Possible fallout from not being a union member?

beveragelady

You tell me that the union is only as strong as its members, then you imply that unless I have put myself forward for more prominent roles my complaints are somehow less valid. The union should represent its members whether they choose to join the self-important mountebanks at the top table or not.

AndrewJRenko

beveragelady wrote: »

You tell me that the union is only as strong as its members, then you imply that unless I have put myself forward for more prominent roles my complaints are somehow less valid. The union should represent its members whether they choose to join the self-important mountebanks at the top table or not.

Yeah, it should certainly represent its members. I guess their argument would be that they ARE representing their members through their democratic processes at branch and sector level. Hence my suggestion for a possible solution:

Samsarah

beveragelady wrote: »

I rarely miss a union meeting. I have been a branch secretary, and held other less taxing roles.
I have no idea why you're making this all about me though,

It's an effort to undermine you, there are many who do very well out of the cronyism that has been stifling some unions for years now, as is clear from the fight back that accompanies any expression of discontent, particularly in social media.
There is little accountability in the teaching unions in their present form, and their growing politicization has transformed them into members of the establishment, and increased the disconnect with ordinary members and the sense of fear and apathy that many feel. In many ways unions are helping to maintain the status quo, and serve to police any challenges that may arise. Again, there are many who are doing very well out of this.

It's not up to you to sort out the union at grassroots level, this is the job of the people who are paid through members subscriptions, and those who have been entrusted by the membership to represent them.

SligoBrewer

It's also the job of members not only to vote for the right people into positions of power but to not legitimise political bedfellows by leaving them unchallenged in those positions.

Samsarah

SligoBrewer wrote: »

It's also the job of members not only to vote for the right people into positions of power but to not legitimise political bedfellows by leaving them unchallenged in those positions.

Unfortunately rampant cronyism has limited the choices available to members, and the fear of the establishment within education and repercussion for speaking out has left many members feeling intimidated, helpless and indeed seeing the situation as a hopeless one.
Members need to see the connection between their payment of membership fees and the problems within the unions that seem to be going from bad to worse. Unions literally copper-fasten government policy, neglect to challenge misrepresentations regarding the role of the teacher, side with management on the whole and endorse practices that would not be allowed in any other profession. They ruthlessly police any voices of dissent.
The only way to bring about change is by cancelling membership fees. By paying into a union you are endorsing what I have outlined above. Union membership is not an insurance policy, contrary to what many believe. It's more or less protection money, provided you play their game.
If members want to bring about change they need to start cancelling the money they pay every year to these corrupt organisations.

AndrewJRenko

Samsarah wrote: »

It's an effort to undermine you

No, it's not. It's an effort to encourage the OP to take action to drive the union in the direction they want.


I don't disagree with much of the rest of your post.

Samsarah wrote: »

It's not up to you to sort out the union at grassroots level

You ARE the union at grassroots level.

doc_17

If there wasn’t a union the pay gap imposed in 2011 would still be in place - 100% of it. Do you really think it would have changed if nobody was lobbying for it?

beveragelady

doc_17 wrote: »

If there wasn’t a union the pay gap imposed in 2011 would still be in place - 100% of it. Do you really think it would have changed if nobody was lobbying for it?

The choice should not be between 'substandard union' and 'no union.'

Samsarah

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

No, it's not. It's an effort to encourage the OP to take action to drive the union in the direction they want.


I don't disagree with much of the rest of your post.




You ARE the union at grassroots level.

No, you provide the funding for the organisation. However, sadly, issues with cronyism, bullying, repercussion, and fear of the powers that be that control work within the profession has meant that many members have turned their back on the unions, unable/unwilling to get involved in the toxic situation.
I am by no means tarring everyone with the same brush, there are many good people who are active in the union movement, who have given freely of their time and energy, sometimes over many years. I believe the leadership has a lot to answer for, and the balance of power rests in their hands. They control paid positions within the union, information that is put into circulation, and may hold a lot of sway when it comes to appointments within schools.
Traditionally certain organisations within society were untouchable, while this attitude is very slowly being challenged, such attitudes still prevail in education, with the powers that be still as powerful as ever. The teaching unions fall under this remit, and are seen as enablers of the status quo.

Expecting members to challenge this is niave, as once again they control the work and conditions within the profession.

Samsarah

doc_17 wrote: »

If there wasn’t a union the pay gap imposed in 2011 would still be in place - 100% of it. Do you really think it would have changed if nobody was lobbying for it?

The unions accepted this, they were the people who were at the negotiating table when it came to brokering a deal. I do think that the quality of leadership came into play here, and negotiating skills, and the deal for teachers was particularly bad, especially for new entrants to the profession.

One union did try to address this, but the govt played one union against the other with the other union happy to play along. This completely weakened all the teaching unions, and while the third union could have made a stand on this, being the most traditional if them all they stood by and let it happen. There are LPTs in the membership of all three unions.

The reality is years of rolling over and saying yes has significantly weakened the three unions, maybe even other public sector unions where a monopoly exists, so while they may be all powerful within the field of education, in the bigger picture they hold little influence.

beveragelady

Samsarah wrote: »

No, you provide the funding for the organisation.

This is important. I pay somebody to represent me. It takes real nerve to tell me I need to get my act together and make more of an effort to represent myself.

deiseindublin

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Yeah, it should certainly represent its members. I guess their argument would be that they ARE representing their members through their democratic processes at branch and sector level. Hence my suggestion for a possible solution:

TUI aren't representing members. The likes of their meeting in Lucan last week basically focused on bullying voters into submission, all the while saying they weren't recommending a Yes.

They're despicable as far as I'm concerned. They basically don't want any strife, just keep rolling over and telling us how bad we might have it otherwise.

But it's all ok, let's not forget their platitudes that the LPT fight is not over :rolleyes: .

doc_17

beveragelady wrote: »

The choice should not be between 'substandard union' and 'no union.'

It isn’t.

doc_17

Samsarah wrote: »

The unions accepted this, they were the people who were at the negotiating table when it came to brokering a deal. I do think that the quality of leadership came into play here, and negotiating skills, and the deal for teachers was particularly bad, especially for new entrants to the profession.

One union did try to address this, but the govt played one union against the other with the other union happy to play along. This completely weakened all the teaching unions, and while the third union could have made a stand on this, being the most traditional if them all they stood by and let it happen. There are LPTs in the membership of all three unions.

The reality is years of rolling over and saying yes has significantly weakened the three unions, maybe even other public sector unions where a monopoly exists, so while they may be all powerful within the field of education, in the bigger picture they hold little influence.

Sigh.....

The Unions didn’t accept unequal pay scales in 2011. The CP Deal was agreed in 2010. The pay inequality was imposed from the floor of the Dail for the 2011 budget AFTER THE CP1 AGREEMENT. Unions did not negotiate this. This did not arise because it was put to a ballot of teachers and the teachers chose to cut the pay of teachers appointed after 2010.

Does that make it acceptable? No, but at least get the basics right.

deiseindublin

doc_17 wrote: »

The Unions didn’t accept unequal pay scales in 2011.

Not in 2011, but in 2018 with a weak government the TUI voted to accept unequal pay and a permanent pension levy.

Go TUI, playing a blinder there.

doc_17

deiseindublin wrote: »

Not in 2011, but in 2018 with a weak government the TUI voted to accept unequal pay and a permanent pension levy.

Go TUI, playing a blinder there.

Sigh......again, let’s please get the basics right. The TUI rejected the PSSA 87% to 13%. The only reason we’re in is because once Siptu and Unite accept then the game’s over.

richiepurgas

I 'm not talking about teaching unions specifically here, but there's never been a more crucial time for any worker who can to be in a union.
Where they are not recognised, workers often get an awful time and spend their entire time in a state of insecurity.

AndrewJRenko

beveragelady wrote: »

This is important. I pay somebody to represent me.

It sounds like you're looking for an insurance service, or a legal expert hotline, not a trade union. What makes unions unique is the collective strength of the members.

deiseindublin

doc_17 wrote: »

Sigh......again, let’s please get the basics right. The TUI rejected the PSSA 87% to 13%. The only reason we’re in is because once Siptu and Unite accept then the game’s over.

Yes, they rejected PSSA but just 3 days ago accepted this crock of sh*t with a little bit of equality. There's no escaping that.

doc_17

deiseindublin wrote: »

Yes, they rejected PSSA but just 3 days ago accepted this crock of sh*t with a little bit of equality. There's no escaping that.

Agreed. But if you think that by being the only sector (Teaching) to reject the deal will get us anywhere then can I offer you up the ASTI as exhibit A. Their policy was delusional and destructive to their union and members voted accordingly - both in EGM and with their feet.

Like it or not it’s a long campaign but it’s being won. Eventually it will be won and that’s because there are Unions there to fight it.

deiseindublin

Totally disagree. The campaign is over.

I'm beginning to think that the only natural conclusion is that they're all on backhanders or such huge expenses they're happy to just keep nodding.

They haven't represented me for years now.

beveragelady

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It sounds like you're looking for an insurance service, or a legal expert hotline, not a trade union. What makes unions unique is the collective strength of the members.

What are we paying for then, and why are people drawing generous salaries from the TUI?

Those at the top aren't sainted martyrs, sacrificing everything for the little people. They're chasing paycheques like the rest of us. They're just doing very little to earn their pay.

The collective strength argument sounds a bit silly in the light of the most recent ballot.

AndrewJRenko

beveragelady wrote: »

What are we paying for then, and why are people drawing generous salaries from the TUI?

Those at the top aren't sainted martyrs, sacrificing everything for the little people. They're chasing paycheques like the rest of us. They're just doing very little to earn their pay.

The collective strength argument sounds a bit silly in the light of the most recent ballot.

It was a democratic decision, wasn't it? I don't like it any more than you do, but that's democracy.


And are the salaries really ALL that generous?

2011abc

Depends whether you think 140/160k ish is 'generous' ...

deiseindublin

I'd expect somebody to be able to make a decision and stand over it if they are being paid €140k.

AndrewJRenko

2011abc wrote: »

Depends whether you think 140/160k ish is 'generous' ...

So is that 'salaries' or 'salary'?


How many people are earning that kind of salary?

r93kaey5p2izun

It's my understanding that those on the executive committee who made the decision not to make a recommendation still work as teachers or lecturers (not sure of president and vice president). I'm sure they receive some sort of payment or expenses but nothing like that. Those in the big salaried positions such as General Secretary or Assistant General Secretary do not have a vote on these decisions. Their role is advisory.

beveragelady

Has anybody else noticed how hard it is to find out exactly how much our beloved leaders are paid?

https://www.thesun.ie/news/320692/big-salaries-of-trade-union-bosses-dwarf-earnings-of-members-irish-sun-investigation-reveals/
"Total salaries and wages came to €1,781,705 in 2015 or an average of €63,632 for each of the 28 employees — which equates to €3,000 more than what is earned by a teacher at the highest pay grade."

All that AND nearly €5000 on gardening? How?

Unless I'm misinformed, they don't even have to cough up their union dues once they join the gravy train.

Teachers who are struggling to put enough petrol in their cars to last until payday are helping to fund this, like gormless eejits.

r93kaey5p2izun

I agree the salaries seem too high and not transparent enough. But only the president and vp from the executive committee count as part of that 28 staff members. The other 26 staff members had no vote on this. Most of them are admin staff. The list of them is on the website. Exec members are not salaried employees.

AndrewJRenko

beveragelady wrote: »

Has anybody else noticed how hard it is to find out exactly how much our beloved leaders are paid?

https://www.thesun.ie/news/320692/big-salaries-of-trade-union-bosses-dwarf-earnings-of-members-irish-sun-investigation-reveals/
"Total salaries and wages came to €1,781,705 in 2015 or an average of €63,632 for each of the 28 employees — which equates to €3,000 more than what is earned by a teacher at the highest pay grade."

All that AND nearly €5000 on gardening? How?

Unless I'm misinformed, they don't even have to cough up their union dues once they join the gravy train.

Teachers who are struggling to put enough petrol in their cars to last until payday are helping to fund this, like gormless eejits.

Have you tried putting down a motion through your local branch for debate at the national conference?