More teacher bashing, when will it ever end?

rainbowtrout · 28-03-2012 10:14pm #1

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0328/teachers-claimed-500m-allowances.html

Teachers in primary and post primary schools received over €500m in allowances over and above basic pay last year, according to new figures released by Minister for Education Ruairi Quinn.

Allowances for primary teachers came to just under €312.9m.
Allowances for post primary teachers, including voluntary secondary and community and comprehensive schools, came to €193.2m.
The figures were released by Minister Quinn to Fine Gael TD Jim Daly.
Expenses paid to primary teachers included around €140m for qualifications, €103m for posts of responsibility, such as principals and deputy principals, and almost €52m for supervision duties.
Some also received a "35-year allowance" totalling €6,008,698.
The allowance for primary teachers teaching in the Gaeltacht came to €1.8m and the allowance for teaching through Irish totalled €2.6m.
A small number of teachers also received an "island" allowance totalling €53,366.
In some cases, primary teachers shared €1.97m for being secretaries of Boards of Management, while special education allowances came to €3.5m and secondment allowances accounted for €1.49m.
At post-primary level, qualifications allowances totalled €90.6m and posts of responsibility allowances came to €70.1m.
Post-primary teachers shared €24.56m for supervision duties, while the 35-year allowance for them cost €3.87m.
The allowance for those teaching in the Gaeltacht came to €504,261, while that for teaching through Irish came to €283,439.
The allowance for being Secretary of a Board of Management came to €455,761.
There was also a "Children's Allowance" totalling €148,673, Special Education allowances accounted for €753,766 and some post-primary teachers also availed of a secondment allowance totalling €1.6m.

Was just on Facebook and saw that one of my friends (not a teacher) had posted this. :rolleyes:

Obviously we are all getting these extra allowances on top of basic pay and they are extra, and probably far more than we should be getting. Why would you pay a deputy principal or principal more than a teacher for taking on the responsibility of running a school???

mallachyrivers · 28-03-2012 10:21pm

Exactly!

Chilli Con Kearney · 29-03-2012 12:41am

If you want to cut the degree allowance then remove the need to have a degree to teach. Then anybody can teach and nobody has to be paid extra. That's a simple and similar logic to where this is going to go.

I am sick of hearing the TC, unions, politicians, journalists and general population saying that we need better qualified teachers, teachers with a masters, teachers who are experts in their field of study. Aside from the desire and challenge of education, where is the incentive to carry out further study when you take away the financial benefit? At 8k and over, you would really want to love education to fork out for a course. That or want to be a principal.

TheDriver · 29-03-2012 9:32am

Same with radio this morning, people giving out like stink because they do not understand the "allowance" system

solerina · 29-03-2012 10:34am

There is no mention there of the huge amount of those 'allowances' that they recouped in tax !!! My blood is boiling

dambarude · 29-03-2012 11:07am

Going by the reaction to this, it's not looking good for my degree allowance next year:(.

Degree allowances are core pay, even though they are labelled differently. It's a pity they weren't brought into core pay long ago, because their current status is leaving them wide open for the chop. It should have been pre-empted.

RealJohn · 29-03-2012 12:41pm

dambarude wrote: »

Going by the reaction to this, it's not looking good for my degree allowance next year:(.

Degree allowances are core pay, even though they are labelled differently. It's a pity they weren't brought into core pay long ago, because their current status is leaving them wide open for the chop. It should have been pre-empted.

The unions should have been on about that before it became a problem. You have to question whether they're worth what we pay them.

This should be a non issue mind. Why are people complaining? Teachers get paid more for being better qualified and doing more work. So does everyone else but you don't hear teachers moaning that the managers in Dunnes get more than the floor staff.

Feeona · 29-03-2012 4:50pm

I heard this on the radio yesterday and laughed out loud....talk about staged! The guy reading it was obviously churning it out from a government issued 'newspiece', with Ruairi Quinn standing behind him holding a gun to his producer's head.

Love the way the department compartmentalises pay so it's easier to cut.

KrustyBurger · 29-03-2012 5:03pm

RealJohn wrote: »

The unions should have been on about that before it became a problem. You have to question whether they're worth what we pay them.

I left my union a few years ago. I've never regretted it.
Why are union bosses being paid a 6 figure salary?
Have any of them taken a pay cut in solidarity with their members?

Our unions are a joke, they've had their noses in the trough for too long.

Has anyone from the unions countered this bs from Quinn about allowances? I haven't heard a peep. We're being softened up for yet another pay cut. What will the unions do? Lay back and take it yet again? Probably. The unions are toothless tigers. Make no mistake, the government are intent on taking more money from our pockets and unless we sent them a very clear, unambiguous message it will happen.

Godge · 29-03-2012 5:17pm

Chilli Con Kearney wrote: »

If you want to cut the degree allowance then remove the need to have a degree to teach. Then anybody can teach and nobody has to be paid extra. That's a simple and similar logic to where this is going to go.

.

I have never understood this argument.

Lecturers in an Institute of Technology need a masters but don't get an allowance for it
Lecturers in a University need a Phd but don't get an allowance for it.

From the outside looking in, qualfication allowances are archaic, an anachronism and should be abolished.

As for whether it's worth studying, in most jobs (including elsewhere in the public sector as well as the private sector) undertaking courses of study (both accredited and unaccredited) is seen as essential for personal and career development but doesn't automatically generate a financial reward.

All of that being said, I do have sympathy for the issue in respect of the responsibility allowances as they are for performing a higher role (notwithstanding that I think the whole structure of teacher pay in Ireland is madness).

dambarude · 29-03-2012 6:13pm

Godge wrote: »

I have never understood this argument.

Lecturers in an Institute of Technology need a masters but don't get an allowance for it
Lecturers in a University need a Phd but don't get an allowance for it.

From the outside looking in, qualfication allowances are archaic, an anachronism and should be abolished.

As for whether it's worth studying, in most jobs (including elsewhere in the public sector as well as the private sector) undertaking courses of study (both accredited and unaccredited) is seen as essential for personal and career development but doesn't automatically generate a financial reward.

I'd tend to agree with you Godge - I don't think it's reasonable for teachers to expect extra pay for being qualified. However, these allowances have been paid to teachers for decades, and as a result would be more accurately referred to as core pay. The system has never been regularised, where these 'allowances' would be integrated with the main pay packet. In reality, almost all teachers have received these allowances, and are calculated when coming up with their annual salary.

Semantics have a lot to do with the argument.

As regards your argument re: teacher pay, look at the way England has gone. Teachers have no status, it's difficult to attract motivated candidates into the profession, and educational standards are very poor as a result. Ireland is skipping down the same path with these moves.

Benicetomonty · 29-03-2012 6:32pm

dambarude wrote: »

I'd tend to agree with you Godge - I don't think it's reasonable for teachers to expect extra pay for being qualified. However, these allowances have been paid to teachers for decades, and as a result would be more accurately referred to as core pay. The system has never been regularised, where these 'allowances' would be integrated with the main pay packet. In reality, almost all teachers have received these allowances, and are calculated when coming up with their annual salary.

Semantics have a lot to do with the argument.

As regards your argument re: teacher pay, look at the way England has gone. Teachers have no status, it's difficult to attract motivated candidates into the profession, and educational standards are very poor as a result. Ireland is skipping down the same path with these moves.

Fully agree. Interesting as well that a significant proportion of these so called 'allowances' are going to principals and not simply 'teachers'. Can't offend them though, I wonder why? :rolleyes:

solerina · 29-03-2012 8:10pm

I cant understand why some are called allowances at all, I mean the POR and S&S really are not allowances, they are extra pay for extra work....no one complains about other peoples overtime so why are we constantly being attacked about ours (which is kind of what these things are)

Hootanany · 29-03-2012 8:17pm

Godge wrote: »

I have never understood this argument.

Lecturers in an Institute of Technology need a masters but don't get an allowance for it
Lecturers in a University need a Phd but don't get an allowance for it.

From the outside looking in, qualfication allowances are archaic, an anachronism and should be abolished.

As for whether it's worth studying, in most jobs (including elsewhere in the public sector as well as the private sector) undertaking courses of study (both accredited and unaccredited) is seen as essential for personal and career development but doesn't automatically generate a financial reward.

All of that being said, I do have sympathy for the issue in respect of the responsibility allowances as they are for performing a higher role (notwithstanding that I think the whole structure of teacher pay in Ireland is madness).

This+1
And before you start very limeted schooling.

MathsManiac · 29-03-2012 9:40pm

Historically the qualifications allowances did serve a useful purpose. In the past, honours degrees were much rarer than they are today; not many teachers had them and it was appropriate to reward these "super-qualified" teachers to attract them into the profession.

Nowadays, you're highly unlikely to get into the PGDE and/or a job without an honours degree, so the allowance has lost its purpose. There is little corresponding incentive to attract even more qualified people these days, as the gap between the hons degree allowance and the masters allowance is not wide enough.

I think they should make an honours degree a pre-requisite, incorporate the the hons degree allowance into core pay, and have a decent allowance for a masters (including M.Ed.) to incentivise.

(Or, if you were trying to cut costs, you'd make the hons degree a pre-requisite, ditch all primary degree allowances, and leave the masters allowance as it is. :eek: )

flatbackfour · 29-03-2012 10:20pm

Godge wrote: »

I have never understood this argument.

Lecturers in an Institute of Technology need a masters but don't get an allowance for it
Lecturers in a University need a Phd but don't get an allowance for it.

From the outside looking in, qualfication allowances are archaic, an anachronism and should be abolished.

As for whether it's worth studying, in most jobs (including elsewhere in the public sector as well as the private sector) undertaking courses of study (both accredited and unaccredited) is seen as essential for personal and career development but doesn't automatically generate a financial reward.

All of that being said, I do have sympathy for the issue in respect of the responsibility allowances as they are for performing a higher role (notwithstanding that I think the whole structure of teacher pay in Ireland is madness).

Godge, in again teacher bashing. Never miss an oppurtunity. Allowences are core pay. Lets take away the term allowence and just lump it all in together. Suits me fine.

Take away the allowences for new teachers and the starting salary will put a significant amount of new graduates off. Top class graduates are not goint to work for 12 grand a year. (most new teachers are on half hours or part time)

If you pay peenuts you are going to get monkeys.

Feeona · 29-03-2012 11:04pm

flatbackfour wrote: »

Godge, in again teacher bashing.

I don't think Godge is teacher bashing here to be honest. He/She is just taking part in the debate with a reasoned argument. There is a difference between all out vitriolic attacks (which the teaching profession gets more than its fair share of) and reasoned debate.

flatbackfour · 29-03-2012 11:36pm

Feeona wrote: »

I don't think Godge is teacher bashing here to be honest. He/She is just taking part in the debate with a reasoned argument. There is a difference between all out vitriolic attacks (which the teaching profession gets more than its fair share of) and reasoned debate.

This is not the first time hes got involved in being critical of teachers. Check previous posts.

jimbo28 · 30-03-2012 9:13am

KrustyBurger wrote: »

I left my union a few years ago. I've never regretted it.
Why are union bosses being paid a 6 figure salary?
Have any of them taken a pay cut in solidarity with their members?

Our unions are a joke, they've had their noses in the trough for too long.

Has anyone from the unions countered this bs from Quinn about allowances? I haven't heard a peep. We're being softened up for yet another pay cut. What will the unions do? Lay back and take it yet again? Probably. The unions are toothless tigers. Make no mistake, the government are intent on taking more money from our pockets and unless we sent them a very clear, unambiguous message it will happen.

I am in complete agreement with you on unions. The old " BUT YOU HAVE TO BE IN ONE IN CASE SOMETHING HAPPENS". What a load of sh!te.Something is happening folks, were being cut left, right and centre,and there is being very little done by the unions.

doc_17 · 30-03-2012 10:19am

People are happy to be under the protection of the CPA (negotiated by those useless unions) but not willing to join up to the union and pay their way.

people who reap the benefits of the work of others and constantly give out then are hard to take!

Have a look at the TUI/ASTI/INTO annual reports and you will see how many teachers are helped each year regarding contracts, unfair dismissal, defence against unfounded alleghations, issues arising in individual schools etc. It is the not just the job of the Union to protect your pay, they enhance and defend your conditions and will back you up if you ever need them.

Also during negotiations of the CPA the government wanted to do a lot more than make us do an extra hour per week

Some have principled objections to unions and that's fine but others are just unwilling to pay their dues.

doc_17 · 30-03-2012 10:22am

Oh, and anyone who says S&S is an allowance (Yes, Minister) is a clown). people who don't do don't get paid for it, people who are in it do the work and get paid for it. How is that an allowances? It is taxed at 62% anyway so cuttiong it won't save much and I won't have to do it and then I can enjoy my lunches again

Mr. Presentable · 30-03-2012 10:29am

Jim Daly, FG, to whom the figures were released, was a primary school teacher. Is he still getting paid for that while a TD?

Godge · 30-03-2012 10:32am

flatbackfour wrote: »

Godge, in again teacher bashing. Never miss an oppurtunity. Allowences are core pay. Lets take away the term allowence and just lump it all in together. Suits me fine.

Take away the allowences for new teachers and the starting salary will put a significant amount of new graduates off. Top class graduates are not goint to work for 12 grand a year. (most new teachers are on half hours or part time)

If you pay peenuts you are going to get monkeys.

flatbackfour wrote: »

This is not the first time hes got involved in being critical of teachers. Check previous posts.

Look, you can attack me personally all you like and ignore the points I make - that is a sign of being unable to debate the points and I take it as a compliment to the strength of the argument.

If you re-read my post, you will see that while I suggest that the qualification allowances be abolished (and I advance cogent rational reasons for doing so) I do defend the "post of responsibility" allowances. Is defending the "post of responsibility" allowances now to be taken as teacher-bashing?

It saddens me to see a minority of teachers posting here being unable to distinguish arguments other than in a black-or-white scenario. Either posters support teachers or are teacher-bashing. Those posters who recognise some good things in teaching as well as some bad things are constantly in danger of being categorised as teacher-bashing which is unfortunate as it detracts from rational debate and encourages a bunker mentality among teachers which will do more harm to the teaching profession than any outside criticism.

doc_17 · 30-03-2012 10:54am

Godge wrote: »

Look, you can attack me personally all you like and ignore the points I make - that is a sign of being unable to debate the points and I take it as a compliment to the strength of the argument.

If you re-read my post, you will see that while I suggest that the qualification allowances be abolished (and I advance cogent rational reasons for doing so) I do defend the "post of responsibility" allowances. Is defending the "post of responsibility" allowances now to be taken as teacher-bashing?

It saddens me to see a minority of teachers posting here being unable to distinguish arguments other than in a black-or-white scenario. Either posters support teachers or are teacher-bashing. Those posters who recognise some good things in teaching as well as some bad things are constantly in danger of being categorised as teacher-bashing which is unfortunate as it detracts from rational debate and encourages a bunker mentality among teachers which will do more harm to the teaching profession than any outside criticism.

In your head they are cogent points and you believe they have merit. To those of us in the profession, who hear you saying that payscales are madness, we live in different reality.

And whoever advocates anything from the english system should be sent over there to investigate why they can't find enough teachers to work in their schools.

jh79 · 30-03-2012 10:58am

According to the TUI website a teacher with an hons degree gets between 36 to 66k a year? Don't know how lucky you are. Even with possible cuts to come the payscale is very good for the qualifications needed

How many teachers leave the profession due to the bad pay and conditions? Not many I reckon you'd have a tough time finding a job that pays that well for an Hons Degree in the private sector.

jimbo28 · 30-03-2012 11:42am

doc_17 wrote: »

People are happy to be under the protection of the CPA (negotiated by those useless unions) but not willing to join up to the union and pay their way.

people who reap the benefits of the work of others and constantly give out then are hard to take!

Have a look at the TUI/ASTI/INTO annual reports and you will see how many teachers are helped each year regarding contracts, unfair dismissal, defence against unfounded alleghations, issues arising in individual schools etc. It is the not just the job of the Union to protect your pay, they enhance and defend your conditions and will back you up if you ever need them.

Also during negotiations of the CPA the government wanted to do a lot more than make us do an extra hour per week

Some have principled objections to unions and that's fine but others are just unwilling to pay their dues.

Your obviously of the mentality that "If your not with us your against us". As far as I'm concerned, in past situations the union left me high and dry, So I left.As for people who are not willing to "pay their way", I go into the classroom everyday,the same as you, I teach, I do as a good a job as I can and I go home.I do not feel the need to pay a union a fee for the privilege of being one of the team so that I am accepted in the staffroom.No offence Doc_17 but I think your a little out of line with that statement.How people go about doing their job in a school is nobody's business but theirs and school management.I don't owe anybody anything for doing my job other than the responsibility that I owe my pupils.And I certainly don't owe a union any "due".The argument you make is the same as all union people make and you are entitled to make an argument, but you should not go down the road of knocking people who choose not to be apart of the unions.

Godge · 30-03-2012 12:18pm

doc_17 wrote: »

In your head they are cogent points and you believe they have merit. To those of us in the profession, who hear you saying that payscales are madness, we live in different reality.

And whoever advocates anything from the english system should be sent over there to investigate why they can't find enough teachers to work in their schools.

(1) My points have merit in their own right and not in my head.

(2) When did I advocate something from the english system in this thread?

(3) I did not say that payscales are madness, I said that the structure of teacher pay is madness, there is a difference. For a start, unlike other parts of the public service, increments are awarded automatically by default, in the civil service you no longer get an increment unless you have completed the PMDS process and achieved a certain level. Granted, not a huge percentage are refused an increment but it is an improvement over the teacher situation. I could go on and talk about why principal and deputy principal posts are paid an allowance rather than being a separate scale as elsewhere or about the length of the payscale, the archaic qualification allowances or some of the other dubious allowances, the requirement to have a separate pay arrangement for S&S because the government of the time couldn't be seen to give a pay increase to teachers because of the ASTI dispute etc. etc. without mentioning a word about the payscales or the level of pay.

Please stop the kneejerk defensive reactions and think about how things could be better for the taxpayer and the students as well as the teachers.

doc_17 · 30-03-2012 12:28pm

jimbo28 wrote: »

Your obviously of the mentality that "If your not with us your against us". As far as I'm concerned, in past situations the union left me high and dry, So I left.As for people who are not willing to "pay their way", I go into the classroom everyday,the same as you, I teach, I do as a good a job as I can and I go home.I do not feel the need to pay a union a fee for the privilege of being one of the team so that I am accepted in the staffroom.No offence Doc_17 but I think your a little out of line with that statement.How people go about doing their job in a school is nobody's business but theirs and school management.I don't owe anybody anything for doing my job other than the responsibility that I owe my pupils.And I certainly don't owe a union any "due".The argument you make is the same as all union people make and you are entitled to make an argument, but you should not go down the road of knocking people who choose not to be apart of the unions.

wow.....you're reading some very interesting things into what I said. I highlighted a few things there that I'd like to take issue with. Nowhere did I say you have to pay a union fee to be accepted in the staff room.

I never mentioned what way people go about their job as a teacher and how they teach their students. Not once. You are the one out of line there even suggesting that.

When I mentioned "dues" I was referring to union subs, some just don't want to (or can't ) pay. In some people's eyes if you get it for free (i.e. someone else will pick up the tab) why bother paying.

And I think every teacher in Ireland (excluding NQTs) owe the unions something for the terms and conditions that we now have which were the result of work undertaken by unions in the past.

Here are a few

22 hours Teaching
payment for S&S

I honestly feel/believe that teachers who think the union have never done any good for them are incorrect.

KrustyBurger · 30-03-2012 1:41pm

doc_17 wrote: »

And I think every teacher in Ireland (excluding NQTs) owe the unions something for the terms and conditions that we now have which were the result of work undertaken by unions in the past.

Here are a few

22 hours Teaching
payment for S&S

I honestly feel/believe that teachers who think the union have never done any good for them are incorrect.

Our class contact hours are among the highest in the EU.
Re payment for S&S - that's pay for work.

I agree with the concept of a union and it was a wrench to leave my own, however it was the correct thing to do.

Can anyone tell me

(a) Has any member of the union taken a paycut in solidarity with it's
members
(b) Why are the union bosses on a 6 figure salary, multiple times what their own members earn?

I stood outside my school during strikes and I have payed my way over the last 20 years. I have paid my union "dues" and then some. Never again until the union might like to start acting like a union.

doc_17 · 30-03-2012 6:12pm

KrustyBurger wrote: »

doc_17 wrote: »

And I think every teacher in Ireland (excluding NQTs) owe the unions something for the terms and conditions that we now have which were the result of work undertaken by unions in the past.

Here are a few

22 hours Teaching
payment for S&S

I honestly feel/believe that teachers who think the union have never done any good for them are incorrect.

Our class contact hours are among the highest in the EU.
Re payment for S&S - that's pay for work.

I agree with the concept of a union and it was a wrench to leave my own, however it was the correct thing to do.

Can anyone tell me

(a) Has any member of the union taken a paycut in solidarity with it's
members
(b) Why are the union bosses on a 6 figure salary, multiple times what their own members earn?

I stood outside my school during strikes and I have payed my way over the last 20 years. I have paid my union "dues" and then some. Never again until the union might like to start acting like a union.

Yes payment for S&S is pay for work but that wasn't always the case. People were expected to do this for nothing until representations from unions changed this

doc_17 · 30-03-2012 6:19pm

Godge wrote: »

doc_17 wrote: »

In your head they are cogent points and you believe they have merit. To those of us in the profession, who hear you saying that payscales are madness, we live in different reality.

And whoever advocates anything from the english system should be sent over there to investigate why they can't find enough teachers to work in their schools.

(1) My points have merit in their own right and not in my head.

(2) When did I advocate something from the english system in this thread?

(3) I did not say that payscales are madness, I said that the structure of teacher pay is madness, there is a difference. For a start, unlike other parts of the public service, increments are awarded automatically by default, in the civil service you no longer get an increment unless you have completed the PMDS process and achieved a certain level. Granted, not a huge percentage are refused an increment but it is an improvement over the teacher situation. I could go on and talk about why principal and deputy principal posts are paid an allowance rather than being a separate scale as elsewhere or about the length of the payscale, the archaic qualification allowances or some of the other dubious allowances, the requirement to have a separate pay arrangement for S&S because the government of the time couldn't be seen to give a pay increase to teachers because of the ASTI dispute etc. etc. without mentioning a word about the payscales or the level of pay.

Please stop the kneejerk defensive reactions and think about how things could be better for the taxpayer and the students as well as the teachers.

1. Yes they do have merit but they are not the only points that have merit.

2. Just have a wee re-read of that post of mine.....I said "whoever was mentioning the English system"......I was making a couple of points in the same post so sorry if you felt that was me misrepresenting you.

3. Payscales and pay structures? Think we'll avoid splitting hairs over this one.

I can't see how anything I've said in this thread is a knee jerk reaction to anything. That's an extremely unfair accusation. But I couldn't really give a hoot anymore! Just wanted to state what I believe the unions have done for us.

UnLuckyAgain · 30-03-2012 9:02pm

jh79 wrote: »

According to the TUI website a teacher with an hons degree gets between 36 to 66k a year? Don't know how lucky you are. Even with possible cuts to come the payscale is very good for the qualifications needed

How many teachers leave the profession due to the bad pay and conditions? Not many I reckon you'd have a tough time finding a job that pays that well for an Hons Degree in the private sector.

The common misconception seems to be that all teachers get this magical and magnificent salary. In fact most teachers work on an hourly basis, scraping together part time hours for many years before gaining full time employment, if ever. Though this generalisation seems to be a common thread among warmongers from outside the profession.

spurious · 30-03-2012 10:25pm

UnLuckyAgain wrote: »

The common misconception seems to be that all teachers get this magical and magnificent salary. In fact most teachers work on an hourly basis, scraping together part time hours for many years before gaining full time employment, if ever. Though this generalisation seems to be a common thread among warmongers from outside the profession.

This.
If memory serves me well, the last person in our school to get a 'full' job was about 5 years ago. All those since are on partial contracts. Our student numbers have risen every year. This year we will lose 3 and a half teachers, or the equivalent, which more than likely means about 6 or 8 of these contract people will go/be sacked/lose their job - yet another thing those outside teaching think doesn't happen in the public service.

Powerhouse · 30-03-2012 11:47pm

[QUOTE=Godge;77856669

the requirement to have a separate pay arrangement for S&S because the government of the time couldn't be seen to give a pay increase to teachers because of the ASTI dispute etc. etc. without mentioning a word about the payscales or the level of pay.

[/QUOTE]

I think this is an indignation too far on your part as it works both ways. I will bow to your knowledge of the industrial relations history of teaching as I am not sure of the origins of many of these allowances although your use of the elliptical and vague "etc. etc." suggests that I might be being generous in such bowing.

However, the point you raise does work both ways as it suits the government fine to have this (S&S) and other aspects of teachers' pay allocated in the form of allowances rather than core pay as it means that the government can continue to chip away at de facto pay even though it cannot be seen to give a pay decrease per se because of the Croke Park agreement.

Your view of the structure of teachers' pay is not new. Many teachers of my acquaintance would agree. You are presenting this view as if it has just been freshly discovered by your immutable logic. It hasn't. Although it suits the media/government/pissed-off-taxpayer to highlight allowances at this point, to all intents and purposes in normal life e.g. applying for a mortgage/loan, there has not been any practical distinction between a teachers' 'pay' and allowances. For the average teacher it merely means that there are a few extra items on their payslip - no more than that. And certainly the structure of a teacher's payslip should - on the face of it at least - be nothing for people like yourself to be worried about.

As for your "why can't teachers debate this with me rationally?" view of things - well, it's not the L&H. People will have different views and not everyone will give the answer you expect/want them to give so that you can move seamlessly on to your next point. Comments about 'bunker mentality' of teachers also work both ways - if those who raise these issues are quickly accused of teacher-bashing, those who might defend teachers are equally quickly dubbed as having a bunker mentality. The latter is not very helpful either. Just because you are convinced of how sensible, clear-thinking, rational and fair-minded you are does not mean that people must conclude that you are both right and motiveless in your views. Such is life.

jh79 · 31-03-2012 12:14pm

UnLuckyAgain wrote: »

jh79 wrote: »

According to the TUI website a teacher with an hons degree gets between 36 to 66k a year? Don't know how lucky you are. Even with possible cuts to come the payscale is very good for the qualifications needed

How many teachers leave the profession due to the bad pay and conditions? Not many I reckon you'd have a tough time finding a job that pays that well for an Hons Degree in the private sector.

The common misconception seems to be that all teachers get this magical and magnificent salary. In fact most teachers work on an hourly basis, scraping together part time hours for many years before gaining full time employment, if ever. Though this generalisation seems to be a common thread among warmongers from outside the profession.

Its a great payscale to be on and if the top end was lowered it could allow more student teachers to be made full time while keeping within the overall pay budget.

Powerhouse · 31-03-2012 12:27pm

jh79 wrote: »

Its a great payscale to be on and if the top end was lowered it could allow more student teachers to be made full time while keeping within the overall pay budget.

The view which informs this reply is spectacularly out of line with reality. The point which was well made by the other poster (and ignored/misinterpreted by you) is there are loads of teachers (ostensibly in permanent/pensionable jobs with paid holidays etc. etc. as far as the average parent and begrudger in the street is concerned) who have no security and only part-time hours. The idea that paycuts would "allow more student teachers to be made full time" is laughable.

Paycuts have failed to facilitate many working teachers to get 'full-time jobs' - as anyone who has noticed the coincidence of dropping pay and dropping job numbers in recent years would attest. In your Economics 101 scenario this should not happen but in reality it is happening. Any student teacher who thinks that paycuts will make a whit of difference to their prospects is delusional.

jh79 · 31-03-2012 12:38pm

Powerhouse wrote: »

jh79 wrote: »

Its a great payscale to be on and if the top end was lowered it could allow more student teachers to be made full time while keeping within the overall pay budget.

The view which informs this reply is spectacularly out of line with reality. The point which was well made by the other poster (and ignored/misinterpreted by you) is there are loads of teachers (ostensibly in permanent/pensionable jobs with paid holidays etc. etc. as far as the average parent and begrudger in the street is concerned) who have no security and only part-time hours. The idea that paycuts would "allow more student teachers to be made full time" is laughable.

Paycuts have failed to facilitate many working teachers to get 'full-time jobs' - as anyone who has noticed the coincidence of dropping pay and dropping job numbers in recent years would attest. In your Economics 101 scenario this should not happen but in reality it is happening. Any student teacher who thinks that paycuts will make a whit of difference to their prospects is delusional.

Whats the solution so? Money isn't there so pay cuts are inevitable

Roughly whats the ratio of full time to contract?

Whether cutting full timers pay leads to more full time positions is irrelevant to whether it needs to be cut

solerina · 31-03-2012 2:58pm

jh79 wrote: »

Roughly whats the ratio of full time to contract?

In my school we have 27 teachers, only 6 are actually permanent !!!
Approx 10 have CIDs the rest are on contract hours, i would say most schools are similar !!
We have 2 'A' posts and 2 'B' posts, Id say many schools would have more, but that what we have.
I have been there 11 years and no one has been made permanent in that length of time (all CIDs now)

jh79 · 31-03-2012 4:36pm

solerina wrote: »

jh79 wrote: »

Roughly whats the ratio of full time to contract?

In my school we have 27 teachers, only 6 are actually permanent !!!
Approx 10 have CIDs the rest are on contract hours, i would say most schools are similar !!
We have 2 'A' posts and 2 'B' posts, Id say many schools would have more, but that what we have.
I have been there 11 years and no one has been made permanent in that length of time (all CIDs now)

Didn't realize it was that bad but thats not gonna change if that pay scale remains in place

doconnell · 31-03-2012 5:28pm

jimbo28 wrote: »

I am in complete agreement with you on unions. The old " BUT YOU HAVE TO BE IN ONE IN CASE SOMETHING HAPPENS". What a load of sh!te.Something is happening folks, were being cut left, right and centre,and there is being very little done by the unions.

This is exactly how many union members feel at the moment.I was on the verge of dropping out of my own one but decided instead to actually get involved and challenge the corruption that my own apathy had allowed to flourish.Our union leaders are not doing a good job of representing us so lets challenge them,make them accountable to their real bosses...US! Go to your branch meetings and speak up.Check out the ASTI fightback group if you're as disillusioned with the union fat cats as I am.Their last meeting had members of ASTI;INTO and TUI in attendance.

doc_17 · 31-03-2012 5:52pm

doconnell wrote: »

jimbo28 wrote: »

I am in complete agreement with you on unions. The old " BUT YOU HAVE TO BE IN ONE IN CASE SOMETHING HAPPENS". What a load of sh!te.Something is happening folks, were being cut left, right and centre,and there is being very little done by the unions.

This is exactly how many union members feel at the moment.I was on the verge of dropping out of my own one but decided instead to actually get involved and challenge the corruption that my own apathy had allowed to flourish.Our union leaders are not doing a good job of representing us so lets challenge them,make them accountable to their real bosses...US! Go to your branch meetings and speak up.Check out the ASTI fightback group if you're as disillusioned with the union fat cats as I am.Their last meeting had members of ASTI;INTO and TUI in attendance.

Can I ask what corruption you are referring to? Have you evidence of wrongdoing? If so you should present it to someone.

Powerhouse · 31-03-2012 6:16pm

jh79 wrote: »

Whether cutting full timers pay leads to more full time positions is irrelevant to whether it needs to be cut.

Yes, but you were the one suggesting a correlation between teachers' pay and numbers employed - when you wrote "if the top end was lowered it could allow more student teachers to be made full time while keeping within the overall pay budget" - not me.

jh79 · 31-03-2012 8:45pm

Powerhouse wrote: »

jh79 wrote: »

Whether cutting full timers pay leads to more full time positions is irrelevant to whether it needs to be cut.

Yes, but you were the one suggesting a correlation between teachers' pay and numbers employed - when you wrote "if the top end was lowered it could allow more student teachers to be made full time while keeping within the overall pay budget" - not me.

I understand that but I can only form an opinion on the information available to me, what should a teacher be paid? I suppose is the question i think a pay scale of E30 to 60 k is fair in total

PhoenixParker · 31-03-2012 8:56pm

For years when the teachers unions were asked what was the starting salary for a teacher, they quoted the figure of point 1 on the salary scale for teachers.

Notwithstanding that to actually be a teacher, you needed a degree, a dip and that having both of those qualified you for point three on the scale and a range of extra allowances.

Now Ruairi Quinn plans to actually have the teachers salaries start at point 1 on the scale, I have absolutely zero tolerance for the unions protesting about it.

Teachers with pass degrees and pass diplomas should start on point one of the salary scale. A very small additional allowance should be available for better degrees and further qualifications, but nothing like the scale at the moment. The increments also need to be cut and the increment scale shortened considerably Posts of responsibility should attract more money too, but the whole system is in desperate need of reform.

When I see a real plan from the teachers union that sensibly sets up a structure for fair teachers pay and that deals with the real problems in teaching like the inability to fire terrible teachers and the short term contracts new teachers get stuck on, I may start paying attention to them again. Right now all I ever see is a pack of whiny brats, who don't know how good they have it, and to be frank sound like they belong in kindergarten.

Powerhouse · 31-03-2012 9:15pm

PhoenixParker wrote: »

When I see a real plan from the teachers union that sensibly sets up a structure for fair teachers pay and that deals with the real problems in teaching like the inability to fire terrible teachers and the short term contracts new teachers get stuck on, I may start paying attention to them again.

You appear to be confusing the role of an employer with that of a union. It is the employer's job to set the agenda regarding pay, security and tenure, and a union's job to represent the interests of their members in that context. Same as in any industry really.

PhoenixParker · 31-03-2012 9:33pm

I'm not.

I have no idea why the unions in this country seem to have the idea that representing their members interests is so narrowly defined and seems to centre on saying no to whatever their employer wants to do.

The unions role is to further their members interests. So what's the ideal state? What are the unions aiming for? What is the optimum working situation for teachers? In a realistic situation, and a recessionary economy, how can wage cuts be best handled and implemented? There's no vision, there's no leadership, there's no clear route to a better life for their members.

They're ridiculous and they're laughable.

UnLuckyAgain · 31-03-2012 11:03pm

PhoenixParker wrote: »

"Teachers with pass degrees and pass diplomas should start on point one of the salary scale"

"the whole system is in desperate need of reform."

The only things I agree with, that you've said so far.

Salaries should also be geographically-linked in some shape or form, like the way it is in England with higher pay for teachers (and others) in London. Obviously costs of living are higher in urban areas, so a teacher living in Dublin may be making ends meet while a teacher in a similar situation, all other things equal, living in rural areas may have a comfortable amount of disposable income. Again, desperate need of reform.

rainbowtrout · 31-03-2012 11:17pm

UnLuckyAgain wrote: »

The only things I agree with, that you've said so far.

Salaries should also be geographically-linked in some shape or form, like the way it is in England with higher pay for teachers (and others) in London. Obviously costs of living are higher in urban areas, so a teacher living in Dublin may be making ends meet while a teacher in a similar situation, all other things equal, living in rural areas may have a comfortable amount of disposable income. Again, desperate need of reform.

Rent is higher in Dublin, but public transport is non existent in rural areas and teachers often have to travel a long distance for work. Many of the teachers I work with (Roscommon) spend an absolute fortune on petrol/diesel getting to and from work every week. A less populated area means less schools to choose from, a smaller number of job opportunities and long distances between schools, hence having to travel further for work.

seavill · 31-03-2012 11:20pm

PhoenixParker wrote: »

Right now all I ever see is a pack of whiny brats, who don't know how good they have it, and to be frank sound like they belong in kindergarten.

Brilliant and so insightful. How great to be able to debate with people that make such logical rational arguments

UnLuckyAgain · 31-03-2012 11:30pm

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Rent is higher in Dublin, but public transport is non existent in rural areas and teachers often have to travel a long distance for work. Many of the teachers I work with (Roscommon) spend an absolute fortune on petrol/diesel getting to and from work every week. A less populated area means less schools to choose from, a smaller number of job opportunities and long distances between schools, hence having to travel further for work.

Definitely a valid point and without sounding cheeky, I just question to what extent petrol prices and extortionate rent can be compared?

Maybe the government's solution will be for all teachers to chuck in houses and live in camper vans, that way we only have to worry about petrol. If we're lucky they may even create a "mobile teacher" allowance. Then cut it with all the rest :P

rainbowtrout · 31-03-2012 11:49pm

UnLuckyAgain wrote: »

Definitely a valid point and without sounding cheeky, I just question to what extent petrol prices and extortionate rent can be compared?

Maybe the government's solution will be for all teachers to chuck in houses and live in camper vans, that way we only have to worry about petrol. If we're lucky they may even create a "mobile teacher" allowance. Then cut it with all the rest :P

Well petrol prices continue to rise while property prices continue to fall.

It's common enough in rural areas for teachers to drive 50 miles to school and obviously home each day. Doing 500 miles a week just to get to work (possibly not on full hours) costs a fair bit in petrol, not to mind more wear and tear on the car. A teacher I'm working with got married two years ago. Husband is a farmer so she had to move to where he lives, 2 hours away. She hasn't been able to get anything closer to his place, so is commuting.