Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Calling for a NO to TUI ballot

Options
135678

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    r93kaey5p2izun
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,962 ✭✭✭r93kaey5p2izun


    CraftySue wrote: »
    Are TUI, now calling for a NO vote?

    http://www.tui.ie/_fileupload/TUI%20News%20May10%20special.pdf

    That's from May 2010. Unfortunately they are still recommending a Yes.


  • Options
    #63
    CraftySue
    Registered Users Posts: 287 ✭✭CraftySue


    Thanks - just seen that now. I followed a link on their home page - latest news, -TUI News Ballot Special, By piofficer Monday, 16th May 2016 (http://www.tui.ie) and it lead to that Vote No page from 2010. Very confusing.


  • Options
    #64
    r93kaey5p2izun
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,962 ✭✭✭r93kaey5p2izun


    CraftySue wrote: »
    Thanks - just seen that now. I followed a link on their home page - latest news, -TUI News Ballot Special, By piofficer Monday, 16th May 2016 (http://www.tui.ie) and it lead to that Vote No page from 2010. Very confusing.

    You're right. I just checked there and the main link at the top of the page brings you to the old issue but the one half way down links to the correct document. A genuine error or an attempt at sabotage? ;)


  • Options
    #65
    deiseindublin
    Registered Users Posts: 2,263 ✭✭✭deiseindublin


    Here's hoping lots are confused and don't go with their current recommendation.


  • Options
    #66
    evolving_doors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭evolving_doors


    deiseindublin wrote: »
    Here's hoping lots are confused and don't go with their current recommendation.

    If they recommended a No last time then you would kind of expect that it would be a 'double no' this time!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    deiseindublin
    Registered Users Posts: 2,263 ✭✭✭deiseindublin


    Enjoying reading the comments on their FB page, kind of liberating to be able to give them public feedback.


  • Options
    #68
    deiseindublin
    Registered Users Posts: 2,263 ✭✭✭deiseindublin


    Anybody going to either Dublin meeting tonight?


  • Options
    #69
    mirrorwall14
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,751 ✭✭✭mirrorwall14


    I'm not Dublin branch so not at them. Were you Deisindublin? Or anyone else? I'd be curious to see what other branch meetings are being told


  • Options
    #70
    deiseindublin
    Registered Users Posts: 2,263 ✭✭✭deiseindublin


    Myself and a colleague went to one each, mine was interesting, hopefully something will come of it, kind of a TUI Fightback group mobilising. At Dublin branch meeting, Gen Sec. spoke for an hour, lots of scaremongering etc. as expected.


  • Options
    #71
    political analyst
    Registered Users Posts: 4,560 ✭✭✭political analyst


    Now that the ASTI ballot result is known, I wonder how many secondary teachers who are TUI members have voted yet.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    political analyst
    Registered Users Posts: 4,560 ✭✭✭political analyst


    I suspect that the TUI leadership is recommending acceptance of LRA because it is more accepting of bureaucracy due to fact that its members are State employees, unlike teachers in voluntary secondary schools.


  • Options
    #73
    joebloggs32
    Registered Users Posts: 1,621 ✭✭✭joebloggs32


    political analyst wrote: »
    I suspect that the TUI leadership is recommending acceptance of LRA because it is more accepting of bureaucracy due to fact that its members are State employees, unlike teachers in voluntary secondary schools.

    You are splitting hairs with that statement. Who pays the wages in the vast majority of secondary schools?


  • Options
    #74
    political analyst
    Registered Users Posts: 4,560 ✭✭✭political analyst


    joebloggs32 wrote: »
    You are splitting hairs with that statement. Who pays the wages in the vast majority of secondary schools?

    Technically, teachers in voluntary secondary schools and also in primary schools (except for those one by education and training boards) are not State employees.


  • Options
    #75
    man_no_plan
    Registered Users Posts: 1,018 ✭✭✭man_no_plan


    political analyst wrote: »
    Technically, teachers in voluntary secondary schools and also in primary schools (except for those one by education and training boards) are not State employees.

    Technically, thats rubbish. The tui are recommending the agreement because the majority of the executive, rightly or wrongly, think its the best course of action.

    If your technicalities were right the minister couldn't cut teacher pay or set payscales.


  • Options
    #76
    political analyst
    Registered Users Posts: 4,560 ✭✭✭political analyst


    man_no_plan wrote: »
    Technically, thats rubbish. The tui are recommending the agreement because the majority of the executive, rightly or wrongly, think its the best course of action.

    If your technicalities were right the minister couldn't cut teacher pay or set payscales.

    In voluntary secondary schools and most primary schools, the employer is the Bishop or an educational trust established by a religious order.

    In vocational schools, and community and further education colleges, the State, via an ETB, is the employer of teachers and it is for that reason I believe that the TUI leadership is more accepting of bureaucracy and that is the reason I believe the leadership is recommending acceptance of LRA.


  • Options
    #77
    TheDriver
    Registered Users Posts: 12,518 ✭✭✭✭TheDriver


    political analyst wrote: »
    In voluntary secondary schools and most primary schools, the employer is the Bishop or an educational trust established by a religious order.

    In vocational schools, and community and further education colleges, the State, via an ETB, is the employer of teachers and it is for that reason I believe that the TUI leadership is more accepting of bureaucracy and that is the reason I believe the leadership is recommending acceptance of LRA.

    The bishop or trust is a trustee, not an employer. Its the school that's the employer which is directly funded by the state. Any employee paid from public money is a public servant


  • Options
    #78
    political analyst
    Registered Users Posts: 4,560 ✭✭✭political analyst


    TheDriver wrote: »
    The bishop or trust is a trustee, not an employer. Its the school that's the employer which is directly funded by the state. Any employee paid from public money is a public servant
    That's not what the Supreme Court said in the Louise O'Keeffe case.


  • Options
    #79
    fridayfeeling
    Registered Users Posts: 7 ✭fridayfeeling


    Cork County Branch vehemently against the Executive call for a Yes vote. Declan Glynn was down last Wednesday and spoke to us like we were schoolchildren. The anger in the room was was tsunami like. We have to get all branches to vote NO. The Executive have lost touch with the teacher at the coalface. They do not get it about the Croke Park hours and how useless they are. Love to know what happened at other branch meetings because Declan Glynn said that the level of anger in the room in Cork was not replicated elsewhere in the country. I sincerely hope that that is not the case.


  • Options
    #80
    TheDriver
    Registered Users Posts: 12,518 ✭✭✭✭TheDriver


    I too would be v interested, I couldn't make the meeting but colleagues said it was like a war zone brewing. Glynn has been in that position too long, he seems to only appear in magazine at various golf tournaments. Maybe Irwin needs to get message too that now is time to fight


  • Options
    #81
    JohnnyJohnJohns
    Registered Users Posts: 310 ✭✭JohnnyJohnJohns


    Dublin Colleges Branch voted a unanimously to call for a No vote and have been active in letting staff know.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    2mature
    Registered Users Posts: 97 ✭✭2mature


    I will be attending a meeting in Cork South on Tuesday evening and I am adamant that a no vote is the way to go. I already had a "mild disagreement" with the school tui rep who was trying to dictate to me what to do. As a teacher in my second year qualified I feel that the union is most definitely Out of touch with its members and the use of bully boy tactics and scaremongering will only move to make me vote no more.


  • Options
    #83
    fridayfeeling
    Registered Users Posts: 7 ✭fridayfeeling


    Good for you. Glynn is so out of touch. At meetings he regales us with stories of drinking with the Departmental officials and how he knows them so well. This is NOT want I want from our Industrial Relations reps. I want the departmental officials not to know them! I want Glynn et al to keep the Departmental officials on their toes. Remember not doing the Croke Park hours won't affect students in the slightest. If the department threaten us with non payment for S&S or with FEMPI then we can withdraw from S&S and this WOULD close schools. Not doing the Croke Park hours will not close schools and the parents and students should be made aware of this.


  • Options
    #84
    man_no_plan
    Registered Users Posts: 1,018 ✭✭✭man_no_plan


    What is the argument against the croke park hours?


  • Options
    #85
    TheDriver
    Registered Users Posts: 12,518 ✭✭✭✭TheDriver


    I assume this has nothing to do with half in half out which would still apply??


  • Options
    #86
    r93kaey5p2izun
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,962 ✭✭✭r93kaey5p2izun


    TheDriver wrote: »
    I assume this has nothing to do with half in half out which would still apply??

    Sustaining Progress hours will still apply.


  • Options
    #87
    man_no_plan
    Registered Users Posts: 1,018 ✭✭✭man_no_plan


    Regina Warm Thump wrote: »
    Sustaining Progress hours will still apply.

    What about s/s?


  • Options
    #88
    r93kaey5p2izun
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,962 ✭✭✭r93kaey5p2izun


    man_no_plan wrote: »
    What about s/s?

    Yes, S+S will still apply. The potential problem will be if the government fails to pay for it as they promised they would - that may result in withdrawal from S+S. But it will be them breaking their side of the agreement first.


  • Options
    #89
    man_no_plan
    Registered Users Posts: 1,018 ✭✭✭man_no_plan


    So if the Croke park hours are gone will teachers be expecting the school to close so that they can do subject planning etc.?


  • Options
    #90
    r93kaey5p2izun
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,962 ✭✭✭r93kaey5p2izun


    man_no_plan wrote: »
    So if the Croke park hours are gone will teachers be expecting the school to close so that they can do subject planning etc.?

    I won't be. I don't know anyone else who will either. We managed fine before. It just got done as and when needed. Now we spend hours sitting doing the wrong things (generally dreamt up by a principal who hasn't a clue what the dept actually needs to do) at the wrong times and end up giving up our own time anyway to get the real work done.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    fridayfeeling
    Registered Users Posts: 7 ✭fridayfeeling


    The simple argument against Croke Park hours is that they serve only to demoralise and demotivate teachers. How many teachers do you know of that have stopped getting involved in extra curricular activities because of these stupid meetings. They serve no benefit. If they did not go ahead teachers would contribute more in terms of volunteerism. As it stands now teachers watch the clock and as soon as these meetings are over its straight out the door.


Advertisement