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

spurious

kerryguy78 please read the forum charter and do not post here again unless you intend to abide by it.

oppenheimer1

coillsaille wrote: »

The cuts came in during the lifetime of the Croke Park Agreement when the ASTI couldn't take action. The union rejected the following agreement CPA2 which then merged into HRA. The union balloted HRA in December 2013 with a recommendation to vote No but the agreement was accepted.

That's the key part of the argument. By accepting HR the existing teachers were accepting the status quo.

amacca

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Not one bit. The unions only care now because these NQT's are paying subs and making noise. They didn't give a fiddlers about them before they were members - despite the fact that they are the future of the profession and union.

I worked in the PS as a low paid graduate, and the attitude of the existing staff was "if they're willing to work for it, its what they deserve" or "We have mortgages to pay, all this means is that these graduates will get one less week off on their sun holiday". Solidarity, was all thrown out the window as everyone battened down to protect their own arse.

Not one bit, really? You refuse to accept their hands were tied by Croke Park then? etc etc

That perhaps what happened as a result of signing up to that one might have acted as a deterrent to signing up to the new "go in blindfolded agreement" tm

As for giving a fiddlers about non-members......It was always my understanding that a union was there to represent the sub paying members and not its potential future members? They have to work with what the members who are eligible to vote and do actually vote decide don't they? I wouldn't call that hypocrisy, id call it reality.

When I was in one Id have been disappointed if they were representing other individuals or groups interests (within or without the union) although looking at the behaviour of other unions (and I'm not talking about the ASTI here) I've been wondering if that isn't the case recently

Furthermore in my experience it tended to be a majority of the older members that took the union seriously, played an active part and recognised the importance of fighting ones corner, many of the younger existing members rarely if ever attended a meeting or even took any interest in motions put before congress etc...is it any wonder then that when younger members don't make the effort to have their voices heard decisions before this have been in favour of older members (despite it not being in the best interests of everyone longterm) ....... so yeah its not surprising that the "unions only care now because these NQT's are paying subs and making noise".....thats pretty much how unions work????

But it is always surprising to me the way the first stop for so many is to turn on and blame the unions for things they may not the most responsible for.......I mean were talking about an elected Govt behaving completely dishonourably (bullying/browbeating) here going back on their word with the back up of a completely biased media with little or no interest in reporting things fairly or accurately and its the unions fault for standing up to this when they didn't really have much of a mandate to

I almost think its sort of a fashionable thing to do nowadays to bitch and moan about the unions whereas imo there are so many other avenues in this little country of ours where the publics ire could be directed that go largely unmentioned or if they are they are quickly forgotten due to the seemingly "untouchable' nature of the groups involved or the cost (in legal fees)of tacking the issues etc etc

If you'd prefer not answer, no problem but out of interest could you join a union in the PS job you were in, did you? Did you find it was hard to make your voice heard?

History Queen

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Since when was the ASTI so weak it couldn't stand up to the government? It could have gone on all out in 2013 if it cared so much for NQT. The reality was that NQT made up a tiny minority of ASTI membership at the time and there was no political necessity within the union to win anything major for them (or offer them anything really), so they threw them a bone in HR to keep them quiet. Now they are more numerous and vocal and now its a problem for ASTI.

If the union is all for solidarity,how come the union didn't offer for existing staff to take a small cut at HR to allow the government to restore a single scale? How come they didn't ignore the threat of FEMPI and go out to protect their young colleagues?

Because no union would survive volunteering a pay cut (obviously!)

Because teachers are the union and were understandably afraid of Fempi (threats of redundency/more pay cuts etc)

Finally unions work and fight for their members so now that NQTs are a significant part of their membership and have made their voices heard they are fighting for them.

I am one of the NQT and understand the situation. You clearly do not.

oppenheimer1

amacca wrote: »

Not one bit, really? You refuse to accept their hands were tied by Croke Park then?

That perhaps what happened as a result of signing up to that one might have acted as a deterrent to signing up to the new "go in blindfolded agreement" tm

As for giving a fiddlers about non-members......It was always my understanding that a union was there to represent the sub paying members and not its potential future members? They have to work with what the members who are eligible to vote and do actually vote decide don't they? I wouldn't call that hypocrisy, id call it reality.

When I was in one Id have been disappointed if they were representing other individuals or groups interests (within or without the union) although looking at the behaviour of other unions (and I'm not talking about the ASTI here) I've been wondering if that isn't the case recently

Furthermore in my experience it tended to be a majority of the older members that took the union seriously, played an active part and recognised the importance of fighting ones corner, many of the younger existing members rarely if ever attended a meeting or even took any interest in motions put before congress etc...is it any wonder then that when younger members don't make the effort to have their voices heard decisions before this have been in favour of older members (despite it not being in the best interests of everyone longterm) ....... so yeah its not surprising that the "unions only care now because these NQT's are paying subs and making noise".....thats pretty much how unions work????

But it is always surprising to me the way the first stop for so many is to turn on and blame the unions for things they may not the most responsible for.......I mean were talking about an elected Govt behaving completely dishonourably (bullying/browbeating) here going back on their word with the back up of a completely biased media with little or no interest in reporting things fairly or accurately and its the unions fault for standing up to this...

I almost think its sort of a fashionable thing to do nowadays to bitch and moan about the unions whereas imo there are so many other avenues in this little country of ours where the publics ire could be directed that go largely unmentioned or if they are they are quickly forgotten due to the seemingly "untouchable' nature of the groups involved or the cost (in legal fees)of tacking the issues.

If you'd prefer not answer, no problem but out of interest could you join a union in the PS job you were in, did you? Did you find it was hard to make your voice heard?

I don't refuse to accept that they were tied by Croke Park. What I do refuse to accept is that ASTI leadership didn't foresee that a Government could take the type of action that they did based on the agreement that was put in front of them. If that's the case, the legal team and union top brass should have been sacked for incompetence.

The attitude in the PS unions was at the time of CP and HR, "we'll sacrifice the young ones for ourselves, they'll be ok for a few years being treated less well than us but we will fight that battle later, its more important we look after ourselves." You have to accept that ASTI (and other PS unions to be fair) decided that it was for young people to carry the burden of lower wages rather than spread the pain around fairly. Saying they want fairness and to stand up for NQT now is gross hypocrisy.

In the PS job I was in, I was not able to join the union but I would not have if I were allowed.

MrJones1973

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Since when was the ASTI so weak it couldn't stand up to the government? It could have gone on all out in 2013 if it cared so much for NQT. The reality was that NQT made up a tiny minority of ASTI membership at the time and there was no political necessity within the union to win anything major for them (or offer them anything really), so they threw them a bone in HR to keep them quiet. Now they are more numerous and vocal and now its a problem for ASTI.

If the union is all for solidarity,how come the union didn't offer for existing staff to take a small cut at HR to allow the government to restore a single scale? How come they didn't ignore the threat of FEMPI and go out to protect their young colleagues?

I think your views are repetitive of previous voters and thus I ask what way did you vote on HR ? I also note that headquarters despite a Cec recommendations to reject HR ran a disgraceful road show at your expense that sold HR
I also ask what branch meetings did u attend ? I also ask why we have to steal from each other while we pay bond holders and Apple??

amacca

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

In the PS job I was in, I was not able to join the union but I would not have if I were allowed.

Perhaps if you were it may not have left such a sour taste?.....maybe the unions aren't the problem some people seem to think they are.

coillsaille

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

That's the key part of the argument. By accepting HR the existing teachers were accepting the status quo.

Yes at the time a majority decided to accept, against the wishes of the executives and those of us who voted to reject. But that's democracy, that's how a trade union works. At that time a majority felt that way, now a much bigger majority feels differently. That's how any trade union and any democracy is supposed to work. And those in the union who are elected to represent the grass roots also change over, just like an elected government does.
This is a trade union functioning healthily. I don't understand why you see it as a major flaw in the ASTI.

amacca

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I don't refuse to accept that they were tied by Croke Park. What I do refuse to accept is that ASTI leadership didn't foresee that a Government could take the type of action that they did based on the agreement that was put in front of them. If that's the case, the legal team and union top brass should have been sacked for incompetence..

Well to be fair I had my own views on the ASTI "leadership" at that time.........Given some of the things that were supposed to have happened.

Whats happening now however is imo what should happen given the Govts actions

evolving_doors

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Enough teachers in ASTI voted for Haddington road for it to be accepted. Enough teachers wanted to protect their pay and conditions at the expense of their newly qualified colleagues.

So what is your position now? Enough teachers in ASTI have voted to strike for pay equalisation this time. Are you in favour?

Or... Do you think ASTI should have gone into LR?

amacca

coillsaille wrote: »

Yes at the time a majority decided to accept, against the wishes of the executives and those of us who voted to reject. But that's democracy, that's how a trade union works. At that time a majority felt that way, now a much bigger majority feels differently. That's how any trade union and any democracy is supposed to work. And those in the union who are elected to represent the grass roots also change over, just like an elected government does.
This is a trade union functioning healthily. I don't understand why you see it as a major flaw in the ASTI.

Put much more concisely and elegantly than I was able to.

Thats partly what I was driving at...albeit awkwardly.

Inspector Coptoor

kerryguy78 wrote: »

Even if teachers are on a basic wage it works out at €937 p/w for the 8 months they work

Your point being?

That's gross wages.

oppenheimer1

Gebgbegb wrote: »

So what is your position now? Enough teachers in ASTI have voted to strike for pay equalisation this time. Are you in favour?

Or... Do you think ASTI should have gone into LR?

Yes I am actually in favour of pay equalisation but I do not agree it should be at further expense to the tax payer.

I'd like to see a unified pay scale which would see some senior teachers lose and new graduates gain.

That's what would happen of course if ASTI did actually believe in solidarity, but of course we know they don't

tayto lover

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Yes I am actually in favour of pay equalisation but I do not agree it should be at further expense to the tax payer.

I'd like to see a unified pay scale which would see some senior teachers lose and new graduates gain.

That's what would happen of course if ASTI did actually believe in solidarity, but of course we know they don't

Rubbish suggestion. Where did you ever see that happening before?

oppenheimer1

tayto lover wrote: »

Rubbish suggestion. Where did you ever see that happening before?

It has happened in places I've worked that have been under financial pressure. Senior managers took massive cuts in pay to shield the younger lower paid staff.

And anyway why does it have to have been done before, why not set a new precedent?

political analyst

Surely, the Government could get the vetting of external supervisors done in a few days if it put its mind to it. If ASTI members' withdrawal from S&S leads to closure of schools for weeks then the Government would get as much stick from parents as the ASTI would, i.e. "a plague on both your houses".

coillsaille

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

It has happened in places I've worked that have been under financial pressure. Senior managers took massive cuts in pay to shield the younger lower paid staff.

And anyway why does it have to have been done before, why not set a new precedent?

Right, so who are we talking about in this situation when you say management? Obviously not school management as their numbers are tiny. If you mean older teachers, well there's not that many of them either compared to the number of more recently recruited teachers, which has rapidly increased in line with pupil demographics, so them donating part of their salary would have little impact either. If you mean pre 2011 teachers you will find that the vast majority of them are raising young families, trying to pay mortgages on over-priced houses bought during the boom, and generally just about making ends meet.
So who do you think should chip in to help LPTs? I think it makes more sense if the LPTs union tries to get their employer to pay fairly and equally across the profession.

griffzinho

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

It has happened in places I've worked that have been under financial pressure. Senior managers took massive cuts in pay to shield the younger lower paid staff.

And anyway why does it have to have been done before, why not set a new precedent?

Oppenheimer. You are wasting your time here as most posters won't acknowledge the fact that the taxpayer (us) cannot afford to pay the entire public sector the full restoration amounts that are being sought.

The LRA will come crashing down if the Govt gives in to ASTI. Same with the Gardai. Everyone is conscious that pay discrimination is wrong (even Bruton/Govt,etc) but restoration has to be at an affordable rate. We are only just coming out of a major recession and barring FDI inspired growth, the real economy is still fragile.

The two x €1,000 increases for NQT's agreed by TUI and INTO are reasonable and affordable and coupled with increments (approx €1,500), and LRA benefits such as the S&S substitution payments (approx €1,500) and the €1,000 addition for all LRA teachers amounts to nearly €6,000 throughout the duration of LRA. That is a nearly 20% rise in pay during the LRA for a post 2011/2012 teacher during the lifetime of this agreement.

That (for me) is a reasonable start.

If anyone cares to quantify in hard figures where the money will come from to pay for immediate restoration then I would be more than interested.

As for holding the Govt to ransom by this striking madness I am actually ashamed and bewildered. We are all citizens of this country and it's long term financial stability is in all our best interests.

If anyone wants to argue this point, please do not respond without hard figures as to where the money will come from.

Kieran Christie certainly couldn't do it on Newstalk today. His interview was an embarrassment.

evolving_doors

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Yes I am actually in favour of pay equalisation but I do not agree it should be at further expense to the tax payer.

I'd like to see a unified pay scale which would see some senior teachers lose and new graduates gain.

That's what would happen of course if ASTI did actually believe in solidarity, but of course we know they don't

Ok I can see where you're coming from. How are TUI NQT members being put on a revised pay scale if their senior members aren't taking a cut to balance the books.

Ultimately though it was the dept. that cut the pay and not the teachers. Sure, teachers voted to accept ALL of the cuts, but you'll have to admit there was much more to it than 'cut NQT pay to protect ours'.


ASTI members are being dammed for voting to accept the dept's deals...
Now the ASTI members are being vilified for not entering into Lansdowne road...

coillsaille

griffzinho wrote: »

Oppenheimer. You are wasting your time here as most posters won't acknowledge the fact that the taxpayer (us) cannot afford to pay the entire public sector the full restoration amounts that are being sought

I salute your use of hard figures and welcome informed debate. However your facts need some 'hardening'.
The ASTI is not seeking pay restoration as you state. They are seeking payments which were promised under a previous agreement for duties which the members were willing to continue with despite not signing up to the next agreement. The ASTI is also seeking equal pay for equal work, teachers employed since 2011 started on a lower pay scale. How can they have something restored which they never received?
Other unions in the public sector may be seeking restoration, the ASTI are not.

History Queen

griffzinho wrote: »

The two x €1,000 increases for NQT's agreed by TUI and INTO are reasonable and affordable and coupled with increments (approx €1,500), and LRA benefits such as the S&S substitution payments (approx €1,500) and the €1,000 addition for all LRA teachers amounts to nearly €6,000 throughout the duration of LRA. That is a nearly 20% rise in pay during the LRA for a post 2011/2012 teacher during the lifetime of this agreement.

That (for me) is a reasonable start.

Just to point out the "restoration" offered to TUI and the INTO is not all it seems. It is far far less than the media have reported for most teachers. I posted about it before...

thread/2057650924/1/#post101124121

griffzinho

coillsaille wrote: »

I salute your use of hard figures and welcome informed debate. However your facts need some 'hardening'.
The ASTI is not seeking pay restoration as you state. They are seeking payments which were promised under a previous agreement for duties which the members were willing to continue with despite not signing up to the next agreement. The ASTI is also seeking equal pay for equal work, teachers employed since 2011 started on lower pay scales. How can they have something restored which they never received?
Other unions in the public sector may be seeking restoration, the ASTI are not.

Are you serious? My facts need hardening?? Have a read please.

* Restored to the same level as pre 2011 teachers = restoration in my book.

* Restored the cuts made to teachers salaries post 2010.

* As in 'restoration' to a unified pay scale.

I think the term restoration is correctly being used to describe what the ASTI are looking for. The term has been used by all ASTI member on radio + print interviews.

See here if you are confused.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/1013/823640-asti-ballot/

Of the Lansdowne Road Agreement, Mr Christie said: "We firmly believe that the pay inequality that arose was grossly unjust and the Lansdowne Road Agreement isn't a mechanism that can deliver the (pay)restoration that needs to be delivered soon enough"

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/secondary-teachers-announce-seven-days-of-strike-action-1.2830190

"ASTI members backed industrial action on the issue of restoration of full-pay equality for newly-qualified teachers, with 80 per cent of members voting for it"

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/education/money-is-not-available-we-have-to-balance-the-budget-education-ministers-words-to-asti-35131173.html

Mr Bruton said they had sat down with the two other teacher unions, the INTO and TUI , and had reached agreement on a range of pay restoration measures, and that was all available to the ASTI.

amacca

griffzinho wrote: »

If anyone wants to argue this point, please do not respond without hard figures as to where the money will come from.

1) No offence but no poster should think they are in any position to suggest how they should be responded to before anyone has responded....btw if this response offends your sensibilities please report it.

2) This is about more than an absolute immediate restoration of equal pay scales, I can't imagine many think that will happen immediately and I suspect you know that....it is about fighting for equal pay for equal work yes within some timeframe (agreeable to both parties) also imo about fighting just to get fair play now with more than just a promise of a pittance and some more talks down the line with nothing concrete coming from them and working conditions being further eroded to the detriment of all....being reasonable has yielded very little in the past....you have to aim high just to get anywhere in most negotiations especially when the other party has proven themselves to be dealing less than trustworthy

3) What other options are there that will yield anything other than being treated like doormats?....................

The Govt are by far the more intransigent ones here, they have not kept their word, they have made keeping their promises contingent upon signing up to a new agreement (with unknown further concessions/"reforms" - which imo are not reforms) and they offer "talks" that aren't talks at all (come talk but btw you'll talk after already accepting the thing you want to talk about - thereby rendering the "talks" about as useful as tits on a bull - thats not a negotiation thats a useful soundbite the media can spin into intransigent union refused to talk etc etc) - there have been concessions on the union and teachers side due in part to bullying, fear tactics, lazy journalism while precious few worthwhile concessions have been offered on Govt side imo

Now I wouldn't even dream of pleading with you to respond with figures/stats here.....it should be a simple matter of plain english if you accept this is about much more than just affordability....

Previous poster makes a great point also...Damned for agreeing in the past/Damned for not agreeing now, talk about getting a cake, eating it and expecting it to still be on the plate afterwards..........

griffzinho

History Queen wrote: »

Just to point out the "restoration" offered to TUI and the INTO is not all it seems. It is far far less than the media have reported for most teachers. I posted about it before...

thread/2057650924/1/#post101124121

I read your post. Here is the information you require quantified by the TUI.

http://www.tui.ie/_fileupload/Pay%20Parity%20Breakthrough%20QA%20FINAL%2026Sept.pdf

Scroll to page 5 please.

I don't think increments (which are currently 'paused' for ASTI) are included but I welcome correction.

griffzinho

amacca wrote: »

1) No offence but no poster should think they are in any position to suggest how they should be responded to....if this response offends your sensibilities please report it.

2) This is about more than an absolute immediate restoration of equal pay scales, I can't imagine many think that will happen immediately and I suspect you know that....it is also imo about fighting just to get fair play now with more than just a promise of a pittance and some more talks down the line with nothing concrete coming from them and working conditions being further eroded to the detriment of all.

3) What other options are there that will yield anything other than being treated like doormats?....................

The Govt are by far the more intransigent ones here, they have not kept their word, they have made keeping their promises contingent upon signing up to a new agreement (with unknown further concessions/"reforms" - which imo are not reforms) and they offer "talks" that aren't talks at all (come talk but btw you'll talk after already accepting the thing you want to talk about - thereby rendering the "talks" about as useful as tits on a bull - thats not a negotiation) - there have been concessions on the union and teachers side due in part to bullying, fear tactics, lazy journalism while precious few worthwhile concessions have been offered on Govt side imo

Now I wouldn't even dream of pleading with you to respond with figures/stats here.....it should be a simple matter of plain english if you accept this is about much more than just affordability....

Previous poster makes a great point also...Damned for agreeing in the past/Damned for not agreeing now, talk about getting a cake, eating it and expecting it to still be on the plate afterwards..........

Another boring 'Government is the enemy' post.. No figures. Not worth engaging. If near 20% increase is a pittance in what is now a 28 month period of LRA then I really can't fathom what people expect of our country. It is an affordable starting point in the pursuit of pay equality.

I think this site might be useful to some.

http://www.finance.gov.ie/

I really suggest people look at some facts and more importantly figures from this site. Maybe as far back as 2008? Remember this is 'our' country.

The financial stability of Ireland is in all our best interests.

coillsaille

griffzinho wrote: »

Are you serious? My facts need hardening?? Have a read please.

* Restored to the same level as pre 2011 teachers = restoration in my book.

* Restored the cuts made to teachers salaries post 2010.

* As in 'restoration' to a unified pay scale.

I think the term restoration is correctly being used to describe what the ASTI are looking for. The term has been used by all ASTI member on radio + print interviews.

See here if you are confused.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/1013/823640-asti-ballot/

Of the Lansdowne Road Agreement, Mr Christie said: "We firmly believe that the pay inequality that arose was grossly unjust and the Lansdowne Road Agreement isn't a mechanism that can deliver the (pay)restoration that needs to be delivered soon enough"

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/secondary-teachers-announce-seven-days-of-strike-action-1.2830190

"ASTI members backed industrial action on the issue of restoration of full-pay equality for newly-qualified teachers, with 80 per cent of members voting for it"

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/education/money-is-not-available-we-have-to-balance-the-budget-education-ministers-words-to-asti-35131173.html

Mr Bruton said they had sat down with the two other teacher unions, the INTO and TUI , and had reached agreement on a range of pay restoration measures, and that was all available to the ASTI.

Quotes from media and the minister I will not take seriously. The same media outlets you have quoted reported today, among many other inaccuracies:
*That the other teaching unions had achieved the abolition of unequal pay scales through the LRA.
*That the SnS withdrawal was in support of LPTs.
* That the SnS withdrawal was because we weren't in LRA.
The minister you quoted has also made some very inaccurate statements including the one where he said we were in breach of LRA.

So I won't even address those quotes. I will accept that K. Christie and other union spokespeople may have used the term restoration. However in my opinion the term cannot be applied to LPTs as they never received the higher salaries. The term restoration, I think, should only apply to the reversal of pay cuts imposed on existing staff during the recession. Other unions are pursuing that, the ASTI isn't.

amacca

griffzinho wrote: »

Another boring 'Government is the enemy' post.. No figures. Not worth engaging. If near 20% increase is a pittance in what is now a 28 month period of LRA then I really can't fathom what people expect of our country.

As a start I'd expect the Govt to honour their agreement and provide payment for work done as promised otherwise any figures or agreements have about as much value as a small quantity of used toilet paper......

acequion

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

It has happened in places I've worked that have been under financial pressure. Senior managers took massive cuts in pay to shield the younger lower paid staff.

And anyway why does it have to have been done before, why not set a new precedent?

Pigs really are flying tonight. The above emboldened is one of the most nonsensical things I have ever heard. Senior managers taking "massive" pay cuts! As if!!

Such a wild statement absolutely has to be backed up with concrete evidence so could we have it please!

griffzinho

coillsaille wrote: »

Quotes from media and the minister I will not take seriously. The same media outlets you have quoted reported today, among many other inaccuracies:
*That the other teaching unions had achieved the abolition of unequal pay scales through the LRA.
*That the SnS withdrawal was in support of LPTs.
* That the SnS withdrawal was because we weren't in LRA.
The minister you quoted has also made some very inaccurate statements including the one where he said we were in breach of LRA.

So I won't even address those quotes. I will accept that K. Christie and other union spokespeople may have used the term restoration. However in my opinion the term cannot be applied to LPTs as they never received the higher salaries. The term restoration, I think, should only apply to the reversal of pay cuts imposed on existing staff during the recession. Other unions are pursuing that, the ASTI isn't.

If there is any example of how one is wasting their time on this forum it is this post.

http://www.asti.ie/news/latest-news/news-article/article/asti-responds-to-government-announcement-on-new-teachers-pay/

"The ASTI today said it is campaigning for the full restoration of new teachers’ pay"

It is restoration. Give it up.

Anyway I'm out again.

Will respond if anyone can tell me where the money is going to come from for all these 'pay claims' That information I would be very interested in. Quantify it though please.

As for everyone celebrating going on strike I hope you fully realise the consequences of holding our Government to ransom. I am in the 20% minority that voted for no industrial action so maybe I am wrong. I certainly don't feel that way, but maybe I am. Time will tell.

amacca

Its interesting the way you pick and choose who/what you will respond to.