Are Croke Park/Haddington Road hours now for life and not just for FEMPI?

Alex Meier

I was an ASTI school steward in 2010 in my school when I fought, along with many others, to prevent the imposition of the Croke Park hours.

I felt that once the hours were introduced that they would never be rescinded regardless of any future improvement in the circumstances of the country as it was my belief that senior Civil Servants in the DES were using this crisis as an excuse to force unnecessary boring planning meetings, staff meetings, etc. . .on the teaching profession.

Others disagreed.

Lo and behold the 33 hours became 76 hours when Haddington Road saw unpaid hours in the form of S&S. . . Or should I state 88 hours due to Circular 58/2004.

At least there are plans embedded in HR to pay for S&S albeit at a reduced rate (in two instalments on 01 April 2017 and 01 January 2018)

Now we have this Lansdowne Road Agreement - and impeded in this agreement are the hours above. . . .

The TUI have recommended rejection on the basis of reducing the workload - something which will not cost the state a cent.

But I don't think they'll get anywhere.

Thoughts?

jjdonegal

Alex Meier wrote: »

I was an ASTI school steward in 2010 in my school when I fought, along with many others, to prevent the imposition of the Croke Park hours.

I felt that once the hours were introduced that they would never be rescinded regardless of any future improvement in the circumstances of the country as it was my belief that senior Civil Servants in the DES were using this crisis as an excuse to force unnecessary boring planning meetings, staff meetings, etc. . .on the teaching profession.

Others disagreed.

Lo and behold the 33 hours became 76 hours when Haddington Road saw unpaid hours in the form of S&S. . . Or should I state 88 hours due to Circular 58/2004.

At least there are plans embedded in HR to pay for S&S albeit at a reduced rate (in two instalments on 01 April 2017 and 01 January 2018)

Now we have this Lansdowne Road Agreement - and impeded in this agreement are the hours above. . . .

The TUI have recommended rejection on the basis of reducing the workload - something which will not cost the state a cent.

But I don't think they'll get anywhere.

Thoughts?

Unfortunately I think there here to stay. Teaching is not the profession it was when I entered it 8 years ago. I feel all my goodwill being slowly eroded away and I noticed that my commitment to extra curricular decreased this year.
When you have 2 hours of absolute tripe to look forward to regularly it's hard to muster up the strength to keep lads back to 5/530 the day before to train.
I'd have a lot less problems with the 33 hours if the 33 hours minimum (it's a lot more) I put into extra curricular every year was acknowledged.

Here to stay but my God I hope I'm wrong!

katydid

Alex Meier wrote: »

I was an ASTI school steward in 2010 in my school when I fought, along with many others, to prevent the imposition of the Croke Park hours.

I felt that once the hours were introduced that they would never be rescinded regardless of any future improvement in the circumstances of the country as it was my belief that senior Civil Servants in the DES were using this crisis as an excuse to force unnecessary boring planning meetings, staff meetings, etc. . .on the teaching profession.

Others disagreed.

Lo and behold the 33 hours became 76 hours when Haddington Road saw unpaid hours in the form of S&S. . . Or should I state 88 hours due to Circular 58/2004.

At least there are plans embedded in HR to pay for S&S albeit at a reduced rate (in two instalments on 01 April 2017 and 01 January 2018)

Now we have this Lansdowne Road Agreement - and impeded in this agreement are the hours above. . . .

The TUI have recommended rejection on the basis of reducing the workload - something which will not cost the state a cent.

But I don't think they'll get anywhere.

Thoughts?

My thoughts are that I'm annoyed that my colleagues were so naive as to vote for this in the first place. Of course the hours are here to stay.

Alex Meier

katydid wrote: »

My thoughts are that I'm annoyed that my colleagues were so naive as to vote for this in the first place. Of course the hours are here to stay.

It was a line spun by the unions though . . . Vote for this - It won't be forever etc. . .

Once something is given it is very difficult to take it back - This works both ways regarding pay from the state and now regarding the number of additional hours that have creeped in through the years.

This is set to continue with CPD requirements, short courses under the JCSA, etc. . . and all of it has nothing to do with saving money.

It's entirely of our own doing as we voted for it when the pressure was applied.

katydid

Alex Meier wrote: »

It was a line spun by the unions though . . . Vote for this - It won't be forever etc. . .

Once something is given it is very difficult to take it back - This works both ways regarding pay from the state and now regarding the number of additional hours that have creeped in through the years.

This is set to continue with CPD requirements, short courses under the JCSA, etc. . . and all of it has nothing to do with saving money.

It's entirely of our own doing as we voted for it when the pressure was applied.

I don't recall my union, the TUI, spinning that line, to be honest. What I do recall was, in relation to the HR vote, being told at a meeting, by Gerry Craughwell, that while they were not recommending a yes vote, the government had a gun to our heads, as colleagues would lost jobs if we voted no. Not a vague threat, but specific teachers whose jobs were directly on the line. That swung some of my colleagues.

What kills me about it is the hypocrisy of these extra hours; in forcing us to sit in stupid, pointless meetings at the end of the day when we are tired and stressed, they have slapped us in the face with the implication that we do nothing outside our contact hours. With the result that there is less time, energy and motivation to do the unpaid work that was being done all along. So so stupid.

RealJohn

Alex Meier wrote: »

Once something is given it is very difficult to take it back - This works both ways regarding pay from the state and now regarding the number of additional hours that have creeped in through the years

Does it work both ways? My colleagues, before my time, fought to get paid for the S&S they were doing and they succeeded, only for it to be taken off of us. Let's not pretend that we're getting that money back. When the rest of the public sector are enjoying their partial pay restoration, we'll just be getting paid for the hours we've already put in.

They took our pay off of us. We absolutely need to refuse to do any more punitive Haddington hours now that this 'crisis' is over. Like katydid said, they were brought in purely to make us do more in our non-constant time, just so that the government could claim to be making us work harder when the truth is that for most of us, they were just forcing us to sit in a room, bored.

The more I think about it, the more it sounds like they gave us detention.

katydid

RealJohn wrote: »

The more I think about it, the more it sounds like they gave us detention.

That's what we call it in our school, "Teachers' detention". But the thing is, we didn't do anything wrong...

TheDriver

Its all a bit vague, we are due to get money back anyways so why do we need an extension etc when there are promises on the table??

Alex Meier

I'm of the view that teachers should use their full leave entitlement, including force majeure, if these hours are not, at the very least, going to be reduced

katydid

Alex Meier wrote: »

I'm of the view that teachers should use their full leave entitlement, including force majeure, if these hours are not, at the very least, going to be reduced

And they should give up all voluntary extra curricular work until detention is got rid of.

ethical

With FEMPI supposed to be nearing an end and Minister Howlin stating that the Government are really on 'shaky' ground to use it as a stick to beat public servants including teachers with, there really should be an all-out rejection of this Croke Park which morphed into Haddington Road which is now the Landsdowne Road agreement,its like a bad 'flu which has now turned into pneumonia.....and the latter is generally fatal!
Realistically teachers should not take part in ANY extra curricular come the end of August and just do their teaching,their posts if they are lucky enough to have one and sit through these God-forsaken waste of time 'Meetings'......but of course teachers will not do it en-masse,they never do which is why the profession is in its present mess!
This,above mess,coupled with less posts( being paid for that is!),while the amount of work (admin,paper work etc) has ballooned in the past few years coupled with the recruitment of young inexperienced Principles and Deputy Principals who have not lived life! but can (possibly) talk the talk but unfortunately cannot walk the walk,have no experience in rearing,disciplining or caring for or guiding children has seen the work place deteriorate at an alarming rate.Teaching is not teaching as it was 5 or 6 years ago.Its teach your full compliment of classes and still do all the admin associated with your post (if you had a post),if not ,tough 'do it any ways'! and be 'on-call' 24/7 as your school may need you.
I would hate to see teachers 'taking'all their sick leave because in some schools its not recorded whereas in others if you have a toilet break of any length you have to fill in a form for it!
The Unions are not helping the case either,they know the mess the system is in yet they trot out the same old advice that really does nothing for morale at the coal-face that is the classroom.

katydid

ethical wrote: »

The Unions are not helping the case either,they know the mess the system is in yet they trot out the same old advice that really does nothing for morale at the coal-face that is the classroom.

What should the unions do differently?

2011abc

Clear out whoever the hell in head office is in bed with the government ( if not actually in their pocket ) .There are at the very least one or two . Clear out the Yes men from the committees . Get in more people like Andrew Phelan .

implausible

ethical wrote: »

This, above mess, coupled with less posts (being paid for that is!),while the amount of work (admin,paper work etc) has ballooned in the past few years coupled with the recruitment of young inexperienced Principals and Deputy Principals who have not lived life but can (possibly) talk the talk but unfortunately cannot walk the walk, have no experience in rearing, disciplining or caring for or guiding children has seen the work place deteriorate at an alarming rate. Teaching is not teaching as it was 5 or 6 years ago. It's teach your full complement of classes and still do all the admin associated with your post (if you had a post),if not, tough 'do it any ways'! and be 'on-call' 24/7 as your school may need you.

I think you're being very harsh on principals there. By the sounds of this, you think all principals should be at least 40 and have children. There are a lot of things wrong with the system. In my experience, most principals are just trying to manage schools and do more with less. They're getting caught between the demands of the dept and the lack of posts.

political analyst

katydid wrote: »

That's what we call it in our school, "Teachers' detention". But the thing is, we didn't do anything wrong...

It's not my intention to provoke you but, in all fairness, teachers had a say in the issue by voting on it. Pupils who are put on detention don't have a say in it.

As for Ruairí Quinn's threat of redundancy, that could have been fought in the courts instead of there being acceptance of HRA. I don't think that the government would have wanted to be accused of harming pupils' prospects, i.e. cutbacks. The unions could have joined forces with local parents' associations - by-passing the NPC-PP - to fight cutbacks. They missed an opportunity.

political analyst

ethical wrote: »

With FEMPI supposed to be nearing an end and Minister Howlin stating that the Government are really on 'shaky' ground to use it as a stick to beat public servants including teachers with, there really should be an all-out rejection of this Croke Park which morphed into Haddington Road which is now the Landsdowne Road agreement,its like a bad 'flu which has now turned into pneumonia.....and the latter is generally fatal!
Realistically teachers should not take part in ANY extra curricular come the end of August and just do their teaching,their posts if they are lucky enough to have one and sit through these God-forsaken waste of time 'Meetings'......but of course teachers will not do it en-masse,they never do which is why the profession is in its present mess!
This,above mess,coupled with less posts( being paid for that is!),while the amount of work (admin,paper work etc) has ballooned in the past few years coupled with the recruitment of young inexperienced Principles and Deputy Principals who have not lived life! but can (possibly) talk the talk but unfortunately cannot walk the walk,have no experience in rearing,disciplining or caring for or guiding children has seen the work place deteriorate at an alarming rate.Teaching is not teaching as it was 5 or 6 years ago.Its teach your full compliment of classes and still do all the admin associated with your post (if you had a post),if not ,tough 'do it any ways'! and be 'on-call' 24/7 as your school may need you.
I would hate to see teachers 'taking'all their sick leave because in some schools its not recorded whereas in others if you have a toilet break of any length you have to fill in a form for it!
The Unions are not helping the case either,they know the mess the system is in yet they trot out the same old advice that really does nothing for morale at the coal-face that is the classroom.

I think that a union directive banning members from doing extra-curricular activities is a good idea because throwing the Young Scientist competition into disarray might focus politicians' minds - after all, they won't want to be accused of frustrating pupils' potential.

evolving_doors

political analyst wrote: »

I think that a union directive banning members from doing extra-curricular activities is a good idea because throwing the Young Scientist competition into disarray might focus politicians' minds - after all, they won't want to be accused of frustrating pupils' potential.

Not gonna happen. I know a good few teachers who are only keeping sane because of the EC. I think it would polarise the union into Pro and Anti- EC ... myabe that's what we need though.. a good old rant on the staffroom floor.

I really would like to see it happen though... i wonder what way it would go down with parents and students?

I'd say there'd be little sympathy for teachers when it comes to hours worked.. the answer would yet again be thrown out as "the summer holidays Joe the summer holidays".

ytareh

It's gas how the sort of teacher who wouldn't boycott the Young Scientists for the sake of the students is oblivious or ambivalent to what has happened their younger colleagues .

katydid

political analyst wrote: »

I think that a union directive banning members from doing extra-curricular activities is a good idea because throwing the Young Scientist competition into disarray might focus politicians' minds - after all, they won't want to be accused of frustrating pupils' potential.

The problem is that you will get non members doing it anyway, and you'll even get union members breaking the directive. Teachers' weak point is their students; even though the government is disrespecting them the way they do, they still want the best for their students.

katydid

2011abc wrote: »

Clear out whoever the hell in head office is in bed with the government ( if not actually in their pocket ) .There are at the very least one or two . Clear out the Yes men from the committees . Get in more people like Andrew Phelan .

A bit vague. The union is its members and the executive committee are ordinary teachers who are answerable to their colleagues they meet every day at work. Some of the paid officials need a bit of a reining in, that's true.

What I'm really asking is what should the unions be telling their members? Last time, my union deliberately didn't recommend one way or the other , but laid it on the line about the consequences of a NO vote. Now they are recommending a NO. I'm not sure what you think they are doing wrong.

seavill

ytareh wrote: »

It's gas how the sort of teacher who wouldn't boycott the Young Scientists for the sake of the students is oblivious or ambivalent to what has happened their younger colleagues .

I think the government are getting exactly what they want again, Us fighting from within.
I don't think there's any need to slag each other off either fellow teachers or management for that matter.

Cp/hra/lr whatever you want to call it has been forced on us (some will argue we voted for it technically correct realistically not). On U.S. All. We are all in a position of doing more wit less and doing things we don't want to be doing. Slagging each other off won't get us anywhere

katydid

political analyst wrote: »

It's not my intention to provoke you but, in all fairness, teachers had a say in the issue by voting on it. Pupils who are put on detention don't have a say in it.

As for Ruairí Quinn's threat of redundancy, that could have been fought in the courts instead of there being acceptance of HRA. I don't think that the government would have wanted to be accused of harming pupils' prospects, i.e. cutbacks. The unions could have joined forces with local parents' associations - by-passing the NPC-PP - to fight cutbacks. They missed an opportunity.

This teacher didn't vote for it, and this teacher didn't do anything to deserve detention. But I accept the democratic decision. I believe people were foolish to vote for it, but hey...

From what Craughwell said, there would have been no question but that the redundancies would have happened.

You can't seriously think for a minute that the teachers would have got behind the teachers on the issue of teachers' pay - they wouldn't have seen them as cutbacks, because they wouldn't have understood or accepted that Teachers' Detention was a counterproductive measure. (Mind you, they probably understand now they are paying for extra curricular activities teachers did for free before, but I reckon there won't be much sympathy for the teachers on that one)

katydid

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Not gonna happen. I know a good few teachers who are only keeping sane because of the EC. I think it would polarise the union into Pro and Anti- EC ... myabe that's what we need though.. a good old rant on the staffroom floor.

I really would like to see it happen though... i wonder what way it would go down with parents and students?

I'd say there'd be little sympathy for teachers when it comes to hours worked.. the answer would yet again be thrown out as "the summer holidays Joe the summer holidays".

A lot of it has already happened. At least two local secondary schools I know of have no more after hours work by teachers - choir, sport etc. now have to be paid for by parents.

political analyst

katydid wrote: »

This teacher didn't vote for it, and this teacher didn't do anything to deserve detention. But I accept the democratic decision. I believe people were foolish to vote for it, but hey...

From what Craughwell said, there would have been no question but that the redundancies would have happened.

What I meant was that pupils who get detention don't get to vote on it; teachers did get to vote on the Croke Park hours. As for the redundancies, I have to wonder about the legal advice that the union leaders sought - assuming that they sought such advice.

With regard to additional workload, it's not a question of whether or not public-sector workers did anything wrong; it was a question of what was regarded as "efficiencies" and it is also likely that many people feel they're being punished for something that wasn't their fault, i.e. tax increases.

Chilli Con Kearney summed it up in post 44 of the following thread.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057369762&page=3

....other sectors were hit for overtime cuts, additional hours of work, etc.

As none of the changes/adjustments could be imposed on teachers other than a straight pay cut, which was not going to happen really, we were given extra hours to do, in terms of meetings, planning, etc. This was to be done outside of normal hours hence generating 'efficiencies' in our sector.

This way, all sectors were hit. We could not get away without something giving.

katydid wrote: »

You can't seriously think for a minute that the teachers would have got behind the teachers on the issue of teachers' pay - they wouldn't have seen them as cutbacks, because they wouldn't have understood or accepted that Teachers' Detention was a counterproductive measure. (Mind you, they probably understand now they are paying for extra curricular activities teachers did for free before, but I reckon there won't be much sympathy for the teachers on that one)

I assume that what I've highlighted in the quote is a typo.

What I was saying was that the teachers unions could have worked with the parents' associations to fight against cutbacks in education, i.e. reductions in choice of subjects and guidance counselling.

acequion

I have said it before and I'll say it again.The enemy lies within. If teachers en masse had said a united,unanimous NO years ago when we were in a much stronger position as a professional body,we would not be in the mess we are now.Those posters pointing out that it was voted in are perfectly right and personally I can't accept the democratic decision as I'd have to be mindless drunk or mindless insane to vote yes to any of that shyte,but officially I have no choice but to accept it, all the while surveying the damage around me.

There was a time not so long ago,when I actually voted Labour,that I thought front line public servants would be treated with respect for the vital job we do and that the efficiencies would [and could] be found elsewhere. The crude, ironically inefficient, way of scalping everyone, thereby forcing teachers to sit pointlessly in a room after school,when most were already doing useful extras,finished any faith I might have had in the good will of those in power. Nowadays I despise them.

And as for my view that the real enemy lies within,well it is very clear that those in power and their cheer leaders in the media despise us, so when I see teachers [including those permanent and with CIDs] still bending over backwards to do extras and fearfully voting in every imposition instead of growing a pair, I really despair! Those teachers are doing the profession a huge disservice, not to mention making the job intolerable for their younger collegues, who have no option but to follow suit.

And this business of prostrating ourselves for "what's best for our students"is bloody nauseating. For god's sake, fond and all as we are of them and much as we like to help them,they are not our own kids! They are the users of a service we provide. And in order to properly provide the service we first need to have the house in order.

And our unions are not tough enough either. Despite the trojan work being done by some,there are indeed far too many Yes people about,always too eager to compromise.The day for compromise is long gone.Until such time as there is genuine good will from the political powers to provide a quality education service which includes decent pay and conditions for teachers,I think we should categorically reject everything they come up with and force them to find their "efficiencies" elsewhere.

But I wouldn't hold my breath!

jjdonegal

acequion wrote: »

I have said it before and I'll say it again.The enemy lies within. If teachers en masse had said a united,unanimous NO years ago when we were in a much stronger position as a professional body,we would not be in the mess we are now.Those posters pointing out that it was voted in are perfectly right and personally I can't accept the democratic decision as I'd have to be mindless drunk or mindless insane to vote yes to any of that shyte,but officially I have no choice but to accept it, all the while surveying the damage around me.

There was a time not so long ago,when I actually voted Labour,that I thought front line public servants would be treated with respect for the vital job we do and that the efficiencies would [and could] be found elsewhere. The crude, ironically inefficient, way of scalping everyone, thereby forcing teachers to sit pointlessly in a room after school,when most were already doing useful extras,finished any faith I might have had in the good will of those in power. Nowadays I despise them.

And as for my view that the real enemy lies within,well it is very clear that those in power and their cheer leaders in the media despise us, so when I see teachers [including those permanent and with CIDs] still bending over backwards to do extras and fearfully voting in every imposition instead of growing a pair, I really despair! Those teachers are doing the profession a huge disservice, not to mention making the job intolerable for their younger collegues, who have no option but to follow suit.

And this business of prostrating ourselves for "what's best for our students"is bloody nauseating. For god's sake, fond and all as we are of them and much as we like to help them,they are not our own kids! They are the users of a service we provide. And in order to properly provide the service we first need to have the house in order.

And our unions are not tough enough either. Despite the trojan work being done by some,there are indeed far too many Yes people about,always too eager to compromise.The day for compromise is long gone.Until such time as there is genuine good will from the political powers to provide a quality education service which includes decent pay and conditions for teachers,I think we should categorically reject everything they come up with and force them to find their "efficiencies" elsewhere.

But I wouldn't hold my breath!

Well said.

katydid

political analyst wrote: »

What I meant was that pupils who get detention don't get to vote on it; teachers did get to vote on the Croke Park hours. As for the redundancies, I have to wonder about the legal advice that the union leaders sought - assuming that they sought such advice.

With regard to additional workload, it's not a question of whether or not public-sector workers did anything wrong; it was a question of what was regarded as "efficiencies" and it is also likely that many people feel they're being punished for something that wasn't their fault, i.e. tax increases.

Chilli Con Kearney summed it up in post 44 of the following thread.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057369762&page=3




I assume that what I've highlighted in the quote is a typo.

What I was saying was that the teachers unions could have worked with the parents' associations to fight against cutbacks in education, i.e. reductions in choice of subjects and guidance counselling.

I know what you mean, but those of us who voted against still have to do the detention...

I assume they did seek legal advice on the redundancies. I don't know the ins or the outs of it, but I would feel there was little the courts could have done. They didn't do anything about all the re-deployments that happened.

I do know that the supposed reason for teachers' detention was efficiencies - but it's crystal clear, and should have been from the beginning, that forcing people to such limited, pointless meetings at the end of the school day instead of allowing that time to be used for work already being done, or for CPD was not going to create efficiencies but the opposite. Firstly because nobody can be efficient at half four on a Monday afternoon, and secondly because the limitations on the kind of activities allowed to be carried out meant the fabrication of reasons to have meetings, instead of genuine, productive activity.

You say the teachers could have worked with the parents in terms of cutbacks - possibly, but that's a whole different issue. The issue we are talking about is the reduction in teachers' pay and disimprovement of their working conditions.

sparkynash

Well like any job if your not happy you know where the door is.Dont stay in a job and moan about it,leave.

Alex Meier

The problem teachers have is that there is a whole industry out there which blossomed (began under the Bertie years) with their main job or function being to watch, assess and basically tell teachers what to do.

From the unelected senior civil servants to the Inspectorate to the Teaching Council.

This continuous adding to the hours will carry on . .and on and on - until we shout STOP.

The Teaching Council are next to add to your hours - Watch as they demand that you fund your own CPD at one of their approved courses. . . When will these occur? In the evenings, on weekends or, possibly, in June.

These people earn their living by seeking ways of making you work more for less. It's what puts bread on their tables.

At the heart of this are the union leaders - who support the Teaching Council, who attend conferences and have the coffee breaks and free lunches with the senior CS and Inspectorate and who know that they must deliver for their real masters in Government - the Minister.

We're living in an educational pyramid scheme where the lower paid teachers are at the bottom (doing the vast majority of the work) whilst being dictated by the upper tiers who offer next to nothing - beginning with Principals, then Civil Servants, The Inspectorate, senior civil servants and finally to the Minister at the top.

katydid

Alex Meier wrote: »

The problem teachers have is that there is a whole industry out there which blossomed (began under the Bertie years) with their main job or function being to watch, assess and basically tell teachers what to do.

From the unelected senior civil servants to the Inspectorate to the Teaching Council.

This continuous adding to the hours will carry on . .and on and on - until we shout STOP.

The Teaching Council are next to add to your hours - Watch as they demand that you fund your own CPD at one of their approved courses. . . When will these occur? In the evenings, on weekends or, possibly, in June.

These people earn their living by seeking ways of making you work more for less. It's what puts bread on their tables.

At the heart of this are the union leaders - who support the Teaching Council, who attend conferences and have the coffee breaks and free lunches with the senior CS and Inspectorate and who know that they must deliver for their real masters in Government - the Minister.

We're living in an educational pyramid scheme where the lower paid teachers are at the bottom (doing the vast majority of the work) whilst being dictated by the upper tiers who offer next to nothing - beginning with Principals, then Civil Servants, The Inspectorate, senior civil servants and finally to the Minister at the top.

The Union leaders are paid by you and me. The executive is our colleagues, who do the work unpaid. It is up to you and to me to make sure that what we want is reflected at union level. A huge number of teachers never attend union meetings and only engage with it when they have a problem, and then complain that the union doesn't represent their wishes...

katydid

sparkynash wrote: »

Well like any job if your not happy you know where the door is.Dont stay in a job and moan about it,leave.

I chose to be a teacher and I love teaching. I don't want to leave. I just want to teach, and to engage with my students. Not to attend pointless meetings held as a sop to public opinion, or do mountains of pointless paperwork. When I do extra work I want - call me crazy - to get paid extra for it.

Hardly too much to ask.

RealJohn

sparkynash wrote: »

Well like any job if your not happy you know where the door is.Dont stay in a job and moan about it,leave.

Which would be a completely fair and reasonable point if the job conditions had remained unchanged since we started but for many of us, the job has changed quite considerably since we started doing it.

Alex Meier

There is also a huge problem here and I'm going to have to be sexist for a while. . . . It's this - 75% of teachers are female.

The vast majority of them are only happy to be told what to do and are never prepared to make a stand that will endure.

The INTO are a great example (where the number of female teachers is higher percentage wise) - first out of the traps to recommend the LRA and hence a continuation of Croke Park/Haddington Road.

Mná na hÉireann will ensure that this new agreement is passed. . . Because they literally, in more ways than one, haven't got a pair of balls between them.

See warning below
MOd

SafeSurfer

katydid wrote: »

I chose to be a teacher and I love teaching. I don't want to leave. I just want to teach, and to engage with my students. Not to attend pointless meetings held as a sop to public opinion, or do mountains of pointless paperwork. When I do extra work I want - call me crazy - to get paid extra for it.

Hardly too much to ask.

I don't think there is a lot of public sympathy for teachers. I have 2 sisters and lots of friends in the profession and I am aware of the stress, difficulty dealing with parents etc. but many people thing that teachers have it pretty good. Two to three months paid holiday. Two weeks at Christmas, two weeks at Easter, mid term breaks etc. if you divided your salary by hours worked, even including extra circular activities you might be surprised at how it compares to other proffessions.

Member has been warned..

See Charter.

Mod

evolving_doors

Alex Meier wrote: »

There is also a huge problem here and I'm going to have to be sexist for a while. . . . It's this - 75% of teachers are female.

The vast majority of them are only happy to be told what to do and are never prepared to make a stand that will endure.

The INTO are a great example (where the number of female teachers is higher percentage wise) - first out of the traps to recommend the LRA and hence a continuation of Croke Park/Haddington Road.

Mná na hÉireann will ensure that this new agreement is passed. . . Because they literally, in more ways than one, haven't got a pair of balls between them.

Ok Folks enough talk of 'growing a pair, cajones, haven't got the balls etc.' it's just lazy stereotyping (and I'm trying to have me tea without the imagery)... Yis'll end up sounding just like the idiot below who said that strikes were happening because of the large number of female teachers in the profession.



Eddie on Twitter_ _@brianmlucey Sal 60k @NRD (ASTI TUI) +Pen accurate ref annuities. Not about p.jpg

See charter on stereotyping.

Member has been warned about mentioning 'members'

Do not respond to this post on thread etc...

MoD;

katydid

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I don't think there is a lot of public sympathy for teachers. I have 2 sisters and lots of friends in the profession and I am aware of the stress, difficulty dealing with parents etc. but many people thing that teachers have it pretty good. Two to three months paid holiday. Two weeks at Christmas, two weeks at Easter, mid term breaks etc. if you divided your salary by hours worked, even including extra circular activities you might be surprised at how it compares to other proffessions.

Member has been warned..

See Charter.

Mod

I have no idea why this post came with a warning...

Anyway, you're right. It does compare - if you offset things like holidays against the ability to earn good money in other professions. I've no problem with that.

But when you say divide the salary, you're dividing it a lot more than between class contact hours and extra curricular activities. There's preparation and marking, which adds hours to every working day, and an hour's teaching is a very different matter from an hour's sitting in front of a computer or behind a desk. It is full on performance, crowd control, juggling of the needs and demands of twenty five or thirty individuals...

acequion

Alex Meier wrote: »

There is also a huge problem here and I'm going to have to be sexist for a while. . . . It's this - 75% of teachers are female.

The vast majority of them are only happy to be told what to do and are never prepared to make a stand that will endure.

The INTO are a great example (where the number of female teachers is higher percentage wise) - first out of the traps to recommend the LRA and hence a continuation of Croke Park/Haddington Road.

Mná na hÉireann will ensure that this new agreement is passed. . . Because they literally, in more ways than one, haven't got a pair of balls between them.

See warning below
MOd

As a female,I totally agree with you.

political analyst

katydid wrote: »

I know what you mean, but those of us who voted against still have to do the detention...

I assume they did seek legal advice on the redundancies. I don't know the ins or the outs of it, but I would feel there was little the courts could have done. They didn't do anything about all the re-deployments that happened.

I do know that the supposed reason for teachers' detention was efficiencies - but it's crystal clear, and should have been from the beginning, that forcing people to such limited, pointless meetings at the end of the school day instead of allowing that time to be used for work already being done, or for CPD was not going to create efficiencies but the opposite. Firstly because nobody can be efficient at half four on a Monday afternoon, and secondly because the limitations on the kind of activities allowed to be carried out meant the fabrication of reasons to have meetings, instead of genuine, productive activity.

You say the teachers could have worked with the parents in terms of cutbacks - possibly, but that's a whole different issue. The issue we are talking about is the reduction in teachers' pay and disimprovement of their working conditions.

The closest analogy to the CP hours that I can think of is the whole class being punished for the bad behaviour of several pupils. Let's say that the class is given a choice between detention and an essay of so many pages. If most of the pupils "choose" detention because they can't face the essay then those pupils who were willing to do the essay instead of detention have to go along with that.

Furthermore, given that all other public-sector workers were given extra hours of work, teachers were never going to get away without doing the extra hours and the extra work couldn't be imposed in exactly the same way because of the nature of primary and secondary education, i.e. the school year and the length of the school day. Counting extra-curricular work for the CP hours wouldn't have been practicable because the fact that extra-work is voluntary means that not all teacher do it (or, in many cases, did it, and I'm not blaming them for dropping it).

The ASTI could have tried framing the threatened redundancies as a cutback - thus getting parents on side.

katydid

political analyst wrote: »

The closest analogy to the CP hours that I can think of is the whole class being punished for the bad behaviour of several pupils. Let's say that the class is given a choice between detention and an essay of so many pages. If most of the pupils "choose" detention because they can't face the essay then those pupils who were willing to do the essay instead of detention have to go along with that.

Furthermore, given that all other public-sector workers were given extra hours of work, teachers were never going to get away without doing the extra hours and the extra work couldn't be imposed in exactly the same way because of the nature of primary and secondary education, i.e. the school year and the length of the school day. Counting extra-curricular work for the CP hours wouldn't have been practicable because the fact that extra-work is voluntary means that not all teacher do it (or, in many cases, did it, and I'm not blaming them for dropping it).

The ASTI could have tried framing the threatened redundancies as a cutback - thus getting parents on side.

A. There was no bad behaviour on the part of some of the "class".
B. It's not the extra hours that are the problem, but the kind of hours. No recognition of work already being done voluntarily or of Code being done in free time. Those hours could have been used for this. And then there's the little matter of being expected to do two hours for nothing which has been paid. So it's THREE extra hours

tamcp

This may be a little unrelated to this forum, but I was wondering what opinions are on the following topic. I am a Secondary school teacher and was recently told by my school Principal that she would prefer it if I didn't leave the school premises each day to go out for lunch. I go to a local café most days with some colleagues. We are always back in plenty of time for classes, etc. I was a little taken aback at this. I told her I felt she was being unfair as I work through all my 'free' classes and all my marking is up to date. I go home each day to two small children and I don't sit down until 9pm. Some days I actually eat dinner out of a saucepan standing at the cooker!!!!Lunchtime is the one hour (40 minutes to be exact) of the day that I get to sit and eat and not discuss work worries. I prefer to avoid the staffroom as this is ALL they talk about. Perhaps I am being unfair to my Principal but I am really annoyed at her thinking we just 'abandon' the school at 12.30 p.m. I do extra curricular activities on a Monday (which I admit I hate). I do my supervision and substitution AND I take weaker students in one of my free classes each week to give them extra help. What more does she want? With Croke Park hours it really is getting to be very difficult juggling school work with a hectic home life. My Principal is a self-admitted workaholic and a lot of the staff feel they need to echo this mindset by staying until 6/7 pm most evenings. What do people think of this? Thanks!

katydid

tamcp wrote: »

This may be a little unrelated to this forum, but I was wondering what opinions are on the following topic. I am a Secondary school teacher and was recently told by my school Principal that she would prefer it if I didn't leave the school premises each day to go out for lunch. I go to a local café most days with some colleagues. We are always back in plenty of time for classes, etc. I was a little taken aback at this. I told her I felt she was being unfair as I work through all my 'free' classes and all my marking is up to date. I go home each day to two small children and I don't sit down until 9pm. Some days I actually eat dinner out of a saucepan standing at the cooker!!!!Lunchtime is the one hour (40 minutes to be exact) of the day that I get to sit and eat and not discuss work worries. I prefer to avoid the staffroom as this is ALL they talk about. Perhaps I am being unfair to my Principal but I am really annoyed at her thinking we just 'abandon' the school at 12.30 p.m. I do extra curricular activities on a Monday (which I admit I hate). I do my supervision and substitution AND I take weaker students in one of my free classes each week to give them extra help. What more does she want? With Croke Park hours it really is getting to be very difficult juggling school work with a hectic home life. My Principal is a self-admitted workaholic and a lot of the staff feel they need to echo this mindset by staying until 6/7 pm most evenings. What do people think of this? Thanks!

I'd tell her politely to get stuffed. The day hasn't come yet when we have to be on the premises all day. As for extra curricular activities, you don't have to do them.

tamcp

Thanks for reply. I was so tempted to tell her just that. We have a terrible problem in our school with younger teachers of both sexes behaving like 'Stepford Wives' to the Principal. They follow orders, do extra curricular activities to keep her happy. Our Principal says the sign of a good teacher is one who you have to ask to leave the premises at the end of each day as they've stayed behind so late!!!! To all intents an d purposes this is effectively bullying as I'm sure these teachers have better things to be doing. I'm totally stressed out and I really shouldn't be as our school is quite small.

solerina

tamcp wrote: »

This may be a little unrelated to this forum, but I was wondering what opinions are on the following topic. I am a Secondary school teacher and was recently told by my school Principal that she would prefer it if I didn't leave the school premises each day to go out for lunch. I go to a local café most days with some colleagues. We are always back in plenty of time for classes, etc. I was a little taken aback at this. I told her I felt she was being unfair as I work through all my 'free' classes and all my marking is up to date. I go home each day to two small children and I don't sit down until 9pm. Some days I actually eat dinner out of a saucepan standing at the cooker!!!!Lunchtime is the one hour (40 minutes to be exact) of the day that I get to sit and eat and not discuss work worries. I prefer to avoid the staffroom as this is ALL they talk about. Perhaps I am being unfair to my Principal but I am really annoyed at her thinking we just 'abandon' the school at 12.30 p.m. I do extra curricular activities on a Monday (which I admit I hate). I do my supervision and substitution AND I take weaker students in one of my free classes each week to give them extra help. What more does she want? With Croke Park hours it really is getting to be very difficult juggling school work with a hectic home life. My Principal is a self-admitted workaholic and a lot of the staff feel they need to echo this mindset by staying until 6/7 pm most evenings. What do people think of this? Thanks!

Just say it's your free time and you will use it how you see fit, it's a school the principal is running not a prison !!!! Ridiculous to even ask you this imo

tamcp

Thanks for that. I'm glad to see people also feel my Principal is out of order.

katydid

tamcp wrote: »

Thanks for reply. I was so tempted to tell her just that. We have a terrible problem in our school with younger teachers of both sexes behaving like 'Stepford Wives' to the Principal. They follow orders, do extra curricular activities to keep her happy. Our Principal says the sign of a good teacher is one who you have to ask to leave the premises at the end of each day as they've stayed behind so late!!!! To all intents an d purposes this is effectively bullying as I'm sure these teachers have better things to be doing. I'm totally stressed out and I really shouldn't be as our school is quite small.

I can understand part time teachers who are hoping to get more hours, but if you have a full time job you owe your principal nothing. You already have to do the Teachers' Detention we spoke about earlier. As for extra curricular, in the schools near me, it doesn't happen any more. Teachers have neither the time nor the energy, but most of all, the motivation. You have your own family to think about. Let the parents of your students think about what the government has done to education by bringing things to this pass. Horrible that it has come to this, my Dad was a teacher and spent hours of his own time on his students, he must be turning in his grave to see how people like him have been slapped in the face.

Going back to your original issue, you need that time away from work to have a proper break, in order toclear your head and work properly for the afternoon. If your principal doesn't understand, that's her problem

tamcp

Thanks again. You're absolutely right. As the TV ad says it really is the little things that help our mental health and that hour each day really helps mine! Your poor Dad would spin in his grave if he saw what teaching has become for teachers.

evolving_doors

its just setting things up to fail. I'd trash this out in a staff meeting about being treated as less of a teacher because you have a family.

tamcp

You're right but I fear only my colleagues who go out for lunch will agree as the others seem happy enough to spend every waking hour working. It really makes us teachers who do go out appear as slack and not interested in the school. I feel we may be facing a losing battle as this Principal is from the Northern system where teachers are expected to stay on the premises and she won't accept the system in the republic. It makes it a very difficult place to work in. Thanks for all the positive responses as my 'lunch' colleagues and I were staring to feel we were the ones in the wrong.

Alex Meier

tamcp wrote: »

This may be a little unrelated to this forum, but I was wondering what opinions are on the following topic. I am a Secondary school teacher and was recently told by my school Principal that she would prefer it if I didn't leave the school premises each day to go out for lunch. I go to a local café most days with some colleagues. We are always back in plenty of time for classes, etc. I was a little taken aback at this. I told her I felt she was being unfair as I work through all my 'free' classes and all my marking is up to date. I go home each day to two small children and I don't sit down until 9pm. Some days I actually eat dinner out of a saucepan standing at the cooker!!!!Lunchtime is the one hour (40 minutes to be exact) of the day that I get to sit and eat and not discuss work worries. I prefer to avoid the staffroom as this is ALL they talk about. Perhaps I am being unfair to my Principal but I am really annoyed at her thinking we just 'abandon' the school at 12.30 p.m. I do extra curricular activities on a Monday (which I admit I hate). I do my supervision and substitution AND I take weaker students in one of my free classes each week to give them extra help. What more does she want? With Croke Park hours it really is getting to be very difficult juggling school work with a hectic home life. My Principal is a self-admitted workaholic and a lot of the staff feel they need to echo this mindset by staying until 6/7 pm most evenings. What do people think of this? Thanks!

You should tell your Principal to shut up and mind her own business.

tamcp

I think if it's brought up again by my Principal I'm going to get my union involved. She really needs a wake up call regarding her expectations of staff.

katydid

tamcp wrote: »

You're right but I fear only my colleagues who go out for lunch will agree as the others seem happy enough to spend every waking hour working. It really makes us teachers who do go out appear as slack and not interested in the school. I feel we may be facing a losing battle as this Principal is from the Northern system where teachers are expected to stay on the premises and she won't accept the system in the republic. It makes it a very difficult place to work in. Thanks for all the positive responses as my 'lunch' colleagues and I were staring to feel we were the ones in the wrong.

Ah, that explains a lot. I worked three years in the UK, and that's the way it is. She has to realise she's not in the UK anymore. But I suspect you won't be the one pointing it out to her :-)
Just carry on doing what you're doing, regarding lunchtime. At least you're not on your own. And give serious thought to the whole extra curricular thing. You shouldn't be doing something for nothing if you hate it. Life is too short, and your own children won't be small for ever.
Anyway, I'm out of the country as soon as my delayed flight is called, without a thought of students or timetables or marking sheets. Enjoy the rest of the holidays