ASTI CEC recommends members rejects LR 2. 9th Sept 2017

political analyst

deiseindublin wrote: »

Shell shocked at INTO. To my mind, they're the only real union with any power. Local primary school closing for a day does a lot more damage to industry and commerce than any secondary.

How?

mtoutlemonde

political analyst wrote: »

How?

Parents will have to take time off/holidays/pay someone to mind the children. It's not such a big deal for senior level.

Mardy Bum

dory wrote: »

What are they repudiating? Sorry I'm getting a bit lost. How would they not face FEMPI?

The same way the ASTI are not engaging in IA but are still outside the agreement. Passive acceptance.

political analyst

Mardy Bum wrote: »

The same way the ASTI are not engaging in IA but are still outside the agreement. Passive acceptance.

If the ASTI is still not doing the Croke Park hours then it is in industrial action.

judeboy101

political analyst wrote: »

If the ASTI is still not doing the Croke Park hours then it is in industrial action.

Asti is doing cp hrs, i had to suffer through 2 hrs last week. I could literally feel my soul dying as i sat there listening to methods for "unpacking" a syllabus.

2xj3hplqgsbkym

political analyst wrote: »

If the ASTI is still not doing the Croke Park hours then it is in industrial action.

Asti schools are doing croke park hours

political analyst

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/teachers-group-calls-for-immediate-ballot-for-industrial-action-807097.html

Some INTO members are calling for the union to hold an immediate ballot for industrial action.

The demand comes after the union was forced to deny reports yesterday that it had accepted the new public service pay deal.

The INTO said it has simply agreed to participate in a review of pay equality - but internal activist group Glór says entering into these talks is a de facto acceptance of the deal.

political analyst

Sir123 wrote: »

I am so annoyed at the INTO as an ASTI member. How dare they make a decision that supercedes their members' vote. As ironic as itsounds, it did happen to us with our special convention but we are currently unofficially inside LRA1 atm.

This is really causing me anger and I am now even more encouraged to vote NO in this agreement. How dare Noonan, a disgrace. I hope all INTO members cancel their membership now after this nonsense.

That convention was held because of a petition by some ASTI members - completely in line with ASTI rules.

Many ASTI members were fed up with the ban on participation in JC in-service - including most of the teachers in my alma mater. My former LC History teacher said he'd be voting in favour of the current deal because of the difficulties the ban was causing to the pupils he was teaching JC Business Studies.

Sir123

political analyst wrote: »

That convention was held because of a petition by some ASTI members - completely in line with ASTI rules.

Many ASTI members were fed up with the ban on participation in JC in-service - including most of the teachers in my alma mater. My former LC History teacher said he'd be voting in favour of the current deal because of the difficulties the ban was causing to the pupils he was teaching JC Business Studies.

Yes exactly, SOME ASTI members. The fact of the matter is ASTI were asked twice to vote on LRA to which they democratically rejected. That was the decision of its members in two seperate democratic ballots.

The question of special conventions is an interesting one because only 700 signatures are needed out of the 18,000 union members.. I don't see the democracy there.

Maybe we should call another special convention lads to vote against LRA again because from my own understanding, 700 plus members does not represent the majority of members.


As for the PSSA or LRA2, I will be voting NO as it does nothing for LPTs and teachers. In fact, it actually further erodes their terms and conditions. Education in this country is looking every so bleak thanks to this Fine Gael government and their unfair and unequal treatment of LPTs that do the same job.

I will be voting NO guaranteed and I would have went to special convention to vote NO again had I been in the country.I was devastated that my democratic votes were overturned.

acequion

political analyst wrote: »

That convention was held because of a petition by some ASTI members - completely in line with ASTI rules.

Many ASTI members were fed up with the ban on participation in JC in-service - including most of the teachers in my alma mater. My former LC History teacher said he'd be voting in favour of the current deal because of the difficulties the ban was causing to the pupils he was teaching JC Business Studies.

You are starting to grate again political analyst! I think all of us here, all serving teachers, know exactly what is and isn't in the rules and also why a minority wanted the democratic vote overturned. Two little words beginning with m, money and me, and to hell with all the rest.

As for this "alma mater" that we've heard about ad nauseum,their own business how the teachers there felt, but do get your facts straight please! There is no longer any "ban" as ASTI teachers are now fully cooperating with the new JC [more's the pity] but you can go back and tell your old history teacher that it might be no harm to actually find out the facts in matters relating to his/her job. Because voting yes or no to the current deal has absolutely nothing to do with the new JC. Nada!

political analyst

acequion wrote: »

You are starting to grate again political analyst! I think all of us here, all serving teachers, know exactly what is and isn't in the rules and also why a minority wanted the democratic vote overturned. Two little words beginning with m, money and me, and to hell with all the rest.

As for this "alma mater" that we've heard about ad nauseum,their own business how the teachers there felt, but do get your facts straight please! There is no longer any "ban" as ASTI teachers are now fully cooperating with the new JC [more's the pity] but you can go back and tell your old history teacher that it might be no harm to actually find out the facts in matters relating to his/her job. Because voting yes or no to the current deal has absolutely nothing to do with the new JC. Nada!

It wasn't about money; it was about JC students' academic prospects. ASTI members' participation in JC in-service was banned until the special convention lifted the ban. Those who petitioned for the special convention were entitled to have their opinions heard and members can have their voices heard at conventions via union representatives. At the end of the day, democracy means the people rule, not the majority rules (which is ochlocracy, AKA mob rule).

I'm talking about before the second LRA ballot.

By the way, doesn't acceptance of LRA2 mean not blocking curriculum changes? If so, then it's everything to do with the new JC.

It wasn't just my old History teacher who decided to vote for LRA second time around. A French and German teacher told me that most of the teachers in my alma mater (all but two are members of one union - the ASTI) voted to accept LRA.

Of course teachers are not over-the-moon (to say the least) about the CP hours but I think pragmatism has prevailed because it has been promised that more adjustments will be made to the hours and because of the fact that other public-sector workers are doing the extra hours meant that teachers were never going to get away without doing them too.

Sir123

political analyst wrote: »

It wasn't about money; it was about JC students' academic prospects. ASTI members' participation in JC in-service was banned until the special convention lifted the ban. Those who petitioned for the special convention were entitled to have their opinions heard and members can have their voices heard at conventions via union representatives. At the end of the day, democracy means the people rule, not the majority rules (which is ochlocracy, AKA mob rule).

I'm talking about before the second LRA ballot.

By the way, doesn't acceptance of LRA2 mean not blocking curriculum changes? If so, then it's everything to do with the new JC.

It wasn't just my old History teacher who decided to vote for LRA second time around. A French and German teacher told me that most of the teachers in my alma mater (all but two are members of one union - the ASTI) voted to accept LRA.

Of course teachers are not over-the-moon (to say the least) about the CP hours but I think pragmatism has prevailed because it has been promised that more adjustments will be made to the hours and because of the fact that other public-sector workers are doing the extra hours meant that teachers were never going to get away without doing them too.

You keep talking about Croke Park hours and the JC but you fail to mention pay equality, a key issue as to why these agreements have been rejected. LRA2 should be rejected as a result. A NO vote from me in October will occur.

Discrimination is wrong and must not continue.

political analyst

Sir123 wrote: »

You keep talking about Croke Park hours and the JC but you fail to mention pay equality, a key issue as to why these agreements have been rejected. LRA2 should be rejected as a result. A NO vote from me in October will occur.

Discrimination is wrong and must not continue.

Even if the public-sector unions had not accepted the Croke Park deal back in 2010, the government probably would have cut new entrants' starting salaries anyway. Furthermore, legal action against the two-tier pay scale probably wouldn't succeed because the government would say that it doesn't force people to become public-sector workers.

Sir123

political analyst wrote: »

Even if the public-sector unions had not accepted the Croke Park deal back in 2010, the government probably would have cut new entrants' starting salaries anyway. Furthermore, legal action against the two-tier pay scale probably wouldn't succeed because the government would say that it doesn't force people to become public-sector workers.

It's still wrong and it can't continue. End of. In fairness, croke park had nothing to do with this three tier pay scale. The government introduced these measures after unions had well signed up to croke park so the unions are not to blame, the government is.

Pay discrimination is wrong and it cannot continue.

acequion

political analyst wrote: »

It wasn't about money; it was about JC students' academic prospects. ASTI members' participation in JC in-service was banned until the special convention lifted the ban. Those who petitioned for the special convention were entitled to have their opinions heard and members can have their voices heard at conventions via union representatives. At the end of the day, democracy means the people rule, not the majority rules (which is ochlocracy, AKA mob rule).

I'm talking about before the second LRA ballot.

By the way, doesn't acceptance of LRA2 mean not blocking curriculum changes? If so, then it's everything to do with the new JC.

It wasn't just my old History teacher who decided to vote for LRA second time around. A French and German teacher told me that most of the teachers in my alma mater (all but two are members of one union - the ASTI) voted to accept LRA.

Of course teachers are not over-the-moon (to say the least) about the CP hours but I think pragmatism has prevailed because it has been promised that more adjustments will be made to the hours and because of the fact that other public-sector workers are doing the extra hours meant that teachers were never going to get away without doing them too.

Hello,excuse me!! The special convention last June "wasn't about the money,it was about JC students' academic prospects." That is the single most hilarious piece of bull that I've heard in a very long time.

You have some neck when you're not even a teacher coming on here and with mere hearsay from the teachers at your "alma mater" try to tell those of us who are not only teachers, but some of us who are 100% involved in union activities, about the special convention.

Firstly, it is precisely because teachers were and still are extremely concerned about their students' academic prospects that they opposed the new JC for so long.

Secondly, and it's ironic that you mention a mob, because the actual special convention was exactly that, mob rule and mob behaviour by people who were there purely for their own gain,again Money and Me. Increments and CIDs. Yes there were entitled to do just that under union rules. Yes they were entitled to go after their own interests. But stop trying to paint it as anything other than what it was when you weren't even there and had no entitlement to be there.

And majority is now mob is it?? That's news to me. I thought that in all democratic procedures,ballots,elections,referenda that it was the the majority voice that counts. Stupid little me!

MrJones1973

Political analyst is a troll and yes I will report him. He is probably an Irish times hack or Dept Civil servant

read charter, avoid personal abuse etc
Mod

political analyst

Mrwhite1970 wrote: »

Political analyst is a troll and yes I will report him. He is probably an Irish times hack or Dept Civil servant

Considering the people I was talking to are secondary teachers, I think they are reliable sources. I have nothing to do with either of the organisations you've mentioned. I was simply being realistic.

deiseindublin

Sir123 wrote: »

The question of special conventions is an interesting one because only 700 signatures are needed out of the 18,000 union members.. I don't see the democracy there.

I'm still baffled by the rule. You'd wonder where it came from originally.

I'd sincerely doubt it was so that 2 emphatic national ballots could be potentially overturned by less than 4% of the membership.

political analyst

Sir123 wrote: »

It's still wrong and it can't continue. End of. In fairness, croke park had nothing to do with this three tier pay scale. The government introduced these measures after unions had well signed up to croke park so the unions are not to blame, the government is.

Pay discrimination is wrong and it cannot continue.

I'm not saying they are to blame.

The government would probably have cut new entrants' starting salaries anyway if the public-sector unions had continued their industrial action instead of accepting the Croke Park deal. At the time the deal was ratified, there was no guarantee that the starting salaries of those who joined the public sector after its ratification would not be cut.

political analyst

acequion wrote: »

Hello,excuse me!! The special convention last June "wasn't about the money,it was about JC students' academic prospects." That is the single most hilarious piece of bull that I've heard in a very long time.

You have some neck when you're not even a teacher coming on here and with mere hearsay from the teachers at your "alma mater" try to tell those of us who are not only teachers, but some of us who are 100% involved in union activities, about the special convention.

Firstly, it is precisely because teachers were and still are extremely concerned about their students' academic prospects that they opposed the new JC for so long.

Secondly, and it's ironic that you mention a mob, because the actual special convention was exactly that, mob rule and mob behaviour by people who were there purely for their own gain,again Money and Me. Increments and CIDs. Yes there were entitled to do just that under union rules. Yes they were entitled to go after their own interests. But stop trying to paint it as anything other than what it was when you weren't even there and had no entitlement to be there.

And majority is now mob is it?? That's news to me. I thought that in all democratic procedures,ballots,elections,referenda that it was the the majority voice that counts. Stupid little me!

What evidence is there that those who sought the special convention were only thinking of their salaries?

political analyst

deiseindublin wrote: »

I'm still baffled by the rule. You'd wonder where it came from originally.

I'd sincerely doubt it was so that 2 emphatic national ballots could be potentially overturned by less than 4% of the membership.

Then why didn't union members who wanted the industrial action to continue make their voices heard via their union reps at the special convention?

acequion

political analyst wrote: »

What evidence is there that those who sought the special convention were only thinking of their salaries?

The evidence was overwhelming at the special convention itself. But you weren't there!

Sir123

deiseindublin wrote: »

I'm still baffled by the rule. You'd wonder where it came from originally.

I'd sincerely doubt it was so that 2 emphatic national ballots could be potentially overturned by less than 4% of the membership.

I feel the same. It's very soul destroying to have a minority group, as you mentioned, determine and overturn our democratic votes. Outrageous to say the least, should not be allowed.

Nellieelephant

Special convention was ALL about money, nothing more nothing less. I was there, nobody will convince me otherwise. People didn't go there for reasoned debate, it was an absolute embarrassment. How people conducted themselves on an individual level really struck a cord for me, luckily elephants never forget!!

Chilli Con Kearney

Ah, political analyst. Good to see you back for more trolling, it's been a while. You really haven't a clue what you're talking about. Genuinely, and I don't mean that in a smart way. You don't.

But sure knock yourself out there with some more 'informed' comments and stories from your 'Alma mater'. I'll probably be warned for this post, but goodness, it gets irritating when people like you constantly snipe and jab under the cover of pseudo inquisitiveness. It's just so bloody obvious what you're at. You'd get more respect if you just openly pasted teachers instead of pretending you aren't.



see charter etc.
Mod

Chilli Con Kearney

On a serious note, you'd have to imagine that any ideas of a campaign against the new agreement are dead without the into. It would realistically take all 3 unions holding out together.

But if you think about it, the into were never going to do much. How can they, on a practical and real level, when Nunan is the head of the ICTU? She'd be totally compromised and exposed. This announcement can hardly be considered surprising. Unfortunately.

Sir123

Chilli Con Kearney wrote: »

On a serious note, you'd have to imagine that any ideas of a campaign against the new agreement are dead without the into. It would realistically take all 3 unions holding out together.

But if you think about it, the into were never going to do much. How can they, on a practical and real level, when Nunan is the head of the ICTU? She'd be totally compromised and exposed. This announcement can hardly be considered surprising. Unfortunately.

Hopefully all the uproar the weekend will make CEC realise that NO means NO and that a ballot on industrial action needs to occur immediately . Time is ticking.

MrJones1973

I dont recall seeing any of you at special convention. I was actually there. It wasnt about salaries entirely. Is a CID entirely about a salary?

Sir123

Mrwhite1970 wrote: »

I dont recall seeing any of you at special convention. I was actually there. It wasnt about salaries entirely. Is a CID entirely about a salary?

A CID with an inferior salary is quite bad. Means nothing to me at this stage. I do understand what you mean though. However, I know I was out of the country at the time, but witholding increments and FEMPI seemed to delude certain members into overturning our NO votes. Wrong decision in my opinion, and I was very vocal about it on June 10th here.

MrJones1973

I don't think there is any point in going over special convention again and again. For me it was to stop bleeding members ,getting increments and CIDs. We had achieved nothing after a year of action.
Now we have to decide what to do ?I heard talk of simply rejecting deal and doing nothing !No action . This seems pointless to me.
With the INTO on side we have some chance as even a threat of strike from them would cause massive disruption to parents.
Bottom line though, unless teachers are willing to strike then we will get nowhere.
Last year doing practically nothing in terms of action achieved practically nothing.
De ja vu again ?! To be tongue in cheek