A major factor in anti-teacher sentiment.

endakenny · 27-01-2015 4:57pm #1

I believe that a major factor in anti-teacher sentiment is the campaign of industrial action that was waged by the ASTI from 2000 to 2003, which consisted of strikes, withdrawal from supervision and substitution and initial refusal to teach new syllabi in LC Biology and Home Economics.

Teachers were neither overpaid nor underpaid at the time, although I believe that they and other public sector workers were entitled to pay rises under the benchmarking process.

Pay rises for teachers were conditional on holding parent-teacher and staff meetings outside school hours. There was no risk that teachers would not get the pay rises if they accepted the requirement with regard to those meetings straight away.

The industrial action caused an outcry among pupils and their parents and among the media. I believed that, if it had not been for that industrial action, there would not have been a hugely negative perception towards teachers, especially ASTI members, and thus there might have been no Croke Park hours.

qt3.14 · 27-01-2015 4:59pm

Sat my LC at the time. Definitely left a sour taste in the mouth.

endakenny · 27-01-2015 5:05pm

qt3.14 wrote: »

Sat my LC at the time. Definitely left a sour taste in the mouth.

I agree with you. I did my JC at the time. Did you get what you applied for in your CAO application form?

sillysmiles · 27-01-2015 5:10pm

Seriously? It's 15 years ago and you are still concerned about what you got on your CAO?

endakenny · 27-01-2015 5:31pm

sillysmiles wrote: »

Seriously? It's 15 years ago and you are still concerned about what you got on your CAO?

It wasn't about my CAO; I was asking that poster whether or not the industrial action affected his or her LC performance, thus affecting CAO choices.

It is a matter of regret that ASTI members who were not in the teaching profession at the time of that industrial action have been caught up in CPA and HRA but they only have Bernadine O'Sullivan and other ASTI militants to blame.

seavill · 27-01-2015 5:53pm

Maybe those of us no around at the time are not looking to blame anyone. I don't care if someone still has an issue from 13 years ago. I think you are completely wrong by the way but even if you are right I don't care. I say fair play to them for standing up for what they believe in and sticking to their guns.

If only teachers now had the same back bone.

r93kaey5p2izun · 27-01-2015 6:05pm

I was doing my LC in 2001 and my teachers were on strike fairly regularly from around November on. I felt it had no impact on my preparations. I understood why they were taking a stand and in fact couldn't understand why TUI were not supporting the campaign.

I think anti teacher sentiment was prevalent before that industrial action. Having spent several years working in the private sector before retraining as a teacher I personally think the biggest motivators of this negativity are a complete lack of knowledge about what the job actually entails and plain old begrudgery regarding holidays.

endakenny · 27-01-2015 6:06pm

seavill wrote: »

Maybe those of us no around at the time are not looking to blame anyone. I don't care if someone still has an issue from 13 years ago. I think you are completely wrong by the way but even if you are right I don't care. I say fair play to them for standing up for what they believe in and sticking to their guns.

If only teachers now had the same back bone.

In my opinion, it's still relevant because it increased anti-teacher sentiment. Compared to now, secondary teachers were not under a huge amount of pressure back in 2000. I suspect that some secondary teachers who were in the profession and who have not yet reached retirement think that doing S&S unpaid back then was like a walk in the park by comparison to what is expected of them under HRA.

endakenny · 27-01-2015 6:10pm

Jayce Low Transparency wrote: »

I was doing my LC in 2001 and my teachers were on strike fairly regularly from around November on. I felt it had no impact on my preparations. I understood why they were taking a stand and in fact couldn't understand why TUI were not supporting the campaign.

The answer to that question: teachers of JC and LC courses constitute a minority of the members of the TUI.

Jayce Low Transparency wrote: »

I think anti teacher sentiment was prevalent before that industrial action. Having spent several years working in the private sector before retraining as a teacher I personally think the biggest motivators of this negativity are a complete lack of knowledge about what the job actually entails and plain old begrudgery regarding holidays.

Such sentiment may have been prevalent before 2000 but it was on a smaller scale. I'm aware that rising house prices posed a problem for public sector workers back in the Celtic Tiger era but benchmarking addressed that issue.

spurious · 27-01-2015 6:23pm

endakenny wrote: »

The answer to that question: teachers of JC and LC courses constitute a minority of the members of the TUI.

I'm not sure that was true in 2000 (or is now). Can you provide a source?

endakenny · 27-01-2015 6:30pm

spurious wrote: »

I'm not sure that was true in 2000 (or is now). Can you provide a source?

It's conjecture on my part. Further Education colleges and institutes of technology are larger and thus, presumably, have more teachers or lecturers than secondary schools have.

One of the teachers of my alma mater, which is a voluntary secondary school, said that the fact that the TUI represents FE teacherss and IoT lecturers is the reason that it didn't take industrial action over benchmarking.

spurious · 27-01-2015 7:05pm

I just know from being at the conferences, the Third Level group were usually quite small. The FE group would certainly have grown in the meantime, but most of the FE colleges are part of existing second level ETB schools and a great number of FE teachers would also have hours in the standard school, thus teaching LC and JC. I'm not sure that is the reason TUI did not get involved in action in 2000.

The IT members of TUI can and have taken action on their own, as can and have the second level members. It's not an all or nothing situation.

ustazjoseph · 27-01-2015 7:49pm

I would suggest that there has been anti teacher sentiment about for a long time. During the 80 s early 90 s teachers were seen by many as safe , comfortable middle class with for the most part light work loads and good conditions. In rural Ireland many secondary teachers had private business or second incomes. This was often resented
For the many in this country who were battered abused and blackguarded by teachers there was an active resentment. Although the clerical abuse has been well documented and exposed many religious school were places of violence and fear. The local muinteoir , backbone of the community, helper of the parish priest , GAA stalwart was in more than a few cases arrogant , narrow minded and intolerant.
The ASTI campaign you speak of probably didn't help but its not the only issue. As the recession bit the political parties and some elements of the media were happy to go down the " cushy public servants with huge pensions " road.
Much of our public discourse in this country is directly or indirectly influenced by Britain , Since about 1988 there has been a "reform education " agenda in Britian . This was politically motivated during Thatcher's time and has continued. There was a move to ; more assessments , more monitoring teachers , more power to inspectors, (HMI and OFsted) ,The inspectors getting involved in media discussion and flying political kites, a series of " loony left " accusations in the red top media ,the rise of the" league table" culture, "parental choice" . All this stuff has an impact especially among the readers of the Oirish edition papers broadsheet , tabloid and compact.
And then there's old style jealousy. Its easy to resent your brother in law who has months of leave and is able to come home at 4.30. No one ever needed to spend time checking facts and figures before leaping to asssumptions !

Powerhouse · 27-01-2015 8:08pm

endakenny wrote: »

I believe that a major factor in anti-teacher sentiment is the campaign of industrial action that was waged by the ASTI from 2000 to 2003, which consisted of strikes, withdrawal from supervision and substitution and initial refusal to teach new syllabi in LC Biology and Home Economics.

Yes I would definitely say that the failure to show sufficient fleetness of foot in taking to the new Home Economics syllabus over a decade ago is really agitating the minds of the general public. :rolleyes:

endakenny · 27-01-2015 8:22pm

Powerhouse wrote: »

Yes I would definitely say that the failure to show sufficient fleetness of foot in taking to the new Home Economics syllabus over a decade ago is really agitating the minds of the general public. :rolleyes:

I am baffled as to why the ASTI wasn't afraid of the fact that refusal to teach the new Biology and Home Ec syllabi at the time would have been a breach of contract.

endakenny · 27-01-2015 8:27pm

ustazjoseph wrote: »

For the many in this country who were battered abused and blackguarded by teachers there was an active resentment. Although the clerical abuse has been well documented and exposed many religious school were places of violence and fear. The local muinteoir , backbone of the community, helper of the parish priest , GAA stalwart was in more than a few cases arrogant , narrow minded and intolerant.

Then the teachers' unions should launch a public information campaign to say to critics of the teaching profession, "We're not like that".

endakenny · 27-01-2015 8:32pm

There is no evidence that teachers would have been underpaid if the ASTI action of 2000 to 2003 had not take place? The fact of the matter is that they would still have been paid fairly.

The Black Oil · 27-01-2015 9:59pm

Jayce Low Transparency wrote: »

I was doing my LC in 2001 and my teachers were on strike fairly regularly from around November on. I felt it had no impact on my preparations. I understood why they were taking a stand and in fact couldn't understand why TUI were not supporting the campaign.

I think anti teacher sentiment was prevalent before that industrial action. Having spent several years working in the private sector before retraining as a teacher I personally think the biggest motivators of this negativity are a complete lack of knowledge about what the job actually entails and plain old begrudgery regarding holidays.

Nail on the head, really. Did the LC the same year as you.

Anti-teacher sentiment is not new, though I feel it's gotten worse in the recession. Right now, it's primarily from people who hold very negative and bitter attitudes towards the wider public service. This is based on lazy stereotypes, generalisations and armchair expertise. Read an article about teaching any Irish based news website and the tone of these sort of comments is only too evident. Bitter, self-congratulatory, intolerant and rarely putting forward solutions.

evolving_doors · 27-01-2015 10:07pm

endakenny wrote: »

There is no evidence that teachers would have been underpaid if the ASTI action of 2000 to 2003 had not take place? The fact of the matter is that they would still have been paid fairly.

So is your assertion that there would have been a pay rise without the strike?

killbillvol2 · 27-01-2015 11:01pm

Finally it becomes clear.

The strikes of 2000-2003 caused endakenny to miss out on the points required to go into teaching (in his opinion).

His fascination (obsession?) with the profession continues unabated however, and thus we're all treated to his ramblings.

Those ASTI members have a lot to answer for! :P

km79 · 27-01-2015 11:13pm

endakenny wrote: »

There is no evidence that teachers would have been underpaid if the ASTI action of 2000 to 2003 had not take place? The fact of the matter is that they would still have been paid fairly.

there is no evidence to suggest to suggest they would not have been underpaid either.
the fact of the matter ? facts according to who ? you is it........define fairly in this context ..........fairly in the eyes of someone constantly running teachers down and seems to think they know the better than the actual professionals may not be seen as fair by the people who spent years qualifying , subbing and actually doing the job on a daily basis.
An awful lot of posters and you in particular seem obsessed with teaching and all its "perks"
Go and get the qualifications and see how well paid you are........that's if you are lucky enough to get a few hours given how difficult they are to get for an NQT.
Part time teachers struggles don't sell newspapers though or get non teachers scrambling to start up ill informed inflammatory threads

doc_17 · 27-01-2015 11:55pm

Is this thread for real? What's the deal with the non teacher starting a thread that has nothing to do with anything?

This EK is more annoying than the real one

endakenny · 28-01-2015 12:41am

Armelodie wrote: »

So is your assertion that there would have been a pay rise without the strike?

Teachers were getting a pay rise as part of the benchmarking process, as long as they agreed to hold parent-teacher and staff meetings outside school hours. Did the ASTI think that the Department wouldn't adhere to its side of the bargain? Why wouldn't the Department adhere to its side of the bargain? Every other public sector union trusted the government departments to adhere to their sides of the bargain.

endakenny · 28-01-2015 12:42am

doc_17 wrote: »

Is this thread for real? What's the deal with the non teacher starting a thread that has nothing to do with anything?

This EK is more annoying than the real one

I'll tell you what this thread has to do with: examining a factor in anti-teacher sentiment. There might have been no Croke Park hours if it hadn't been for the oppobrium that ASTI members brought upon themselves and their colleagues.

endakenny · 28-01-2015 12:44am

km79 wrote: »

there is no evidence to suggest to suggest they would not have been underpaid either.

It's up to the accuser to prove the accusation. I base my opinion on the presumption of innocence. That is how the legal system works and that is how it should work with regard to making accusations in all aspects of life.

km79 · 28-01-2015 12:44am

endakenny wrote: »

Teachers were getting a pay rise as part of the benchmarking process, as long as they agreed to hold parent-teacher and staff meetings outside school hours. Did the ASTI think that the Department wouldn't adhere to its side of the bargain? Why wouldn't the Department adhere to its side of the bargain? Every other public sector union trusted the government departments to adhere to their sides of the bargain.

yes cos the govt adhered all the consequent agreements right.....including the current one.......new teachers pay STILL not sorted........ increments STILL not paid
you will choose to ignore these points though so I will choose to ignore your posts
clicks ignore list button
as doc 17 said this thread is absolutely bananas. What exactly is the point of it ? I think we all know. another to add to the list

endakenny · 28-01-2015 12:47am

killbillvol2 wrote: »

The strikes of 2000-2003 caused endakenny to miss out on the points required to go into teaching (in his opinion).

Stop putting words in my mouth.

I didn't say that strikes took place from 2000 to 2003. If you read the OP you'll know that I said that the campaign of industrial action wasn't confined to strikes. Furthermore, I mentioned the CAO in the context of a question I was asking a poster who mentioned having a sour taste left in his or her mouth by the strikes.

endakenny · 28-01-2015 12:49am

km79 wrote: »

What exactly is the point of it ? I think we all know. another to add to the list

The point of it is figuring out what caused anti-teacher sentiment.

endakenny · 28-01-2015 12:52am

km79 wrote: »

yes cos the govt adhered all the consequent agreements right.....including the current one.......new teachers pay STILL not sorted........ increments STILL not paid
you will choose to ignore these points though so I will choose to ignore your posts
clicks ignore list button

The pay-cut that took place before CPA had nothing to do with benchmarking.

Furthermore, HRA still has a year to run. Therefore, there is still time for sorting new teachers' pay and paying increments.

There you go; I'm addressing your points, not ignoring them.

seavill · 28-01-2015 1:24am

endakenny wrote: »

I'll tell you what this thread has to do with: examining a factor in anti-teacher sentiment. There might have been no Croke Park hours if it hadn't been for the oppobrium that ASTI members brought upon themselves and their colleagues.

But the Croke park agreement was across the public sector not just in education so regardless of strikes back in the day or not (your points seems to be altering as we go along) we would still have to make concessions for cp agreement. So what has that got to do with public sentiment which was caused by the strikes back in 2000.

Also you have twice referee critically to the actions back in the day by the Asti and the effects it had on Asti members now - have you any basis for your opinion that teachers now resent the actions of years ago or is this just your personal ramblings

endakenny · 28-01-2015 2:06am

seavill wrote: »

But the Croke park agreement was across the public sector not just in education so regardless of strikes back in the day or not (your points seems to be altering as we go along) we would still have to make concessions for cp agreement. So what has that got to do with public sentiment which was caused by the strikes back in 2000.

The CPA requirements expected from teaches might have been less onerous otherwise. After all, the ASTI strikes that took place in 2000 had a negative effect on public perception of secondary teachers.

seavill wrote: »

Also you have twice referee critically to the actions back in the day by the Asti and the effects it had on Asti members now - have you any basis for your opinion that teachers now resent the actions of years ago or is this just your personal ramblings

My opinion is just that - an opinion. ASTI members went on strike back in 2000 just because they didn't like doing S&S without payment. Now, all the concessions that they got under benchmarking are gone and they are worse off than they were before they went on strike in 2000. The old saying "Be careful what you wish for" comes to mind.

seavill · 28-01-2015 8:55am

You have absolutely no basis for your opinion that the cpa would have had different outcomes if it had not been for the early 2000s. Everyone had to agree to changes in work practice. What would they have made us do instead for the cpa??? Also are you really trying to say that the alleged bad feeling from the early 2000s by the public was key to the government decisions during talks for Croke park. That seems to be what you are saying ?

In fact your opinion makes less sense to me. If you take one of the concessions was to lose payment for s&s. Had we not had payment in the first place we would have had to give somewhere else. So in fact had it not been for the strikes in the early 2000s we would be way worse off right now than we currently are.

RealJohn · 28-01-2015 9:03am

endakenny wrote: »

It's up to the accuser to prove the accusation. I base my opinion on the presumption of innocence. That is how the legal system works and that is how it should work with regard to making accusations in all aspects of life.

Would you not take this approach in all the other nonsense threads you start then? You usually start with the assumption that teachers are guilty of something and gripe about it.

Actually, that's how you started this thread - you assumed that industrial action over ten years ago was a large part of the reason that the general public have no sympathy for teachers, based on nothing (other than possibly your own resentment).

evolving_doors · 28-01-2015 9:46am

doc_17 wrote: »

Is this thread for real? What's the deal with the non teacher starting a thread that has nothing to do with anything?

This EK is more annoying than the real one

Tis an open forum doc_17.

Don't respond to that warning on-thread

Mod.

evolving_doors · 28-01-2015 11:55am

RealJohn wrote: »

Would you not take this approach in all the other nonsense threads you start then? You usually start with the assumption that teachers are guilty of something and gripe about it.

Actually, that's how you started this thread - you assumed that industrial action over ten years ago was a large part of the reason that the general public have no sympathy for teachers, based on nothing (other than possibly your own resentment).

I think the thread title is a fair assertion... just based on what ive heard in my staffroom. Whether it be right or wrong ,the sentiment amongst some IS hostility against the ASTI for the actions taken back then, and quite a few said it was the point at which public sentiment towards teachers began.
Of course its more nuanced but getting back to the thread title ; I believe it is a factor... maybe not the 'main' factor... but still a factor.
So from that point of view I'm interested in hearing other folks opinion who were around back then (I wasnt teaching then either).

seavill · 28-01-2015 12:12pm

I've never heard any mention of the earlier action in nearly 10 years of teaching from either teachers or the public. I Couldn't agree with you that the two are linked

evolving_doors · 28-01-2015 1:35pm

seavill wrote: »

I've never heard any mention of the earlier action in nearly 10 years of teaching from either teachers or the public. I Couldn't agree with you that the two are linked

Neither had I, until I saw mention of it in an old thread. Even when I asked around the lunch table I sensed a bit of tension between teachers... so maybe thats why folk prefer to bite their tongue.

Unions are a fairly emotive topic and the issues seem to be fairly complicated. There is usually a good bit of background history and politics involved too. It can be as touchy as civil war politics was... (just mention Unions/Waterford Crystal to anyone old enough in Waterford and you can see why some wish to stay silent).

I think someone on here put up a link to politics.ie where the ins and outs of 2000 were discussed at length. Ill try and find it.

Edit: Well here's some background to the ASTI politics of it... and I'm none the wiser after that, but it highlights the above points (HERE)

evolving_doors · 28-01-2015 2:05pm

killbillvol2 wrote: »

Finally it becomes clear.

The strikes of 2000-2003 caused endakenny to miss out on the points required to go into teaching (in his opinion).

His fascination (obsession?) with the profession continues unabated however, and thus we're all treated to his ramblings.

Those ASTI members have a lot to answer for! :P

Ah now KBV2, just stick to the points addressed rather than the person making the point. Making judgements about the personality of the OP is a sign of a weak defence.

Cards will be handed out if members insist on attacking the poster rather than the post.

If it's a closed forum folk are after then educationposts is

>

Do not respond to this FINAL WARNING...

endakenny · 28-01-2015 2:07pm

Armelodie wrote: »

I think someone on here put up a link to politics.ie where the ins and outs of 2000 were discussed at length. Ill try and find it.

Is this it?
http://www.politics.ie/forum/history/163031-asti-industrial-action-2000-2003-a.html

evolving_doors · 28-01-2015 2:08pm

Ya that's it.

acequion · 28-01-2015 6:06pm

Sorry OP but you're talking rubbish and doing so with rather melodramatic language,"public outcry", "opprobrium" How come I, as a practising teacher,an ASTI member and a striker back then recall no such "opprobrium"?

Granted,the strikes caused inconvenience and were unpopular as strikes always are, but no more so or less so than the current dispute and the dispute exactly 15 years previous to 2000,the dispute which also caused stoppages in 1985.

To suggest that the 2000-2003 disputes were some kind of watershed to which the beginnings of public hostility can be traced and even the CPA, is hilariously far fetched.

Anti teacher sentiment cannot be traced to any one moment or event. It is an attitude shift which has evolved over time,from the days when the local school master was a godlike figure in the community, to today,when he /she is everyone's favourite public enemy. Same thing happened with the church.Go back further and same thing happened with the landowner.It is a cultural thing in this giddy little land of ours where everything is in extremes. The old parish order changed even more during the tiger years when all paddies [teachers included] were partying and the sense of entitlement by many became obnoxious. When the proverbial shyte hit the fan someone had to be scapegoated, so handy enough to blame PS workers in general and teachers in particular.

As for the tension some people sense when talking to older collegues about those strikes,that is because of the resentment ASTI members felt towards the other teacher unions. ASTI action lead to S&S being paid for the first time,from which all teachers benefitted. Everyone felt very let down by the TUI in particular,as they were the good guys not on strike and here we were sticking our necks out. But, as one poster pointed out,they had more guts back then.

killbillvol2 · 28-01-2015 6:23pm

killbillvol2 wrote: »

Finally it becomes clear.

The strikes of 2000-2003 caused endakenny to miss out on the points required to go into teaching (in his opinion).

His fascination (obsession?) with the profession continues unabated however, and thus we're all treated to his ramblings.

Those ASTI members have a lot to answer for! :P

Armelodie wrote: »

Ah now KBV2, just stick to the points addressed rather than the person making the point. Making judgements about the personality of the OP is a sign of a weak defence.

Cards will be handed out if members insist on attacking the poster rather than the post.

If it's a closed forum folk are after then educationposts is
>

Do not respond to this FINAL WARNING...

So on your so-called open forum I'm not entitled to question the motives of a poster who consistently attacks teachers on the forum? That's BS.

You can save your card, I'm out of here.

<Have a read of your post above again, you didn't question the motives in any way what so ever. Anyway, since when did questioning motives of folk (who we have no clue about ) ever get a thread anywhere.

Even at that I didn't give out any infractions, it was just a warning (because others chose to report your post too!)...after another obviously ignored warning.

Mod.>

endakenny · 28-01-2015 6:49pm

acequion wrote: »

As for the tension some people sense when talking to older collegues about those strikes,that is because of the resentment ASTI members felt towards the other teacher unions. ASTI action lead to S&S being paid for the first time,from which all teachers benefitted. Everyone felt very let down by the TUI in particular,as they were the good guys not on strike and here we were sticking our necks out. But, as one poster pointed out,they had more guts back then.

The TUI didn't ask the ASTI to go on strike. Maybe TUI members didn't mind doing S&S without payment.

Chilli Con Kearney · 28-01-2015 6:50pm

Enda, at the CPA talks, other sectors were hit for overtime cuts, additional hours of work, etc.

As none of the changes/adjustments could be imposed on teachers other than a straight pay cut, which was not going to happen really, we were given extra hours to do, in terms of meetings, planning, etc. This was to be done outside of normal hours hence generating 'efficiencies' in our sector.

This way, all sectors were hit. We could not get away without something giving. 2001 strikes or not, this was going to happen.

seavill · 28-01-2015 7:00pm

endakenny wrote: »

The TUI didn't ask the ASTI to go on strike. Maybe TUI members didn't mind doing S&S without payment.

Where does your opinion come from that they don't mind? Is there any basis for it.

Do you care to respond to my earlier questions to you?

endakenny · 28-01-2015 7:05pm

Chilli Con Kearney wrote: »

Enda, at the CPA talks, other sectors were hit for overtime cuts, additional hours of work, etc.

As none of the changes/adjustments could be imposed on teachers other than a straight pay cut, which was not going to happen really, we were given extra hours to do, in terms of meetings, planning, etc. This was to be done outside of normal hours hence generating 'efficiencies' in our sector.

This way, all sectors were hit. We could not get away without something giving. 2001 strikes or not, this was going to happen.

I'm aware of that. When I said "there might not have been CP hours", I should have said "there might not have been CP hours in the current format". I'm aware that teachers have gripes about the lack of flexibility of these hours for various reasons (though a small amount of flexibility was granted to all teachers after the ASTI accepted HRA), i.e. the hours cannot involve continuous professional development or giving extra classes while other public sector workers, in their extra hours, are simply doing more of the work that they always do, e.g. nursing, policing.

endakenny · 28-01-2015 7:09pm

seavill wrote: »

Where does your opinion come from that they don't mind? Is there any basis for it.

Do you care to respond to my earlier questions to you?

I didn't hear of TUI members complaining about S&S or lobbying their leadership for a ballot for industrial action back in 2000.

As for the possibility of having to give something somewhere else if there never had been payment for S&S, what do you think that something somewhere else might have been?

Chilli Con Kearney · 28-01-2015 7:55pm

endakenny wrote: »

I'm aware of that. When I said "there might not have been CP hours", I should have said "there might not have been CP hours in the current format". I'm aware that teachers have gripes about the lack of flexibility of these hours for various reasons (though a small amount of flexibility was granted to all teachers after the ASTI accepted HRA), i.e. the hours cannot involve continuous professional development or giving extra classes while other public sector workers, in their extra hours, are simply doing more of the work that they always do, e.g. nursing, policing.

As far as I am aware, a major issue here was that the JMB pushed for the current format. They did not want nor considered that their members had time to be running around, compiling and tallying individual CPA hours for teaching staff. Consequently, the format of everyone in one room was arrived at.

Sure, it is a pain for teachers and is a waste of time in many cases (most 2 hour meetings with 40 people in a room are). But from the Principals' point of view, their job has become so difficult, so time-consuming and in some cases almost untenable, that this was another task they weren't willing to do. The government (DOE&S) are not going to go against the school managers. Sure then there would be all-out war.

acequion · 28-01-2015 8:12pm

endakenny wrote: »

The TUI didn't ask the ASTI to go on strike. Maybe TUI members didn't mind doing S&S without payment.

Oh would you please get real!! Just because they weren't striking didn't mean they didn't object to doing unpaid work.

However, in the late 90's I worked part time in a VEC school which would be TUI. I had about 8 set hours per week but I used to earn a decent weekly wage from subbing in the same school. All substitution was covered by part time and casual teachers for which they were paid. Contracted teachers did do yard supervision,but that's all. I remember being peed off by having to do both unpaid when I switched over to voluntary secondary. So,that probably explains why TUI teachers they didn't feel as aggrieved as the ASTI ones.

The subsequent introduction of paid,voluntary S&S put everyone on an equal footing. .

endakenny · 28-01-2015 8:38pm

acequion wrote: »

Oh would you please get real!! Just because they weren't striking didn't mean they didn't object to doing unpaid work.

However, in the late 90's I worked part time in a VEC school which would be TUI. I had about 8 set hours per week but I used to earn a decent weekly wage from subbing in the same school. All substitution was covered by part time and casual teachers for which they were paid. Contracted teachers did do yard supervision,but that's all. I remember being peed off by having to do both unpaid when I switched over to voluntary secondary. So,that probably explains why TUI teachers they didn't feel as aggrieved as the ASTI ones.

The subsequent introduction of paid,voluntary S&S put everyone on an equal footing. .

Why didn't the ASTI consider legal action with regard to S&S on the grounds of the constitutional right to equality?

katydid · 28-01-2015 10:02pm

endakenny wrote: »

The answer to that question: teachers of JC and LC courses constitute a minority of the members of the TUI.

How do you work that out? The FE sector was pretty small back then (still is)and is still relatively small, and the third level sector, which tends not to be so vocal in the union. I go to union events and I can assure you that as a teacher in the FE sector, the the majority of those I encounter and the tenor of most discussions tends to be aimed at second level.

A major factor in anti-teacher sentiment.

Comments