ASTI members vote for industrial action over Covid issues

Dav010

SouthWesterly wrote: »

Public sector also had pay reductions. If its so great, apply for one of the many jobs on offer.

Yes indeed, and boy did we hear about it. The pay increase that was due this month wasn’t a “pay rise”, it was “pay restoration”. Of course in every other sector which took a hit on pay during the recession, a pay rise is a pay rise.

There you go again with the stock answer “if it’s so good, join us”, can you just accept, not everyone wants to be a public servant, but many would not do so much bleating if they had the benefits PS are entitled to.

Donald Trump

Bobtheman wrote: »

The members voted for strike. So are the members extreme? Is equal pay for equal work exteme?

There is not equal pay for equal work though. Teachers appear happy about that when the ones pulling the strings are the ones getting the higher amounts. See my previous post about increments. Same scenrio as when the ones holding the reins in 2010 learned that they could remain relatively shielded if the burden was heaped upon new entrants


They should figure out what the average pay is per hour and just give that to everyone who teaches - no? Maybe have one or two years at the start where they are serving an apprenticeship or training program. But after that - pay them all the same rate for equal work. Whether they have been teaching for 5 years or 25. If they take on other roles or responsibilities such as principal or whatever then that is different

Benicetomonty

Dav010 wrote: »

Are you claiming that the majority of teachers, who did not vote in this ballot, were doing so out of support of the issues being voted on? That is an interesting viewpoint.

Not claiming any such thing. I cant read the minds of ASTI members, whether they voted or not.

Doctor Jimbob

Dav010 wrote: »

Yes indeed, and boy did we hear about it. The pay increase that was due this month wasn’t a “pay rise”, it was “pay restoration”. Of course in every other sector which took a hit on pay during the recession, a pay rise is a pay rise.

There you go again with the stock answer “if it’s so good, join us”, can you just accept, not everyone wants to be a public servant, but many would not do so much bleating if they had the benefits PS are entitled to.

I think that's kind of the point. If public sector was the wonderful, handy life that it's so often portrayed to be on here, everyone would be lining up to get jobs there.

Donald Trump

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I think that's kind of the point. If public sector was the wonderful, handy life that it's so often portrayed to be on here, everyone would be lining up to get jobs there.

That is not as logically sound as you appear to think it is. It is just a confirmation bias on your own part

Benicetomonty

Dav010 wrote: »

Yes indeed, and boy did we hear about it. The pay increase that was due this month wasn’t a “pay rise”, it was “pay restoration”. Of course in every other sector which took a hit on pay during the recession, a pay rise is a pay rise.

There you go again with the stock answer “if it’s so good, join us”, can you just accept, not everyone wants to be a public servant, but many would not do so much bleating if they had the benefits PS are entitled to.

It would possibly be a better use of your time to pursue the benefits public servants supposedly enjoy for your own sector rather than bemoan them. Ironically, Id wager public servants would support you 100pc in such a pursuit.

Donald Trump

Benicetomonty wrote: »

It would possibly be a better use of your time to pursue the benefits public servants supposedly enjoy for your own sector rather than bemoan them. Ironically, Id wager public servants would support you 100pc in such a pursuit.

Teachers wouldn't even support their future colleagues in that pursuit back in 2010!

Dav010

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I think that's kind of the point. If public sector was the wonderful, handy life that it's so often portrayed to be on here, everyone would be lining up to get jobs there.

I don’t think so DJ, it is again a lack of awareness to assume that everyone who wants a job in the PS would meet the criteria to get employment, could go back to education to gain qualifications or would like the actual work. I will concede that saying PS should join the private sector is equally banal, but, at this time when a huge percentage of the workforce is having to suffer wage cuts, hours cut, lay offs, going to work inside with colleagues, the attitude of the ASTI is stomach churning.

Let them strike..... See how long they can manage on their industrial action payment.... Government should just wait it out.

Dav010

Benicetomonty wrote: »

It would possibly be a better use of your time to pursue the benefits public servants supposedly enjoy for your own sector rather than bemoan them. Ironically, Id wager public servants would support you 100pc in such a pursuit.

Pithy. Few private sector employers could afford the benefits you receive.

Bananaleaf

Donald Trump wrote: »

"https://www.irishtimes.com/news/18-politicians-get-part-of-teachers-pay-1.51045"]it [/URL]

Pretty sure that in a lot of those cases the pension entitlements stayed with the TDs too. This is the kind of thing teachers are upset about when they refer to pay issues.

Benicetomonty

Donald Trump wrote: »

Teachers wouldn't even support their future colleagues in that pursuit back in 2010!

That ol chestnut.

Decision to cut new entrants pay was introduced unilaterally by the govt at bequest of the Troika and after unions had accepted the Croke Park agreement, binding them to industrial peace.
ASTI members have since taken industrial action to try to equalise pay and have endured increment freezes via FEMPI as a result. There was and remains no lack of support.
And of course, every time they try to right the wrong committed and maintained exclusively by the government, folks like your good self are the first to complain.

History Queen

Donald Trump wrote: »

Teachers always bring this up "why don't you become a teacher" as a "gotcha" when it is actually a non-sequitur.


A person can have an opinion that teachers have it easy, or are well paid (or even overpaid) for what they do, without needing to want to become one.


For example, if you hire a babysitter on Friday night for 4 hours and the 18 year old babysitter charges you 100 quid (that's 25 quid an hour....just in case you were wondering) then you are entitled to have the opinion that the babysitter is getting overpaid or that it is a cushy number. You don't have to quit your own job to become a babysitter in order to have that opinion.


In a normal job you might have increments or annual raises. But with each increment or raise would come an expectation of more responsibility or tasks. A teacher with 20 years employment gets paid more than one with 10 years employment for doing the exact same job.



It doesn't happen anywhere else. You have a burst pipe and you ring the plumbing company and they send out Paddy and the company sends you a bill for 100 Euro. Then the next week there is an identical leak, you ring them again and they end out Jim and you get a bill for 150 Euro.... you ring the company they say "yeah...well we know they did the exact same work...it's just that Paddy has been doing the same thing every day for 10 years and Jim has been doing the same thing every day for 20".





Sure didn't it used to be used to be the case that if a teacher got elected as a TD, and a sub was hired to do their work for a few years, that the TD-teacher kept the difference between their salary and the subs salary? Is that correct or is it an urban myth? Actually I googled it

Your example isn't the issue re pay equality. The issue re pay equality is that a teacher pre2011 with 5 years teaching experience will be paid more than a post 2011 teacher with 5 years experience. The amount of experience is the same. The pay is unequal.

Treppen

Dav010 wrote: »

So their children can be educated and they, the parents, can go to work and earn presumably.



I suspect few people think teaching is a “doodle”, but fewer again think you are more at risk when compared with others who have to work inside at the moment. If the “water” is job security, pay security, sick pay, holiday etc, I agree with you, the water is indeed warm.

Btw I was joking about the jobs, have a look at the link I posted, majority of those "wonderful" contracts are a few months subbing.

Bananaleaf

Augeo wrote: »

Let them strike..... See how long they can manage on their industrial action payment.... Government should just wait it out.

Granted I've only been part of strike action when it has been two days max, but I've never been paid for industrial action

Bass Reeves

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I think that's kind of the point. If public sector was the wonderful, handy life that it's so often portrayed to be on here, everyone would be lining up to get jobs there.

And people do que up in there 1000's for these jobs. The public service in general has no problem recruiting. However. If I a qualified plumber, electrician or engineers there are limited opportunities to be employed in the PS. Look at nursing and primary teaching college courses they are all courses where the points requirement are over 400 and up near 500. You get students willing to spend 5+ years in college to qualify as a secondary teacher and dedicated secondary teaching courses like Home Economic or building Construction or engineering again have high points requirement.

History Queen

Donald Trump wrote: »

Teachers wouldn't even support their future colleagues in that pursuit back in 2010!

Yet again displaying your ignorance of the situation

Benicetomonty

Dav010 wrote: »

Pithy. Few private sector employers could afford the benefits you receive.

Agree 100pc. And thats something that needs to change. How complaining about teacher's conditions will bring this about though is sadly beyond me.

History Queen

Bananaleaf wrote: »

Granted I've only been part of strike action when it has been two days max, but I've never been paid for industrial action

Shocking how many people think strikes are paid. Every day on strike is unpaid (as it should be).

Dav010

Benicetomonty wrote: »

Agree 100pc. And thats something that needs to change. How complaining about teacher's conditions will bring this about though is sadly beyond me.

You see, there you go again.

I’m not complaining about teachers conditions, I leave that to the teachers. You guys are complaining about conditions and threatening to go on strike, when your conditions are the envy of many.

Bananaleaf

Dav010 wrote: »

You see, there you go again.

I’m not complaining about teachers conditions, I leave that to the teachers. You guys are complaining about conditions and threatening to go on strike, when your conditions are the envy of many.

I'll be honest, I love my teaching job. I didn't always but I do now.

I understand the differences of opinion between teachers and non teachers about how hard a job it is. Teaching is basically as hard a job as you make it. We have the choice to do it well or do it sh1t and we still get the same money for it. People in the private sector can't handle this because they don't have that option. If they don't perform, they're out on their ear. And that is fair enough, I understand that. I've said it before, good teachers also can't stand those poor teachers. After all, who do you think ends up picking up their slack? The relationship between teachers and non teachers often feels to me a little like the taxpayer versus the doleite.

The pointless thing about threads like these is that the vast majority of teachers who even bother to post on these threads are the ones who actually do a days work and care about their jobs. The ones who couldn't give a rats ass wouldn't discuss education with you during term time, never mind during the holidays.

The holidays are great in this job - you're never more than 13 weeks away from time off. But, in fairness, just because you envy our holidays, does that mean we are not allowed to have an issue with, say for example, unsafe working conditions? Again, it's a bit like the 'what are those factory workers doing complaining about cramped conditions for, sure aren't they lucky to be here and be given a job?' argument that some (not saying you) like to come out with

History Queen

History Queen wrote: »

Shocking how many people think strikes are paid. Every day on strike is unpaid (as it should be).

I always thought the unions paid out a daily amount for those members that are striking?

Bananaleaf

Bananaleaf wrote: »

Granted I've only been part of strike action when it has been two days max, but I've never been paid for industrial action

Really? Union membership payment usually comprises for a little bit of cash to get you through potential strikes. It's nothing like a wage of course.

History Queen

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

I always thought the unions paid out a daily amount for those members that are striking?

No. There is a hardship fund (can't remember proper name for it) alright but that's only in the case of protracted strikes which I haven't seen so far in my career. Strike days are unpaid.

Strawberry Milkshake

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

I always thought the unions paid out a daily amount for those members that are striking?

A day on strike iirc results in a loss of pay of is 1/7th of the weekly salary ............ as teachers don't work 7 days a week they are effectively paid to an extent when on strike.

ASTI/TUI strike docs do refer to strike pay.

Bananaleaf

Augeo wrote: »

Really? Union membership payment usually comprises for a little bit of cash to get you through potential strikes. It's nothing like a wage of course.

Yeah I know, I've asked that question before but no, we don't get paid. I think if we are out for a long time it will eventually kick in, but nobody can afford that and I think it might be something mad like 12 days before you get anything.

Funny though ... if you are not part of the union and don't pay their fees, you can 'call in sick' on the day of a strike and be paid.

History Queen

Augeo wrote: »

A day on strike iirc results in a loss of pay of is 1/7th of the weekly salary ............ as teachers don't work 7 days a week they are effectively paid to an extent when on strike.

ASTI/TUI strike docs do refer to strike pay.

No we are not effectively paid while on strike. We aren't paid for strike days. Our wages are calculated over 7 days. Our sick leave is also taken this way. Ie if i miss work Friday and am sick all weekend and still out Monday i lose 4 days sick leave even though I would only have worked two of those days.
Teachers pay is just calculated that way, it's something got to do with public sector calculations of wages but I can't remember the details. It was explained to me years ago.

s1ippy

Donald Trump wrote: »

Teachers always bring this up "why don't you become a teacher" as a "gotcha" when it is actually a non-sequitur.


A person can have an opinion that teachers have it easy, or are well paid (or even overpaid) for what they do, without needing to want to become one.


For example, if you hire a babysitter on Friday night for 4 hours and the 18 year old babysitter charges you 100 quid (that's 25 quid an hour....just in case you were wondering) then you are entitled to have the opinion that the babysitter is getting overpaid or that it is a cushy number. You don't have to quit your own job to become a babysitter in order to have that opinion.


In a normal job you might have increments or annual raises. But with each increment or raise would come an expectation of more responsibility or tasks. A teacher with 20 years employment gets paid more than one with 10 years employment for doing the exact same job.



It doesn't happen anywhere else. You have a burst pipe and you ring the plumbing company and they send out Paddy and the company sends you a bill for 100 Euro. Then the next week there is an identical leak, you ring them again and they end out Jim and you get a bill for 150 Euro.... you ring the company they say "yeah...well we know they did the exact same work...it's just that Paddy has been doing the same thing every day for 10 years and Jim has been doing the same thing every day for 20".





Sure didn't it used to be used to be the case that if a teacher got elected as a TD, and a sub was hired to do their work for a few years, that the TD-teacher kept the difference between their salary and the subs salary? Is that correct or is it an urban myth? Actually I googled it

What a terrible analogy.

The first plumber wouldn't have the reputation so he'd have less business than the second and wouldn't be able to charge the same rates. Ideally in that line of work you'd try and be managing apprentices by that stage so you have less work to do yourself. Clearly you know as little about the private sector as you do about the public one, do you actually work yourself by any chance?

In teaching, the reward for experience is payment. However, the job is tiring and most teachers are burned out by the time they reach the higher pay grade. I was teaching in schools for students with behavioural difficulties for three years when I realised that it's actually not worth it and I'm qualified to do things that are much easier and pay better.

Teachers can strike like this because they know their job is, in many ways, the least desirable actual work there is. People hate children. Look at all the people screaming here, I'm actually pmsl at everyone who just can't tolerate workers with a good union standing up for their rights.

The level of vitriol is hilarious! Not only do these people likely hate their children and jobs, I suspect they actually hate their lives as well, to think that these workers are better off than them. I'm delighted with the ASTI decision and hope that the other unions follow suit to protect their members and show solidarity. John Boyle is all talk and no guts, he should be removed from his position at this point.

Bananaleaf

Augeo wrote: »

A day on strike iirc results in a loss of pay of is 1/7th of the weekly salary ............ as teachers don't work 7 days a week they are effectively paid to an extent when on strike.

ASTI/TUI strike docs do refer to strike pay.

We are not paid for strike days. I will check my payslip for the last time we went on strike and I will tell you how much I lost.

History Queen

History Queen wrote: »

No we are not effectively paid while on strike. We aren't paid for strike days. Our wages are calculated over 7 days. Our sick leave is also taken this way. Ie if i miss work Friday and am sick all weekend and still out Monday i lose 4 days sick leave even though I would only have worked two of those days.
Teachers pay is just calculated that way, it's something got to do with public sector calculations of wages but I can't remember the details. It was explained to me years ago.

So strike for 5 days and 2/7s of weekly wage is still received?
That's almost 30% of salary ...... no wonder the unions don't throw a few euro in.