually high rate of union membership among teachers generally, from primary to third level. Warts and all, the INTO and ASTI in particular probably wield more clout than their equivalents in other EU states, relative to their size. I'll probably draw flak for saying this, but in the twenty years I've been working in Ireland they seem to have succeeded in protecting their members' pay and working conditions far better than have their counterparts at third-level, especially IFUT (this is not to criticise IFUT; the threat of college lecturers going on strike — cue the jokes about "how will we tell the difference?" — is never going to compare with the leverage of a far larger union whose strike days leave hundreds of thousands of parents having to find childminders or miss work).

If I was employed in the primary or secondary school system I would be keen to retain my union membership.

killbillvol2

Armelodie wrote: »

In this case its principal's suspended... totally different animal to teachers.

They's always a question of why are principal's in the regular teachers union and why dont they form their own etc.... basically its less hassle for a teachers union to be going between management/principals and govt during negotiations so the way I see it, its an attempt to keep 'former teachers' included with their fellow colleagues. Makes sense to me.

But will the suspended principals care about the suspension? We shall await a response.

Don't get me wrong, I know every principal is in a bind with exploding class sizes. But not every one is following suit abusing jobbridge.

katydid wrote: »

Well, they are Principal Teachers - the myth, at least, of collegiality, persists.

It is difficult for them to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds, and it is tempting to suggest they go of and form their own union. But, as a union colleague pointed out to me, in the long run maybe it's better to have them where you can have some kind of influence over them. I know people who are principles and very strong and committed union members. Few and far between, but they exist.

More than half of primary school principals are classroom teachers.

katydid

peckerhead wrote: »

Ireland has (or had, I'm too lazy to post a reference) an unusually high rate of union membership among teachers generally, from primary to third level. Warts and all, the INTO and ASTI in particular probably wield more clout than their equivalents in other EU states, relative to their size. I'll probably draw flak for saying this, but in the twenty years I've been working in Ireland they seem to have succeeded in protecting their members' pay and working conditions far better than have their counterparts at third-level, especially IFUT (this is not to criticise IFUT; the threat of college lecturers going on strike — cue the jokes about "how will we tell the difference?" — is never going to compare with the leverage of a far larger union whose strike days leave hundreds of thousands of parents having to find childminders or miss work).

If I was employed in the primary or secondary school system I would be keen to retain my union membership.

The power of the unions is much less than it used to be

evolving_doors

killbillvol2 wrote: »

More than half of primary school principals are classroom teachers.

Apologies Killbillvol2, I was referring to secondary and even then I forgot that there are a few secondary principals who teach also.

evolving_doors

Voiceforteachers blog has a name and shame HERE . Normally I'd be hesitant about naming a school based on hearsay but the fact that they advertised publicly on Jobbridge negates that.

happywithlife

I'm post primary but I know one of the schools involved. I know for fact they tried and were denied an extra teacher for an unusually large intake of junior infants. I think they will qualify next year for the extra teacher anyway but they couldn't get one this year. Appeal was also denied. As far as I know (and am open to correction) they have several children with sen who won't access proper supports until psychological tests are carried out and snas won't be appointed till late in the year when these results are processed. Anyway point is I suppose I presume jobs bridge is a last resort when the government of the day yet again fail our children by refusing to adequately staff / resource classrooms.
From reading the list Armelodie provided a lot of those jobs are for classroom assistants and snas. Would I right in saying these would be fill a gap / need in the school that isn't being provided by the dept due to increases in the PTR and cuts in snas etc.
I'm not for a moment condoning what was done but think questions need to be asked WHY were these principals advertising these positions in the first instance. I hope the spotlight is put back on the dept to account for the devasting effects of recent cutbacks.

katydid

happywithlife wrote: »

I'm post primary but I know one of the schools involved. I know for fact they tried and were denied an extra teacher for an unusually large intake of junior infants. I think they will qualify next year for the extra teacher anyway but they couldn't get one this year. Appeal was also denied. As far as I know (and am open to correction) they have several children with sen who won't access proper supports until psychological tests are carried out and snas won't be appointed till late in the year when these results are processed. Anyway point is I suppose I presume jobs bridge is a last resort when the government of the day yet again fail our children by refusing to adequately staff / resource classrooms.
From reading the list Armelodie provided a lot of those jobs are for classroom assistants and snas. Would I right in saying these would be fill a gap / need in the school that isn't being provided by the dept due to increases in the PTR and cuts in snas etc.
I'm not for a moment condoning what was done but think questions need to be asked WHY were these principals advertising these positions in the first instance. I hope the spotlight is put back on the dept to account for the devasting effects of recent cutbacks.

It doesn't matter what the excuse was. There's a union directive and it's there for a reason. Union members should not breach it, and if they do they have to suffer the consequences.

Teachers deal with teachers. Other positions such as classroom assistants, caretakers, etc. are not in a teachers union and the teachers' unions are not in a position to refuse to deal with them.

Sure, the principals should not have been put in the position they were in, but undermining their own profession and their colleagues is not the answer.

happywithlife

katydid wrote: »

It doesn't matter what the excuse was. There's a union directive and it's there for a reason. Union members should not breach it, and if they do they have to suffer the consequences.

Teachers deal with teachers. Other positions such as classroom assistants, caretakers, etc. are not in a teachers union and the teachers' unions are not in a position to refuse to deal with them.

Sure, the principals should not have been put in the position they were in, but undermining their own profession and their colleagues is not the answer.

I agree with you. But instead of just teacher bashing with their "principals suspended" headline I'd rather they turn the focus to the WHY's in this case and realise the recent cutbacks have made many schools in-operable and little more than a babysitting service. Wishful thinking I know

robindch

katydid wrote: »

Because it's union policy not to undermine their members, and principals are union members. If you're a union member, you go along with union directives.

Funny, I always understood that unions said that they were there to service their members rather than the other way around.

byhookorbycrook

Jobsbridge jobs are meant to prepare you for a particular role. There are no classroom assistants at primary level, so therefore no jobs that could be filled. The SNA thing will backfire badly, it may well be said that Child X didn't have an SNA in Junior Infants , so doesn't need one down the line. Allowing the DES to further erode any support for children with SEN is not a good thing, believe me.

The proposed new model for SEN provision is , indeed, a scary thing. No more resource hours , no extra SEN teachers, though the primary population continues to increase. I can't understand why parents are not more up in arms about large class size, lack of support for all children and the ever decreasing SEN provision. As teachers, when we raise this , it as seen as either a) whining teachers or b) if they are so concerned, let them take even MORE pay cuts and we can employ more teachers. The DES and the media will listen to parent, but not us.

evolving_doors

robindch wrote: »

Funny, I always understood that unions said that they were there to service their members rather than the other way around.

On this occasion they did serve their members. Doing nothing would have negated any directive.

katydid

robindch wrote: »

Funny, I always understood that unions said that they were there to service their members rather than the other way around.

Those who defy union directives are going against decisions made by elected members of the union on behalf of all members.

killbillvol2

robindch wrote: »

Funny, I always understood that unions said that they were there to service their members rather than the other way around.

Armelodie wrote: »

On this occasion they did serve their members. Doing nothing would have negated any directive.

katydid wrote: »

Those who defy union directives are going against decisions made by elected members of the union on behalf of all members.

Not to mention the fact that opposition to Jobbridge came from the grassroots within the INTO and the directive stemmed from a motion from the members.

But don't let facts get in the way a snide (ill-informed) dig.

jank

Armelodie wrote: »

believe me jank, you'd get NQT teachers desperate enough to sell their granny to get into a school. Its the action of the unions against the principal's thats the issue.

A principal is putting a fully trained professional to work full hours for free. While a colleague next door (who could have graduated the same day) gets full pay/holidays/pension/increments. That to my mind is exploitation, pure and simple.

Schools saying they are doing teachers a favour are being economical with the truth. I've yet to see a jobbridge add for teachers that hasn't breeched the rules of jobbridge.

Pay the man for the work.

That really doesn't answer the question. The job bridge scheme is entirely voluntary. I believe that grown up mature adults are better at making decisions that affect their lives rather then you/me/ a union or anyone else for that matter. If the position was offered via job bridge to get experience working in a class, rather then sitting at home I imagine that some teachers due to their love for the vocation would rather work, even it is for the extra 50 euro a week on top of the 188. It will also of course make them stand out and be above the pecking order to get a full time position.

Many people benefit. The school, the teacher and most of all the children who now have an extra person teaching them giving them more core teacher attention and hours. The people that don't benefit are the Unions who see this as a losing of their power to dictate employment conditions to the government, hence this action.

Personally I think it should be up to the board of management to dictate if Job bridge should be used in a school.

jank

katydid wrote: »

Because it's union policy not to undermine their members, and principals are union members. If you're a union member, you go along with union directives.

It doesn't matter what the excuse was. There's a union directive and it's there for a reason. Union members should not breach it, and if they do they have to suffer the consequences.

It sounds very Star Trek/Borg to me...

evolving_doors

jank wrote: »

It sounds very Star Trek/Borg to me...

I think thats the 'prime directive' you are referring to... which is about not interfering with other civilisations.

jank

What I was getting at is the pretense that the actions of a collectivist group like a union should dare not be questioned, or else....

katydid

jank wrote: »

It sounds very Star Trek/Borg to me...

It's what all the members of the union agree on joining the union. No Borg like assimilation going on, and no closed shops; everyone is free to join or not.

katydid

jank wrote: »

That really doesn't answer the question. The job bridge scheme is entirely voluntary. I believe that grown up mature adults are better at making decisions that affect their lives rather then you/me/ a union or anyone else for that matter. If the position was offered via job bridge to get experience working in a class, rather then sitting at home I imagine that some teachers due to their love for the vocation would rather work, even it is for the extra 50 euro a week on top of the 188. It will also of course make them stand out and be above the pecking order to get a full time position.

Many people benefit. The school, the teacher and most of all the children who now have an extra person teaching them giving them more core teacher attention and hours. The people that don't benefit are the Unions who see this as a losing of their power to dictate employment conditions to the government, hence this action.

Personally I think it should be up to the board of management to dictate if Job bridge should be used in a school.

No one is doubting that it would be beneficial, in the short term, for that individual.

Unions don't exist to protect non-members; they exist to protect their in benefit, fee paying membership. It would be rather strange if the unions sat back and did nothing in reaction to the introduction of a concept that undermines and devalues their profession and the long term working conditions of their members.

Certainly a board of management can dictate that job bridge be used. And union members, which includes principals, can exercise their right and their moral duty to refuse to cooperate with it.

evolving_doors

katydid wrote: »

No one is doubting that it would be beneficial, in the short term, for that individual.

Unions don't exist to protect non-members; they exist to protect their in benefit, fee paying membership. It would be rather strange if the unions sat back and did nothing in reaction to the introduction of a concept that undermines and devalues their profession and the long term working conditions of their members.

Certainly a board of management can dictate that job bridge be used. And union members, which includes principals, can exercise their right and their moral duty to refuse to cooperate with it.

I wonder how a BOM would feel if any case were to be taken against the principal for any alleged indiscretion! Would the BOM foot the legal bill? Obviously if the principal is outside the Union the union wouldnt be picking up the tab. I know its all hypothetical nth degree... but legally I would imagine it would be putting a school/principal in a precarious position.

evolving_doors

jank wrote: »

That really doesn't answer the question. The job bridge scheme is entirely voluntary. I believe that grown up mature adults are better at making decisions that affect their lives rather then you/me/ a union or anyone else for that matter. If the position was offered via job bridge to get experience working in a class, rather then sitting at home I imagine that some teachers due to their love for the vocation would rather work, even it is for the extra 50 euro a week on top of the 188. It will also of course make them stand out and be above the pecking order to get a full time position.

Many people benefit. The school, the teacher and most of all the children who now have an extra person teaching them giving them more core teacher attention and hours. The people that don't benefit are the Unions who see this as a losing of their power to dictate employment conditions to the government, hence this action.

Personally I think it should be up to the board of management to dictate if Job bridge should be used in a school.

You're asking a qualified teacher to do a full weeks work for the dole.
The BOM is abusing jobbridge for cheap labour... if they were being honest about it then why hire a teacher to teach a full terms work and dress them up with deceitful job titles like 'librarian/classroom assistant/SNA'.


How can the teaching council honestly recognise teaching hours for registration from teachers who are down as librarians on the jobbridge scheme.

The answer is in the deception Jank.

jank

katydid wrote: »

It's what all the members of the union agree on joining the union. No Borg like assimilation going on, and no closed shops; everyone is free to join or not.

Fair enough. Therefore if one is not in a Union can they then negotiate their salary and conditions with the BOM of a school or a NQT freely enter a job-bridge scheme ?

The unions pull out the 'it's a democracy card' yet on the other hand give out directives that must be followed which impact on many people who are not in the union or who cannot be in the union e.g. pupils, parents, NQT teachers...

jank

katydid wrote: »

No one is doubting that it would be beneficial, in the short term, for that individual.

Unions don't exist to protect non-members; they exist to protect their in benefit, fee paying membership. It would be rather strange if the unions sat back and did nothing in reaction to the introduction of a concept that undermines and devalues their profession and the long term working conditions of their members.

Certainly a board of management can dictate that job bridge be used. And union members, which includes principals, can exercise their right and their moral duty to refuse to cooperate with it.

So, you are basically agreeing with me that in regards to this specific issue the unions are self serving and self interested. Well at least you are honest about it. I know many that would try and spin it that they are fighting some altruistic battle for the greater good of education and children. Kudos for the honesty.

jank

Gebgbegb wrote: »

You're asking a qualified teacher to do a full weeks work for the dole.

No, I am not asking them at all. I am not a principal or a member of a BOM.

However, if a principal or the BOM put forward a proposal to hire a NQT under the job bridge scheme and the teacher in question was fully aware of the terms and conditions of said job then I would NOT get in the way of this mutually beneficial contract that would exist between two people (never mind the external benefits like the children who get to have more core teacher contact hours).

I am not going to tell a teacher that they CANNOT work in a school even if they wanted to do so voluntarily because they love their vocation that much. Not all teachers of course will want to do this but you on the other hand have no problem speaking for everyone.

evolving_doors

jank wrote: »

Fair enough. Therefore if one is not in a Union can they then negotiate their salary and conditions with the BOM of a school or a NQT freely enter a job-bridge scheme ?

The unions pull out the 'it's a democracy card' yet on the other hand give out directives that must be followed which impact on many people who are not in the union or who cannot be in the union e.g. pupils, parents, NQT teachers...

So you'd prefer if the union did nothing?

evolving_doors

jank wrote: »

So, you are basically agreeing with me that in regards to this specific issue the unions are self serving and self interested. Well at least you are honest about it. I know many that would try and spin it that they are fighting some altruistic battle for the greater good of education and children. Kudos for the honesty.

What is the propose of a union then? by your logic they are not allowed do anything.
Please tell what you think a union is supposed to be for?

evolving_doors

jank wrote: »

No, I am not asking them at all. I am not a principal or a member of a BOM.

However, if a principal or the BOM put forward a proposal to hire a NQT under the job bridge scheme and the teacher in question was fully aware of the terms and conditions of said job then I would NOT get in the way of this mutually beneficial contract that would exist between two people (never mind the external benefits like the children who get to have more core teacher contact hours).

I am not going to tell a teacher that they CANNOT work in a school even if they wanted to do so voluntarily because they love their vocation that much. Not all teachers of course will want to do this but you on the other hand have no problem speaking for everyone.

How is the contract mutually beneficial? Its all very noble of you to 'think of the children' but for that teacher how do they benefit?.. Experience you say!! The teacher has qualified , they have done their unpaid 'work experience' through teaching practice.

If this practice was totally acceptable and every school had at least 2 'librarians' each, then why bother hiring more paid teachers? The only conclusion is to reduce the amount of paid teachers. You've read about it yourself on the jobbridge thread for some cases;
1. intern comes in...
2. staff let go...
3. intern assumes their role
4. Contract finishes
5. Cue next intern... usually trained up by previous one


Its state subsidised free labour.

Where did I say I spoke for everyone? Im simply outlining the union position which is supported by the majority of teachers (every teacher Ive ever talked to both on here and outside).


Who do you speak for? The children!!

What's your own profession btw? What's your own understanding of collegiality?.. not getting in the way of fellow professionals to do as they wish!

jank

Gebgbegb wrote: »

So you'd prefer if the union did nothing?

I would prefer the unions engage with the government in a less self serving way and not use children as pawns but that is just purely my opinion.

jank

Gebgbegb wrote: »

What is the propose of a union then? by your logic they are not allowed do anything.
Please tell what you think a union is supposed to be for?

Well then you can understand why the general public have such a low opinion on the teachers union. They are willing to sacrifice the other stakeholders in Irish education to further purely their members aims, primarily through monetary gains. The issues teachers are having today was seeded back in the boom when teachers unions negotiated huge salary increases with little regard for investment in infrastructure and programs never mind reforms.

jank

Gebgbegb wrote: »

How is the contract mutually beneficial?

Wouldn't it be obvious? The NQT gains experience that puts them ahead in the pecking order, the school gain an extra motivated individual willing to help out in a classroom under the terms of the contract of the job offered....

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Its all very noble of you to 'think of the children' but for that teacher how do they benefit?.. Experience you say!! The teacher has qualified , they have done their unpaid 'work experience' through teaching practice.

Yet it is clear there are NQT teachers willing to do job bridge schemes even if you disapprove. The difference between you and me is that you have no problem telling a NQT that they cannot work under job bridge, I on the other hand will not dictate terms to another induvidual.

Gebgbegb wrote: »

If this practice was totally acceptable and every school had at least 2 'librarians' each, then why bother hiring more paid teachers? The only conclusion is to reduce the amount of paid teachers. You've read about it yourself on the jobbridge thread for some cases;
1. intern comes in...
2. staff let go...
3. intern assumes their role
4. Contract finishes
5. Cue next intern... usually trained up by previous one


Its state subsidised free labour.

Aren't all teachers paid for by the state . Seriously though if it were laid out like you said then why aren't ALL jobs like this? Internships exist in many professional professions.

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Where did I say I spoke for everyone? Im simply outlining the union position which is supported by the majority of teachers (every teacher Ive ever talked to both on here and outside).

The majority of teachers. Not all and certainly not all NQT which the unions (and their members) are more than happy to throw under a bus to protect current members pay.

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Who do you speak for? The children!!

I speak as a citizen. Am I not allowed an opinion on the matter?

Gebgbegb wrote: »

What's your own profession btw? What's your own understanding of collegiality?.. not getting in the way of fellow professionals to do as they wish!

I work in the ICT sector. I would never get in the way of telling a fellow professional how they can work and under what conditions they should work under. Nor would I tell new ICT graduates that they cannot avail of internships if offered.

katydid

jank wrote: »

Well then you can understand why the general public have such a low opinion on the teachers union. They are willing to sacrifice the other stakeholders in Irish education to further purely their members aims, primarily through monetary gains. The issues teachers are having today was seeded back in the boom when teachers unions negotiated huge salary increases with little regard for investment in infrastructure and programs never mind reforms.

All unions operate on the same principle; the protection of the terms and conditions of its members. This seems to be news to you.

Protection of ones terms and conditions doesn't necessarily mean doing damage elsewhere. In this particular case, for instance, the defence of terms and conditions is also protecting the integrity of the profession, which can only but reflect positively on the system the professionals operate.

katydid

jank wrote: »

Fair enough. Therefore if one is not in a Union can they then negotiate their salary and conditions with the BOM of a school or a NQT freely enter a job-bridge scheme ?

The unions pull out the 'it's a democracy card' yet on the other hand give out directives that must be followed which impact on many people who are not in the union or who cannot be in the union e.g. pupils, parents, NQT teachers...

They can try to negotiate their terms and conditions; good luck to them with that.

Any NQT is free to enter a Job Bridge scheme, and any union member is free not to co-operate with them. That's the way it works.

I fail to see, however, how standing up for the teaching profession, and trying to ensure it isn't downgraded by using yellowpack workers would have a negative impact on anyone, least of all those NQT's.

katydid

jank wrote: »

So, you are basically agreeing with me that in regards to this specific issue the unions are self serving and self interested. Well at least you are honest about it. I know many that would try and spin it that they are fighting some altruistic battle for the greater good of education and children. Kudos for the honesty.

All unions are "self-serving" in that their purpose is to serve their members. What a strange question.

You sound like you've come across this concept for the first time.

In this case, serving the members is ALSO serving the system, because if the teaching profession is underminded, the system is undermined, and the users (the students) are the ones who will suffer.

Ostrom

Tails142 wrote: »

What actual ramifications does being suspended from a union have? If you got to stop paying the union dues it actually sounds like a boon.

In large organisations, unions can negotiate employment terms with employers; solidarity between members prevents employers from amending employment terms, from unfair work loads, from unfair use of performance monitoring; unions can give support or legal advice during grievances. In countries with high unionisation rates (Denmark for example which is over 70%), unions negotiate for terms across entire sectors of employment - employers and government are involved, and the pacts are reviewed every few years. They also administer unemployment benefits matched by central funds, where benefit rates can be up to 60% of salary for a fixed term.