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
-
It's not nonsense. It's the truth. The unions protected the members they had at the time, which is all well and good but by not protecting those coming into the profession, their future members, too, they both damaged the profession, in that they devalued those new teachers and by extension, all teachers, and they weakened their own position by alienating many of those potential new members which again, weakened the position of the whole profession.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.
Not only did we sell more recently qualified teachers down the river but we damaged our own position in the process because we sent the government the message that we will allow a 'divide and conquer' strategy to be implemented as long as they carefully target the weakest members of the profession. Next came the guidance counselors and they'll keep doing it every time they need to cut something.
First of all, that's highly debatable. When I was doing my dip I was quite surprised by the age profile of the class. Yes, the majority were in their early to mid twenties but a sizable number were older and I have no reason to think that should have changed since then. Those slightly older recently qualified teachers have all the same issues in terms of financial responsibility and physical fatigue that their longer serving colleagues do but on a massively reduced salary. And anyway, even if they didn't it's nonsense to claim that the deterioration of our conditions affected the longer serving teachers as much as more recent graduates. How often have we heard longer serving teachers saying they opted out of s&s in spite of the pay cut because they just couldn't face doing it? Even if recent graduates had the option to do that too, I suspect many of them simply couldn't afford to anyway.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.
Most of us aren't distinguishing between younger and older so much as longer serving and more recently qualified and yes, we are all in the profession together but some of us are of the attitude that if you didn't get in early enough it wasn't their responsibility to fight for you. That attitude is causing division when we should have solidarity and passing the buck and arguing that it's not our fault isn't helping. We didn't cut their pay but we didn't exactly fight to prevent it either since allowing it gave us relative security.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 -
Not non-members. Future members. It's not as though they'd be joining some other union. By not looking out for future members they've caused fewer of them to join the unions and that weakens the position of all teachers. I know you have a history of ignoring the obvious on this board but surely you must understand that?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?0 -
It's not nonsense. It's the truth. The unions protected the members they had at the time, which is all well and good but by not protecting those coming into the profession, their future members, too, they both damaged the profession, in that they devalued those new teachers and by extension, all teachers, and they weakened their own position by alienating many of those potential new members which again, weakened the position of the whole profession.
Not only did we sell more recently qualified teachers down the river but we damaged our own position in the process because we sent the government the message that we will allow a 'divide and conquer' strategy to be implemented as long as they carefully target the weakest members of the profession. Next came the guidance counselors and they'll keep doing it every time they need to cut something.
First of all, that's highly debatable. When I was doing my dip I was quite surprised by the age profile of the class. Yes, the majority were in their early to mid twenties but a sizable number were older and I have no reason to think that should have changed since then. Those slightly older recently qualified teachers have all the same issues in terms of financial responsibility and physical fatigue that their longer serving colleagues do but on a massively reduced salary. And anyway, even if they didn't it's nonsense to claim that the deterioration of our conditions affected the longer serving teachers as much as more recent graduates. How often have we heard longer serving teachers saying they opted out of s&s in spite of the pay cut because they just couldn't face doing it? Even if recent graduates had the option to do that too, I suspect many of them simply couldn't afford to anyway.
Most of us aren't distinguishing between younger and older so much as longer serving and more recently qualified and yes, we are all in the profession together but some of us are of the attitude that if you didn't get in early enough it wasn't their responsibility to fight for you. That attitude is causing division when we should have solidarity and passing the buck and arguing that it's not our fault isn't helping. We didn't cut their pay but we didn't exactly fight to prevent it either since allowing it gave us relative security.
I'm still at a loss to figure out how you think we should have stopped the government doing what it did in terms of the division of pay structures.0 -
Also, I don't know why you keep bringing up CP, as though teachers' unions are only in a position to protest if something affects the entire public sector. It's not about CP, it's about not standing up for the profession and we didn't. We stood up for our short-term financial stability rather than worry about the potential long term effect that could have.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.
Yes, the government might have forced us into it anyway but the decent, moral thing to do was to at least make them cut out pay across the board and keep us all on the same pay scale. This way we allowed the government to claim that they weren't cutting anyone's pay, just putting NQTs on a different scale to existing members. We gave them the PR win rather than risk taking a hit to our own pockets (which might not even have happened if we showed a bit of backbone).0 -
No union looks after future members. They look after members.Not non-members. Future members. It's not as though they'd be joining some other union. By not looking out for future members they've caused fewer of them to join the unions and that weakens the position of all teachers. I know you have a history of ignoring the obvious on this board but surely you must understand that?
The failure of younger members to join the union has nothing to do with the pay differential; it was going on long before that.
The position of all teachers was weakened by CP. What we managed to claw back in negotiation means it wasn't as bad as it might have been had FEMPI legislation been imposed, but it has undermined decades of goodwill and hard work, and changed the nature of teaching in this country for good.
The union concerned itself with CP negotiations; it was a huge thing to deal with. The pay differentiation was not part of those negotiations, and while I agree that the union took its eye off the ball in that case, it had enough on its plate dealing with the CP negotiations. You have to pick your battles.0 -
Advertisement
-
katydid wrote:So working in the public service means you don't keep up with current affairs...right....
That's not what I said. I do both.katydid wrote: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.
You couldn't follow the potential solutions for covering detention with less resources? I think you're playing devil's advocate because they were fairly basic ideas which are used in lean times. Do without, do it with less, get someone to do it cheaper, lay people off and spread the money between those who remain. I'll assume you can follow.katydid wrote:So now retaining one's job, while conditions and pay are decimated, is progress...
Only if you were one of the ones who was aware of the recession I mentioned. You can look it up, it was big news in the private sector because whole industries collapsed. Keeping your job was important to people and everyone who stayed in employment had to do more with resources... Even teachers.
I agree that it would have been better to at least acknowledge that they were economising. I also agree that there is an effect on morale
I don't think telling teachers why they were being paid relatively less would have made them the slightest bit more receptive to the change in practices though as they tend to take job security completely for granted and forget that job security during a major recession is not a freeby, it's a card that they play in the negotiation. The card played by the government is reduced pay relative to the private sector.
I'm fairly certain that you're playing devil's advocate because you couldn't genuinely be that out of touch with the economic reality, could you?0 -
I'm bringing up CP, because that's what the past several years were about. The govt. was threatening FEMPI legislation, teachers were going to lose jobs, and far worse sanctions than what were subsequently imposed were threatened. My own personal opinion was that we should have left them carry on, and met them with strike action, but the majority of my colleagues thought differently.Also, I don't know why you keep bringing up CP, as though teachers' unions are only in a position to protest if something affects the entire public sector. It's not about CP, it's about not standing up for the profession and we didn't. We stood up for our short-term financial stability rather than worry about the potential long term effect that could have.
Yes, the government might have forced us into it anyway but the decent, moral thing to do was to at least make them cut out pay across the board and keep us all on the same pay scale. This way we allowed the government to claim that they weren't cutting anyone's pay, just putting NQTs on a different scale to existing members. We gave them the PR win rather than risk taking a hit to our own pockets (which might not even have happened if we showed a bit of backbone).
At the end of the day, the fact is that the unions, at the behest of and on behalf of their members, made CP negotiations a priority.
You seriously suggest that union members should have forced the govt. to cut everyone's pay across the board? Wow, they would just have loved that one. And once it was cut to that level for everyone, it would stay that way for all of us. You don't really think they would have had a road to Damascus conversion at some point and brought us all back up to previous levels? That is really the most ridiculous and unrealistic proposal I've ever heard.
Can you tell me of any union, anywhere, which would suggest to its members that all of them should take a massive pay cut on top of other pay cuts and increased working hours, in some kind of gesture of solidarity?0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »That's not what I said. I do both.
You couldn't follow the potential solutions for covering detention with less resources? I think you're playing devil's advocate because they were fairly basic ideas which are used in lean times. Do without, do it with less, get someone to do it cheaper, lay people off and spread the money between those who remain. I'll assume you can follow.
Only if you were one of the ones who was aware of the recession I mentioned. You can look it up, it was big news in the private sector because whole industries collapsed. Keeping your job was important to people and everyone who stayed in employment had to do more with resources... Even teachers.
I agree that it would have been better to at least acknowledge that they were economising. I also agree that there is an effect on morale
I don't think telling teachers why they were being paid relatively less would have made them the slightest bit more receptive to the change in practices though as they tend to take job security completely for granted and forget that job security during a major recession is not a freeby, it's a card that they play in the negotiation. The card played by the government is reduced pay relative to the private sector.
I'm fairly certain that you're playing devil's advocate because you couldn't genuinely be that out of touch with the economic reality, could you?
Recession? What one would that be? The one after the Wall St. crash, maybe? No, never heard of it.
Really, you're doing yourself no favours by this line of rhetoric.
Neither is ignoring the points I've made and reiterating points I've pointed out are not the real issue...0 -
katydid wrote:Neither is ignoring the points I've made and reiterating points I've pointed out are not the real issue...
Your points were fairly sparse, but I addressed them all.
1 You couldn't understand the basic proposals for keeping a workforce in tact while experiencing a recession.
2 It wasn't about money rather it was mostly about acknowledging the unpaid work teachers already did.
3 you couldn't understand how keeping your job on less money is preferable to slashing the workforce. Maybe you would have preferred to slash the workforce by a third like lots of other induatrues did (if it ment you kept your previous reward package)
I addressed your points whilw all you have done is fail to understand or address any of my points.0 -
1. The "in tact"ness of the workforce has nothing to do with this discussion. The unions agreed to take a disimprovement in pay and conditions in return for no redundancies.El_Duderino 09 wrote: »Your points were fairly sparse, but I addressed them all.
1 You couldn't understand the basic proposals for keeping a workforce in tact while experiencing a recession.
2 It wasn't about money rather it was mostly about acknowledging the unpaid work teachers already did.
3 you couldn't understand how keeping your job on less money is preferable to slashing the workforce. Maybe you would have preferred to slash the workforce by a third like lots of other induatrues did (if it ment you kept your previous reward package)
I addressed your points whilw all you have done is fail to understand or address any of my points.
2. No, it wasn't about money, but about acknowledging the unpaid work teachers did. I'm glad one of my points sunk in.
3. See point 1.
Now, are you going to answer my point about how teachers' detention makes sense and is progress for anyone? I've asked you three times now. Any chance you will answer?0 -
Advertisement
-
I believe there is a motion at the Siptu conference next week calling for the link with the Labour Party to be broken. I hope it's supported.
Jack O'Connor on Morning Ireland this morning claimed that if SIPTU does not maintain the link with Labour "We'll sleepwalk ourselves into a situation in which we hand a monopoly of power to parties of the right."
Ah. Maybe Jack in his trophy position has been out of the country on some SIPTU slush fund since 2011 if he thinks the policies devised and implemented by the Labour Party put it on any spectrum of the left. To think some of my €335 ASTI fee actually goes towards the wining and dining of the very political party which has wrought this destruction upon the quality and value of this career sounds like a really, really bad joke.
Will SIPTU severe its links with the Labour Party?0 -
It's not nonsense. It's the truth. The unions protected the members they had at the time, which is all well and good but by not protecting those coming into the profession, their future members, too, they both damaged the profession, in that they devalued those new teachers and by extension, all teachers, and they weakened their own position by alienating many of those potential new members which again, weakened the position of the whole profession.
Not only did we sell more recently qualified teachers down the river but we damaged our own position in the process because we sent the government the message that we will allow a 'divide and conquer' strategy to be implemented as long as they carefully target the weakest members of the profession. Next came the guidance counselors and they'll keep doing it every time they need to cut something.
First of all, that's highly debatable. When I was doing my dip I was quite surprised by the age profile of the class. Yes, the majority were in their early to mid twenties but a sizable number were older and I have no reason to think that should have changed since then. Those slightly older recently qualified teachers have all the same issues in terms of financial responsibility and physical fatigue that their longer serving colleagues do but on a massively reduced salary. And anyway, even if they didn't it's nonsense to claim that the deterioration of our conditions affected the longer serving teachers as much as more recent graduates. How often have we heard longer serving teachers saying they opted out of s&s in spite of the pay cut because they just couldn't face doing it? Even if recent graduates had the option to do that too, I suspect many of them simply couldn't afford to anyway.
Most of us aren't distinguishing between younger and older so much as longer serving and more recently qualified and yes, we are all in the profession together but some of us are of the attitude that if you didn't get in early enough it wasn't their responsibility to fight for you. That attitude is causing division when we should have solidarity and passing the buck and arguing that it's not our fault isn't helping. We didn't cut their pay but we didn't exactly fight to prevent it either since allowing it gave us relative security.
RealJohn I think you're creating a bit of a row where there isn't one and for once I'm in complete agreement with katydid in that:
All unions look after their present rather than future members.
Young teacher disengagement with the union was already under way before the pay split.
It's not the fault of longer serving teachers that the pay split happened and blaming them is indeed kicking up a row and causing division.
Now I completely agree with you that the union should not have allowed it to happen but they did,just as they allowed everything else to happen. However that doesn't mean that there were not many longer serving teachers up and down the country at branch meetings fighting the cause of the younger teachers whose absence from those meetings has always been notable. In fact the plight of the NQT is always top of the agenda at branch meetings.
But yes there is a pay division which should not be there but if you must apportion blame other than at the Govt,apportion it to the unions who should have fought it.
As for who suffered most [this really is getting like the public versus private slagging match] it's extremely facetious to suggest that longer serving /older teachers have not also suffered a great deal and in many case equally to the NQT's albeit in different ways. Everyone has suffered.
Anyway I'm not going to argue any more on this point as it's only creating divisiveness.0 -
@gaiscioch, Thank so much for the links. I complete agree with you re the political parties. Labour are a joke and there is nobody in politics representing the worker. The likes of Renua are more of the same and certainly don't represent the worker, least of all the public one. We so didn't need the likes of them.
While the noughties were undoubtedly a greedy decade they were good times for the worker. It was a time when hard work was rewarded and purchasing power was at an all time high. Which was excellent for living standards and the overall economy. The present neo liberal culture so prevalent throughout Europe and avidly supported by the Irish blue shirts supports a shift in power and wealth back to the elites and a substantial drop in living standards for ordinary workers. We badly need a left of centre pro worker political party in this country.0 -
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?
Ok now, that's just flame-baiting.
Don't post in this thread again
Good luck
MOd
0 -
maynooth_rules wrote: »Why are you bothering ranting. I agree with you completly, but due to the way teachers have been perceived and stories have been turned by spin doctors we are not in anyway respected to the level that teachers once were
Not true. Surveys have shown that, along with nurses, teachers are among the most respected of professions in Ireland.
Don't let the "independent" cloud your judgment0 -
-
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 fought for young teachers.
I told Pat King how much a disgrace it was that the unions did nothing over separate lower pay scales.
In 2011 I attended the first conference of the Teaching Council and I told the great and good of Irish Education how absolutely appalling it was that they had plans to unnecessarily extend the H.Dip to two years and hence leave NQTs with massive debt on starting their careers. . . which has started now.
The thing is. . . many others fought too for NQTs but I'll tell you one thing. . . I didn't see too many young teachers fighting.
I have seen young teachers bending over backwards (to management) to undermine even each other in the belief that they will be receive a job for doing so the following year.
The simple reality is that one of the reasons why NQTs got their pay cut is simple. . . They weren't too vociferous or bothered about it. . . . This makes it very easy for political parties to target them for extra cuts.0 -
Not non-members. Future members. It's not as though they'd be joining some other union. By not looking out for future members they've caused fewer of them to join the unions and that weakens the position of all teachers.
. . . "So because someone else didn't do something for me I'm not going to sign up and fight for my own cause and the cause of others"
That's an absolutely absurd argument.0 -
Nothing to do with the topic in hand, but I'm reading a book at the moment, Leaving Berlin, by Joseph Kanon. The hero is Alex Meier. Coincidence?Alex Meier wrote: ». . . "So because someone else didn't do something for me I'm not going to sign up and fight for my own cause and the cause of others"
That's an absolutely absurd argument.0 -
This is what happened in our teaching unions, and other public sector, unions over the past ten years.
The economic crash of the country in 2008 led to many changes adverse changes. The first of these were two separate pay cuts in 2009. Public servants wear told to "wear the green jersey" and although there were small demonstrations these cuts (averaging 15% pay cuts) were passed through by FF with minimal disruption. We took it on the chin. Our union leaders did their thing. . Shouted a little bit. . . issued online statements. . etc. . but, in the end, the cuts went through.
The turning point for public sector unions came, for me, in 2010 and the issue had absolutely nothing to do with pay or money. . . It was the Croke Park "Agreement". Ultimately the roots of all the unions current problems can be traced back to here.
The Croke Park Agreement was used by the hierarchy in the public sector (those at the top of the pyramid) to implement Tory-like reforms that they had long since wanted to introduce. . . They were using the maxim of "never waste a crisis to use an opportunity". They could easily persuade the Minister of the day that what they were doing was saving money but what they were really doing was to finally take on the unions in teaching over our conditions.
So the detention for teachers came in after an initial ballot rejecting the Croke Park Agreement. . . . and we were all staying on for two hour staff meetings after school which saved no money. . . But, the mantra, from the unions was "look at the bigger picture". . . Some even felt that these reforms would be temporary. . . Well they're not looking very temporary now.
So why did the public sector unions back down?
Firstly. . The Government/Senior CS were genuinely surprised at how little resistance came as a result of the pay cuts that they felt, correctly, that introducing changes to work practices in Croke Park would be unlikely to face too much pressure.
Secondly. . and this is very important. For the first time in many, many years our union leaders found it difficult to remove themselves from the position they felt they had in society. Since the late 1980s the unions in Ireland, under collective bargaining, always felt themselves as "partners in Government". During the boom years they didn't mix with the low paid teacher or nurse . . . They were in the Dail bar with politicians, in the Shelbourne bar with the Independent journalists. . . Attending, as I saw, the Presidental inaugurations of Mary McAleese. . . They became part of the state machinery . . . or, at least, that's how they saw it themselves. This was, and still is, Official Ireland. They, the union leaders, were extremely well paid, but it was easy. . . because the economy was rolling along just nicely.
So when the time came to represent us . . they went missing. Instead of becoming advocates for our position they became fixers for the Government. . . They couldn't separate themselves from those at the top of Irish society. . So they choose not to.
When FG/Labour took over the mantra to take on the public servant our union leaders stayed silent. NQTs had a new salary scale and the unions justified it to themselves on the basis that this was not a pay cut as these people were yet to employed in the PS.
FG/Labour carried on where FF left off. . . Attacking our conditions from cutting maternity leave to sick leave to the number of guidance counsellors etc. . . They never really helped their cause by having an arrogant prïck in Quinn as Minister.
Then came Haddington Road. . . and it was to be an extension of Croke Park with 43 hours of unpaid S&S. At the time of the CPA I told members of the ASTI that S&S would be next if they signed up to Croke Park. . . . Sure enough - the unions went missing again. They ignored two democratic ballots rejecting Haddington Road [Official Ireland went apoplectic with rage - especially on O'Brien media like the Independent (bailed out by the state) and Newstalk] and just kept running the ballot until sufficient threats to sack teachers (by Quinn) carried the day on the third ballot.
For me this was it - enough was enough - and I left the ASTI believing the entire process to be nothing but an absolute farce.
So why have they succeeded?
Because we were weak as teachers. Weak as professionals. Afraid to stand up for ourselves and intimidated by the media.
Look at what they did in Nursing. . . Spoofers like Liam Doran, who some in teaching see him as some sort of great rep, allowed the Government to use Haddington Road to pay nurses 22K a year.
So . . . on it goes. I laughed about a year ago when I called the next "agreement". . . the "phoenix park" agreement. . the "dame street" agreement. . . the "kildare street" agreement. . . . whatever you're having yourself.
Sure enough it has come along. . . The "Lansdowne Road Agreement" - where the entire sacrifices you have made as a public servant are to be maintained for no extra pay as FG/Labour hand back money to try and bribe you, and everyone else, into voting for them.
If you reject it . . . they'll ballot you again. Reject that ballot. They'll ballot you again. . . until you cannot be arced to vote.
As regards the 33 hours of Croke Park. . . They're here to stay.
After all . . You voted for them.0 -
Advertisement
-
Alex Meier wrote: »
As regards the 33 hours of Croke Park. . . They're here to stay.
After all . . You voted for them.
We didn't all vote for them, but we are all stuck with them...0 -
As regards the 33 hours of Croke Park. . . They're here to stay.
After all . . You voted for them.
This is vital to repeat this for any random ASTI/TUI member who is reading but has not voted yet: under the existing Haddington Road Agreement/HRA those 33 hours are here only until June 2016. There is no agreement with secondary school teachers to maintain them after this. Every ASTI/TUI member has a vote in the current ballot on the Lansdowne Road Agreement/LRA. If you vote 'Yes' to LRA you will agree to keep the 33 Idiot Hours until September 2018. The LRA could not be clearer on this, which is why both unions are advising a 'No' vote.
The deadline for ASTI members to vote against the LRA has been extended to 10:30am on Wednesday 14 October 2015
The deadline for TUI members to to vote against the LRA has been extended to 5pm on Wednesday 14 October 2015
Use your vote, or you abnegate any right to give out about your even more yellow pack conditions of employment in the next few years.0 -
Alex Meier wrote: »This is what happened in our teaching unions, and other public sector, unions over the past ten years.
The economic crash of the country in 2008 led to many changes adverse changes. The first of these were two separate pay cuts in 2009. Public servants wear told to "wear the green jersey" and although there were small demonstrations these cuts (averaging 15% pay cuts) were passed through by FF with minimal disruption. We took it on the chin. Our union leaders did their thing. . Shouted a little bit. . . issued online statements. . etc. . but, in the end, the cuts went through.
The turning point for public sector unions came, for me, in 2010 and the issue had absolutely nothing to do with pay or money. . . It was the Croke Park "Agreement". Ultimately the roots of all the unions current problems can be traced back to here.
The Croke Park Agreement was used by the hierarchy in the public sector (those at the top of the pyramid) to implement Tory-like reforms that they had long since wanted to introduce. . . They were using the maxim of "never waste a crisis to use an opportunity". They could easily persuade the Minister of the day that what they were doing was saving money but what they were really doing was to finally take on the unions in teaching over our conditions.
So the detention for teachers came in after an initial ballot rejecting the Croke Park Agreement. . . . and we were all staying on for two hour staff meetings after school which saved no money. . . But, the mantra, from the unions was "look at the bigger picture". . . Some even felt that these reforms would be temporary. . . Well they're not looking very temporary now.
So why did the public sector unions back down?
Firstly. . The Government/Senior CS were genuinely surprised at how little resistance came as a result of the pay cuts that they felt, correctly, that introducing changes to work practices in Croke Park would be unlikely to face too much pressure.
Secondly. . and this is very important. For the first time in many, many years our union leaders found it difficult to remove themselves from the position they felt they had in society. Since the late 1980s the unions in Ireland, under collective bargaining, always felt themselves as "partners in Government". During the boom years they didn't mix with the low paid teacher or nurse . . . They were in the Dail bar with politicians, in the Shelbourne bar with the Independent journalists. . . Attending, as I saw, the Presidental inaugurations of Mary McAleese. . . They became part of the state machinery . . . or, at least, that's how they saw it themselves. This was, and still is, Official Ireland. They, the union leaders, were extremely well paid, but it was easy. . . because the economy was rolling along just nicely.
So when the time came to represent us . . they went missing. Instead of becoming advocates for our position they became fixers for the Government. . . They couldn't separate themselves from those at the top of Irish society. . So they choose not to.
When FG/Labour took over the mantra to take on the public servant our union leaders stayed silent. NQTs had a new salary scale and the unions justified it to themselves on the basis that this was not a pay cut as these people were yet to employed in the PS.
FG/Labour carried on where FF left off. . . Attacking our conditions from cutting maternity leave to sick leave to the number of guidance counsellors etc. . . They never really helped their cause by having an arrogant prïck in Quinn as Minister.
Then came Haddington Road. . . and it was to be an extension of Croke Park with 43 hours of unpaid S&S. At the time of the CPA I told members of the ASTI that S&S would be next if they signed up to Croke Park. . . . Sure enough - the unions went missing again. They ignored two democratic ballots rejecting Haddington Road [Official Ireland went apoplectic with rage - especially on O'Brien media like the Independent (bailed out by the state) and Newstalk] and just kept running the ballot until sufficient threats to sack teachers (by Quinn) carried the day on the third ballot.
For me this was it - enough was enough - and I left the ASTI believing the entire process to be nothing but an absolute farce.
So why have they succeeded?
Because we were weak as teachers. Weak as professionals. Afraid to stand up for ourselves and intimidated by the media.
Look at what they did in Nursing. . . Spoofers like Liam Doran, who some in teaching see him as some sort of great rep, allowed the Government to use Haddington Road to pay nurses 22K a year.
So . . . on it goes. I laughed about a year ago when I called the next "agreement". . . the "phoenix park" agreement. . the "dame street" agreement. . . the "kildare street" agreement. . . . whatever you're having yourself.
Sure enough it has come along. . . The "Lansdowne Road Agreement" - where the entire sacrifices you have made as a public servant are to be maintained for no extra pay as FG/Labour hand back money to try and bribe you, and everyone else, into voting for them.
If you reject it . . . they'll ballot you again. Reject that ballot. They'll ballot you again. . . until you cannot be arced to vote.
As regards the 33 hours of Croke Park. . . They're here to stay.
After all . . You voted for them.
Excellent post. Very much agree,unfortunately.0 -
Generally I tend to ignore any Union suggestion nowadays and make up my own mind.
Although I fear there's a little dark voice deep down whispering at me to 'vote FF, vote FF, vote FF'.
I know the whole JC reform was actually kicked off by Batt O keeffe, but, I wouldn;t mind seeing a return to the drawing board that FF might bring (unlike Ruairi Quinn and JOS telling us the way it's going to be, no matter what the vote is!).
Anyone else contemplating it?0 -
Generally I tend to ignore any Union suggestion nowadays and make up my own mind.
Although I fear there's a little dark voice deep down whispering at me to 'vote FF, vote FF, vote FF'.
I know the whole JC reform was actually kicked off by Batt O keeffe, but, I wouldn;t mind seeing a return to the drawing board that FF might bring (unlike Ruairi Quinn and JOS telling us the way it's going to be, no matter what the vote is!).
Anyone else contemplating it?
NO
Does your whispering voice remind you of two pay cuts in six months from FF and the introduction of Croke Park?
Any public servant voting for FF would need to have their sanity checked.0 -
I don't think the pay cuts and extra hours are specific to any party, unfortunately. It was a case of them doing that because they could. Weak/docile union members and a very anti public service lobby made it possible.
I'm in same boat as Gebgbegb, couldn't bring myself to vote FG/Labour, there are enough despots in the world already. Can't see myself going SF, and as important as independents are, I don't think they're actually effective in the long term for policy. Sure, they serve a purpose, but it's a lot of fighting against the machine too.
Maybe a FF/FG coalition is what we actually need? At the end of the day, they're 2 sides of the same coin.0 -
And WE get double the grief, with no one to rein them in.deiseindublin wrote: »I don't think the pay cuts and extra hours are specific to any party, unfortunately. It was a case of them doing that because they could. Weak/docile union members and a very anti public service lobby made it possible.
I'm in same boat as Gebgbegb, couldn't bring myself to vote FG/Labour, there are enough despots in the world already. Can't see myself going SF, and as important as independents are, I don't think they're actually effective in the long term for policy. Sure, they serve a purpose, but it's a lot of fighting against the machine too.
Maybe a FF/FG coalition is what we actually need? At the end of the day, they're 2 sides of the same coin.
Mind you, that's what Labour were supposed to do to FG, but they have led the way on the destruction of the education system as we know it.0 -
Labour didn't ever rein them in, they (true to form) got power hungry and went with it.0
-
Alex Meier wrote: »NO
Does your whispering voice remind you of two pay cuts in six months from FF and the introduction of Croke Park?
Any public servant voting for FF would need to have their sanity checked.
Dunno so Alex. If you wouldn't vote for FG/FF/Labour then would you be going for the shinners or the independants (single issue candidates!). Or would you be tending towards the 'doorstep challenge' and voting local according to what individual satisfies your concerns the most?0 -
Advertisement
-
Dunno so Alex. If you wouldn't vote for FG/FF/Labour then would you be going for the shinners or the independants (single issue candidates!). Or would you be tending towards the 'doorstep challenge' and voting local according to what individual satisfies your concerns the most?
Or not voting at all...
It's a terrible dilemma this time round. I have never voted FF or FG, would have voted Labour in the past, but not now. I don't like independents, and as for SF, let's not even go there.
So what's left??0
Advertisement