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
Where now for ASTI? ****ASTI Action- Part III - See 1st Post***
Options
Comments
-
Powerhouse wrote: »Why would a third party offer to mediate where there is not a demonstrable dispute indicated by industrial action?
The WRC is often involved in resolving disputes before they get to the industrial action stage.0 -
Or you can stay and fight for what you're owed and what you were promised... or stay and stand up for your fellow worker, or maybe you believe enough in the profession that you don't just blindly accept work practices that you think will damage the profession and education. But if you want to leave teaching and seek your fortunes elsewhere then good luck with that too.
The Haddington Road Agreement promised "In recognition of the loss of the S&S pensionable allowance, a gross payment of €1592 will be applied to the incremental scale for teachers. This will be applied in two equal moieties; €796 in the school year 2016/17 and €796 in the school year 2017/18. "
Sounds simple and straightforward. However, the HRA expired. The Lansdowne Road Agreement provided "The Parties agree to the extension of the Public Service Stability Agreement 2013 – 2016 until September 2018."
Most key of all was this statement "In that regard, the Parties agree to continue to work within the framework of the Public Service Stability Agreement and reaffirm the overall commitments provided within it"
In essence, this phrase made delivery of the HRA promises contingent on acceptance of the LRA. This was freely entered into by the PSC negotiators in ICTU, on behalf of the ASTI and became, by default, the condition for payment of the €1592.
Industrial relations often sees earlier agreements superceded by later ones and incorporated into them, this is not something new - otherwise how would previous pay increases continue?
The points you make about changing work practices is probably better for another thread - suffice to say that doing things the way they were always done is usually not the best option.0 -
The DES have now come out and said that anyone who worked in a partially open school on Monday 7th November will NOT be paid.
I taught 4 of my 6 classes that day.
A very inflammatory thing to do by the DES.0 -
Inspector Coptoor wrote: »The DES have now come out and said that anyone who worked in a partially open school on Monday 7th November will NOT be paid.
I taught 4 of my 6 classes that day.
A very inflammatory thing to do by the DES.
Inevitable though. DES were always going to interpret it as school either fully open or not fully open.0 -
The Haddington Road Agreement promised "In recognition of the loss of the S&S pensionable allowance, a gross payment of €1592 will be applied to the incremental scale for teachers. This will be applied in two equal moieties; €796 in the school year 2016/17 and €796 in the school year 2017/18. "
Sounds simple and straightforward. However, the HRA expired.
In my humble opinion it is simple and straightforward. Haddington Expired but the conditions within it related to payments being given in 2016/2017/2018
the terms of haddington were honoured by the teachers, they were not by the govt
was anything mentioned in haddington that to avail of what it promised you would have to be in all future at that time unseen agreements?
Why would any group in their right minds go into an agreement whereby you will also by bound by any future as yet unseen even unwritten agreements?
If that wasn't in Haddington then you are flat out wrong imo and if it was then teachers were mad to accept it...talk about giving away any bargaining power or rights you have0 -
Advertisement
-
I lost €200 as im non casual part time. Thats so disproportionate! Im going to be down €600 for the 3 days action.0
-
-
political analyst wrote: »Because unions know that a public-sector pay agreement, when it ends, is succeeded by another.
Completely unacceptable as a reason to not honour the terms of a previous agreement
laughable imo...
You did what we wanted lads but were not going to do as we promised unless you go into the next agreement
Unless it states in Haddinton as one of its conditions that you will have to enter into the next agreement for the Govt to fulfil its promises then thats not an acceptable explanation at all
And if agreements hinge upon accepting the next UNSEEN agreement as well and so on then it makes a mockery of these "agreements" imo...0 -
Laughable maybe, but it was in the terms of the Haddington road agreement which was accepted by asti.Completely unacceptable as a reason to not honour the terms of a previous agreement
laughable imo...
You did what we wanted lads but were not going to do as we promised unless you go into the next agreement
Unless it states in Haddinton as one of its conditions that you will have to enter into the next agreement for the Govt to fulfil its promises then thats not an acceptable explanation at all
And if agreements hinge upon accepting the next UNSEEN agreement as well and so on then it makes a mockery of these "agreements" imo...
This is not the first time asti seemingly have been out maneuvered by the government and then cry foul after the fact. Do they have a lawyer at all on staff and do they read these agreements before going into them?0 -
Moody_mona wrote: »Lost 49 for that strike day, worth it!judeboy101 wrote: »You lose only for the Thurs? Not Monday lockout?Moody_mona wrote: »Today's pay doesn't include this week.judeboy101 wrote: »You sure, my paycheck runs Tues to Monday of pay week inclusiveMoody_mona wrote: »I knew it was Tues - Mon, but I always thought it was of the previous week. Just checked an old payslip and it looks like you're right! Even better.judeboy101 wrote: »I'm down 60 , if that's for two days out I'm delighted lol
My nett pay increased by €666.44 in today's payment compared to last week. Pension Related Deduction down 15.2%, USC down 10% - everything down but ASTI contribution which is unchanged and nett pay which is much higher. More strikes, please!
Like the rest of you my payroll period was from 25 October to 7 November inclusive (you know it's inclusive by looking at the start and end date of your last salary slip). I rang Salaries in Cornamaddy - (090) 648 4161. They confirmed two things.
1. "Grouping of Unpaid" was the deduction for the strike day (singular) on 27 October.
2. Because their payroll works two weeks in advance, our lockout day on Monday 7th is not included in this deduction.0 -
Advertisement
-
Inspector Coptoor wrote: »The DES have now come out and said that anyone who worked in a partially open school on Monday 7th November will NOT be paid.
I taught 4 of my 6 classes that day.
A very inflammatory thing to do by the DES.
But I thought today's payslip included Monday the 7th and when I glanced at it only the strike day seemed to be deducted and our school was completely closed.0 -
In my humble opinion it is simple and straightforward. Haddington Expired but the conditions within it related to payments being given in 2016/2017/2018
the terms of haddington were honoured by the teachers, they were not by the govt
was anything mentioned in haddington that to avail of what it promised you would have to be in all future at that time unseen agreements?
Why would any group in their right minds go into an agreement whereby you will also by bound by any future as yet unseen even unwritten agreements?
If that wasn't in Haddington then you are flat out wrong imo and if it was then teachers were mad to accept it...talk about giving away any bargaining power or rights you have
By that logic, when Towards 2016 expired and the agreements before that, the increases in salary promised in them expired with them. That would put teacher salaries back to mid-80s (or 90s, can't remember) levels.
All of the industrial relations agreements in the public sector are predicated on ongoing co-operation with change, if the co-operation stops, then the promised payments stop, regardless of which agreement they were concluded under. I am about 70-80% certain that if ASTI had pursued a legal case or an IR case to the Labour Court seeking the payment, they would have lost big time. That is as close to certain as you get in any legal/IR question.
From the outside it seems to me that many ordinary teachers were hoodwinked by their leaders into believing that the money would be paid even if they didn't sign up to future agreements. Either that or their leaders at the time weren't savvy enough to cop that they were being tied into the following deal.0 -
Completely unacceptable as a reason to not honour the terms of a previous agreement
laughable imo...
You did what we wanted lads but were not going to do as we promised unless you go into the next agreement
Unless it states in Haddinton as one of its conditions that you will have to enter into the next agreement for the Govt to fulfil its promises then thats not an acceptable explanation at all
And if agreements hinge upon accepting the next UNSEEN agreement as well and so on then it makes a mockery of these "agreements" imo...
Except it was your representatives - the Public Services Committee of ICTU - who negotiated the successor agreement and tied payment of the S&S money to future co-operation. The fact that ASTI subsequently rejected the LRA (as they were fully entitled to do) meant that they were rejecting payment of the S&S money.
Interestingly, were ASTI members told that they would lose S&S money if they rejected LRA? If not, members may have a case against their own union.0 -
coillsaille wrote: »But I thought today's payslip included Monday the 7th and when I glanced at it only the strike day seemed to be deducted and our school was completely closed.
The strike day was set in stone so payroll wud hv included it in calculating pay.the lockout is harder to factor as they need that letter in circular signed by each teacher to sort who to dock who to not. What's weird I they still adjusted s&s opt out which surely would also require that signed letter to sort the yes from the no.0 -
judeboy101 wrote: »The strike day was set in stone so payroll wud hv included it in calculating pay.the lockout is harder to factor as they need that letter in circular signed by each teacher to sort who to dock who to not. What's weird I they still adjusted s&s opt out which surely would also require that signed letter to sort the yes from the no.
Wouldn't it be easier for the dept and a goodwill gesture to just pay for the Monday .......0 -
-
judeboy101 wrote: »My opt out payment was reduced by 1/14 so I'm officially opt in but I'm telling no one in management. They can sing for it if they try make me do s&s
My opt out payment is the very same so I assume I'm still out. How can it be different for everyone? I'm down 75 euro.0 -
This has been stated over and over... The money is there... It has been set aside. The TUI teachers are already getting it. CID's for 2 or 4 years has little financial implications, the subject still needs to be taught by someone. Just think of all the part time teachers splitting jobs up, for dept payroll they have to manage 2-3 teachers and their paperwork as opposed to one.
The govt. are willing to pay subs way over the odds for s&s.
Can the country afford to have an ad-hoc underemployed teaching compliment? It seems important to try and keep nurses and doctors in Ireland for people's health, but education gets the long finger. Maybe because there is an oversupply of desperate teachers it's ok to exploit them. Can that go on indefinitely without any effects to children's education?
But alas the country is broke...
10 years on, banks are back with bonuses. Michael Noonan states that the emergency is over (even though FEMPI was snuck in over the summer), fastest growing economy in Europe.
I dunno openheimer, what is your own job, I'm sure there's waste and cutbacks that could be looked at there?
You give out, warn and ban others when they drag the thread off topic, yet it is ok for you to do it? Where I work and what I do is irrelevant - since it is a private entity who run the company I work for. It is up to management to address waste. As you and your peers often advise, you are free to open a thread in after hours on private sector wages, this thread is about the ASTI action.
Teachers are neither underemployed nor underpaid. There appears to be a major oversupply of teachers in this country which is indicative of a number of things: the barriers to entry into the teaching profession are too low, or the conditions of employment are too high. Increasing wages won't increase the quality of candidates entering teaching (in fact it may lead to people getting into the profession for the wrong reasons) and it won't increase the quality of education students receive.
The money to pay S&S is there if teachers agree to other reforms. The heart of ASTI objection to JC reform is nothing to do with high minded notions about the actual reform, its because members will be required to take on new duty without a sweetener. S&S isn't what the strike was about anyway - its about ASTI's new found caring about young teachers, and that hasn't been budgeted for.
Ten years on, so what if banks are giving out bonuses - you had an opportunity to become a banker, just as bankers had the opportunity to become teachers and get all the perks you receive.
Noonan was right, the country is not broke, but its not exactly flush with cash either so we have to ask ourselves where our priorities lie. Should we as a nation strive to improve services - i.e. investing in infrastructure and increasing public sector numbers where required OR increasing pay for existing staff, in exchange for minimal reform that will be nullified by the unions at the first opportunity. Thats the simple truth, its a choice because the country is still borrowing for day to day spending, carrying massive debt and is facing into a very uncertain future.0 -
By that logic, when Towards 2016 expired and the agreements before that, the increases in salary promised in them expired with them. That would put teacher salaries back to mid-80s (or 90s, can't remember) levels.
Sorry but I call bull**** on that one as well....your logic above is not analogous to mine at all and I suspect you either know that or didn't take the time to think it through properly
When two parties agree to do something..say one carrying out a action and the other agrees upon compensation for said action and then when that function has been fulfilled the other party backs out of paying what they said they would thats just wrong full stop...it doesn't mean you shouldn't pay them for what they've done or even go back to previous rates of payment...services have been rendered here and an agreement has not been honoured......
Whats even worse is an attempt to justify such actions...theres no honour in it, imo its the behaviour of a group with little in the way of integrity
Its no wonder that increasing numbers of people in their desperation for some sort of an alternative (not that there seems to be a viable alternative) are voting for what they perceive to be anti establishment choices when this is just one of the many myriad oily slimy things that got on ....All of the industrial relations agreements in the public sector are predicated on ongoing co-operation with change
Co-operation was there for the duration of the agreement....if the co-operation stops, then the promised payments stop, regardless of which agreement they were concluded under.
Theres no point in having durations on agreements so ..........they should be called Agreements of Indefinite Duration then or AIDS for short...it would be an apt name for such agreements.......seriously don't bother putting the dates on them sell them to people for what they really are
There needs to be a serious change in how business is done in future.....the agreement should be the agreement and thats it from now on.....I find that idea quoted above vomit inducing...its giving the Govt side carte blanche to change the goalposts when it suits...its a free pass to backslide and would make me not feel like living up to my side of the bargain if I still worked at the jobI am about 70-80% certain that if ASTI had pursued a legal case or an IR case to the Labour Court seeking the payment, they would have lost big time. That is as close to certain as you get in any legal/IR question.
Where are you getting this certainty from? what makes you think the above? Do you have experience with legislation in this area or advice from someone in the know?From the outside it seems to me that many ordinary teachers were hoodwinked by their leaders into believing that the money would be paid even if they didn't sign up to future agreements. Either that or their leaders at the time weren't savvy enough to cop that they were being tied into the following deal.
I sincerely hope it was neither of those options, I do believe however it is still the Govt side that have acted like dishonourable tricksters on the SS issue but I suppose if they play that way it may well have worse consequences for everyone down the road....its never a good idea not to keep your word in any walk of life0 -
oppenheimer1 wrote: »You give out, warn and ban others when they drag the thread off topic, yet it is ok for you to do it? Where I work and what I do is irrelevant - since it is a private entity who run the company I work for. It is up to management to address waste. As you and your peers often advise, you are free to open a thread in after hours on private sector wages, this thread is about the ASTI action.
Teachers are neither underemployed nor Underpaid. There appears to be a major oversupply of teachers in this country which is indicative of a number of things: the barriers to entry into the teaching profession are too low, or the conditions of employment are too high. Increasing wages won't increase the quality of candidates entering teaching (in fact it may lead to people getting into the profession for the wrong reasons) and it won't increase the quality of education students receive.
The money to pay S&S is there if teachers agree to other reforms. The heart of ASTI objection to JC reform is nothing to do with high minded notions about the actual reform, its because members will be required to take on new duty without a sweetener. S&S isn't what the strike was about anyway - its about ASTI's new found caring about young teachers, and that hasn't been budgeted for.
Ten years on, so what if banks are giving out bonuses - you had an opportunity to become a banker, just as bankers had the opportunity to become teachers and get all the perks you receive.
Noonan was right, the country is not broke, but its not exactly flush with cash either so we have to ask ourselves where our priorities lie. Should we as a nation strive to improve services - i.e. investing in infrastructure and increasing public sector numbers where required OR increasing pay for existing staff, in exchange for minimal reform that will be nullified by the unions at the first opportunity. Thats the simple truth, its a choice because the country is still borrowing for day to day spending, carrying massive debt and is facing into a very uncertain future.
I think you'll need to ask around about that. Have you actually spoken to any teachers?0 -
Advertisement
-
Sorry but I call bull**** on that one as well....your logic above is not analogous to mine at all and I suspect you either know that or didn't take the time to think it through properly
When two parties agree to do something..say one carrying out a action and the other agrees upon compensation for said action and then when that function has been fulfilled the other party backs out of paying what they said they would thats just wrong full stop...it doesn't mean you shouldn't pay them for what they've done or even go back to previous rates of payment...services have been rendered here and an agreement has not been honoured......
Whats even worse is an attempt to justify such actions...theres no honour in it, imo its the behaviour of a group with little in the way of integrity
Its no wonder that increasing numbers of people in their desperation for some sort of an alternative (not that there seems to be a viable alternative) are voting for what they perceive to be anti establishment choices when this is just one of the many myriad oily slimy things that got on ....
Co-operation was there for the duration of the agreement....
Theres no point in having durations on agreements so ..........they should be called Agreements of Indefinite Duration then or AIDS for short...it would be an apt name for such agreements.......seriously don't bother putting the dates on them sell them to people for what they really are
There needs to be a serious change in how business is done in future.....the agreement should be the agreement and thats it from now on.....I find that idea quoted above vomit inducing...its giving the Govt side carte blanche to change the goalposts when it suits...its a free pass to backslide and would make me not feel like living up to my side of the bargain if I still worked at the job
Where are you getting this certainty from? what makes you think the above? Do you have experience with legislation in this area or advice from someone in the know?
I sincerely hope it was neither of those options, I do believe however it is still the Govt side that have acted like dishonourable tricksters on the SS issue but I suppose if they play that way it may well have worse consequences for everyone down the road....its never a good idea not to keep your word in any walk of life
Yes, I do have experience of industrial relations and institutions like the Equality Tribunal and the Labour Court but I won't say more than that on a forum like this.
You can choose to disagree with me - that is what discussion boards are for, but saying "I call bull**** on that one" isn't the most eloquent response. Childish puns on AIDS isn't exactly high-quality debating either.
Teachers may believe that the Government "have acted like dishonourable tricksters on the SS issue" but that is a naive response if you ask me. Thinking you could walk away from national agreements and still get the S&S money was a very foolish idea - anyone could have seen that the Government had no option but to remove the payment once the ASTI reneged on the agreement negotiated on their behalf. Teachers talks about good faith, but they sent the PSC in to negotiate the LRA on their behalf and then they rejected it, that was an act of bad faith. Either ASTI got some very bad advice or they read the signals very badly.
Now the Government aren't entirely blameless. The Croke Park hours are a poor idea. There is a need for greater accountability from teachers, more teamwork, more reforms like the Junior Cert, more in-school activity other than teaching, but putting it into bean-counting Croke Park hours was poor. The idea of a teacher as "king in the classroom" is long gone in enlightened teaching environments, but it is preserved in the contractual and other arrangements that teachers in Ireland have - that must change. The next few years will be turbulent and difficult for teachers but if they play it right, they can be rewarding as well.0 -
I think you'll need to ask around about that. Have you actually spoken to any teachers?
It is not only teachers that can have views on that issue. There are many others - ETB officials, Departmental inspectors, BoM members, etc. - who can have a considered view on whether teachers are underemployed and overpaid, before you even consider parents, journalists or students whose views may be less informed. Carrying the idea of "teacher knows best" out of the classroom, as your post appears to do is not the way to win hearts and minds among the public.
I am considering opening another thread - not sure if it should be here or in the feedback forum - about the moderation in this forum and whether it reflects the defensive mindset of teachers and the reluctance to consider other opinions as valid.0 -
Yes, I do have experience of industrial relations and institutions like the Equality Tribunal and the Labour Court but I won't say more than that on a forum like this.
You can choose to disagree with me - that is what discussion boards are for, but saying "I call bull**** on that one" isn't the most eloquent response. Childish puns on AIDS isn't exactly high-quality debating either.
Teachers may believe that the Government "have acted like dishonourable tricksters on the SS issue" but that is a naive response if you ask me. Thinking you could walk away from national agreements and still get the S&S money was a very foolish idea - anyone could have seen that the Government had no option but to remove the payment once the ASTI reneged on the agreement negotiated on their behalf. Teachers talks about good faith, but they sent the PSC in to negotiate the LRA on their behalf and then they rejected it, that was an act of bad faith. Either ASTI got some very bad advice or they read the signals very badly.
Now the Government aren't entirely blameless. The Croke Park hours are a poor idea. There is a need for greater accountability from teachers, more teamwork, more reforms like the Junior Cert, more in-school activity other than teaching, but putting it into bean-counting Croke Park hours was poor. The idea of a teacher as "king in the classroom" is long gone in enlightened teaching environments, but it is preserved in the contractual and other arrangements that teachers in Ireland have - that must change. The next few years will be turbulent and difficult for teachers but if they play it right, they can be rewarding as well.
But was not s and s part of HR? I think you ignore the fact that the government go back in time and absorb previous agreements . Ie Lr absorbs HR. Is that logical? I know its a fact but when you try yo explain that to someone in the private sectpor they scratch their heads.
Now I know that a Government response on s and s was likely once we rejected LR but that doesnt mean it was right. Its bully boy tactics. Would you agree? We sound like people suffering Stockholm syndrome at times
You also seem to suggest Asti members had no right to reject an agreement negotiated in good faith? Is that what you really meant??0 -
Now the Government aren't entirely blameless. The Croke Park hours are a poor idea. There is a need for greater accountability from teachers, more teamwork, more reforms like the Junior Cert, more in-school activity other than teaching, but putting it into bean-counting Croke Park hours was poor. The idea of a teacher as "king in the classroom" is long gone in enlightened teaching environments, but it is preserved in the contractual and other arrangements that teachers in Ireland have - that must change. The next few years will be turbulent and difficult for teachers but if they play it right, they can be rewarding as well.
When it comes to issues like the new junior cycle, teachers aren't adopting a "teachers know best attitude".
We are, however, disgusted that our concerns about Classroom Based Assessements, common level exams, dumbing down of courses, reduction of instruction time in science from 240 hours down to 200 hours and other issues are being ignored as the government try to railroad through this terrible "reform" for reforms sake that was drawn up by the architect Ruari Quinn.
I am not saying your opinions are invalid.
I would like to see some form of performance monitoring come in to teaching in a proper way to remove incapable teachers.
The crux of the issue is how though?
What exactly constitutes "fitness to teach" standards?
What would be an average passing grade?
What would be very good/exceptional, and, if a teacher is seen as being exceptional, should he/she be rewarded for achieving this standard?
I had an incidental "drive by" inspection the Tuesday before mid term.
I was given ten minutes notice an inspector would sit in on my class for a double period.
Didn't bother me in the least and i taught as I always do for 80 minutes and then met her for feedback afterwards.
What concerns me is where this inspection report goes next?
Does it disappear into the ether?0 -
I think you'll need to ask around about that. Have you actually spoken to any teachers?
Teachers of course are going to think they're hard done by. Everyone thinks they deserve more.
If teachers were truely underpaid then there wouldn't be an oversupply of them.
Interesting to see you didn't address the more substantive points I made and just picked out one line. Please explain how the country can afford your demands? Where should the cuts be made to pay for this?0 -
Perhaps they could ask Apple to pay even 10% of EU judgement? Would that Provide enough money? Oppenheimer? Or even get companies to pay 12.5%. Im probably going to be dismissed as a rabble rouser now!
We do need more people to pay tax-those on less than 20k who hardly pay any tax.Was one good thing about USC. You could not escape it.
We also need a root and branch overhaul of HSE
Corporations need to pay 12.5% many dont
The black economy needs to be tackled and yes I know that would affect teachers (grinds)
So I think that answers your question!0 -
Inspector Coptoor wrote: »When it comes to issues like the new junior cycle, teachers aren't adopting a "teachers know best attitude".
We are, however, disgusted that our concerns about Classroom Based Assessements, common level exams, dumbing down of courses, reduction of instruction time in science from 240 hours down to 200 hours and other issues are being ignored as the government try to railroad through this terrible "reform" for reforms sake that was drawn up by the architect Ruari Quinn.
I am not saying your opinions are invalid.
I would like to see some form of performance monitoring come in to teaching in a proper way to remove incapable teachers.
The crux of the issue is how though?
What exactly constitutes "fitness to teach" standards?
What would be an average passing grade?
What would be very good/exceptional, and, if a teacher is seen as being exceptional, should he/she be rewarded for achieving this standard?
I had an incidental "drive by" inspection the Tuesday before mid term.
I was given ten minutes notice an inspector would sit in on my class for a double period.
Didn't bother me in the least and i taught as I always do for 80 minutes and then met her for feedback afterwards.
What concerns me is where this inspection report goes next?
Does it disappear into the ether?
CBAs are done for the profile of achievement, which is separate from the State-certified exams. The written reflection on the CBAs is externally-assessed. So why doesn't the ASTI give teachers of English a derogation so that pupils won't lose 10%?0 -
Mrwhite1970 wrote: »Perhaps they could ask Apple to pay even 10% of EU judgement? Would that Provide enough money? Oppenheimer? Or even get companies to pay 12.5%. Im probably going to be dismissed as a rabble rouser now!
That is a completely uninformed interpretation of the situation with regard both to Apple and to corporation tax. Maybe you should leave that issue to economists and to Revenue officials who know it better:D?0 -
That is a completely uninformed interpretation of the situation with regard both to Apple and to corporation tax. Maybe you should leave that issue to economists and to Revenue officials who know it better:D?
And you are informed?! The EU is not informed? Exaggerated figure it might be -13 billion but fantasy to say tax avoidance was not happening illegally. You have to at least acknowledge the possibility it was.
Economists-you are off your rocker to mention them?
Keep swallowing corporate media.
Bottom line is big business wont even pay 12.5% but always get it lowered. If you believe that doesnt happen then best of luck to you.0 -
Advertisement
-
Sorry but I call bull**** on that one as well....your logic above is not analogous to mine at all and I suspect you either know that or didn't take the time to think it through properly
When two parties agree to do something..say one carrying out a action and the other agrees upon compensation for said action and then when that function has been fulfilled the other party backs out of paying what they said they would thats just wrong full stop...it doesn't mean you shouldn't pay them for what they've done or even go back to previous rates of payment...services have been rendered here and an agreement has not been honoured......
Whats even worse is an attempt to justify such actions...theres no honour in it, imo its the behaviour of a group with little in the way of integrity
Its no wonder that increasing numbers of people in their desperation for some sort of an alternative (not that there seems to be a viable alternative) are voting for what they perceive to be anti establishment choices when this is just one of the many myriad oily slimy things that got on ....
Co-operation was there for the duration of the agreement....
Theres no point in having durations on agreements so ..........they should be called Agreements of Indefinite Duration then or AIDS for short...it would be an apt name for such agreements.......seriously don't bother putting the dates on them sell them to people for what they really are
There needs to be a serious change in how business is done in future.....the agreement should be the agreement and thats it from now on.....I find that idea quoted above vomit inducing...its giving the Govt side carte blanche to change the goalposts when it suits...its a free pass to backslide and would make me not feel like living up to my side of the bargain if I still worked at the job
Where are you getting this certainty from? what makes you think the above? Do you have experience with legislation in this area or advice from someone in the know?
I sincerely hope it was neither of those options, I do believe however it is still the Govt side that have acted like dishonourable tricksters on the SS issue but I suppose if they play that way it may well have worse consequences for everyone down the road....its never a good idea not to keep your word in any walk of life
Yes, I do have experience of industrial relations and institutions like the Equality Tribunal and the Labour Court but I won't say more than that on a forum like this.
You can choose to disagree with me - that is what discussion boards are for, but saying "I call bull**** on that one" isn't the most eloquent response. Childish puns on AIDS isn't exactly high-quality debating either.
Teachers may believe that the Government "have acted like dishonourable tricksters on the SS issue" but that is a naive response if you ask me. Thinking you could walk away from national agreements and still get the S&S money was a very foolish idea - anyone could have seen that the Government had no option but to remove the payment once the ASTI reneged on the agreement negotiated on their behalf. Teachers talks about good faith, but they sent the PSC in to negotiate the LRA on their behalf and then they rejected it, that was an act of bad faith. Either ASTI got some very bad advice or they read the signals very badly.
Now the Government aren't entirely blameless. The Croke Park hours are a poor idea. There is a need for greater accountability from teachers, more teamwork, more reforms like the Junior Cert, more in-school activity other than teaching, but putting it into bean-counting Croke Park hours was poor. The idea of a teacher as "king in the classroom" is long gone in enlightened teaching environments, but it is preserved in the contractual and other arrangements that teachers in Ireland have - that must change. The next few years will be turbulent and difficult for teachers but if they play it right, they can be rewarding as well.
I would fully accept the premise that when we didn't sign up to LRA we lost the benefit of ongoing S&S payment into the future but surely the payment for work done should still stand regardless.
It's like saying if we got a pay rise for HRA of 10% from 2014-2016 then didn't sign up to LRA obviously I would have no problem losing that pay rise from 2016 onwards as we are not in the agreement. But we would have been paid that extra 10% for the two years of HRA and rightly so. We would not be expected to give it back for not signing LRA so why are we not entitled to that payment for 2014-2016 for S&S.
That is the part I don't understand.
If for example the S&S payment was spread out from 2014-2016 I'm say 9 small payment in that period we would already have it.
When then we didn't sign LRA we would still have that money in the bank we just wouldn't be getting any more continued payments which again is fair enouhh0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement