Public sector pay increase

evolving_doors

Yara Old Backyard wrote: »

What's crazy about it? Plenty of degree graduates in private industry would be on that and more with similar or even less years on the job and wouldn't have the responsibility of educating the next generation.

True, Id also be interested to know what the hourly rate for just babysitting 20-30 'odd' teenagers is... nevermind throwing in a bit of education. Public service has to have a price. But for some the price is ALWAYS too much (untill maybr when they find they or their children is looking to avail of that service).

The previous poster stated earlier that between 30 and 50k should be sufficient.. however, when I mention I'm getting in the middle of this and looking for pay restoration (and willing to keep on all the extra work practices ) there's coffee sputtered all over their screen.
Let them eat cake, comes to mind.

Iwasfrozen

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Ok thats your position. Out of interest whats your own gross pay and qualifications?I won't badger you if you dont want to answer.

In terms of the next budget would you be in favour of raising tax levels/USC to get the country out if debt?

I'd rather not say what I make because if I say I make more than a teacher I'll be called out of touch and if I say I make less I'll be called a begrudger.

I'd like to see us balance our budget and even work towards a surplus so we can pay off our debt. If that means rising tax / USC so be it but there is still a lot of waste in the public service we can cut before we have to increase tax.

For one the pay freeze and extra hours should they apply should remain in place, secondly the sector needs to be de-unionized so the government can enforce changes without being held to ransom. Thirdly the extremely generous pay and perks of the senior staff should be redistributed to lower end entrants to make their lives easier without costing the state any more funds.

Iwasfrozen

Yara Old Backyard wrote: »

What's crazy about it? Plenty of degree graduates in private industry would be on that and more with similar or even less years on the job and wouldn't have the responsibility of educating the next generation.

Perhaps for accountants, engineers, solicitors or actuaries yes but teachers are not accountants, engineers, solicitors or actuaries.

Teachers have three months of the year off, excellent working conditions and they can't be sacked.These are perks that add to the desirability of the job and of course the more desirable a job the less the employer can pay to meet demand.

We know the teaching profession is over subscribed, many young teachers find it extremely hard to find a full time position, this is their fault for not researching their industry but it's also the governments fault as they have allowed the supply of new graduates to outmatch demand.

What I would propose is to continue to lower teachers wages (or keep the wage freeze, same thing only slower) until the supply of potential teaching candidates reaches the demand.

If schools are finding it hard to fill positions we can look at giving individual schools the right to pay more under certain circumstances.

evolving_doors

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I'd rather not say what I make because if I say I make more than a teacher I'll be called out of touch and if I say I make less I'll be called a begrudger.

Ok fair enough I'll respect the anonymity that boards members deserve. I wouldn't mind if you made more or less than me in any event though. I was just wondering if we could compare your qualifications and/or years experience to mine. After all if we can;t compare then it's just apples and oranges

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I'd like to see us balance our budget and even work towards a surplus so we can pay off our debt. If that means rising tax / USC so be it but there is still a lot of waste in the public service we can cut before we have to increase tax.

For one the pay freeze and extra hours should they apply should remain in place, secondly the sector needs to be de-unionized so the government can enforce changes without being held to ransom. Thirdly the extremely generous pay and perks of the senior staff should be redistributed to lower end entrants to make their lives easier without costing the state any more funds.

Iwasfrozen

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Ok fair enough I'll respect the anonymity that boards members deserve. I wouldn't mind if you made more or less than me in any event though. I was just wondering if we could compare your qualifications and/or years experience to mine. After all if we can;t compare then it's just apples and oranges

Fair enough, I have a post graduate degree and a little over a year working for a multi national on 25k in Dublin.

In future when I finish my professional exams I'll probably make more than a teacher but like most private sector workers I start out on less.

evolving_doors

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Fair enough, I have a post graduate degree and a little over a year working for a multi national on 25k a year in Dublin.

In future when I finish my professional exams I'll probably make more than a teacher but like most private sector workers I start out on less.

Well no actually , if I had started out on 25K I would have been delighted.. like most teachers I started out part time in the secondary system. It took about 4 years to average up to 30k , with no 'summer holiday pay'.


The starting fulltime is 30k... Ive yet to meet a teacher just out of college who secures this, it does happen but not the norm. So going back to my extortionate 43k after 10 odd years, I think it more than compensates for the years I spent on part time wages.

So if people are advocating paying even less to new entrants then they are ignorant of the reality that most new entrants are on a portion of a salary (and not necessairily paid during the holidays either).

Anyhow, sorry for dragging it onto teacher woes, but I think its important to realise its not all rosy in the public sector garden. If it were we'd have sensible folk like yissr good selves leaving yer grind and joining the 'gravy train'... but we dont.

BTW who ever stated that teachers have good working conditions had a very unique education experience.

Iwasfrozen

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Well no actually , if I had started out on 25K I would have been delighted.. like most teachers I started out part time in the secondary system. It took about 4 years to average up to 30k , with no 'summer holiday pay'.

The starting fulltime is 30k... Ive yet to meet a teacher just out of college who secures this, it does happen but not the norm. So

But why is it hard for new teachers to find roles? Because the supply of teachers is greater than demand. What do you do when supply is greater than demand? You lower wages until the two balance out.

You would have loved 25k, great. If we lower the starting wage to 25k, people like you would face much less competition.

evolving_doors

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Because the supply of teachers is greater than demand. What do you do when supply is greater than demand? You lower wages until the two balance out.

I think you'll find its the oversupply of teachers and part time sub work thats propping our education system up.

Lowering wages is rediculous pettyness considering teachers starting out are on a portion of a wage.

But then I suppose yould only be happy if the public sector worked for free alltogether, its not like its a 'real job' anyway.
Pity there isnt some 'internship' scheme where people could 'keep' their dole and 'gain valuable experience' at the same time...

Thank fech for the unions I say.

evolving_doors

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

But why is it hard for new teachers to find roles? Because the supply of teachers is greater than demand. What do you do when supply is greater than demand? You lower wages until the two balance out.

You would have loved 25k, great. If we lower the starting wage to 25k, people like you would face much less competition.

Ya, the last thing you'ld want is to encourage someone with high expectations of a decent living into a job right?

Iwasfrozen

Gebgbegb wrote: »

I think you'll find its the oversupply of teachers and part time sub work thats propping our education system up.

Lowering wages is rediculous pettyness considering teachers starting out are on a portion of a wage.

But then I suppose yould only be happy if the public sector worked for free alltogether, its not like its a 'real job' anyway.
Pity there isnt some 'internship' scheme where people could 'keep' their dole and 'gain valuable experience' at the same time...

Thank fech for the unions I say.

Cutting teachers wages would decrease competition while keeping the number of positions constant making it easier for junior teachers to find a full time job.

Iwasfrozen

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Ya, the last thing you'ld want is to encourage someone with high expectations of a decent living into a job right?

50k base with bonuses for principle, vice principle etc. Is more than decent.

Uncle Ben

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Perhaps for accountants, engineers, solicitors or actuaries yes but teachers are not accountants, engineers, solicitors or actuaries.

Teachers have three months of the year off, excellent working conditions and they can't be sacked.These are perks that add to the desirability of the job and of course the more desirable a job the less the employer can pay to meet demand.

We know the teaching profession is over subscribed, many young teachers find it extremely hard to find a full time position, this is their fault for not researching their industry but it's also the governments fault as they have allowed the supply of new graduates to outmatch demand.

What I would propose is to continue to lower teachers wages (or keep the wage freeze, same thing only slower) until the supply of potential teaching candidates reaches the demand.

If schools are finding it hard to fill positions we can look at giving individual schools the right to pay more under certain circumstances.

You wouldn't have engineers, accountants solicitors and actuaries with out the teachers and as for perks a lot of jobs have them. Health care, travel, share options etc.

When our politicians are getting 100k plus per annum I don't see a problem with our teachers getting 40, 50 or 60k

Icepick

Union-pleasing nonsense

PS needs to be properly managed and pay increases should go to those who deserve it. No automatic increments etc

Also it's better to cut income taxes and VAT so everybody benefits and government expenditure is not increasing.

Iwasfrozen

Uncle Ben wrote: »

You wouldn't have engineers, accountants solicitors and actuaries with out the teachers and as for perks a lot of jobs have them. Health care, travel, share options etc.

When our politicians are getting 100k plus per annum I don't see a problem with our teachers getting 40, 50 or 60k

That's a nonsensical thing to say, you might as well say without accountants you wouldn't have teachers.

Our politicians shouldn't be getting 100k plus per annum but that's for another time.

Uncle Ben

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That's a nonsensical thing to say, you might as well say without accountants you wouldn't have teachers.

Our politicians shouldn't be getting 100k plus per annum but that's for another time.

You've answered your own post. You're the one who differentiated different professions and then selected the teachers for the pay cuts. Backed up with the reason that they have 3 months off.

Smacks of a little begrudgery.

Celticfire

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

50k base with bonuses for principle, vice principle etc. Is more than decent.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That's a nonsensical thing to say, you might as well say without accountants you wouldn't have teachers.

Our politicians shouldn't be getting 100k plus per annum but that's for another time.

You seem to think that nobody should be paid a decent wage in relation to the job they have and the responsibilities that come with it once they are members of the Public Sector.

Iwasfrozen

Uncle Ben wrote: »

You've answered your own post. You're the one who differentiated different professions and then selected the teachers for the pay cuts. Backed up with the reason that they have 3 months off.

Smacks of a little begrudgery.

I knew I'd be accused of begrudgery. -_- Because clearly no one can have any criticisms of the public sector without being jealous.

I was pointing out how silly your "you wouldn't have x if it wasn't for y" statement was.

Uncle Ben

Icepick wrote: »

Union-pleasing nonsense

PS needs to be properly managed and pay increases should go to those who deserve it. No automatic increments etc

Also it's better to cut income taxes and VAT so everybody benefits and government expenditure is not increasing.

As someone on here or some other forum posted. 'who deserves it more, the nurse in a & e who for 12 hours tended 40 incidents or the nurse on the ward who for 12 hours tended the dying mother whilst her family watched on?' Who gets the pay increases and the increments. This measuring lark doesn't work.

barneystinson

Uncle Ben wrote: »

As someone on here or some other forum posted. 'who deserves it more, the nurse in a & e who for 12 hours tended 40 incidents or the nurse on the ward who for 12 hours tended the dying mother whilst her family watched on?' Who gets the pay increases and the increments. This measuring lark doesn't work.

It doesn't necessarily not work at all, but as the above example illustrates you need to be VERY careful if you're going to start linking PS workers' pay increments to specific performance indicators.

I.e. no point crying afterwards that X, Y & Z have suffered, when a system has been implemented whereby there's no incentive for delivering X, Y or Z.

Uncle Ben

barneystinson wrote: »

It doesn't necessarily not work at all, but as the above example illustrates you need to be VERY careful if you're going to start linking PS workers' pay increments to specific performance indicators.

I.e. no point crying afterwards that X, Y & Z have suffered, when a system has been implemented whereby there's no incentive for delivering X, Y or Z.

I agree. However there are some who believe that PS pay and conditions can simply be measured and a wage can then be calibrated against it. It doesn't work that way.

Mr. teddywinkles

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I knew I'd be accused of begrudgery. -_- Because clearly no one can have any criticisms of the public sector without being jealous.

I was pointing out how silly your "you wouldn't have x if it wasn't for y" statement was.

This thread is so funny. One minute people who work in the public sector are poor mouthing. Then everyone is told their jealous of them. Ffs
This public vrs private is farcical affair

The J Stands for Jay

Some of them deserve increases, some don't. It's hard to decide which is which.

Except the politicians, they don't need an increase. They are set for life once they are elected, even if they get voted out at the next election.

evolving_doors

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

50k base with bonuses for principle, vice principle etc. Is more than decent.

Ya I suppose,in the private sector 50k (with 'bonuses') would be wayyy to mych for a manager of a company with 30 staff and 700 odd children.

evolving_doors

Uncle Ben wrote: »

As someone on here or some other forum posted. 'who deserves it more, the nurse in a & e who for 12 hours tended 40 incidents or the nurse on the ward who for 12 hours tended the dying mother whilst her family watched on?' Who gets the pay increases and the increments. This measuring lark doesn't work.

Aye there were a few on here who said it could be done but it would be 'too complicated' to explain.

evolving_doors

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

This thread is so funny. One minute people who work in the public sector are poor mouthing. Then everyone is told their jealous of them. Ffs
This public vrs private is farcical affair

Tis farcical allright but unfortunately people feed off the spin that someone is creaming it from their taxes, then when someone tries to defend their bread and butter they get accused of the poor mouth.

At no stage will these folk realise that they'll ALWAYS resent someone elses payslip. Dog in a manger.. if the dog can't eat the hay he'll try his damndest to make sure no one else can.

Monife

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Public sector workers, when you take into consideration the level of education and training needed for the job and the level of stress the job implies still get paid more than their private sector counterparts.

There's accountants in my PS office on about 40k so what you say is not true.

suicide_circus

Can people please stop saying "PS"? Do I need to explain why it's confusing?

Mr. teddywinkles

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Tis farcical allright but unfortunately people feed off the spin that someone is creaming it from their taxes, then when someone tries to defend their bread and butter they get accused of the poor mouth.

At no stage will these folk realise that they'll ALWAYS resent someone elses payslip. Dog in a manger.. if the dog can't eat the hay he'll try his damndest to make sure no one else can.

So your sayin it is jealousy.
It wouldn't be because of this so called upturn in the economy and I want what I'm entitled to type of mentality

evolving_doors

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

So your sayin it is jealousy.
It wouldn't be because of this so called upturn in the economy and I want what I'm entitled to type of mentality

Whats wrong wuth getting what you are entitled to?

Anyway I think we need to draw a distinction between pay restoration and a 'pay rise'. Iirc there was negotiations under CP1&2, then the govt. demanded more under Haddington Road.. so grand,cuts and increased workload with the understanding that it would be removed in 2016.. so either FEMPI is in play or its not'

Im not looking for a complete restoration..(obviously the unions have to ask for everything before negotiations).. Im the same as any other Joe in public or private sector trying to decide whether to stay or go.

Mr. teddywinkles

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Whats wrong wuth getting what you are entitled to?

Anyway I think we need to draw a distinction between pay restoration and a 'pay rise'. Iirc there was negotiations under CP1&2, then the govt. demanded more under Haddington Road.. so grand,cuts and increased workload with the understanding that it would be removed in 2016.. so either FEMPI is in play or its not'

Im not looking for a complete restoration..(obviously the unions have to ask for everything before negotiations).. Im the same as any other Joe in public or private sector trying to decide whether to stay or go.

Would ya be up for hiring more staff instead of pay rise to relieve this massive workload?

jcon1913

Uncle Ben wrote: »

You wouldn't have engineers, accountants solicitors and actuaries with out the teachers and as for perks a lot of jobs have them. Health care, travel, share options etc.

When our politicians are getting 100k plus per annum I don't see a problem with our teachers getting 40, 50 or 60k

QUOTE ....as for perks a lot of jobs have them. Health care, travel, share options etc.

---

Most of these are taxable

QUOTE .....When our politicians are getting 100k plus per annum I don't see a problem with our teachers getting 40, 50 or 60k

---

youre not comparing a TD with a schoolteacher surely?

Celticfire

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

Would ya be up for hiring more staff instead of pay rise to relieve this massive workload?

Would it not be cheaper to restore his pay and make him continue to do this extra work instead of hiring new employees? And anyhow why would you want more people hired ??? I thought the consensus is that the PS is bloated.

Mr. teddywinkles

Celticfire wrote: »

Would it not be cheaper to restore his pay and make him continue to do this extra work instead of hiring new employees? And anyhow why would you want more people hired ??? I thought the consensus is that the PS is bloated.

Well which is it. Its bloated or understaffed and overworked?

osarusan

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

Well which is it. Its bloated or understaffed and overworked?

Which do you think?

Celticfire

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

Well which is it. Its bloated or understaffed and overworked?

Perhaps if we engage our Brain for a second we can figure out that it's a combination of both. Overstaffed in some areas and understaffed in others. Not everything is black or white.

Mr. teddywinkles

Celticfire wrote: »

Perhaps if we engage our Brain for a second we can figure out that it's a combination of both. Overstaffed in some areas and understaffed in others. Not everything is black or white.

You said this not me. Why would you restore pay if this hasn't been achieved. To be honest if new blood entered this sector. Might shake it up a bit.

mikemac1

The teacher here on 43k gets Christmas and Easter holidays, good for them.

Is she needs more and don't we all why not get a second job during June, July and August?

Or even just work two of these and you still have more time off then a private sector worker who gets 20 days annual leave or a clerical officer who does much the same.

Language schools, teach English abroad, leisure centers are just some examples.

Maybe teachers wages aren't great but a nurse or accountant or garda or whoever on the same salary cannot take months off to pull a second job. These holidays are a huge premium to the role.

+1 to the post above about PS. Makes no sense to use it

Celticfire

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

You said this not me. Why would you restore pay if this hasn't been achieved. To be honest if new blood entered this sector. Might shake it up a bit.

Because when The Government implemented the cuts it did so on the condition (which is written into law) that it would restore pay when the deficit is below 3% of GDP. They made blanket cuts to budgets and stopped all hiring of staff even in essential areas that needed it. That was their policy and the mess they created.

Geuze

Given that a Chartered accountant newly qualified in 2013 was earning nearly 50k on average in 2014, and given that Chartered Accountants earn nearly 90k on average in 2014, and given that as a society we want to attract high calibre candidates into teaching, then as a society, we must pay teachers well.

https://leinster.charteredaccountants.ie/Global/Leinster/Press-Release-Leinster-Society-Salary-Survey-The-Panel-25-7-14.pdf

So a 40yr old teacher should be on 55-60k, with 10 yrs+ experience.

Iwasfrozen

Geuze wrote: »

Given that a Chartered accountant newly qualified in 2013 was earning nearly 50k on average in 2014, and given that Chartered Accountants earn nearly 90k on average in 2014, and given that as a society we want to attract high calibre candidates into teaching, then as a society, we must pay teachers well.

https://leinster.charteredaccountants.ie/Global/Leinster/Press-Release-Leinster-Society-Salary-Survey-The-Panel-25-7-14.pdf

So a 40yr old teacher should be on 55-60k, with 10 yrs+ experience.

Chartered Accountants have to spend years doing professional exams outside college, it's not a fair comparison.

Also the teaching profession is over subscribed in this country, increasing wages will only lead to more congestion making it harder for new graduates to find jobs.

A 50k base cap with bonuses for principals, vice principals etc. is more than enough.

evolving_doors

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Chartered Accountants have to spend years doing professional exams outside college, it's not a fair comparison.

Also the teaching profession is over subscribed in this country, increasing wages will only lead to more congestion making it harder for new graduates to find jobs.

A 50k base cap with bonuses for principals, vice principals etc. is more than enough.

Jeez why do you keep on about principals.
What would a typical CEO of a company of 30 staff get in the private sector (you can ignore the 700 children and parents.. not like they need managing anyway)?

Anyway... not a fair comparison for accountants!! Because they have to spend years doing professional exams
How many years are we taking about?
Do they get their pay increased for passing said exams?

Iwasfrozen

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Jeez why do you keep on about principals.
What would a typical CEO of a company of 30 staff get in the private sector (you can ignore the 700 children and parents.. not like they need managing anyway)?

Anyway... not a fair comparison for accountants!! Because they have to spend years doing professional exams
How many years are we taking about?
Do they get their pay increased for passing said exams?

What company with a CEO only has 30 staff? A more accurate comparison would be a manager. And come to think of it what private sector manager has guaranteed customers and staff paid for by the state? Your comparisons are asinine and you know it.

Many years, and yes they do get pay rises as they pass their exams. Teachers don't have to worry about professional exams and start out on 30k while most accountants start on the low 20s out of college.

I know what you're going to say "but it takes years for teachers to become full time and make 30k" and yes I appreciate that, which is why I want to cap teachers basic wages at 50k and lower entrants wages to 25k to lower demand and make it easier new entrants to find positions but you bitched about that too.

Honestly it seems you want more pay and lower class sizes without any thought to how it would affect the deficit.

evolving_doors

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What company with a CEO only has 30 staff? A more accurate comparison would be a manager.

Ah now, ok we won't split hairs over CEO/Manager/ 30 staff/700 Pupils/700 Parents. But anyway just entertain me. Is there ANY job in the private sector that would begrudge 50k to any manager of over 30 staff (we'll ignore the teenagers and parents aside if it helps)?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

And come to think of it what private sector manager has guaranteed customers and staff paid for by the state? Your comparisons are asinine and you know it.

Well you still got to manage them no matter if they are public or private sector. So the comparison and question still stands. Although I get the feeling that when it boils down to it there's loads of bluster about comparisons but a lot of avoidance when it's on the table.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Many years,

How many ?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

...and yes they do get pay rises as they pass their exams.

Ah like the masters allowance that teachers used to get. It would only seem fair to bring that back no? At least with the allowance you could have your masters paid off in 15 years.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Teachers don't have to worry about professional exams...

Dunno who you're talking to but any teacher I know knows damn well that you ain't going to get anywhere near a post of responsibility without a masters (and not to mention all the other training that the job requires).

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

... and start out on 30k .

See your contradiction below

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

...while most accountants start on the low 20s out of college.

When I came out of college.... I had to go back to college to get my professional qualification (which is another 2 years unfunded now BTW).

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I know what you're going to say "but it takes years for teachers to become full time and make 30k" and yes I appreciate that,

Given the following statement I don't think you do appreciate it. So instead of a newer entrant on a portion of 30k you would put them on a portion of 25k!!!
So that's going to provide someone with a living!

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

which is why I want to cap teachers basic wages at 50k

But yet you begrudge me on 43k! (And I've done loads of exams after graduating too! ... and I'm doing more now just to spite ya. By your standards i should be minted when I finish.)

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

and lower entrants wages to 25k to lower demand and make it easier new entrants to find positions

Great, lower demand by having people scrounging for pennies from sub work. I presume you'd be in favour of having them working for free too if you could get away with it (jobbridge anyone!). It's not like they'd want to have a life/family or anything, shur they can live off the 3 months holidays!

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

but you bitched about that too.

I aint the one bitching about being paid a decent wage commensurate with qualifications and experience.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Honestly it seems you just want more pay and lower class sizes without any thought to how that will affect the deficit.

Ah here's where we get the false dilemma. It's nice of you to offer us a choice though.

Any thoughts on the next budget?
Would you like to pay more taxes yourself then?
Or are you looking for a cut in taxes?

Iwasfrozen

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Ah now, ok we won't split hairs over CEO/Manager/ 30 staff/700 Pupils/700 Parents. But anyway just entertain me. Is there ANY job in the private sector that would begrudge 50k to any manager of over 30 staff (we'll ignore the teenagers and parents aside if it helps)?

Don;t know, I've explicitly stated the 50k cap would be base. Not applied to bonuses like principal, vice principal bonus etc.

Well you still got to manage them no matter if they are public or private sector. So the comparison and question still stands. Although I get the feeling that when it boils down to it there's loads of bluster about comparisons but a lot of avoidance when it's on the table.

You've got to manage your staff yes, you don't have to worry about paying them, profits or staying in business.

How many ?

Depends on the person.

Ah like the masters allowance that teachers used to get. It would only seem fair to bring that back no? At least with the allowance you could have your masters paid off in 15 years.

An accountant needs to pass their exams to be a chartered accountant. I couldn't be an external auditor for example without passing those exams, they have a market value.

When a teacher earns a masters degree they don't actually bring anything new to the table, they still work in the same jobs and still teach the same material. So again, your comparison doesn't stand.

Dunno who you're talking to but any teacher I know knows damn well that you ain't going to get anywhere near a post of responsibility without a masters (and not to mention all the other training that the job requires).

It's not a requirement.

When I came out of college.... I had to go back to college to get my professional qualification (which is another 2 years unfunded now BTW).

Do you mean you came out with a BA? That's hardly a qualification in teaching now is it. :rolleyes:

Given the following statement I don't think you do appreciate it. So instead of a newer entrant on a portion of 30k you would put them on a portion of 25k!!!
So that's going to provide someone with a living!

No, no portions. Those who don't get a permanent placement will still earn the same, what cuts will do is decrease competition for placements as the job becomes less desirable.

But yet you begrudge me on 43k! (And I've done loads of exams after graduating too! ... and I'm doing more now just to spite ya. By your standards i should be minted when I finish.)

I don't begrudge anyone's wages, I believe teachers wages should be capped at 50k before bonuses, I've made this very clear.

Great, lower demand by having people scrounging for pennies from sub work. I presume you'd be in favour of having them working for free too if you could get away with it (jobbridge anyone!). It's not like they'd want to have a life/family or anything, shur they can live off the 3 months holidays!

Now you're just being emotional, cuts to pay will lower demand for teaching positions making it easier for those who accept cuts to find a full time position (because cuts won't affect the number of available positions) while keeping the wages of those who still can't find a full time position constant.

New teachers are finding it hard to find jobs because there is an over supply of new teachers relative to the demand for new teachers. So what do you do when supply and demand miss? You lower wages until the supply of new teachers falls to meet the demand of the market.

I aint the one bitching about being paid a decent wage commensurate with qualifications and experience.

Value is relative, everyone believes their job is the most important in the world. That's why we should allow market mechanisms to set wages, as I describe above.

Ah here's where we get the false dilemma. It's nice of you to offer us a choice though.

It's not a false dilemma, if you want more funds then they have to come from somewhere, assuming you don't want to cut funding in other areas of the economy you must want to increase our deficit.

Any thoughts on the next budget?
Would you like to pay more taxes yourself then?
Or are you looking for a cut in taxes?

I'd like to see our deficit turned to a surplus. I would be willing to pay higher taxes to pay for this but the economy would benefit more from cuts to government spending than increased taxation.

Geuze

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What company with a CEO only has 30 staff? A more accurate comparison would be a manager. And come to think of it what private sector manager has guaranteed customers and staff paid for by the state? Your comparisons are asinine and you know it.

Many years, and yes they do get pay rises as they pass their exams. Teachers don't have to worry about professional exams and start out on 30k while most accountants start on the low 20s out of college.

I know what you're going to say "but it takes years for teachers to become full time and make 30k" and yes I appreciate that, which is why I want to cap teachers basic wages at 50k and lower entrants wages to 25k to lower demand and make it easier new entrants to find positions but you bitched about that too.

Honestly it seems you want more pay and lower class sizes without any thought to how it would affect the deficit.

You suggest a world where newly qualified accountants aged 25 earn nearly 50k, as reported by the Chartered Accountants themselves, and where the MAX a teacher can ever earn is the same, at 50k.

Why would any ambitious, smart, young person choose teaching as a career under those conditions?

A society that values a skilled and experienced educator the same as a newly qualified Chartered Accountant is not the type of place where most people want to live.

Even capitalist employers would want teachers well-paid, so as to help produce more skilled students.

jank

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Jeez why do you keep on about principals.
What would a typical CEO of a company of 30 staff get in the private sector (you can ignore the 700 children and parents.. not like they need managing anyway)?

Anyway... not a fair comparison for accountants!! Because they have to spend years doing professional exams
How many years are we taking about?
Do they get their pay increased for passing said exams?

You accuse the poster of making an unfair comparison then go off and do one yourself. A principal is not a CEO, they are mid level managers if anything.

evolving_doors

jank wrote: »

You accuse the poster of making an unfair comparison then go off and do one yourself. A principal is not a CEO, they are mid level managers if anything.

Well actually i think a Principals role is comparable to a CEO going by the definition:

a chief executive officer, the highest-ranking person in a company or other institution, ultimately responsible for taking managerial decisions.

Sure, they may be answerable to a Board of Management but CEO's are answerable to shareholders too! And the principal often has the final say on the BOM (to my knowledge!).

So if you claim they are mid-level managers then .... who is above them!!

As regards making comparisons i was referring to the poster who said it wasn't a proper comparison because ...

"Chartered Accountants have to spend years doing professional exams outside college, it's not a fair comparison. "

That was a separate argument to the poster's gripe about capping a Principals wages at 50k (plus bonuses!! whatever that means). I think it is fair to say there aren't many jobs in the private sector that would pay someone who is over 30staff (at least!) (and then 700 odd students and parents)/ plus managing the budget for wages, assigning roles and different rosters year in year out for every teacher/class group. Fighting off potential legal cases that could destroy any school etc.

Anyways I'm out of this thread, folk are trying to treat the Public Service like a private company which makes a profit (and can fold at any stage). I've more than paid my share for PRIVATE SECTOR debt (oh but we all partied didn't we!). I've kept my end of the bargain and then some, to the best of my knowledge it isn't a pay rise, it's a pay restoration under an agreement. I accept that the T&C of extra workload will never be rescinded when FEMPI is finished, and that pay terms won't be reinstated all in one go. That's fair enough I think.

But if you want to be a dog in a manger the least you could do is to eat the hay. So why don't you come over and join us in the public sector, the grass is obviously greener, you'd be a fool to stay where you are going by your own 'gravy train' logic.

Kermit.de.frog

This is the wrong thing to do. It's so stupid that a country that has just come out of a devastating economic crisis goes back to set up another crisis. We can not afford this.



http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/public-service-workers-set-for-800-windfall-each-1.2202694?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Fpublic-service-workers-set-for-800-windfall-each-1.2202694

Public service workers set for €800 windfall each
Government to spend €250m to €300m (of our money) restoring pay to 300,000 public workers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbO7czzIu_o

Arsemageddon

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

This is the wrong thing to do. It's so stupid that a country that has just come out of a devastating economic crisis goes back to set up another crisis. We can not afford this.

Business as usual so. Did you really expect anything else?

Cold War Kid

Good for them. I'll keep an eye out for public sector jobs and apply for any I think I'd suit.