Inter-union talk | Equal Pay for Equal Work $$$See warning in OP$$$

r93kaey5p2izun

I did not attack any poster. I pointed out that the poster was poorly informed. I stated that the post made no sense in the context of the pay equality being discussed here. I stated that I would be embarrassed to make such a poorly informed post in another similar forum.

Yes I did ignore questions - whether they're legitimate or not depends on your perspective on the legitimacy of jumping into the middle of a discussion with hypothetical stories that make no sense in context when you don't have an understanding of the facts. If we have to go back to basics in every single new thread here then there can be no progress in discussion between those who wish to carry on discussion in light of the actual facts and proposals that have been made. I'm not willing to go back and explain that in every thread. Others can if they want to.

Creol1

ted1 wrote: »

Most people have to contribute towards their pension.
Teachers have one of the nest pensions in the country that’s worth roughly an extra 35k a year on top of their salary.

You should look into what someone working in the private sector would have to contribute to get a teachers pension

This comes up constantly in the media. I find it a strange line of reasoning that there are two sectors (public and private), one has less favourable conditions of service than the other, therefore we should make sure everyone has less favourable conditions of service. Why should that be?

Public-sector pensions cost I think about €3bn a year; for a country with a GDP of close to €300bn a year, €3bn doesn't seem like a huge amount for the State to pay its retired workers. Contrary to what the media likes to say, it's both affordable and sustainable.

As you probably know, private-sector pensions are being reformed to make the terms more favourable, with contributions made by staff being matched by their employer and the government. I think this is a better path to follow than a race to the bottom for both public and private sectors.

ted1

Creol1 wrote: »

ted1 wrote: »

Tbh your post is pretty embarrassing, attacking the poster and ignoring legitimate questions.

Facts is teachers were bench marked, when the bench mark went down , teachers voted that new teachers would start on a lower salary.
Those teachers now want an increase to match existing teachers.

In no other industry do people start the same as existing staff, experience counts.

Graduate teachers are on far more than any other graduates.

For example The ESB Start their graduates on 31k ( with only 20 days leave per year ) that’s after 4-5 primary degree and a 2 years masters. Existing engineers would be on 50+k do you think that they should start on 50+k ?
There’s also engineers on over 100k who are based on old scales. Should all engineers be on that scale ?

Newly recruited public servants aren't paid the same as existing staff, and they aren't asking to be. Experience is recognised through incremental pay increases. The issue isn't that new recruits are paid less, the entire payscale is less favourable, i.e., a post-2012 recruit who accrues 15 years' experience will be on less than someone recruited 15 years ago is now on with the same experience.

And wasn’t it discovered that the pre 2012 scale was unsustainable. I know in my sector all our pay scales have being cut, it’s across the board.

ted1

Johanna Wet Carpet wrote: »

I did not attack any poster. I pointed out that the poster was poorly informed. I stated that the post made no sense in the context of the pay equality being discussed here. I stated that I would be embarrassed to make such a poorly informed post in another similar forum.

Yes I did ignore questions - whether they're legitimate or not depends on your perspective on the legitimacy of jumping into the middle of a discussion with hypothetical stories that make no sense in context when you don't have an understanding of the facts. If we have to go back to basics in every single new thread here then there can be no progress in discussion between those who wish to carry on discussion in light of the actual facts and proposals that have been made. I'm not willing to go back and explain that in every thread. Others can if they want to.

I hope you are more tolerant to your pupils

ted1

Creol1 wrote: »

ted1 wrote: »

Most people have to contribute towards their pension.
Teachers have one of the nest pensions in the country that’s worth roughly an extra 35k a year on top of their salary.

You should look into what someone working in the private sector would have to contribute to get a teachers pension

This comes up constantly in the media. I find it a strange line of reasoning that there are two sectors (public and private), one has less favourable conditions of service than the other, therefore we should make sure everyone has less favourable conditions of service. Why should that be?

Public-sector pensions cost I think about €3bn a year; for a country with a GDP of close to €300bn a year, €3bn doesn't seem like a huge amount for the State to pay its retired workers. Contrary to what the media likes to say, it's both affordable and sustainable.

As you probably know, private-sector pensions are being reformed to make the terms more favourable, with contributions made by staff being matched by their employer and the government. I think this is a better path to follow than a race to the bottom for both public and private sectors.

That €3bn is an increasing figure as life expectancies increase.
You still need to break it down that a teacher on 36k is costing the state 71k + a year.

Sir123

ted1 wrote: »

Most people have to contribute towards their pension.
Teachers have one of the nest pensions in the country that’s worth roughly an extra 35k a year on top of their salary.

You should look into what someone working in the private sector would have to contribute to get a teachers pension

Are you suggesting that teachers do not contribute to their pension at all? I think some private sector employees have good pensions, a better pension than I would ever have as a newly recruited teacher in the past few years.

In fact, I wouldn't agree with your statement that teachers have one of the best pensions out there. In fact, my pension that I have to compulsory contribute into aka, the scam of the single pension scheme, is not generous at all, I will pay more than I will ever get out.

I would rather have a private sector pension because the more I pay in and the less I get out of this so called 'great' pension is not worth it. Total unfairness.

However, this thread is on pay inequality, so I won't be replying to anything related to our so called 'great' pensions anytime soon.

Equal Pay for Equal Work 2018
An Pá Céanna don Obair Chéanna 2018
One Common Scale for Teacher 2018

ted1

Sir123 wrote: »

ted1 wrote: »

Most people have to contribute towards their pension.
Teachers have one of the nest pensions in the country that’s worth roughly an extra 35k a year on top of their salary.

You should look into what someone working in the private sector would have to contribute to get a teachers pension

Are you suggesting that teachers do not contribute to their pension at all? I think some private sector employees have good pensions, a better pension than I would ever have as a newly recruited teacher in the past few years.

In fact, I wouldn't agree with your statement that teachers have one of the best pensions out there. In fact, my pension that I have to compulsory contribute into aka, the scam of the single pension scheme, is not generous at all, I will pay more than I will ever get out.

I would rather have a private sector pension because the more I pay in and the less I get out of this so called 'great' pension is not worth it. Total unfairness.

However, this thread is on pay inequality, so I won't be replying to anything related to our so called 'great' pensions anytime soon.

Equal Pay for Equal Work 2018
An Pá Céanna don Obair Chéanna 2018
One Common Scale for Teacher 2018

I’m suggesting that you pay very little in compared to what you get out.

Tell me what other industry or companies provide a better pension for its general work force.

54and56

Creol1 wrote: »

This comes up constantly in the media. I find it a strange line of reasoning that there are two sectors (public and private), one has less favourable conditions of service than the other, therefore we should make sure everyone has less favourable conditions of service. Why should that be?

I don't think anyone if given a choice, regardless of whether they work in the private or public sector, would opt for the less favourable pension arrangement.

Creol1 wrote: »

Public-sector pensions cost I think about €3bn a year; for a country with a GDP of close to €300bn a year, €3bn doesn't seem like a huge amount for the State to pay its retired workers. Contrary to what the media likes to say, it's both affordable and sustainable.

Why did you choose a metric like GDP? Public sector pensions can only be paid for out of the Govts tax take which last year was €50.7bn meaning Public Sector pensions use 6% of the available cash assuming the Govt isn't in it's wisdom deciding to go on another borrow on the never never and spend now type spree.

Corkgirl18

ted1 wrote: »

In no other industry do people start the same as existing staff, experience counts.

Graduate teachers are on far more than any other graduates.

For example The ESB Start their graduates on 31k ( with only 20 days leave per year ) that’s after 4-5 primary degree and a 2 years masters. Existing engineers would be on 50+k do you think that they should start on 50+k ?
There’s also engineers on over 100k who are based on old scales. Should all engineers be on that scale ?

Hi, I think you misunderstood. LPTs aren't looking to have the same salary as someone who has more experience than us. We want to earn the same amount of money starting off as someone who graduated a few years before us earned when they were starting off. We're doing the same amount of work as they did.
Also most teachers are in college for 6 years now.

Creol1

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

I don't think anyone if given a choice, regardless of whether they work in the private or public sector, would opt for the less favourable pension arrangement.

Why did you choose a metric like GDP? Public sector pensions can only be paid for out of the Govts tax take which last year was €50.7bn meaning Public Sector pensions use 6% of the available cash assuming the Govt isn't in it's wisdom deciding to go on another borrow on the never never and spend now type spree.

GDP, while admittedly imperfect, represents our overall resources as a society. Taxation is contingent on the policies, and, dare I say, ideology of the Government in power. There are international metrics that rate tax against GDP and Ireland has one of the lowest levels (perhaps even the lowest) of tax relative to GDP in the EU.

r93kaey5p2izun

ted1 wrote: »

Teachers have one of the nest pensions in the country that’s worth roughly an extra 35k a year on top of their salary.

I would love to see the figures to back this up in regards to the new single pension scheme.

I'm sceptical of it for the old scheme even given the coordinated pension includes the OAP which we would get anyway if working in a shop or factory for example. Given the housing issues in this country more money right now is considerably more valuable in my eyes than more money when/if you reach retirement age.

Either way you cannot live on the promise of a pension and it's worth nothing when you look for a mortgage. I have no concerns about giving it up to move back to the private sector.

54and56

Creol1 wrote: »

GDP, while admittedly imperfect, represents our overall resources as a society. Taxation is contingent on the policies, and, dare I say, ideology of the Government in power. There are international metrics that rate tax against GDP and Ireland has one of the lowest levels (perhaps even the lowest) of tax relative to GDP in the EU.

GDP doesn't measure our overall resources at all. It measures the value of goods and services produced in the economy. There are many countries with massive resources (Nigeria and Kenya spring to mind) but very poor GDP per head of population.

The piece I highlighted is of course correct but GDP is a poor metric to use when discussing public sector pensions for 2 reasons:-

1. Ireland's GDP is massively skewed by the "product" reported by Apple, Intel, Amazon etc. They are only here because of the low tax rate and wouldn't be here at all if we didn't have such a low tax rate.

2. It's better to take €51bn in tax from a €300bn economy (bloated by the presence of the companies named above and others) thus having a relatively low 17% tax take than lose those companies, shrink the economy to €200bn (for example) and have a 25% tax take producing €50bn.

At the end of the day public sector wages and pensions and everything else the Govt pays for can only be paid for out of the actual tax take. GDP and %'s won't pay any bills. It's better to have an extra €1bn to spend on public services off a 17% tax take than €1bn less off a 25% tax take from a smaller economy which BTW would have a much higher level of unemployment and all the consequences that would have i.e. greater demand on the tax take for social welfare services, unemployment benefit etc.

ted1

Creol1 wrote: »

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

I don't think anyone if given a choice, regardless of whether they work in the private or public sector, would opt for the less favourable pension arrangement.

Why did you choose a metric like GDP? Public sector pensions can only be paid for out of the Govts tax take which last year was €50.7bn meaning Public Sector pensions use 6% of the available cash assuming the Govt isn't in it's wisdom deciding to go on another borrow on the never never and spend now type spree.

GDP, while admittedly imperfect, represents our overall resources as a society. Taxation is contingent on the policies, and, dare I say, ideology of the Government in power. There are international metrics that rate tax against GDP and Ireland has one of the lowest levels (perhaps even the lowest) of tax relative to GDP in the EU.

Our GDP is not reflective of or economy hence the term leprechaun economics

ted1

Johanna Wet Carpet wrote: »

ted1 wrote: »

Teachers have one of the nest pensions in the country that’s worth roughly an extra 35k a year on top of their salary.

I would love to see the figures to back this up in regards to the new single pension scheme.

I'm sceptical of it for the old scheme even given the coordinated pension includes the OAP which we would get anyway if working in a shop or factory for example. Given the housing issues in this country more money right now is considerably more valuable in my eyes than more money when/if you reach retirement age.

Either way you cannot live on the promise of a pension and it's worth nothing when you look for a mortgage. I have no concerns about giving it up to move back to the private sector.

A teachers pension is about 33,000 a year

To earn that in a private pension starting at 30 . You would need to contribute 42.8% if your salary. (That’s only making up about 21k, the other 12k is coming from the state pension )


http://www.pensionsauthority.ie/en/LifeCycle/Useful-Resources/Pension-Calculator/

deiseindublin

Reading some of the posts above just proves how little some posters know about teaching, and about pay scales. It's a head wreck to have to keep informing the misinformed on the same basic facts.

We should do up a Teaching 101 cheat sheet and ask all posters to read before showing themselves up.

byhookorbycrook

ted1 wrote: »

A teachers pension is about 33,000 a year

To earn that in a private pension starting at 30 . You would need to contribute 42.8% if your salary. (That’s only making up about 21k, the other 12k is coming from the state pension )


http://www.pensionsauthority.ie/en/LifeCycle/Useful-Resources/Pension-Calculator/

I have been paying my pension since I was 19. I had no choice. The later you leave starting your pension, the more expensive it will be.

Monotype

ted1 wrote: »

A teachers pension is about 33,000 a year

http://www.pensionsauthority.ie/en/LifeCycle/Useful-Resources/Pension-Calculator/

Let's not make too many assumptions.



Seems like you'd be better off in the private sector. Plus with higher income, you might be able to throw an extra few cents the way of the pension.

deiseindublin

deiseindublin wrote:

Reading some of the posts above just proves how little some posters know about teaching, and about pay scales. It's a head wreck to have to keep informing the misinformed on the same basic facts.

Maybe you should teach them

feardeas

Lots of talk on pensions. It might be no harm to point out that the consolidated pension exist for all those that entered the public sector since the mid 90s. This means that in actual fact the salary pension is not as valuable as getting suggested. . It is combined with the state pension which like all workers has been paid into through PRSI.

I don't deny that the pensions are valuable, just like the health insurance being paid in some private sector companies, the expenses for many others and the share options for those new companies down around the docks that are at the minute taking a bit of a hit due to their sharing of people's information.

Sometimes one wonders if Ivan Yates and some more of newscorps employees are on here.

Of course free speech is welcome however misinformed it might be

r93kaey5p2izun

ted1 wrote: »

A teachers pension is about 33,000 a year

To earn that in a private pension starting at 30 . You would need to contribute 42.8% if your salary. (That’s only making up about 21k, the other 12k is coming from the state pension )


http://www.pensionsauthority.ie/en/LifeCycle/Useful-Resources/Pension-Calculator/

33k on the new single pension scheme?! For a second level teacher?! I think not.

I remain happy to give it up for increased pay in the private sector. Because 15-25k now is worth a lot more than 33k if I'm still around and house sharing in my late 60s. I wonder how many professional private sector workers would take a 35k pay cut for the teaching pension - since that's what it's apparently worth. Few who have to support themselves in Dublin I can tell you.

rainbowtrout

Johanna Wet Carpet wrote: »

A subtle difference in use of language here I think, between being paid min wage versus making min wage. Anyway - rest assured she's not a Maths teacher. It's a point irrelevant to the thread either way.

I think the Minister's smarmy soundbites and efforts to deflect from the core issue are sickening. I think the game was up long ago when he stood in the Dail and falsely claimed that new entrant TDs were also subject to a new pay scale. He's so out of touch he can't even fake the usual politician level of insincere plsing. I think his appointment as Minister sums up FG's dismissive attitude towards the whole sector. He doesn't care, he doesn't want to be there, he can't even fake it. Waiting around for further pointless talks is a waste of time. I hope ASTI and INTO will get balloting immediately and not wait around for any outcome of these "talks".

No job in the country is quoted as 'making the minimum wage'. All jobs that have an hourly rate are quoted as the pre tax rate. It makes teachers look so greedy when they are getting €16 per hour (based on her correcting 3 papers) and then complaining about not getting the minimum wage. She's getting taxed at about 50% on her corrections because she's earning enough from teaching to put her in the higher tax bracket. Minimum wage is not based on net salary, and never has been. I'm mortified hearing idiots like that represent teachers every year.

TheDriver

feardeas wrote: »

Lots of talk on pensions. It might be no harm to point out that the consolidated pension exist for all those that entered the public sector since the mid 90s. This means that in actual fact the salary pension is not as valuable as getting suggested. . It is combined with the state pension which like all workers has been paid into through PRSI.

I don't deny that the pensions are valuable, just like the health insurance being paid in some private sector companies, the expenses for many others and the share options for those new companies down around the docks that are at the minute taking a bit of a hit due to their sharing of people's information.

Sometimes one wonders if Ivan Yates and some more of newscorps employees are on here.

Of course free speech is welcome however misinformed it might be

But it's a coordinated pension which fur anyone on A prsi up to 2004 should end up with same pension thought various strands prior to reaching 67. The Prsi is counterbalanced by a reduced pension contribution so that either worker gets same end money

r93kaey5p2izun

rainbowtrout wrote: »

No job in the country is quoted as 'making the minimum wage'. All jobs that have an hourly rate are quoted as the pre tax rate. It makes teachers look so greedy when they are getting €16 per hour (based on her correcting 3 papers) and then complaining about not getting the minimum wage. She's getting taxed at about 50% on her corrections because she's earning enough from teaching to put her in the higher tax bracket. Minimum wage is not based on net salary, and never has been. I'm mortified hearing idiots like that represent teachers every year.

I agree completely that gross figures should be used. But if you think it's only teachers who quote net in such scenarios you're mistaken.

Trasna1

Why would any NQT join ASTI or any public service union? These are the very same people that forced the burden of cuts onto the younger generation in order to protect their own terms.

The "solidarity" is a bit late tbh.

evolving_doors

Trasna1 wrote: »

Why would any NQT join ASTI or any public service union? These are the very same people that forced the burden of cuts onto the younger generation in order to protect their own terms.

The "solidarity" is a bit late tbh.

Next we'll be hearing the Irish Unions were behind 9/11 and the fake moon landings

The truth is out there

or click here its quicker https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=104692818&postcount=66

deiseindublin

Another troll, oh joy............

Trasna1

evolving_doors wrote: »

Next we'll be hearing the Irish Unions were behind 9/11 and the fake moon landings

The truth is out there

or click here its quicker

It's not a conspiracy or trolling either. The teaching units could have backed out of CP over it but they didn't. They kept the head down and minded themselves and shafted the NQTs.

CP was 7-8 years ago yet the teachers are making a fuss now? Yes, it's a bit late.

evolving_doors

Trasna1 wrote: »

It's not a conspiracy or trolling either. The teaching units could have backed out of CP over it but they didn't. They kept the head down and minded themselves and shafted the NQTs.

CP was 7-8 years ago yet the teachers are making a fuss now? Yes, it's a bit late.

Teachers were always making a fuss btw.
There were pickets too btw
There was refusal to take part in the CP agreement too btw so how could they have 'backed out of it'.

But leaving all that explaining aside,

are you saying you would have wholeheartedly 100% been behind all out union strikes when the cuts to NQT's were introduced on the floor of the dail (and not by union negotiation as incorrectly inferred)?

TheDriver

Trasna1 wrote: »

It's not a conspiracy or trolling either. The teaching units could have backed out of CP over it but they didn't. They kept the head down and minded themselves and shafted the NQTs.

CP was 7-8 years ago yet the teachers are making a fuss now? Yes, it's a bit late.

Then you can make a difference. Go to your local branch meeting, talk to other teachers on the staff, get the view of those on the ground and become the person in the union who can make a change.
And welcome to the forum, its always good to have new teachers willing to contribute their views to this teacher's forum.

TheDriver

evolving_doors wrote: »

Teachers were always making a fuss btw.
There were pickets too btw
There was refusal to take part in the CP agreement too btw so how could they have 'backed out of it'.

But leaving all that explaining aside,

are you saying you would have wholeheartedly 100% been behind all out union strikes when the cuts to NQT's were introduced on the floor of the dail (and not by union negotiation as incorrectly inferred)?

I remember we all writing to our local TDs about FEMPI when ALL our pay was being cut (and don't forget NQTs and those above 65k were getting more savage cuts again). ANd TDs ignored us all and voted to cut our pay. And when they called to the doorstep for the following election, they didn't seem to understand (and didn't seem to care......)