ASTI OctNov Action *Post 1 for usual plea for restraint Especially New Posters *

judeboy101

deiseindublin wrote: »

Can ASTI teachers legally be removed from payroll if they turn up to work as per their contact? Seems farsical.

No. Last time on s&s some schools just til kids to stay home and teachers came in to organise / clean their rooms etc. This time BOM's will close them under H&S policy and all teachers will have to sign letter stating they were willing to work but school closed. What might end up happening is those days will be considered like the snow days and we might hv to pay them back @ Easter or Feb midterm

Mardy Bum

griffzinho wrote: »

Mardy Bum wrote: »

The increment is what ever teacher gets and you have to work 600 hours to get so it has nothing to do with pay equalisation. My last increment was less than 800 euro. Yes in the private sector if you are good you get raises or move employer. You cannot do this as a teacher.

Every teacher is entitled to s and s. I have been doing that for two years for nothing and was promised I'd be paid for it two years ago.

None of this is pay equalisation apart from TUI INTO deal which reinforces two tier pay.

It is still an approx 22% rise in pay over 26/27 months. That is what you asked to be explained. That is what you got. There can be no debate. It is a rise in pay from point x to a point y that is approximately 22% higher within thetimeframe specified. Dispute that all you want but Maths doesn't lie. It is 22% increase in a time when inflation is at or near 0 to 1% per year to BTW.

As for increments. Pay rise percentages are expressed in gross pay terms. Your 'net' increment would be far less admittedly due to tax, pension and pension levy deductions.

My net increment was around 400 after deductions. Gross was 800. This is not pay equalisation. This is how teachers' pay is distributed and to describe it as part of a 22% increase is deceitful.

My point is these figures do not address what the strike action is over- pay equalisation.

As History Queen mentioned some Lower Paid Teachers won't even get the 1000 + 2000 promised because of the way it is being given through tax cuts rather than being added to the scale.

griffzinho

If anyone is interested.

The % increase to TUI/INTO teachers under proposed LRA averaged across a 25 point payscale is 12.10% precisely.

If you include two increments during this period of €1,500 (assumption) then the average increase is 18.86%.

Both these figures are based of a new entrant 2012 pay scale.

One caveat is that some levels don't earn a increment at certain points. E.g. between point 10-12 and 13-16, but as it only commenced in 2012 teachers won't be hitting this until a good few years down the road.

griffzinho

Mardy Bum wrote: »

My net increment was around 400 after deductions. Gross was 800. This is not pay equalisation. This is how teachers' pay is distributed and to describe it as part of a 22% increase is deceitful.

My point is these figures do not address what the strike action is over- pay equalisation.

As History Queen mentioned some Lower Paid Teachers won't even get the 1000 + 2000 promised because of the way it is being given through tax cuts rather than being added to the scale.

It is not deceitful. It is a pay rise. Anything that increases pay is a pay 'rise'. That is as obvious. New teachers will have their pay increased by x amount. I just did the figures above.

To illustrate again. During the term of LRA.

Taking just the first seven points on the scale (2012-2018). The average increase including increments is 18.22%

The average increase without increments is 9.83%.


Note: This assumes average increment of €1,500 per year. (the actual average increment for a 2012 teacher for the first six years until 2018 is €1281 per annum.

Iused2likebusts

Getting the s and s money back is not something I would ever include as a pay rise. We voted to forfeit it for a couple of years. We were due it back from sept its not a pay rise.

Mardy Bum

griffzinho wrote: »

Mardy Bum wrote: »

My net increment was around 400 after deductions. Gross was 800. This is not pay equalisation. This is how teachers' pay is distributed and to describe it as part of a 22% increase is deceitful.

My point is these figures do not address what the strike action is over- pay equalisation.

As History Queen mentioned some Lower Paid Teachers won't even get the 1000 + 2000 promised because of the way it is being given through tax cuts rather than being added to the scale.

It is not deceitful. It is a pay rise. Anything that increases pay is a pay 'rise'. That is as obvious. New teachers will have their pay increased by x amount. I just did the figures above.

To illustrate again. During the term of LRA.

Taking just the first seven points on the scale (2012-2018). The average increase including increments is 18.22%

The average increase without increments is 9.83%.

What you fail to realise is a teacher has to work 600 hours for these increments. If you are one of the many teachers on maternity or sick leaves or not on full hours you will not have the requisite number of hours to move up the increments.

griffzinho

Iused2likebusts wrote: »

Getting the s and s money back is not something I would ever include as a pay rise. We voted to forfeit it for a couple of years. We were due it back from sept its not a pay rise.

Can argue about this until the cows come home, but I think anything that constitutes a rise in future pay when expressed in terms of today's pay can be considered a 'rise'.

The fact it has fluctuated in the past is irrelevant.

Mardy Bum

griffzinho wrote: »

Iused2likebusts wrote: »

Getting the s and s money back is not something I would ever include as a pay rise. We voted to forfeit it for a couple of years. We were due it back from sept its not a pay rise.

Can argue about this until the cows come home, but I think anything that constitutes a rise in future pay when expressed in terms of today's pay can be considered a 'rise'.

The fact it has fluctuated in the past is irrelevant.

The issue is pay equalisation. Government are deflecting from this and you seem to be too for whatever reason. S and S is not part of pay equalisation.

You can talk about pay rises until you are blue the face but they are not equalising pay and getting rid of the two/three tier scales. This is the issue.

griffzinho

Mardy Bum wrote: »

What you fail to realise is a teacher has to work 600 hours for these increments. If you are one of the many teachers on maternity or sick leaves or not on full hours you will not have the requisite number of hours to move up the increments.

Yes, I am assuming full time. There is no other way to quantify it otherwise.

The issue of part hours (casualisation) is another topic entirely as is not getting increments on sick or maternity leave. There is no way to include those in the figures.

I like to look at facts. There are some there for you re the pay agreement TUI and INTO have entered. I believe 18% is generous over 26 months, but that is my opinion, which I have clearly stated on here.

I 100% believe that the government cannot afford immediate pay equalisation across the public sector. I have facts available to back this up to and pointed posters to http://www.finance.gov.ie/ in order to access this information.

These facts are there in quantifiable terms. We still haven't balanced a budget in 8 years, yet some public sector groups (like ASTI) expect immediate restoration, which if given to them will trigger an avalanche of pay claims among all 400,000 public sector workers. This will cost Billions of Euro. Where will that come from?? Borrowing??

Anyway these are facts.

Choose to use them if you like. Choose not if you don't.

You did ask for someone to explain where a near 22% rise has come from, and I feel I have explained those calculations factually.

jameorahiely

If withdrawal of S+S is on the basis the teachers feel they are not being paid for the hours, (even though they are salaried) maybe the whole method of pay needs to be revised from a salaried position to a per hour worked method of payment. Free periods and summer would not be paid for, unless the teachers are actively working. All correction and planning to be done during current free periods and on school premises. With a clock in/out system.

Iused2likebusts

griffzinho wrote: »

Can argue about this until the cows come home, but I think anything that constitutes a rise in future pay when expressed in terms of today's pay can be considered a 'rise'.

The fact it has fluctuated in the past is irrelevant.

Its not irrelevant in my eyes. Let's say you are on 50k in 2014 and they reduce your wages for two year to 40k with the agreement that you will go back to 50k in 2016. Under that circumstance would you still class that as a 10k pay rise.

Mardy Bum

griffzinho wrote: »

Mardy Bum wrote: »

What you fail to realise is a teacher has to work 600 hours for these increments. If you are one of the many teachers on maternity or sick leaves or not on full hours you will not have the requisite number of hours to move up the increments.

Yes, I am assuming full time. There is no other way to quantify it otherwise.

The issue of part hours (casualisation) is another topic entirely as is not getting increments on sick or maternity leave. There is no way to include those in the figures.

I like to look at facts. There are some there for you re the pay agreement TUI and INTO have entered. I believe 18% is generous over 26 months, but that is my opinion, which I have clearly stated on here.

I 100% believe that the government cannot afford immediate pay equalisation across the public sector. I have facts available to back this up to and pointed posters to http://www.finance.gov.ie/ in order to access this information.

These facts are there in quantifiable terms. We still haven't balanced a budget in 8 years, yet some public sector groups (like ASTI) expect immediate restoration, which if given to them will trigger an avalanche of pay claims among all 400,000 public sector workers. This will cost Billions of Euro. Where will that come from?? Borrowing??

Anyway these are facts.

Choose to use them if you like. Choose not if you don't.

You did ask for someone to explain where a near 22% rise has come from, and I feel I have explained those calculations factually.

Funny how TD's could get pay equalisation.

You have explained them admirably where we disagree is in the semantics. These are not pay rises. S and S was a deferred payment. Increments are part of our contracts. LRA and TUI deal are rises but have their own issues because of the way they are being implemented through tax breaks rather than gross.

The government could have set out a four year plan to restore pay. There is an 8k difference for teachers who started post 2012. 2k a year over four years may have made it more palatable for teachers however this was not offered and it took extra negotiations just to get 2k over two years. Instead they have reinforced the two tiers.

griffzinho

Iused2likebusts wrote: »

Its not irrelevant in my eyes. Let's say you are on 50k in 2014 and they reduce your wages for two year to 40k with the agreement that you will go back to 50k in 2016. Under that circumstance would you still class that as a 10k pay rise.

Yes I would of course.

Taking your point of view, where is the starting point??

Why not express current salaries in the context of the year 2000 for example. When it comes to future pay, past pay has absolutely no context.

It is quite simply present pay and future pay. Calculate the % change and if it goes up it is a 'rise' if it goes down it is a 'cut'

jayo76

jameorahiely wrote: »

If withdrawal of S+S is on the basis the teachers feel they are not being paid for the hours, (even though they are salaried) maybe the whole method of pay needs to be revised from a salaried position to a per hour worked method of payment. Free periods and summer would not be paid for, unless the teachers are actively working. All correction and planning to be done during current free periods and on school premises. With a clock in/out system.[/quot

Brilliant! This really should get an award for funniest post of the year!

Iused2likebusts

griffzinho wrote: »

Yes I would of course.

Taking your point of view, where is the starting point??

Why not express current salaries in the context of the year 2000 for example. When it comes to future pay, past pay has absolutely no context.

It is quite simply present pay and future pay. Calculate the % change and if it goes up it is a 'rise' if it goes down it is a 'cut'

I don't believe you.

griffzinho

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Funny how TD's could get pay equalisation.

You have explained them admirably where we disagree is in the semantics. These are not pay rises. S and S was a deferred payment. Increments are part of our contracts. LRA and TUI deal are rises but have their own issues because of the way they are being implemented through tax breaks rather than gross.

The government could have set out a four year plan to restore pay. There is an 8k difference for teachers who started post 2012. 2k a year over four years may have made it more palatable for teachers however this was not offered and it took extra negotiations just to get 2k over two years. Instead they have reinforced the two tiers.

Look Mardy Bum. I am 100% with you in demanding pay equalisation, but I am 100% against you in that I feel that LRA is a good starting point. You don't. I firmly believe that 18% rise from current pay to 2018 level is very generous and more importantly affordable for the country. Any more will derail the LRA, which puts our country in jeopardy from a public finances perspective.

Mardy Bum

griffzinho wrote: »

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Funny how TD's could get pay equalisation.

You have explained them admirably where we disagree is in the semantics. These are not pay rises. S and S was a deferred payment. Increments are part of our contracts. LRA and TUI deal are rises but have their own issues because of the way they are being implemented through tax breaks rather than gross.

The government could have set out a four year plan to restore pay. There is an 8k difference for teachers who started post 2012. 2k a year over four years may have made it more palatable for teachers however this was not offered and it took extra negotiations just to get 2k over two years. Instead they have reinforced the two tiers.

Look Mardy Bum. I am 100% with you in demanding pay equalisation, but I am 100% against you in that I feel that LRA is a good starting point. You don't. I firmly believe that 18% rise from current pay to 2018 level is very generous and more importantly affordable for the country. Any more will derail the LRA, which puts our country in jeopardy from a public finances perspective.

LRA didn't even have plans for equalisation. FG are a big business/farmers party who if they could destroy the profession wouldn't cause them a second thought, ironic considering a lot trained to be teachers ( and those that did teach were by all accounts horrendous).

It used to take a very high 2.1 to get into the Hdip, now a 2.2 is adequate in most universities. This changed in 2013 when possible candidates realised the money wasn't fair. Do you want weaker teachers who lack subject knowledge in the future?

That is why we want pay equalisation - for the future of the profession.

acequion

As for whatever settlement we may or may not accept here is how I feel:

CP hours. A red line issue for me. I consider them utterly demeaning and am quite frankly outraged that we would be obliged to consider them in any format. While I could very grudgingly accept that we had to do them in austerity times,as a symbolic gesture because they are and have been totally unproductive, that we be expected to do them in a growing economy is a further insult to a badly undermined profession. And as for this argument about "putting them to good use", using them for CPD,extra curricular activities,for me that is implying acceptance of more work for no pay.

However I can live with P/T and staff meetings outside of school hours and someone came up with a brilliant idea about 40 minutes planning but will the Gov accept that. Somehow I doubt it. They want to continue forcing this extra labour on us indefinitely.

S&S. Voluntary and paid. Full stop. EVERY teacher must be afforded the option to opt out. I'm one of the lucky ones who has been able to do so.However, like another poster,would actually prefer to volunteer one class per week,thereby working 22.40 hours plus after school P/T, staff meetings instead of CP if there was such an option but again I doubt there will be.

JC. SBA's must be externally monitored, similar the current practice with LC orals and practicals or else scale them back and let them replace summer tests in second year. However SLAR's should be out of the question.Time consuming,bureaucratic and a training ground for teacher assessment by the back door. Also out of the question are common level papers.

Pay equalisation. Full pay equalisation being gradually phased back in over an agree time frame.

But unfortunately I wouldn't be too optimistic at this point as there are too many issues and they've been going on for too long. The whole thing could get very nasty.

But,the blame for this industrial unrest lies fairly and squarely with the present and recent Governments whose policies have been completely unacceptable. Anyone who claims otherwise is a Government apologist and they should admit as such.

man_no_plan

Mardy Bum wrote: »

The increment is what ever teacher gets and you have to work 600 hours to get so it has nothing to do with pay equalisation. My last increment was less than 800 euro. Yes in the private sector if you are good you get raises or move employer. You cannot do this as a teacher.

Every teacher is entitled to s and s. I have been doing that for two years for nothing and was promised I'd be paid for it two years ago.

None of this is pay equalisation apart from TUI INTO deal which reinforces two tier pay.

Possibly looking at the increment freeze outside of LRA v getting it inside? I don't agree with the ASTI position on a lot of things but you should get the money in the two halves as agreed so withdrawing is the only course of action open.

If they paid for that though you'd only be striking over the pay equalisation matters? It seems, listening to ed byrne (is it?) That a timeline for equalisation is what is wanted rather that immediate restoration? Am I getting this all wrong? No mention of the new JC in all of this?

political analyst

acequion wrote: »

CP hours. A red line issue for me. I consider them utterly demeaning and am quite frankly outraged that we would be obliged to consider them in any format. While I could very grudgingly accept that we had to do them in austerity times,as a symbolic gesture because they are and have been totally unproductive, that we be expected to do them in a growing economy is a further insult to a badly undermined profession. And as for this argument about "putting them to good use", using them for CPD,extra curricular activities,for me that is implying acceptance of more work for no pay.

The fact that other public-sector workers, e.g. nurses, civil servants, also had to do extra hours under the CP deal means that teachers were never going to get away without doing them too. This led to the problem of "how to square a circle", so to speak. Obviously, extending the amount of time for which pupils are in class was never going to happen.

PS: I'm not defending the CP hours; I'm simply putting them into context.

tayto lover

The old saying "work for nothing and you'll never be idle" springs to mind in a lot of this. Regardless of rate of pay any work you do should be for pay.

implausible

acequion wrote: »

S&S. Voluntary and paid. Full stop. EVERY teacher must be afforded the option to opt out. I'm one of the lucky ones who has been able to do so.However, like another poster,would actually prefer to volunteer one class per week,thereby working 22.40 hours plus after school P/T, staff meetings instead of CP if there was such an option but again I doubt there will be.

JC. SBA's must be externally monitored, similar the current practice with LC orals and practicals or else scale them back and let them replace summer tests in second year. However SLAR's should be out of the question.Time consuming,bureaucratic and a training ground for teacher assessment by the back door. Also out of the question are common level papers.

I agree that all teachers should be paid for s/s.

CBAs have been scaled back from the original proposals and are replacing Summer and/or Christmas tests. Schools have to lose at least one set of house exams to facilitate them:

the classroom-based assessments will substitute other assessments currently undertaken in the school such as inhouse examinations, etc. as appropriate

It's in the revised Junior Cert Reform document.

SLARs (Subject Learning and Assessment Review Meetings) take two hours and teachers are allowed time for them. The paperwork is minimal, with a one page report filled in at the end and the teacher is not being assessed - you present the work along with the grade you've given it and discuss it with your colleagues. Even if they all disagree with your assessment, the original descriptor stands.

I'm not picking a fight, but I feel it necessary to address these inaccuracies. There are a lot of myths floating around about the new JC.

stanley1980

Serious question: how can teachers justify closing schools for a day at a time when they only protest for an hour?

man_no_plan

stanley1980 wrote: »

Serious question: how can teachers justify closing schools for a day at a time when they only protest for an hour?

The law says you can't have a mass picket so, therefore a rota is usually drawn up. Dublin bus were on strike for 24 hours but every bus driver didn't picket for 24 hours!

Perspective please.

stanley1980

ok- what constitutes a 'mass picket'? The issue aside- to only protest for an hour while closing schools for a whole day is pretty questionable.

Mardy Bum

stanley1980 wrote: »

ok- what constitutes a 'mass picket'? The issue aside- to only protest for an hour while closing schools for a whole day is pretty questionable.

Different teachers are in the picket throughout the day.

stanley1980

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Different teachers are in the picket throughout the day.

yes I'm aware of that. Back to my original question: how can teachers justify closing schools for a day when they're only protesting for an hour each? It hardly shows much commitment to the cause....in my opinion.

r93kaey5p2izun

stanley1980 wrote: »

yes I'm aware of that. Back to my original question: how can teachers justify closing schools for a day when they're only protesting for an hour each? It hardly shows much commitment to the cause....in my opinion.

Lobby your TD for a change in the law regarding mass pickets. We had 10 outside last time and were told it was too many by local Gardai. Teachers didn't make this law and you know that. You're just looking for a row.

evolving_doors

griffzinho wrote: »

€796 x 2 = €1592 supervision payment
€1,000 under Lra next year
€1,000 x 2 under Into and Tui deal
€1,500 approx average increment per year in this period of Lra.

That possibly totals approx 22% or more and is all in all and all very good during a 26/27 month period.

Remember a lot of private sector employees get no increment.

please familiarise yourself with the charter... Esp comparing apples and oranges.
Thanks for the breakdown though!

Mod

Pursefan

Teachers have no say in closing a school. They will present themselves for the job they are contracted to do which is teaching. The Principals will or will not choose to close the schools. They and the BOM have that authority.