Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Would you abide by a Union suggestion to not vote FG/Lab in General Election?
Options
Comments
-
But yes none of the recent NQT's in our school are in the union and had a great chuckle about the paid day off they were getting the last strike day.
The above bit is interesting but not representative,I hope,of NQT's in general. So,is the capitulation on HR what is considered older teachers selling out on the younger ones? Well if so that is a total load of bollix and shame on any young teacher who buys into it. In my circle of older teachers,everyone held out and voted no all the way. Anyone we knew giving in were all young.
So just who betrayed who??0 -
Maybe everybody just looked out for themselves (as there was so much in the pot).. and those not in the union got underrepresented!
Wasn't there also the 'CID after 2 years' sweetener thrown in (or was that a different vote)?0 -
Significant amount of young teachers not in the union in our place either. they'll happily moan about how they were sold down the river but haven't even read the Haddington road agreement or the junior cycle proposals?! It drives me nuts. I cannot understand people who don't get involved in things that are really important to their working lives0
-
We (the older teachers) did sell the newer ones down the river. It's an uncomfortable truth but it's not helped by making excuses for it. The unions protected their current members, not their future members and their (then) current members allowed it to happen. We should have been on strike to prevent it. It probably wouldn't have worked but it didn't happen anyway and I don't remember anyone calling for it at the time because at the end of the day, we all knew we would be standing up for people who weren't even teachers yet so there was no appetite to do it when we were all protected. It was selfish of us and it's offensive to claim that it was anything else.
On FG/Labour, come on, we all saw this coming. It's easy to point out why FF were awful (again, we weren't complaining until the bubble burst but that's FF's fault too I suppose) but I don't remember a FF minister for education, poor as they were, saying "I don't care if we get the teachers to support this or not, it's going ahead anywa." (Not a direct quote but that's pretty much what Jan said.) I don't remember FF lying to us, telling us that they weren't cutting our pay and then cutting it anyway, while still telling us they weren't cutting our pay.
Labour are no better. They got gay marriage in. That'll be their legacy. They never cared about genuine socialist values.
We're all to blame for this but that's natural. Most people will always look out for themselves. Let's just hope we've learned from it this time (but we haven't).0 -
We should have gone on strike on behalf of other people, who would be our colleagues in the future?? Hmm, that's not how strikes work.We (the older teachers) did sell the newer ones down the river. It's an uncomfortable truth but it's not helped by making excuses for it. The unions protected their current members, not their future members and their (then) current members allowed it to happen. We should have been on strike to prevent it. It probably wouldn't have worked but it didn't happen anyway and I don't remember anyone calling for it at the time because at the end of the day, we all knew we would be standing up for people who weren't even teachers yet so there was no appetite to do it when we were all protected. It was selfish of us and it's offensive to claim that it was anything else.
On FG/Labour, come on, we all saw this coming. It's easy to point out why FF were awful (again, we weren't complaining until the bubble burst but that's FF's fault too I suppose) but I don't remember a FF minister for education, poor as they were, saying "I don't care if we get the teachers to support this or not, it's going ahead anywa." (Not a direct quote but that's pretty much what Jan said.) I don't remember FF lying to us, telling us that they weren't cutting our pay and then cutting it anyway, while still telling us they weren't cutting our pay.
Labour are no better. They got gay marriage in. That'll be their legacy. They never cared about genuine socialist values.
We're all to blame for this but that's natural. Most people will always look out for themselves. Let's just hope we've learned from it this time (but we haven't).0 -
Advertisement
-
Down the years the teaching unions have always backed seniority and older teachers benefits to the detriment of younger teachers eg. posts since 1968, early retirement, pensions, etc. In this country it is as if the younger ones cannot be trusted to do anything until they are into their forties (that is the case in almost all of the public sector).
Their second mantra has been to resist change irrespective of the benefits of such change. For much of my teaching career I have seen teachers grow old and crochety and increasingly unable to deal with the real issues in front of them (the kids). These types have rarely bothered to upskill themselves...... they are often among the few found at union meetings.
Unfortunately that culture grew out of clerical mismanagement of schools, where lay teachers were initially seen as being there on sufferance, because of a shortage of clergy (male and female). Old enough to remember the horror stories of seventies and eighties treatment of teacher sin many religious run schools. VECs had other issues but were not nearly as bad in this regard.0 -
Down the years the teaching unions have always backed seniority and older teachers benefits to the detriment of younger teachers eg. posts since 1968, early retirement, pensions, etc. In this country it is as if the younger ones cannot be trusted to do anything until they are into their forties (that is the case in almost all of the public sector).
Their second mantra has been to resist change irrespective of the benefits of such change. For much of my teaching career I have seen teachers grow old and crochety and increasingly unable to deal with the real issues in front of them (the kids). These types have rarely bothered to upskill themselves...... they are often among the few found at union meetings.
Unfortunately that culture grew out of clerical mismanagement of schools, where lay teachers were initially seen as being there on sufferance, because of a shortage of clergy (male and female). Old enough to remember the horror stories of seventies and eighties treatment of teacher sin many religious run schools. VECs had other issues but were not nearly as bad in this regard.
The younger teachers are more than welcome to join the unions and let their voice be heard.0 -
I joined the union in the seventies. I went to the first branch meeting a week later that was dominated by three teachers scoring points off each other. Very like a poor mans L&H. Thirty years later they remained branch representatives and CEC members and continuing with same old tired rhetoric. Why I continued to pay my sub over those years remains a mystery to me, because my views were rarely listened to nor was my voice heard. If you are not part of a small union herd and speaking the language of trade unionism (rabid is better) then you would not have had a hearing in asti, whatever about other unions.0
-
I joined the union in the seventies. I went to the first branch meeting a week later that was dominated by three teachers scoring points off each other. Very like a poor mans L&H. Thirty years later they remained branch representatives and CEC members and continuing with same old tired rhetoric. Why I continued to pay my sub over those years remains a mystery to me, because my views were rarely listened to nor was my voice heard. If you are not part of a small union herd and speaking the language of trade unionism (rabid is better) then you would not have had a hearing in asti, whatever about other unions.
When I was a young, subbing teacher in the eighties I wasn't allowed join the union, as you had to be full time. I queued at the dole office every holiday, because there were no contracts other than full time.
Teachers coming out now have far more job security as part timers as I did, and they can join the union and fight for their rights. The people who fought for the rights of part-timers are primarily people in permanent jobs who saw the need to include their less fortunate colleagues in the process.
It's up to those colleagues now to use that vehicle to try to make things even better for themselves. There's only so much permanent teachers can do for them, while still trying to look after their own terms and conditions and to put a halt to the attempted destruction of the Irish education system.
I'm not sure what you mean by "the language of trade unionism". Trade unions exist to protect workers, and are run by those workers. The language is the language of the workers concerned.0 -
We (the older teachers) did sell the newer ones down the river.
I completely and totally disagree with this. Both the way it's put,"sold down the river" and the sentiment behind it. You would think older teachers got some kind of benefit from the shafting of younger teachers.They most certainly did not. And this notion that they should have staged a strike over it is complete utopia. Nobody stages a strike in solidarity with anybody any more. In any age group or in any sector. It's a sad fact of life but it is how it is. Claiming or intimating that older teachers are somehow responsible for the fate of younger teachers is like saying that people with jobs are somehow responsible for those without. It's nonsense.
And young teachers resenting their older collegues is extremely churlish. I've been that young teacher too,subbing in schools resenting the older permanent ones, some of whom had really bad reputations as teachers. I'd have had the job out from under some of them if I could. I cringe now looking back. What an upstart I was!
The fact is that this is supposed to be a job you stay in for life. So there will always be the older teachers. And while they might be permanent and a bit financially better off because they're further up the scale the deterioration in conditions is just as hard for them. As for the unions looking after the older ones, I'd take that with a pinch of salt.
So, let's stop this older and younger nonsense once and for all. We are all teachers, we have all been badly treated these past years and we're all in the profession together. And we have a hell of a lot better chance at fighting back if we stick together!0 -
Advertisement
-
We should have gone on strike on behalf of other people, who would be our colleagues in the future?? Hmm, that's not how strikes work.
A Trade Union is not just about the members, it's about the Trade. The clue is in the name. The Government must think it's great that they have managed to get a Trade Union to agree to allow them to treat it's own members differently and cause a division in the teaching profession.0 -
I completely and totally disagree with this. Both the way it's put,"sold down the river" and the sentiment behind it. You would think older teachers got some kind of benefit from the shafting of younger teachers.They most certainly did not. And this notion that they should have staged a strike over it is complete utopia. Nobody stages a strike in solidarity with anybody any more. In any age group or in any sector. It's a sad fact of life but it is how it is. Claiming or intimating that older teachers are somehow responsible for the fate of younger teachers is like saying that people with jobs are somehow responsible for those without. It's nonsense.
And young teachers resenting their older collegues is extremely churlish. I've been that young teacher too,subbing in schools resenting the older permanent ones, some of whom had really bad reputations as teachers. I'd have had the job out from under some of them if I could. I cringe now looking back. What an upstart I was!
The fact is that this is supposed to be a job you stay in for life. So there will always be the older teachers. And while they might be permanent and a bit financially better off because they're further up the scale the deterioration in conditions is just as hard for them.[/SIZE] As for the unions looking after the older ones, I'd take that with a pinch of salt.
So, let's stop this older and younger nonsense once and for all. We are all teachers, we have all been badly treated these past years and we're all in the profession together. And we have a hell of a lot better chance at fighting back if we stick together!
I think you should check the facts. the deterioration in conditions is no where near as hard for pre 2011 teachers. Just check the pay scales and the allowances out on any of the Union websites.0 -
It's about the members of the "trade". The members, naturally, look after their own interest, and in the case of the CP negotiations, the teaching profession was faced with very serious threats to jobs and conditions. Do you seriously expect members of a trade union to willingly agree to a serious deterioration of their working conditions, and not to try to lessen the impact?A Trade Union is not just about the members, it's about the Trade. The clue is in the name. The Government must think it's great that they have managed to get a Trade Union to agree to allow them to treat it's own members differently and cause a division in the teaching profession.
The differentiation in pay was not part of the Croke Park negotiations. It was imposed on the teaching profession by the government of the day. It was not connected to the teaching unions attempts to stop the attack on their working conditions.0 -
It's about the members of the "trade". The members, naturally, look after their own interest, and in the case of the CP negotiations, the teaching profession was faced with very serious threats to jobs and conditions. Do you seriously expect members of a trade union to willingly agree to a serious deterioration of their working conditions, and not to try to lessen the impact?
The differentiation in pay was not part of the Croke Park negotiations. It was imposed on the teaching profession by the government of the day. It was not connected to the teaching unions attempts to stop the attack on their working conditions.
Whatever makes you sleep well at night. We'll have to agree to disagree because I would not naturally just look after my own interest as I don't think that's what being part of a Union is all about. But maybe I've just taken too many bangs to the head.0 -
I think you should check the facts. the deterioration in conditions is no where near as hard for pre 2011 teachers. Just check the pay scales and the allowances out on any of the Union websites.
Excuse me but it is still very hard,perhaps in some cases just as hard! Not only financially but because:
An older teacher has less energy.
An older teacher has less motivation.
Some older teachers may have health issues.
It's way harder for an older teacher to get another job.
It's way harder for an older teacher to emigrate.
An older teacher generally has heavier financial commitments.
Many older teachers are trying to put their kids through college.
This antagonism towards older teachers is dreadful. It's like the antagonism from private sector towards public at the height of the recession. Is it an Irish thing this need to blame someone? Well go and blame the union leaders who allowed it to happen!0 -
Excuse me but it is still very hard,perhaps in some cases just as hard! Not only financially but because:
An older teacher has less energy.
An older teacher has less motivation.
Some older teachers may have health issues.
It's way harder for an older teacher to get another job.
It's way harder for an older teacher to emigrate.
An older teacher generally has heavier financial commitments.
Many older teachers are trying to put their kids through college.
This antagonism towards older teachers is dreadful. It's like the antagonism from private sector towards public at the height of the recession. Is it an Irish thing this need to blame someone? Well go and blame the union leaders who allowed it to happen!
I'm pretty sure I have not mentioned age once. I have no issues with anyones age. I also have never said anything about blaming pre 2011 teachers. I have just constantly pointed out the situation that post 2011 teachers find themselves in. I want the Unions to start fighting for all teachers and I would expect all teachers to fight to end the unequal treatment of post 2011 teachers. I urge this in order to protect OUR profession and keep OUR Unions strong.0 -
spurious wrote:The proper common payscale is restored. The waste of time that is Croke Park hours is done away with. Supervision and substitution goes back to the way it was - a chance for those on low or no hours to get some work.
You should also down tools until the union makes it 2003 again and you need them to put Bertie Ahern back in power.spurious wrote:For a start. Nothing terribly objectionable there for Joe public and the chattering classes. They are supposed to be trade unions, working for us, not the kids, not the schools, not the subjects, not the exam system - us and only us.
Yeah screw the kids and their education. You sound like the children are only there to keep you in a job.
Shocking lack of self awareness displayed in that post not to mention the lack of economic awareness. I thought that was just a stereotype of teachers used by private sector agitators.
As a public servant, I'm embarrassed after reading that last paragraph.0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »You should also down tools until the union makes it 2003 again and you need them to put Bertie Ahern back in power.
Yeah screw the kids and their education. You sound like the children are only there to keep you in a job.
Shocking lack of self awareness displayed in that post not to mention the lack of economic awareness. I thought that was just a stereotype of teachers used by private sector agitators.
As a public servant, I'm embarrassed after reading that last paragraph.
As a public servant are you OK with any change in work practices?
Do you have a rationale for this change in work practices for teachers (besides something,something, Finland,Pisa)?
Would you accept that maths teachers have accepted major reforms in their subject and have accepted those changes... are they different to other teachers or was there something different about the roll out of the Project maths Syllabus and the new English Syllabus?
As a public servant who does your union serve?0 -
Who else other than the members do union members of any union look after? I'm genuinely confused why you think that unions would look after non-members?Whatever makes you sleep well at night. We'll have to agree to disagree because I would not naturally just look after my own interest as I don't think that's what being part of a Union is all about. But maybe I've just taken too many bangs to the head.
I agree that union members also have a responsibility to look out for and to defend the profession they work in - they do that by looking out for those who work in the profession and those they work with in the profession, i.e. the students.
But I fail to see how and why they would fight on behalf of non-members.0 -
Gebgbegb wrote:As a public servant are you OK with any change in work practices?
Any change that makes sense and allows progress for the stakeholdersGebgbegb wrote:Do you have a rationale for this change in work practices for teachers (besides something,something, Finland,Pisa)?
Strawman someone else please. If you want a serious answer, ask your question with civilly.Gebgbegb wrote:Would you accept that maths teachers have accepted major reforms in their subject and have accepted those changes... are they different to other teachers or was there something different about the roll out of the Project maths Syllabus and the new English Syllabus?
People accept changes all the time. If maths and the world in which maths is applied was static, there would be little need for change. if you had a perfect system today, it would still need to be ready to change. Maths teachers accepted change like a 21st century human being in employment. Anyone incapable of change, or who needs major incentives just to keep up with the world around them, is liable to be left behind.Gebgbegb wrote:As a public servant who does your union serve?
The stakeholders, including me.
Demanding to be allowed to party like it's 2003, is ridiculous and demonstrates how out of touch some of my public servant colleagues are with the financial reality in which the rest of the world lives.0 -
Advertisement
-
Who else other than the members do union members of any union look after? I'm genuinely confused why you think that unions would look after non-members?
I agree that union members also have a responsibility to look out for and to defend the profession they work in - they do that by looking out for those who work in the profession and those they work with in the profession, i.e. the students.
But I fail to see how and why they would fight on behalf of non-members.
I think you misunderstood me as maybe I wasn't clear enough. Let me explain it this way. Again this might be just me and maybe that makes me an eejit.
I am a member of a Union and a post 2012 graduate, therefor my wages are 34% lower than an equally qualified and equally experienced teacher who graduated in 2010. However if I was told tomorrow I can be treated equally to my colleagues (get a 34% pay rise) but only on the condition that I agree that post 2016 graduates get 40% lower pay, I wouldn't agree. Just to clarify I am not jus some idealistic young person. I am a lot closer to 40 than I am to 30.0 -
I think you misunderstood me as maybe I wasn't clear enough. Let me explain it this way. Again this might be just me and maybe that makes me an eejit.
I am a member of a Union and a post 2012 graduate, therefor my wages are 34% lower than an equally qualified and equally experienced teacher who graduated in 2010. However if I was told tomorrow I can be treated equally to my colleagues (get a 34% pay rise) but only on the condition that I agree that post 2016 graduates get 40% lower pay, I wouldn't agree.
I understand that completely. What you don't seem to understand is that when the government forced this on the profession, the unions objected, but their objections were ignored. Since this initiative was not connected with the CP negotiations, it wasn't dealt with under them, and the government managed to put it through. There was no option such as the one you propose.0 -
So explain, for example, how giving teachers an hour's detention every week, instead of acknowledging the hours of free work they were already giving, makes sense and is progress for anyone?El_Duderino 09 wrote: »Any change that makes sense and allows progress for the stakeholders.0 -
I understand that completely. What you don't seem to understand is that when the government forced this on the profession, the unions objected, but their objections were ignored. Since this initiative was not connected with the CP negotiations, it wasn't dealt with under them, and the government managed to put it through. There was no option such as the one you propose.
If the Government do what they like and then the Union objects but nothing changes what is the point of Unions. Surely it is up to the Union to act if their objections are ignored.
I'm not trying to argue with you but just can't get my head around it. Is this how you say it happened? Government propose a pay cut, Unions object, Government forces pay cut, Union does nothing?0 -
katydid wrote:So explain, for example, how giving teachers an hour's detention every week, instead of acknowledging the hours of free work they were already giving, makes sense and is progress for anyone?
I imagine some teachers have been in the public sector for their entire careers and don't keep up with current events. there was a recession starting back in 2008...
Smart comment aside, money is tighter. Options would be to; cancel detention, sublet supervision to contractors paying people on minimum wage, lay off lots of teachers and keep the remaining teachers on their pre 2008 salaries, or keep the teachers on the condition that they do more with less resources.
The teachers almost all keep their jobs though on relatively less money, students get most of the service they need. Schools stay open.
The progress is in keeping your job when those around you were being laid off. Could you genuinely not see that?0 -
Right. This is long, but once I got going...Would you abide by a Union suggestion to not vote FG/Lab in General Election?
With pleasure. Although it's not as if I'd need anybody to tell me not to vote for the smoked salmon socialists who constitute the Irish Labour Party.
It's been a formidable political experience to watch the abject, complete and irrevocable betrayal of left-wing and left-of-centre ideals by this Labour Party as its leaders ensured pay rises for their friends/advisers, pension increases just this year again for former ministers (as they en masse will be) and signed up hook, line and sinker to the right-wing policies of the Blueshirts. Has there been a bigger act of political betrayal in Ireland in the past 50 years?
It's the double standard which is really what gets me: shameless pay rises for them and their advisers; the opposite for us.
As Fintan O'Toole, one of the few people to continue speaking the truth throughout the past five years, said outside the GPO in one of the demonstrations I attended a few years back: "Irish people don't mind making sacrifices; they make them every day for their family, friends and community.... They mind being the sacrifice." That's it. That's really it. The "do as we say, not as we do" politics of the Irish Labour Party is ineffably and infuriatingly shameful - a betrayal for we who believe in that Ireland that Éamon Gilmore memorably declared in 2011 "still has its best days ahead of it". So much promise, and so much goodwill from so many people back in 2011. When Ruairí Quinn came out in 2012 to say that classroom sizes weren't that important, the disconnect between the reality in which I worked and their newfound privilege became clear.
This is a question of honour. Quinn, Burton, Howlin and the rest of them put personal self-interest ahead of being honourable and patriotic in the best, most positive, civic-minded sense. And don't get me started on that obscenely-paid Labour party politician who is going around like a King on the roads of Dublin, pushing us tax-paying plebs off when he could just get up earlier and plan his day better to be on time. What a republic - I don't think Higgins' auld fella was sentenced to death fighting for this Ireland which his son presides over. The Irish Labour Party: we labour; they party.
Shudder at how honour has turned to dishonour once they got the whiff of power.
If I were in Joe Higgins' constituency I'd vote for that man without hesitation - many's a time I've seen him, with no election in sight, canvassing in the rain on the streets of Dublin. He's a fighter for what he believes is right, while most of us choose the easy life and avoid the conflict and jump on whatever bandwagon we feel will make us accepted in some way. Joe Higgins is his own man, telling the truth as he sees it (I actually disagree with him about bin charges and the like, but Ireland very badly needs his courage and honour to plough that lonely furrow that is siding with the underdog).
The fact that John Bruton, who clearly doesn't do irony (and much else), grunted something in a Dáil debate in the 1990s to the effect that Higgins was lower class, while Olivia Mitchell of Fine Gael (what other party could produce these law and order crypto-imperialist/fascist troglodytes?) wanted him charged with "sedition" back in 2003 brings to mind that old saying about being able to tell a man's quality by looking at the quality of his enemies. It's long past time we had a genuine leftwing alternative in this state. The Blueshirts, Fianna Fáil and Labour do not, however, want to end this charade claiming to be different. Their policies are all somewhere between right-of-centre and far right. It would be an honest day in Irish politics if they just merged.0 -
If the Government do what they like and then the Union objects but nothing changes what is the point of Unions. Surely it is up to the Union to act if their objections are ignored.Again
I'm not trying to argue with you but just can't get my head around it. Is this how you say it happened? Government propose a pay cut, Unions object, Government forces pay cut, Union does nothing?
Unions can't achieve everything they want with the government. All they can do is do their best, pick their battles, and engage in, hopefully, meaningful negotiations. They were under huge pressure with the CP negotiations, and that took all their firepower to deal with that.
We were lucky that the government agreed to actual negotiations in terms of CP - they could easily have pushed through FEMPI legislation without even consulting us. They only did for political reasons, to keep the public sector somewhat on their side - which of course didn't work.
I've been involved in my union at a local level for years; I've seen how hard it is to deal with internal management and with the (former) VEC. Often, it's been like talking to a stone wall. We have won some battles and lost some battles, but the reward has been seeing people hanging on to jobs or having their rightful hours restored. Some failures you have to put down to experience - we've been fighting one particular case for ten years now..0 -
By the way, just in case anybody is in denial about the bigger picture of growing inequality in Irish society, as in the countries Thomas Piketty has studied, Ireland is a far more unequal state in 2015 than it was in 2011 when the Irish Labour Party decided to prop up Fine Gael's mé féiner/big business politics and its accompanying corruption (look at that incredible inefficiency built into the establishment of Irish Water with consultants and businesses of various sorts making a fortune out of this behemoth designed to benefit the lads).
Ireland at risk of reaching US levels of income inequality, says study
Fintan O’Toole: What is at the root of inequality? (O'Toole is highlighting the role of educational disadvantage being career-defining)
David McWilliams: Ireland's Great Wealth Divide
The rich are getting richer
The rich in Ireland are now richer than they were even in the bubble. This recession has been used to cut back the standard of living of the masses, and increase the standard of living of the wealthy. If you have been in receipt of widespread cutbacks and inferior conditions of employment, just what sort of Stockholm Syndrome exactly are we talking about that you'd go and vote for either of the parties that have inflicted this on you, while implementing policies to make the rich richer than they've ever been? It's madness, and a license for them to continue their "do as we say, not as we do" politics.0 -
I'm pretty sure I have not mentioned age once. I have no issues with anyones age. I also have never said anything about blaming pre 2011 teachers. I have just constantly pointed out the situation that post 2011 teachers find themselves in. I want the Unions to start fighting for all teachers and I would expect all teachers to fight to end the unequal treatment of post 2011 teachers. I urge this in order to protect OUR profession and keep OUR Unions strong.
Fair enough.I would certainly fight to reverse ALL the injustices of the past years.0 -
Advertisement
-
So working in the public service means you don't keep up with current affairs...right....El_Duderino 09 wrote: »I imagine some teachers have been in the public sector for their entire careers and don't keep up with current events. there was a recession starting back in 2008...
Smart comment aside, money is tighter. Options would be to; cancel detention, sublet supervision to contractors paying people on minimum wage, lay off lots of teachers and keep the remaining teachers on their pre 2008 salaries, or keep the teachers on the condition that they do more with less resources.
The teachers almost all keep their jobs though on relatively less money, students get most of the service they need. Schools stay open.
The progress is in keeping your job when those around you were being laid off. Could you genuinely not see that?
I'm not sure where you're going with your strange proposals. The main issues are not about pay, but about conditions of employment. A refusal to acknowledge existing contributions by teachers in terms of extra-curricular activities, while forcing them to do weekly detention is about a lack of respect and appreciation. Never underestimate the effect of demoralisation on a workforce. I see you don't seem to be willing or able to explain how this was progress.
So now retaining one's job, while conditions and pay are decimated, is progress...0
Advertisement