Written Examiner payment 2018

spurious

I had 430 scripts last year, 503 this year and took an extra 47 on top of that.

I will have to think about doing it next year if they are going to piss people around.

spurious

Had a root in my drawers and found the letter of appointment which clearly states there would be a 'usual script rate plus 25% rate for every script' premium paid to those taking extra scripts.

Back to Athlone with that now.

happywithlife

spurious wrote: »

Had a root in my drawers and found the letter of appointment which clearly states there would be a 'usual script rate plus 25% rate for every script' premium paid to those taking extra scripts.

Back to Athlone with that now.

there was a sheet insert in my pack at marking conference stating the subject average/cut off above which the premium rate would be applied. Are you sure "those taking extra scripts" isn't referring to this cut off point and not neccessarily extra scriors beyond those you were initially assigned but which still fell below the subject average.
As Real_John explained in his post

spurious

Well the usual amount for years was around the 430 script mark. This year I initially got 503 (we all got much more than usual because of the shortage of examiners) and then I took another 47 when asked to take extra. It was hard work to get the 550 done in the time frame we had for 430 the year before.
I'll see what Athlone say.

mtoutlemonde

spurious wrote: »

Well the usual amount for years was around the 430 script mark. This year I initially got 503 (we all got much more than usual because of the shortage of examiners) and then I took another 47 when asked to take extra. It was hard work to get the 550 done in the time frame we had for 430 the year before.
I'll see what Athlone say.

Not all subjects were subject to the 25% increase unless you received a sheet explaining the cut off number. As I said previously, I would say all the examiners in my subject met the cut off. It was up to you if you wanted extra. From reading your posts, you seem to feel that you should have got the increase for taking on extra scripts. It just didn't work like that. I did 100 over the cut off - 45/50 were extra after volunteering.

spurious

mtoutlemonde wrote: »

Not all subjects were subject to the 25% increase unless you received a sheet explaining the cut off number. As I said previously, I would say all the examiners in my subject met the cut off. It was up to you if you wanted extra. From reading your posts, you seem to feel that you should have got the increase for taking on extra scripts. It just didn't work like that. I did 100 over the cut off - 45/50 were extra after volunteering.

Yes that was the impression we were given in Athlone, but I understand the distinction you're making.
They can be sure I won't be taking any extra next year, when presumably they will be even more stuck for experienced examiners thanks to this sort of crap.

mtoutlemonde

spurious wrote: »

Yes that was the impression we were given in Athlone, but I understand the distinction you're making.
They can be sure I won't be taking any extra next year, when presumably they will be even more stuck for experienced examiners thanks to this sort of crap.

We were down at least forty examiners. I've marked for a number of years and you get go know people - it was like my first year again- didn't know many people - a lot of retired teachers who were welcomed back at the start of conference. There were a lot of unqualifieds (talking about my own group anyway) who I would have a bigger problem than retired teachers. If they paid qualified teachers properly this would reduce this or as that so called journalist Brenda Power who says that serving teachers should be made mark exams as their holidays are so long ...

Just as aside before I'm knocked - I have absolutely no problem with retired teachers marking - they bring a wealth of experience and not every retired teacher retired with a full pension.

deiseindublin

This reminds me of the year they BEGGED my friend on the phone 2 days before LC started to invigilate a centre that was across town for 3 days. She said No, unless they were extremely stuck, got another call and relented. Paid as much in childcare I think as she got.

She had to leave before 7am in morn to make sure, used M50 because town would have been longer, then in July somebody rang to query using the M50 and toll bridge........ It would suck the life out of you.

gaiscioch

Anybody know when the SEC's "next payment schedule" is? They emailed me this week, a month after I emailed them to tell them I was underpaid and 2.5 months since I sent my forms off, to let me know that they'll pay me for all my corrected papers in their "next payment schedule".

The 60% tax taken by the state from the overall salary was one thing to see on paper particularly given that the deadlines made one work for every cent. The denial by the SEC until this week that I was underpaid was quite an unexpected addition to the unvarnished fúck you of that 60%. A mug's game.

deiseindublin

Usually every Friday in my experience.

As a matter of interest, did they pay incorrect level, rate, number of scripts, or omit expenses etc?

gaiscioch

deiseindublin wrote: »

Usually every Friday in my experience.

As a matter of interest, did they pay incorrect level, rate, number of scripts, or omit expenses etc?

Thanks. Incorrect number of scripts. After deductions/tax I got a mere €7.40 per LC HL script, which means that Revenue took a whopping €10 plus from each script. That's a pretty shocking pulverisation of a pay packet. Even if you could correct two LC HL papers per hour (and I'd wager very, very few can), that's €14.80 per hour you'd be paid.

So before anybody decides to be impressed by the pre-tax headline pay per script, reduce it by 60% and see how you feel.

rainbowtrout

gaiscioch wrote: »

Thanks. Incorrect number of scripts. After deductions/tax I got a mere €7.40 per LC HL script, which means that Revenue took a whopping €10 plus from each script. That's a pretty shocking pulverisation of a pay packet. Even if you could correct two LC HL papers per hour (and I'd wager very, very few can), that's €14.80 per hour you'd be paid.

So before anybody decides to be impressed by the pre-tax headline pay per script, reduce it by 60% and see how you feel.

Why does everyone on here feel the need to quote their pay at the after tax rate? In no other job is the after tax rate quoted. So if revenue took €10 per script from you in tax, you got close to €17.50 per script. And if you can correct two per hour ( I presume this is English, Irish or Maths) then you earn €35 per hour.

Tax rates have absolutely nothing to do with the SEC. Is it hard earned? Yes. Is it crap paying a heap of tax? Yes. But that's because your tax credits are with the Dept/ETB. It's always painted that 60% tax is paid by everyone. It's paid by a lot because they are in the band that means they pay the higher tax rate due to their main salary. This should not by a mystery to anyone.

gaiscioch

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Why does everyone on here feel the need to quote their pay at the after tax rate? In no other job is the after tax rate quoted. So if revenue took €10 per script from you in tax, you got close to €17.50 per script. And if you can correct two per hour ( I presume this is English, Irish or Maths) then you earn €35 per hour.

Tax rates have absolutely nothing to do with the SEC.

Clearly, it's because the real marginal tax rate we're paying of 60% is not, in fact, highlighted and instead the notion that we are paying 40% tax is widely believed. Making it clear to people what the real figure will be like is a far more honest way of treating this than pretending they'll only be charged 40%, and that the PRD/ASC etc do not exist. Outside the public sector I know of no other job where employees have to pay 10% (or more) as an additional income tax like the PRD while the politicians peddle this fiction that the higher rate of tax is only 40%.

rainbowtrout

But all teachers know we pay those deductions. I still don’t see why it’s a mystery.

r93kaey5p2izun

I think your claim that nobody outside the public service quotes net pay is frankly bizarre rainbowtrout! I honestly cannot believe that you never hear other workers doing this. It is commonplace among everyone from shop asistants to plumbers to farmers in my experience. I agree that it's not a legitimate way to compare pay but to claim nobody else does it complete nonsense.

And right now I'm working in a job where if my employer wants me to do over time I tell them NET what I will do it for and it's up to them to adjust the fee accordingly.

rainbowtrout

Elle Millions Blanket wrote: »

I think your claim that nobody outside the public service quotes net pay is frankly bizarre rainbowtrout! Nope I honestly cannot believe that you never hear other workers doing this. It is commonplace among everyone from shop asistants to plumbers to farmers in my experience. I agree that it's not a legitimate way to compare pay but to claim nobody else does it complete nonsense.

And right now I'm working in a job where if my employer wants me to do over time I tell them NET what I will do it for and it's up to them to adjust the fee accordingly.

Nope. I've never ever heard of anyone quote their hourly rate after tax.


Anyway, I sent in expenses to athlone on Monday and the money is in my account tonight. Must be some kind of record.