Where now for ASTI? ****ASTI Action- Part III - See 1st Post***

MrJones1973

Most members here are militant. I'm not sure we represent the lumpen proletariat. SC made a cock up over s and s. Astir was a joke in its failure to explain SC actions.
Thus we won't be on strike again this school year. Momentum lost.

km79

Mrwhite1970 wrote: »

Most members here are militant. I'm not sure we represent the lumpen proletariat. SC made a cock up over s and s. Astir was a joke in its failure to explain SC actions.
Thus we won't be on strike again this school year. Momentum lost.

Whatever deal is offered it will be accepted
The will of most is broken at this stage
People just want it over with now

3 day's pay lost for NOTHING by the sounds of it
Quelle surprise
The thought of CP evenings is actually depressing me

man_no_plan

km79 wrote: »

Whatever deal is offered it will be accepted
The will of most is broken at this stage
People just want it over with now

3 day's pay lost for NOTHING by the sounds of it
Quelle surprise
The thought of CP evenings is actually depressing me

No point getting depressed until you have to, it might not be all that bad. If we could get CP hours on a none whole school basis for the majority it would be a big step forwatd , you're still planning as a department surely? Just not all Dept's together at the sane time with a fixed agenda.

They'll use the hours to 'professionalise' us a bit and we can do what we always did before CP. If nothing else the ASYI action put down a strong marker on the hours for future erosion.

evolving_doors

Gebgbegb wrote: »

So would I be right in assuming that the TUI/Into are negotiating the details of this deal..... on behalf of the ASTI?

man_no_plan wrote: »

How would that be the case?

Who exactly were the ASTI in 'talks' with ? It wasn't directly with the Dept anyway... it was talking to Anna Perry of the Teachers’ Conciliation Council (never heard of that before!) So what was the upshot of that... we'll never know really. All the dept would have done is have a few cups of tea and cake and nod.

So then it's agreed that LR2 is in the pipeline (and a timeline set out) because of the Gardai et al.

So talks begin... with who... definitely not the ASTI, because they are the bad boys who aren't in LR1 in the first place.

TUI and INTO we're happy to go with LR1, so it begs the question, what concessions would the Govt. give to anyone already happy to accept the previous deal? Hence why I stated that the TUI/INTO would be negotiating on 'behalf of' the ASTI... Basically it would be a conversation about what it would take to get the ASTI into LR2.

The govt. DEFINITELY don't want the ASTI in LR1 as it would give them a seat at the table + save a good few quid in the interm (free S&S anyone?).

man_no_plan

Gebgbegb wrote: »

The govt. DEFINITELY don't want the ASTI in LR1 as it would give them a seat at the table + save a good few quid in the interm (free S&S anyone?).

Ah stop! They've been asking the ASTI to accept the LRA for a year!

The TCC is an arbitration body for the education sector made up of the teacher unions the department of Education and DPER (used to be finance) . All are part of it so all attend, bear on mind that the proposal in May that TUI accepted was brokered at the WRC, ASTI were invited but didn't attend.

How this equates to the ASTI being negotiated for is beyond me. If anything the opposite is the case.

evolving_doors

man_no_plan wrote: »

Ah stop! They've been asking the ASTI to accept the LRA for a year!

Ah yeah I don't disagree, ASTI don't want to be in LR1 either (sorry I should have put that in above).

man_no_plan wrote: »

The TCC is an arbitration body for the education sector made up of the teacher unions the department of Education and DPER (used to be finance) . All are part of it so all attend, bear on mind that the proposal in May that TUI accepted was brokered at the WRC, ASTI were invited but didn't attend.

Ok, but to what end were the ASTI in the TCC, as in, how will it progress from there when the dept go back to sit down for talks with those actually in LR1. The way I see it, in terms of their opposition to S&S/JC/LPT.... nothing will change for ASTI members until LR2 is implemented (if LR2 is going to go ahead).

man_no_plan wrote: »

How this equates to the ASTI being negotiated for is beyond me. If anything the opposite is the case.

Well, would you accept that there will be talks going towards a new LR2 or were these going to happen anyway.
If so, would these talks have come about if ASTI had 'come in from the cold' early on. Or was it just down to the Gardai. (maybe I'm clutching at straws but I'd like to think that the protests had created some disruption to create pressure and force certain issues amongst other public sector unions).

acequion

man_no_plan wrote: »

No point getting depressed until you have to, it might not be all that bad. If we could get CP hours on a none whole school basis for the majority it would be a big step forwatd , you're still planning as a department surely? Just not all Dept's together at the sane time with a fixed agenda.

They'll use the hours to 'professionalise' us a bit and we can do what we always did before CP. If nothing else the ASYI action put down a strong marker on the hours for future erosion.

This is where many of us have widely differing views.I just cannot countenance the idea of clocked in hours for some form of "professionalisation". Maybe it's where I am in my career,with less than ten years to retirement. But I'd say I speak for the majority in my age group when I say that we got on just fine without all that shyte and did a very professional job to boot. We were a happier bunch as we had lots of freedom and autonomy and no box ticking.

I get what you're saying re subject dept meetings. They've pretty much always been there but without the clocking up of hours culture. If the DES would only leave it at holding all our necessary meetings outside school hours,and that's a fair number of extra hours,I'd say grand. But the rest,call them planning,CPD,whatever fancy name you like, I'd resist them to the death. I guarantee you if they get enshrined in this deal they'll be like a new tax. Not only will we never get rid of them but they'll be increased.

man_no_plan

acequion wrote: »

This is where many of us have widely differing views.I just cannot countenance the idea of clocked in hours for some form of "professionalisation". Maybe it's where I am in my career,with less than ten years to retirement. But I'd say I speak for the majority in my age group when I say that we got on just fine without all that shyte and did a very professional job to boot. We were a happier bunch as we had lots of freedom and autonomy and no box ticking.

I get what you're saying re subject dept meetings. They've pretty much always been there but without the clocking up of hours culture. If the DES would only leave it at holding all our necessary meetings outside school hours,and that's a fair number of extra hours,I'd say grand. But the rest,call them planning,CPD,whatever fancy name you like, I'd resist them to the death. I guarantee you if they get enshrined in this deal they'll be like a new tax. Not only will we never get rid of them but they'll be increased.

Totally agree about the hours. Point is thatvif we have tovdovtye as part of the professionalisation agenda at least we should get them on our terms and use them for work we are doing anyway.

MrJones1973

What do they mean about Restoration of posts ? All of the lost ones?

km79

Mrwhite1970 wrote: »

What do they mean about Restoration of posts ? All of the lost ones?

Pretty sure the word "partial" will appear before restoration
It's the same deal

Icsics

Any idea when this 'document' might be released? SC met yesterday & again today, surely they have the 'document' by now? I hope this is released first in ASTI site & not via RTE reporters

coillsaille

It's on the website now.

doc_17

There's not a whole lot more in that, if anything, than that what the TUI negotiated.

km79

It's LRA

An opt out from s and s if you have 15 years service or more effective next September is the only new bit. Where did they come up with that figure !?????? I started teaching in September 2002 so I think I'll qualify for the opt out but why 15 years ?
Everything else is based on "reviews" and promises

joebloggs32

It is as far as i can see what the TUI got already.

Moody_mona

Nothing new in my opinion. Annoyed about the fifteen years service to be eligible for opt out, don't see why this can't be for all.

Moody_mona

Also worried about the CP hours. Our school hasn't scheduled or done any, so if there's no directive about doing them pro rata for the remainder of the year we're screwed.

km79

acequion wrote: »

The whingeing and the moaning out of some of ye is just unreal!! And people talking about changing union? Really! To go where exactly? To the TUI who always roll over first!

Just what have the ASTI done that is really such a "joke", "fiasco" "shocking lack of leadership" just to quote some of the hyperboles?

The ASTI ballotted for strike action and got 80% approval and so we went on strike. Just what did you guys expect to happen? Did ye think that just because we pulled S&S and actually went out for the NQT's that the Gov were just going to roll over and all our problems would just disappear? Did ye really and truly think that that's all it would take to get rid of unpaid S&S and CP? Did ye not realise that it would get very messy,that that is the nature of industrial disputes.Because if ye didn't realise that then ye are very naive. And if ye weren't going to be able to take it when the shyt hit the fan why didn't ye vote no? I could understand a no voter wanting to change union. But a yes voter!!

I have often been critical of the ASTI leadership but not this time.They have done exactly what the members mandated them to do. There was always a risk that pulling S&S meant we could be locked outside gates without pay and any enlightened voter should have realised that risk when voting.Striking is exchanging the security of going to work everyday for entering the unknown. We knew or should have known that when voting. And into the unknown we went and that unknown took us into mediation whose outcome we now await.How is that "a joke" or "a fiasco"?

Granted the ASTI isn't perfect,the leaders aren't perfect, nor are the SC,the CEC or indeed the members, any of us. We are just one group of people trying to stand up against an increasingly unjust and uncaring employer and for that alone I am proud.

Maybe you guys just want to vent. But jesus if you must bash, bash the employer, the Government, who at the end of the day are the ones to blame for all of this.

What are your views on this new "deal" that we sacrificed 3 day's pay and a massive amount of goodwill and working relationships for ?

Icsics

This is a combination of all the agreements & the Budget thrown in for good measure. We'll need all the extra counselling if this is accepted

political analyst

Moody_mona wrote: »

Nothing new in my opinion. Annoyed about the fifteen years service to be eligible for opt out, don't see why this can't be for all.

Because there probably wouldn't be enough teachers to do S&S if all teachers were given the opt-out choice.

Jamfa

The Junior Cycle document has nothing new from the Joint Statement 18 months ago which was rejected in Sept 2015. If accepted it makes a mockery of the stance taken & the 17000 posters sent out to teachers last month.

Aufbau

Jamfa wrote: »

The Junior Cycle document has nothing new from the Joint Statement 18 months ago which was rejected in Sept 2015. If accepted it makes a mockery of the stance taken & the 17000 posters sent out to teachers last month.

Also: "These proposals are subject to the union’s continued
cooperation with collective agreements."
This is basically a re-vote on LRA.

The ASTI have already rejected it.

If the proposals were made separately from the LRA then they might be worth considering. Surely the reason for the rejection of the LRA was the compulsory cooperation with whatever the DES want?

solerina

We lost three days pay for nothing. Total waste of time and effort, the ASTI really have screwed us over if this rubbish agreement is accepted.

political analyst

Jamfa wrote: »

The Junior Cycle document has nothing new from the Joint Statement 18 months ago which was rejected in Sept 2015. If accepted it makes a mockery of the stance taken & the 17000 posters sent out to teachers last month.

According to today's document, which is linked on the following page:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/1130/835409-asti-teachers-dispute/

A statement of assurances has been provided by the Department of Education and Skills in respect of these concerns (document titled “Junior Cycle – Statement of Assurances 29 November 2016 – Department of Education and Skills & Association of Secondary Teachers Ireland”)

The ASTI's concerns about Junior Cycle assessment have been addressed. If the ASTI accepts LRA and the Dept goes back on these assurances, the Dept would be in breach of LRA and then the ASTI would have grounds for a ballot on withdrawal from LRA.

km79

political analyst wrote: »

According to today's document, which is linked on the following page:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/1130/835409-asti-teachers-dispute/



The ASTI's concerns about Junior Cycle assessment have been addressed. If the ASTI accepts LRA and the Dept goes back on these assurances, the Dept would be in breach of LRA and then the ASTI would have grounds for a ballot on withdrawal from LRA.

Ah assurances
And reviews
Or promises of reviews in 12 months time
What could possibly go wrong
Joke
It will be accepted though make no mistake about that

Was there any mention of backdating of increments ?

political analyst

km79 wrote: »

Ah assurances
And reviews
Or promises of reviews in 12 months time
What could possibly go wrong
Joke
It will be accepted though make no mistake about that

Was there any mention of backdating of increments ?

Honestly, I don't believe it will go wrong. The issue of JC change is nothing to do with the issue of refusal to return the S&S payment to ASTI members for rejection of LRA (if that's what you were implicitly referring to).

political analyst

As for the CP hours, the document says:

As an immediate first step, the parties agree that the maximum period of time available for planning and development work on other than a whole-school basis will be increased to 8 hours from the beginning of the 2016/17 school year and a further 2 hours from the beginning of the 2017/18 school year, in accordance with the terms agreed under the Haddington Road Agreement as set out in Department Circular 43/2014.

According to Chill Con Kearney, here's the reason for all of the CP hours originally being on a whole-school basis (post 48 on the following page).

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

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

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

That means that the ASTI simply has to get the principals of voluntary schools (most of whom are, I assume, ASTI members) to say at the CP hours usage review that is also mentioned in the document: "We've no problem with another increase in the number of CP hours in which teachers don't have to be in the same room". After all, voluntary school principals - not just those who are ASTI members - won't want to be accused of being disloyal to their staff.

km79

political analyst wrote: »

Honestly, I don't believe it will go wrong. The issue of JC change is nothing to do with the issue of refusal to return the S&S payment to ASTI members for rejection of LRA (if that's what you were implicitly referring to).

I'm referring to signing up based on promises that will be broken

Icsics

political analyst wrote: »

As for the CP hours, the document says:



According to Chill Con Kearney, here's the reason for all of the CP hours originally being on a whole-school basis (post 48 on the following page).

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



That means that the ASTI simply has to get the principals of voluntary schools (most of whom are, I assume, ASTI members) to say at the CP hours usage review that is also mentioned in the document: "We've no problem with another increase in the number of CP hours in which teachers don't have to be in the same room". After all, voluntary school principals - not just those who are ASTI members - won't want to be accused of being disloyal to their staff.

Disloyal? These are the principals who, supported by JMB, closed schools. If the JMB want us all in the same room that's where we'll be.

acequion

km79 wrote: »

What are your views on this new "deal" that we sacrificed 3 day's pay and a massive amount of goodwill and working relationships for ?

I haven't yet got to read it but what I think based on what I'm seeing and hearing is that it is total rubbish and worse than useless.I would be hoping that it will be thrown out by either /all of SC,CEC,members.

However you seem to have a thing about your great sacrifice of three day's pay plus goodwill and working relations. You voted to strike did you not? If so should you not take responsibility for that action which had absolutely no guarantees? Because if you weren't comfortable about it I think you should have voted no. I think that blaming the ASTI leadership is also a bit immature. We,the members,are the union. We are the ones who get to decide. If the leadership try to bully us into accepting this deal as was done before then I too will have an axe to grind with them. But for now I think we are all in it together.

You seem to be 100% certain that this deal will go through. Why do you think that? Do you think your fellow members will let you down and vote for it? Because I wouldn't be so sure about that. And personally I'm not going to give up without a fight. Like you I want something back for my sacrifice.