ASTI members vote for industrial action over Covid issues

Bass Reeves

Bananaleaf wrote: »

So you agree that funding is needed and you have seemingly no issue with some teachers asking for pay equality. Just so long as you don't have to pay for it.

Fair enough, you've every right to feel that way. It won't make the problems go away though - there are no magic fairies for that either.

No I do not agree funding is needed. All services need a continuous funding. If funding to is directed to wages it cannot be directed to services themselves. Government has limited resources. Education is well funded as a percentage of government spending. Wages take a higher percentage of that than other countries. Like I said I do not begrudge teachers there pay but neither do I consider them underpaid

Dav010

lulublue22 wrote: »

It’s not actually my union at all - at this stage I’ve no skin in the game - though pr has always been an issue for teaching unions.

You, plural. Perhaps the PR should have been more of a consideration at this time of crises, if it has always been an issue, you, plural, were forewarned.

Treppen

Ish66 wrote: »

I now understand why Michael O Leary of Ryanair hated unions for so long.

Because pilots are glorified bus drivers right?

Bass Reeves

Treppen wrote: »

Because pilots are glorified bus drivers right?

It was not just pilots but cabin crew and ground handling staff unions. They are not bus drivers either of course

Smacruairi

Bass Reeves wrote: »

No I do not agree funding is needed. All services need a continuous funding. If funding to is directed to wages it cannot be directed to services themselves. Government has limited resources. Education is well funded as a percentage of government spending. Wages take a higher percentage of that than other countries. Like I said I do not begrudge teachers there pay but neither do I consider them underpaid

Check out where Ireland comes in the OECD in terms of funding education....bottom. Lowest.
We invest 1.2% of our GDP into secondary level education, the OECD average is 2%,and EU average is 1.9%.
It's not that resources are limited, its that the govt don't prioritise education the same way other govts do.

Lillyfae

Smacruairi wrote: »

Check out where Ireland comes in the OECD in terms of funding education....bottom. Lowest.
We invest 1.2% of our GDP into secondary level education, the OECD average is 2%,and EU average is 1.9%.
It's not that resources are limited, its that the govt don't prioritise education the same way other govts do.

And amongst the highest paid teachers.

Believing that teachers are paid enough already does not mean that you believe that education receives sufficient funding.

Bass Reeves

Smacruairi wrote: »

Check out where Ireland comes in the OECD in terms of funding education....bottom. Lowest.
We invest 1.2% of our GDP into secondary level education, the OECD average is 2%,and EU average is 1.9%.
It's not that resources are limited, its that the govt don't prioritise education the same way other govts do.

I am not going to go down the road of comparing anything in Ireland by GDP. Our GDP is swollen by MNC and the way Cooperation tax is charged at. No point in going there. Ireland GNP is only 60-65%if our GDP. So when you put up a figure like that add 50% to it at least

Smacruairi

Lillyfae wrote: »

And amongst the highest paid teachers.

Believing that teachers are paid enough already does not mean that you believe that education receives sufficient funding.

Well the poster I replied to said there a adequate funding and it didn't need more. But I'm more than happy for more funding to go towards reducing class sizes, better support of at risk students and individual supports.

Most of the ballot is not about pay, it's about conditions in schools,but you know that, lilyfae. I just gave you a stat stating that we are drastically underfunded, but you turn it into the teachers fault... Again. Would you not agree Irish wages in general are high?

Smacruairi

Bass Reeves wrote: »

I am not going to go down the road of comparing anything in Ireland by GDP. Our GDP is swollen by MNC and the way Cooperation tax is charged at. No point in going there. Ireland GNP is only 60-65%if our GDP. So when you put up a figure like that add 50% to it at least

So handwave away because it doesn't suit. But to use your made up 50%model, that would bring us to 1.65%,when the average is 1.9%,that's still a huge discrepancy don't you agree.

If you're unhappy with the metric used I would get on to the OECD but to be fair, I'll trust them over randomer Internet commentator, thanks.

Lillyfae

Smacruairi wrote: »

Well the poster I replied to said there a adequate funding and it didn't need more. But I'm more than happy for more funding to go towards reducing class sizes, better support of at risk students and individual supports.

It was in direct response to a question about if teachers deserve to be paid more.

Smacruairi wrote: »

Most of the ballot is not about pay, it's about conditions in schools,but you know that, lilyfae. I just gave you a stat stating that we are drastically underfunded, but you turn it into the teachers fault... Again. Would you not agree Irish wages in general are high?

They should have left it out then. They should leave it out altogether, it's not warranted in any case. The pay is adequate for the job. The whole sector needs a good restructuring but that's not for this thread. Any higher salary will come out of the education budget, so in effect, teachers would be contributing to further underfunding of education.

Geuze

Smacruairi wrote: »

Check out where Ireland comes in the OECD in terms of funding education....bottom. Lowest.
We invest 1.2% of our GDP into secondary level education, the OECD average is 2%,and EU average is 1.9%.
It's not that resources are limited, its that the govt don't prioritise education the same way other govts do.

GDP is not a useful denominator in the case of Ireland.

Teachers in Ireland are paid okay, 34k approx to 70k.

We have way too many small schools.

Geuze

Smacruairi wrote: »

Check out where Ireland comes in the OECD in terms of funding education....bottom. Lowest.
We invest 1.2% of our GDP into secondary level education, the OECD average is 2%,and EU average is 1.9%.
It's not that resources are limited, its that the govt don't prioritise education the same way other govts do.

I advise against using GDP as the denominator.

Here is an alternative:

Geuze

Smacruairi wrote: »

If you're unhappy with the metric used I would get on to the OECD but to be fair, I'll trust them over randomer Internet commentator, thanks.

It is well known that our GDP is massively distorted by MNC activities, especially since 2015, so alternative measures of national income may be more useful, especially when using ratios.

https://www.oecd.org/education/policy-outlook/country-profile-Ireland-2020.pdf

Look at Fig 8 in this OECD analysis, and see that our exp per student in primary and secondary is very close to the OECD average.

Bananaleaf

Bass Reeves wrote: »

No I do not agree funding is needed. All services need a continuous funding. If funding to is directed to wages it cannot be directed to services themselves. Government has limited resources. Education is well funded as a percentage of government spending. Wages take a higher percentage of that than other countries. Like I said I do not begrudge teachers there pay but neither do I consider them underpaid

Apologies, I assumed you did agree that extra funding is needed. Well funded and sufficiently funded are two different things. NO parts of the public sector are sufficiently funded, because, as you correctly point out, there isn't a never-ending font of funds.

I would have thought that everyone knows that funding and wages are not the same thing though.

The point I was making was that in life you can find many examples of people wanting change, but being unwilling to pay for it. Off the top of my head the best example of that I can think of is the water charges - everyone wanted a decent water supply with no disruption to service, but nobody wanted to pay for it.

Since you don't believe that there is any funding needed in schools, fair enough. But there are some who do, but resent it being asked for because it's 'their' tax money.

It's actually the taxman's money btw

Edited to add that I'm posting this on my break before anyone starts. Only back 3hrs and on a break already :pac:

Bananaleaf

Lillyfae wrote: »

It was in direct response to a question about if teachers deserve to be paid .

I think that was my question. Just want to be clear, I didn't ask if teachers deserve to be paid more, I asked if the poster would have a problem with them being paid more if it wasn't coming from their pocket. But yes, I phrased it in a way to try and figure out where the poster stood on the matter:


Did they genuinely believe that more money not needed?
Or was it more a case of where the money was coming from?

Lillyfae

Bananaleaf wrote: »

I think that was my question. Just want to be clear, I didn't ask if teachers deserve to be paid more, I asked if the poster would have a problem with them being paid more if it wasn't coming from their pocket. But yes, I phrased it in a way to try and figure out where the poster stood on the matter:

Sorry for my poor paraphrasing yes, that was the context of it.

Bananaleaf wrote: »

Did they genuinely believe that more money for salaries not needed?
Or was it more a case of where the money for salaries was coming from?

I bolded this because it's an important part of the original question. Leaving it out makes it look like people don't agree with adequately funding education, which no-one here has said. It doesn't matter where the money would come from, it's just not necessary to pay teachers more at this point of time. Resources (other than teaching staff) in education are much higher priority than paying teachers more, when the salary is already perfectly fair for the work. Increasing the salary would be to the detriment of the other resources.

History Queen

Lillyfae wrote: »

Sorry for my poor paraphrasing yes, that was the context of it.




It doesn't matter where the money would come from, it's just not necessary to pay teachers more at this point of time. Resources (other than teaching staff) in education are much higher priority than paying teachers more, when the salary is already perfectly fair for the work.

Which salary is fair the pre or post 2011 one? Or are both fair in your view?

Lillyfae

History Queen wrote: »

Which salary is fair the pre or post 2011 one? Or are both fair in your view?

Post.

Sorry, but we all work in places where the older generations have better pay and conditions. It sucks that the Boomers shafted us all, but they did. At some point, all of the pre 2011 teachers will retire and everyone will have equal pay then.

History Queen

Lillyfae wrote: »

Post.

Sorry, but we all work in places where the older generations have better pay and conditions. It sucks that the Boomers shafted us all, but they did. At some point, all of the pre 2011 teachers will retire and everyone will have equal pay then.

Fair enough if that's your viewpoint. I disagree.

wirelessdude01

Lillyfae wrote: »

Post.

Sorry, but we all work in places where the older generations have better pay and conditions. It sucks that the Boomers shafted us all, but they did. At some point, all of the pre 2011 teachers will retire and everyone will have equal pay then.

Didn't you say you have family and/or friends in Ireland that are teachers?

How do they feel about your standing on this issue?

Lillyfae

wirelessdude01 wrote: »

Didn't you say you have family and/or friends in Ireland that are teachers?

How do they feel about your standing on this issue?

I don't know how they feel. The ones I know are primary teachers and thus weren't balloted, so it hasn't come up "organically" to this point. Why would that matter? Do you think they would disown me for not backing them up even if I don't agree that they should be paid more than they are currently earning in an underfunded education system?

wirelessdude01

Lillyfae wrote: »

I don't know how they feel. The ones I know are primary teachers and thus weren't balloted, so it hasn't come up "organically" to this point. Why would that matter? Do you think they would disown me for not backing them up even if I don't agree that they should be paid more than they are currently earning in an underfunded education system?

The number of primary teachers caught in the 2011-2014 cohort is far higher than secondary.

Lillyfae

wirelessdude01 wrote: »

The number of primary teachers caught in the 2011-2014 cohort is far higher than secondary.

So what? They haven't been balloted on pay. I still don't think further funding should be going to salaries until every single major or minor shortcoming in any other resource area in education is addressed. And even then probably not. The pay is perfectly adequate for the job.

Bass Reeves

History Queen wrote: »

Which salary is fair the pre or post 2011 one? Or are both fair in your view?

During the noughties we had two rounds of benchmarking across the PS. Teachers benefited more than most other workers. Fir instance nurses did not benefit much from BM. They had however a special pay increase prior to that.

Right across the PS pay rates during the noughties soared to where after the economic crash they were unsustainable from an economic viewpoint. If anything statistics show us we have no problem getting numbers to train to be teachers, to recruit public servants and Gardai. The only area we struggle to retain numbers is in nursing. Mainly our young nurses pay rate is too low. However on the counter argument there is the qualification it easiest to trav l with.

So was the pre 2011 rate fair, no it was not and public service unions knew that and came up with the two tier system to protect those in the service already

History Queen

Bass Reeves wrote: »

During the noughties we had two rounds of benchmarking across the PS. Teachers benefited more than most other workers. Fir instance nurses did not benefit much from BM. They had however a special pay increase prior to that.

Right across the PS pay rates during the noughties soared to where after the economic crash they were unsustainable from an economic viewpoint. If anything statistics show us we have no problem getting numbers to train to be teachers, to recruit public servants and Gardai. The only area we struggle to retain numbers is in nursing. Mainly our young nurses pay rate is too low. However on the counter argument there is the qualification it easiest to trav l with.

So was the pre 2011 rate fair, no it was not and public service unions knew that and came up with the two tier system to protect those in the service already

There is a teacher shortage at the moment so I'm not sure where that leaves your argument....

Unions didn't come up with the two tier scale. Your knowledge of the topic is clearly limited

wirelessdude01

Bass Reeves wrote: »

During the noughties we had two rounds of benchmarking across the PS. Teachers benefited more than most other workers. Fir instance nurses did not benefit much from BM. They had however a special pay increase prior to that.

Right across the PS pay rates during the noughties soared to where after the economic crash they were unsustainable from an economic viewpoint. If anything statistics show us we have no problem getting numbers to train to be teachers, to recruit public servants and Gardai. The only area we struggle to retain numbers is in nursing. Mainly our young nurses pay rate is too low. However on the counter argument there is the qualification it easiest to trav l with.

So was the pre 2011 rate fair, no it was not and public service unions knew that and came up with the two tier system to protect those in the service already

Great to read some fiction of a Monday afternoon.

Agreed there is no issue getting people to train as teachers or nurses. Issue is retention of those in Ireland when there are contracts available abroad with far better prospects and terms and conditions.

Joe McHughs failed attempts to get teachers to come home from the middle East is evidence that what they were offering isn't enough.

Lillyfae

wirelessdude01 wrote: »

Joe McHughs failed attempts to get teachers to come home from the middle East is evidence that what they were offering isn't enough.

You think that teachers need to be on a level of Middle East, private school type teaching salary??

wirelessdude01

Lillyfae wrote: »

You think that teachers need to be on a level of Middle East, private school type teaching salary??

Did I say that?

Lillyfae

wirelessdude01 wrote: »

Did I say that?

There's no need to be so confrontational.

wirelessdude01 wrote: »

Joe McHughs failed attempts to get teachers to come home from the middle East is evidence that what they were offering isn't enough.

If someone wants to earn multiples of the "normal" Irish teacher's salary in the Middle East, what would be "enough"? Would they be getting paid more than the post 2011 rate? Or would you have to pay everyone the same in order to gain "equalisation" because they all have the same qualifications, right?

wirelessdude01

Lillyfae wrote: »

There's no need to be so confrontational.

What did I say that is so confrontational?

Facts my dear.