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

Alex Meier

tamcp wrote: »

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.

Raise it at a staff meeting.

ethical

Unfortunately staff meetings are a waste of time as generally what happens is that 'issues' that may be seen as a problem area are left to the very end (aob) or are kicked down the road 'til the next meeting or the meeting is called for a time that staff just haven't the wherewith all to stand up for themselves at the end of nine classes.
Heard the one about the school that had their Board of Management agenda sent to all the staff and attached with it was the minutes of that actual meeting (that hadn't actually taken place!!!,obviously the latter was sent in error) but at the same time gave an insight into how 'meetings' work,outcomes are decided ,like it or not ,in the way the Principal wants it to be!

joebloggs32

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!

Your principal sounds like a dictator. There is absolutely no obligation on anyone to stay on the school premises during their lunch hour unless they are doing their s&s duties. She obviously hasn't a clue as to how make staff feel appreciated, instead she just wants to squeeze more and more out of people, which in the long run will be counterproductive.

Darpa

Bottom line, People near retirement who were the union negotiators didn't give a shyte about conditions for teachers that still have years left to do, as long as their own nearly due lump sums and pensions, i.e. their current wages would not be hit, they were quite happy to give away conditions that would never affect them personally, and then persuaded the membership to vote for same. That is and will be the bottom line as well in all future negotiations until the public sector unions are overhauled.

Darpa

ethical wrote: »

Unfortunately staff meetings are a waste of time as generally what happens is that 'issues' that may be seen as a problem area are left to the very end (aob) or are kicked down the road 'til the next meeting or the meeting is called for a time that staff just haven't the wherewith all to stand up for themselves at the end of nine classes.
Heard the one about the school that had their Board of Management agenda sent to all the staff and attached with it was the minutes of that actual meeting (that hadn't actually taken place!!!,obviously the latter was sent in error) but at the same time gave an insight into how 'meetings' work,outcomes are decided ,like it or not ,in the way the Principal wants it to be!

Lol, I've often seen some of them alter the minutes to suit, but actually writing them before the meeting, now that's a classic. Shows you what they really think of you and the meetings.

evolving_doors

Darpa wrote: »

Bottom line, People near retirement who were the union negotiators didn't give a shyte about conditions for teachers that still have years left to do, as long as their own nearly due lump sums and pensions, i.e. their current wages would not be hit, they were quite happy to give away conditions that would never effect them personally, and then persuaded the membership to vote for same. That is and will be the bottom line as well in all future negotiations until the public sector unions are overhauled.

I suppose it starts from the bottom though. It can be as simple as encouraging debate with other staff at work. I think apathy is the real enemy within (mostly brought on by a never-ending stream of new initiatives and increased workload). I think there is a push for elected leaders so who knows!

r93kaey5p2izun

Staff meetings - what are they? We haven't had a staff meeting in over three years. When we did there was no agenda, no AOB, nothing. My principal has also made some unacceptable demands of staff and there is no forum for discussion of anything. We are told to discuss any issues or concerns on an individual basis.

Thankfully there are still enough permanent senior staff members to resist major policy changes but slowly but surely, as the number of part time teachers without security grows, more and more "initiatives" are introduced, with younger staff too afraid to stand their ground, openly threatened that next years hours depend on participation. Our principal also makes statements like yours tamcp, such as how the non-union members are "great and to be admired".

seavill

Darpa wrote: »

Bottom line, People near retirement who were the union negotiators didn't give a shyte about conditions for teachers that still have years left to do, as long as their own nearly due lump sums and pensions, i.e. their current wages would not be hit, they were quite happy to give away conditions that would never affect them personally, and then persuaded the membership to vote for same. That is and will be the bottom line as well in all future negotiations until the public sector unions are overhauled.

You do realise all those "people" you refer to are the people that spent decades fighting to get the conditions we had up to recently. Had they not fought the good fight for all those years we would be in a much worse off position than we currently are. Maybe it's time for the next lot to stand up and do something instead of just bitching about others.
Remember the last vote where redundancies were threatened if we did not agree who do you think swung the vote there to lessen our conditions further. It's wasn't the near retirement people they were never going to lose their jobs it was the younger people that wanted to look after their own jobs that got the vote through to reduce our conditions again further.
So rather than looking to blame others people need to stand up and do something about it.
Realistically everyone is only out to look after their own piece. Young teachers don't care about any changes to conditions of people that will retire in the next year or so. Those near retirement are not effected by the different salary scales.
People look after themselves people need to be honest and realise that rather than start to blame each other. Stand up and fight rather than blame others and sit back and moan

political analyst

katydid wrote: »

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

In fairness, some of the behaviour for which pupils have been punished in the past was harmless.

As for no recognition of work already being done by teachers, the following explains that (Post 48 of the following thread):

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057369762&page=4

As far as I am aware, a major issue here was that the JMB pushed for the current format. They did not want nor considered that their members had time to be running around, compiling and tallying individual CPA hours for teaching staff. Consequently, the format of everyone in one room was arrived at.

Sure, it is a pain for teachers and is a waste of time in many cases (most 2 hour meetings with 40 people in a room are). But from the Principals' point of view, their job has become so difficult, so time-consuming and in some cases almost untenable, that this was another task they weren't willing to do. The government (DOE&S) are not going to go against the school managers. Sure then there would be all-out war.

political analyst

Brendan Massive Tremor wrote: »

Staff meetings - what are they? We haven't had a staff meeting in over three years. When we did there was no agenda, no AOB, nothing. My principal has also made some unacceptable demands of staff and there is no forum for discussion of anything. We are told to discuss any issues or concerns on an individual basis.

What's the problem with that? You can talk to the principal while drinking tea or coffee during the break or during a period in your timetable when you don't have class.

Alex Meier

political analyst wrote: »

What's the problem with that? You can talk to the principal while drinking tea or coffee during the break or during a period in your timetable when you don't have class.

Why do you think the Principal wants a one to one conversation rather than a general discussion with the whole staff at a staff meeting?

Because the Principal is a coward that's why... Much easier to neutralise opposition on a private one to one basis

Issues that effect ALL of the staff should be raised at staff meetings

political analyst

Alex Meier wrote: »

Why do you think the Principal wants a one to one conversation rather than a general discussion with the whole staff at a staff meeting?

Because the Principal is a coward that's why... Much easier to neutralise opposition on a private one to one basis

Issues that effect ALL of the staff should be raised at staff meetings

At my alma mater, the principal made it clear that disrespect shown by pupils towards teachers would not be tolerated. It is baffling that there are so many cases of principals being disloyal towards their staff. Presumably, you can take the issue up with your union representative in a private conversation (you probably don't even have to be in the school to have the conversation). After all, no principal wants to be accused of disloyalty towards staff. After all, the principal of a secondary school in the south-east was kicked out of the union for that.

tamcp

I don't think Principal would care if Union kicked her out. She held no solidarity with staff during recent strikes. Came in before 7.30am and left after 6pm to avoid picket. She's a member of the union so it was very poor form on her part. She said it went against her morals to strike!!!!! When you're dealing with a person like this it's very difficult.

Icsics

We've had a new Principal the last few years, she operates a divide & conquer technique. Staff morale has plummeted, her attitude seems to be discipline the teachers rather than the students. Some of the newer principals see themselves as managers & have spent very little time in the classroom. I can guarantee she'll get a HDip to take her few classes in Sept.
The JMB are running schools, not the Dept & with all the retirements the situation will get worse.
One lesson I've learned, you won't change their behaviour BUT you can change your reaction to it. Self preservation is the key thing here😉

political analyst

Icsics wrote: »

We've had a new Principal the last few years, she operates a divide & conquer technique. Staff morale has plummeted, her attitude seems to be discipline the teachers rather than the students. Some of the newer principals see themselves as managers & have spent very little time in the classroom. I can guarantee she'll get a HDip to take her few classes in Sept.
The JMB are running schools, not the Dept & with all the retirements the situation will get worse.
One lesson I've learned, you won't change their behaviour BUT you can change your reaction to it. Self preservation is the key thing here😉

In the post that I quoted in post 60, Chilli Con Kearney said:

The government (DOE&S) are not going to go against the school managers. Sure then there would be all-out war.

Why would the government be afraid of going against principals and deputy principals? After all, the JMB and the NAPDP are not unions. That means that principals and deputy principals cannot take industrial action on their own.

evolving_doors

political analyst wrote: »

In the post that I quoted in post 60, Chilli Con Kearney said:


Why would the government be afraid of going against principals and deputy principals? After all, the JMB and the NAPDP are not unions. That means that principals and deputy principals cannot take industrial action on their own.

Dept's reform agenda is driven from the top down. They do this via JMB/principals/WSE threats and then assign 'working committees' to enact the policies... literacy/numeracy/mentoring/compulsory CPD/AFL/Junior Cert reform etc... who do you think a principal will look to to implement and take on the work?

Maybe someone desperate to please
Maybe someone trying to compete with another teacher for hours
Someone with a 're-interview' coming up
Someone with a CID interview coming up

God forbid anyone wants to go home to their family.. or take a lunch break.

CP1/CP2/HR/Low Hour part time jobs/Waring down teachers resolve with extra punishing 'work' was how this was done. 1st thing they did was ensure older teachers retired early, from my talking to those teachers who fought the fight over the decades they could see the writing on the wall 15 years ago... and the new entrants wouldn't have a clue until it's 20 years down the line and we're trying to undo the UK knot we have copied.

Forget about appealing to parents Political Analyst, that argument is getting old.

Alex Meier

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Dept's reform agenda is driven from the top down. They do this via JMB/principals/WSE threats and then assign 'working committees' to enact the policies... literacy/numeracy/mentoring/compulsory CPD/AFL/Junior Cert reform etc... who do you think a principal will look to to implement and take on the work?

Maybe someone desperate to please
Maybe someone trying to compete with another teacher for hours
Someone with a 're-interview' coming up
Someone with a CID interview coming up

God forbid anyone wants to go home to their family.. or take a lunch break.

CP1/CP2/HR/Low Hour part time jobs/Waring down teachers resolve with extra punishing 'work' was how this was done. 1st thing they did was ensure older teachers retired early, from my talking to those teachers who fought the fight over the decades they could see the writing on the wall 15 years ago... and the new entrants wouldn't have a clue until it's 20 years down the line and we're trying to undo the UK knot we have copied.

Forget about appealing to parents Political Analyst, that argument is getting old.

You've hit the nail on the head with this post.

It goes back to the point I made earlier in this thread. . . That a whole industry has been built up to scrutinise, micromanage and add additional workloads to our careers.

Some management consider themselves future high flyers. . . Always too eager to impress the DES when the unions ask simple questions like . . . "How are you going to pay for these reforms?"

Nothing summed it up greatly for me when three school principals from North Dublin signed an Irish Times article DEMANDING that teachers sign up lock, stock and barrel to recent Junior Cert reforms.

Or remember when the JMB/NAPD/NPC all wagged their fingers very disapprovingly at teachers when the ASTI rejected Haddington Road . .

These people are minding their own careers. . . They demand the teachers to take on the extra workload that they wouldn't dream of taking on themselves.

There's always an educational QUANGO somewhere . . .

political analyst

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Forget about appealing to parents Political Analyst, that argument is getting old.

How could so many parents not be concerned about their children's education?

political analyst

Alex Meier wrote: »

You've hit the nail on the head with this post.

It goes back to the point I made earlier in this thread. . . That a whole industry has been built up to scrutinise, micromanage and add additional workloads to our careers.

Some management consider themselves future high flyers. . . Always too eager to impress the DES when the unions ask simple questions like . . . "How are you going to pay for these reforms?"

Nothing summed it up greatly for me when three school principals from North Dublin signed an Irish Times article DEMANDING that teachers sign up lock, stock and barrel to recent Junior Cert reforms.

Or remember when the JMB/NAPD/NPC all wagged their fingers very disapprovingly at teachers when the ASTI rejected Haddington Road . .

These people are minding their own careers. . . They demand the teachers to take on the extra workload that they wouldn't dream of taking on themselves.

There's always an educational QUANGO somewhere . . .

Given that Assessment for Learning concerns the teaching of pupils, principals and deputy principals could hardly be expected to do that work, considering that, generally, they don't teach anymore because they have to run the schools.

Furthermore, I think it's unlikely that they're exempt from doing S&S.

Alex Meier

political analyst wrote: »

Given that Assessment for Learning concerns the teaching of pupils, principals and deputy principals could hardly be expected to do that work, considering that, generally, they don't teach anymore because they have to run the schools.

Furthermore, I think it's unlikely that they're exempt from doing S&S.

The management in my school don't do S&S

Mardy Bum

Alex Meier wrote: »

The management in my school don't do S&S

In fairness the work management have to do is astounding (if the school is run well).

doc_17

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!

Few questions here, did she give a reason why she didn't want you and your colleagues to leave the school grounds? And are you permanent/CID?

tamcp

CID. Others are permanent. She felt it looks like we're abandoning school by leaving at lunch. Very few teachers leave to be honest. Those of us who do have always done it. There's a canteen on premises but we prefer to get away. Quite often we will be running errands for home and lunch will be eaten very swiftly.

vamos!

It was proposed by a teacher (not management) that all form tutors stay on site in case one of their form group was ill or in trouble throughout the day. Thankfully very few went for it... although scarily more than a handful of people agreed! We don't actually have enough seats in our lunchroom so we need for about a third of the staff to be out for lunch or on lunch duty.

political analyst

tamcp wrote: »

CID. Others are permanent. She felt it looks like we're abandoning school by leaving at lunch. Very few teachers leave to be honest. Those of us who do have always done it. There's a canteen on premises but we prefer to get away. Quite often we will be running errands for home and lunch will be eaten very swiftly.

Contract of indefinite duration; Permanent. What's the difference?

deiseindublin

political analyst wrote: »

Contract of indefinite duration; Permanent. What's the difference?

Big difference if you've a CID of 12 or so hours and you'd prefer 22.

Did Principal approach the PWT staff that go out to lunch also? Stinks if she didn't.

byhookorbycrook

In primary ,we are not supposed to leave the school during the day.

evolving_doors

political analyst wrote: »

How could so many parents not be concerned about their children's education?

Last thing a parent wants to do is borrow worries from the future.
I think theres a small window of interest bout 2 -3 yrs. Main question most parents want out of Secondary is "Will Jonny get to college or not?". Ya sure theyre concerned about 'education' to the extent that if the kid is hitting the grades then well and good, if not lets deal with it.

As to the ' how' and 'what' of teaching and learning.. blahblah rote learning bad, continuous assessment good, finland great, Ireland can't think outside the box.. problem solving something something something... "Listen Mr. Teacher...will jonny be ##1### getting to college or not?"

evolving_doors

vamos! wrote: »

It was proposed by a teacher (not management) that all form tutors stay on site in case one of their form group was ill or in trouble throughout the day. Thankfully very few went for it... although scarily more than a handful of people agreed! We don't actually have enough seats in our lunchroom so we need for about a third of the staff to be out for lunch or on lunch duty.

Facepalm for that teacher and their great idea, maybe in primary where theres a smaller cohort of teachers but in secondary just deal with it as it happens, I.e. usual 'not feeling well sir" procedure. Form tutors get square root of sfa for being form tutors as it is.

Once you set a precedent like that then its goodbye volunteering for form tutor. Goodwill can only be spread so thinly.

evolving_doors

Id actually heard about the 'being kept onsite from 9-4' from a retired teacher 10 yrs ago'... Id say the buggers in the dept are trying to figure out how to make it happen... Probably some spiel about insurance/critical incidences/fire safety ill bet

doc_17

Do yourself a favour and that oul fool of a principal to go and, well, you know what he/she should be told.

If that was said to me I'd be ripping. And I'd completely ignore it!

tamcp

The principal only mentioned it as a 'by the way' as we were walking down corridor at end of day. I was obviously chosen to spread the word to others. Our staffroom also has no room for all of us at lunch. I understand health/safety, etc, if we're off premises but I don't see how it affects school if we're not on duty or involved in extra curricular on that day.

joebloggs32

tamcp wrote: »

The principal only mentioned it as a 'by the way' as we were walking down corridor at end of day. I was obviously chosen to spread the word to others. Our staffroom also has no room for all of us at lunch. I understand health/safety, etc, if we're off premises but I don't see how it affects school if we're not on duty or involved in extra curricular on that day.

There is NO health and safety issue. That's what the S+S Rota is there for.

Alex Meier

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

In primary ,we are not supposed to leave the school during the day.

It's not that you're not supposed to leave. . Your window of opportunity to leave is limited as you spend all day in front of the same class.

There is no rule stating that primary teachers must remain in their school during their lunch breaks.

Alex Meier

It's actually very difficult to leave the place where I am as there's only a 40 minute lunch break.

The reality is also that secondary teachers only have, in my case anyway, four free periods a week due to Haddington Road.

As a result of Haddington Road and Croke Park I've had Mondays lasting from 9-3.40 PM without a break. . . If a staff meeting is afterwards that could extend itself to 5.30PM.

Many thanks to all those who voted YES.

vamos!

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Id actually heard about the 'being kept onsite from 9-4' from a retired teacher 10 yrs ago'... Id say the buggers in the dept are trying to figure out how to make it happen... Probably some spiel about insurance/critical incidences/fire safety ill bet

Ah yes in case of fire all form tutors will abandon their photocopying, marking and coffee and their F.T spidey senses will tell them where their form are and they can fly through the school, pick up their charges and lift them to safety. It will even work when students are mixed in options. They will also have had time to mark some essays and can distribute them to students so that the time used extinguishing the fire can be productively used.

byhookorbycrook

Alex Meier wrote: »

It's not that you're not supposed to leave. . Your window of opportunity to leave is limited as you spend all day in front of the same class.

There is no rule stating that primary teachers must remain in their school during their lunch breaks.

It comes under duty of care.

1. Duty of Care

Rules 121(4) and 124(1) of the Rules for National Schools and Section 23(2) of the Education Act 1998 oblige teachers to take all reasonable precautions to ensure the safety of pupils and to participate in supervising pupils when the pupils are on school premises, during school time and/or on school activities. Accordingly, the responsibility of all teachers individually and collectively to provide a duty of care at all times towards the children in the school in which they teach, including periods of supervision, is not changed.

rainbowtrout

tamcp wrote: »

The principal only mentioned it as a 'by the way' as we were walking down corridor at end of day. I was obviously chosen to spread the word to others. Our staffroom also has no room for all of us at lunch. I understand health/safety, etc, if we're off premises but I don't see how it affects school if we're not on duty or involved in extra curricular on that day.

It's nothing to do with health and safety. Teachers are on a rota to do S&S at lunch. That covers health and safety. Your principal is just trying to squeeze more work out of you and trying to make you feel guilty for not being available to work your lunch break. I say fcuk them.

acequion

@tampc. Am away at the moment so only throwing the odd look here. But just wanted to row in behind you and endorse what the others are saying about the disgraceful behaviour of your principal. Bullying staff to remain on premises during lunch and blatantly disregarding the strikes though a union member means that she MUST be reported asap. So I would get your union involved there. Best of luck!

Powerhouse

political analyst wrote: »

Contract of indefinite duration; Permanent. What's the difference?

Permanent = full hours.

CID = whatever you're having yourself hours.

Powerhouse

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

It comes under duty of care.

1. Duty of Care

Rules 121(4) and 124(1) of the Rules for National Schools and Section 23(2) of the Education Act 1998 oblige teachers to take all reasonable precautions to ensure the safety of pupils and to participate in supervising pupils when the pupils are on school premises, during school time and/or on school activities. Accordingly, the responsibility of all teachers individually and collectively to provide a duty of care at all times towards the children in the school in which they teach, including periods of supervision, is not changed.

Then why do principals arrange supervision at all if everybody is obliged to be on-duty at all times? Your interpretation of this a*se-covering clause in a piece of legislation has no practical application given that people are also entitled to a break under employment legislation. That is why yard-supervision is organised. If you were genuinely in practical terms obliged to "provide a duty of care at all times towards the children in the school" then teachers couldn't even have lunch in the staff-room not to mind in a café down the road as they'd be too busy constantly shadowing the students to fulfill their duty of care.

And I doubt there is a clause in any employment legislation which specifies the premises on which someone's break must be spent. But that's a question that a union rep should be putting to the principal in question here.

kippy

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?

I suppose the reality of the situation at the time meant if those changes hadnt been made there would have been many enforced redundancies and things would be a lot more precarious.
There was lots of big man talk back then but the figures didnt balance and ultimately it came down to the government taking the best options available.

Alex Meier

kippy wrote: »

I suppose the reality of the situation at the time meant if those changes hadnt been made there would have been many enforced redundancies and things would be a lot more precarious.
There was lots of big man talk back then but the figures didnt balance and ultimately it came down to the government taking the best options available.

That was all bluff to get us to vote for them

What money is saved by forcing you or any other teacher into a 2 hour Croke PArk detention?

kippy

Alex Meier wrote: »

That was all bluff to get us to vote for them

What money is saved by forcing you or any other teacher into a 2 hour Croke PArk detention?

It looks good because the cost per hour to employ a teacher goes down. Some of this is simple optics thankfully. There are literally tens of thousands who would have been make redundant without it.

Alex Meier

kippy wrote: »

It looks good because the cost per hour to employ a teacher goes down. Some of this is simple optics thankfully. There are literally tens of thousands who would have been make redundant without it.

You're taking the piss?

kippy

Alex Meier wrote: »

You're taking the piss?

Nope. Dead serious.

Alex Meier

kippy wrote: »

Nope. Dead serious.

You think "tens of thousands" would have been made redundant if we had have rejected Croke PArk/Haddington Road?

rainbowtrout

kippy wrote: »

It looks good because the cost per hour to employ a teacher goes down. Some of this is simple optics thankfully. There are literally tens of thousands who would have been make redundant without it.

Exaggerate much?

There are 18000 teachers in ASTI. There are 14500 teachers in TUI and that includes those working in the third level sector.

Hardly tens of thousands.

kippy

Alex Meier wrote: »

You think "tens of thousands" would have been made redundant if we had have rejected Croke PArk/Haddington Road?

It may have gone back to the drawing board but essentially if cost savongs and productivy improvements werent made/done tens of thousands of civil servents would have faced compulsory redundancy.
The country would probably have ground to a halt with the resulting strikes and we'd probably have faced into paycuts after that anyway. I doubt very much we would be where we are now either, talking about pay restoration.
Im not sure why people find that so hard to believe.

kippy

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Exaggerate much?

There are 18000 teachers in ASTI. There are 14500 teachers in TUI and that includes those working in the third level sector.

Hardly tens of thousands.

Not all teachers, civil and public servents. Essentially anyone on the government payroll on a last in first out basis.
The additional hours that teachers were made work were part of an overall package effecting this category of worker.