doc_17 Registered User
#31

doc_17 said:
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 Registered User
#32

jh79 said:
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.

5 people have thanked this post
spurious Category Moderator
#33

UnLuckyAgain said:
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 Registered User
#34

[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.



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.

2 people have thanked this post
jh79 Registered User
#35

jh79 said:
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 Registered User
#36

jh79 said:
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 Registered User
#37

jh79 said:
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 Registered User
#38

jh79 said:

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)

2 people have thanked this post
jh79 Registered User
#39

jh79 said:

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 Registered User
#40

jimbo28 said:
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 Registered User
#41

jimbo28 said:
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 Registered User
#42

jh79 said:


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 Registered User
#43

jh79 said:


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 Registered User
#44

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.

1 person has thanked this post
Powerhouse Registered User
#45

PhoenixParker said:


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.

Want to share your thoughts?

Login here to discuss!