Semi-State Workers demanding jobs for life - Wrong?

ixoy

I see the whining unionsed semi-state "civil servants" (in all but name) are now demanding jobs for life (taken from today's Indo):

THOUSANDS of semi-state employees are set to demand 'civil service status' which would give them the jobs-for-life guarantees promised by Transport Minister Seamus Brennan to nearly 3,000 Aer Rianta employees.

Union chiefs in the ESB, Aer Lingus and other top state employments want similar pledges of no compulsory redundancies.

The minister's offer to Aer Rianta workers has opened the floodgates with up to 30,000 semi-state employees likely to demand special civil service status.

According to the current issue of Industrial Relations News (IRN), trade unions in the semi-state sector have said that they too will look for the sort of jobs guarantee promised by the Minister for Transport in his current row with Aer Rianta trade unions.

"Ultimately, therefore, the outcome of the Aer Rianta dispute and what is eventually put into legislation will set the context for public employment into the future. What will emerge from the Labour Relations Commission process proposed by Minister Brennan, is a sort of template that will be applicable across the public sector," IRN has predicted.

The no compulsory redundancy commitment made to Aer Rianta workers by Seamus Brennan in his letter of January 9 to ICTU general secretary, David Begg, had similarities with other previous ground-breaking job guarantees such as the letters of comfort at Team Aer Lingus and the infamous Talbot deal back in the early 1980s.

On Monday CIE staff are expected to demand similar assurances when they meet Mr Brennan. Two weeks ago, Siptu and the National Bus and Rail Union (NBRU) issued a joint statment saying that they had been assured no jobs would be lost at Dublin Bus even with one-quarter of the routes being allocated to private operators later this year.

The knock-on demand for 'civil service status', with permanent and pensionable employment assured for life, could prove a huge liability on the Exchequer.

Anyone here, who works in the private sector like myself, must feel absolutely disgusted by this. Jobs for life isn't a feasible model in the society we live in - why the hell should they get them? How does this make all the people being made redundant across the country feel, to see civil servants/semi-state workers say "Just give us our job" regardless of whether the jobs are necessary or not? Such demands have a knock on effect on us too because we're often stuck with these companies (Dublin Bus, ESB, etc.) and have to stick with their insane practices.

Anyone else then irritated like hell about this latest outrageous demand?

star gazer

Irritated, but not surprised. When you see Eircom employees getting 30% of the company for very little improvement in the company and the usual rumours of inactive powerstations being fully staffed by idle workers, there comes a point when nothing surprises about the power of unions in Semi-states. When you consider the power of air transport unions within the Taoiseach's constituency, it gives them a strong bargaining point. It's not hard to see why the unions have been allowed to dictate corporate policy within semi-states when every government is afrad of the political damage strike action does. The services provided or the value for money on the states investment are down the list when it comes to the priorities of Trade unions.

BuffyBot

Anyone else then irritated like hell about this latest outrageous demand?

Not really.

The government opened themselves up to this by fluffing the Aer Rianta issue - why wouldn't the others try and obtain the same security!

I'm not saying it's right, but it is hardly surprising or outrageous that they would try

ixoy

There's a great letter also in the Indo today - nice and bitchy, just the way I feel today with my sore head:

Sir - Out of frustration I am putting words to feelings and observations that have reached boiling point, having read the weekend papers. This country and its tax-paying workforce has, for too long, taken endless kicks, cut-backs, increases and we have received this news with a meekness reserved for the likes of some biblical tribe.

The brunt of the mismanagement and abuse of this country has been borne by the PAYE and business sectors. Our politicians (no matter which political persuasion because they all basically follow the same principle of 'feather thy nest'), have plundered this country of its reserves, its prosperity and its future.

Hand in hand with irresponsibility, stupidity, the unions and a constitution and legislature they use for their own benefit, they are in the process of destroying our nation. There are more pay increases for the politicians and top civil servants; jobs for life for some who wouldn't stand a chance in the private sector; and government officials and ministers terrified of unions rocking the boat, bending over backwards to blackmail and avert a huge PR disaster should someone from the EU take notice.

Well, the eastern Europeans are coming, and they aren't carrying any of the politically correct baggage with which we have laden ourselves. They are going to take jobs, revenue and whatever else they are rightly entitled to do. Ministers are spending tax-payers money courting these people. What have we got to offer them?

Our 'young dynamic qualified workforce' is at this moment looking for jobs abroad because they either cannot afford to start a life and/or family here, or they have seen the writing on the wall. How many eastern European companies and jobs are going to re-locate to Ireland?

Meanwhile, semi-state bodies are unable to shed unnecessary staff because a minister with all the answers from road-building to driving habits, is at the helm with a bottomless pocket and a series of quick-fire answers to issues that have taken others millions of euro and years to think about.

It is hard for any PAYE earner, entrepeneur or self-employed person to think of a situation where they could cock up any job given to them and know there would be no consequences for their actions/inactions. Ask the 27,000 private-sector workers who lost their jobs last year.

How many screw-ups have we seen in the public sector in the same period? Hands up anyone who can't reel off half-a-dozen instances of political mismanagement, planning absurdities, or financial misappropriations

Enter the unions, the great hide-away for the idle. I don't want to generalise but it's a known fact that you can be lazy on the job, and the union will protect you. Woe betide the company that tries to tackle this problem head-on.

The unions' origin lies in the Industrial Revolution, before legislation was introduced to protect workers' rights. As we now have that, they should be obsolete. Unfortunately the lethargic members of Dáil Eireann and the unions themselves don't want to let the cat out among the pigeons. You scratch my back etc. etc. George Orwell would have loved it.

How much more of my money is to go down the tube before it's noticed? Having the time to go out to petition would be great. Unfortunately, I have to work to pay a mortgage, work to keep my child in day-care, work to pay health insurance, work to pay a pension. Tell me this, who'll catch me if I fall?
Andrew Dowling,
Foster Lawn,
Lucan, Co Dublin

Sums it up perfectly! What a great letter. Andrew - if you're here - let me buy you a pint

Sparks

The reason the disparity between private and public sector pay levels is accepted is that public sector workers accept tenure as compensation.

Semi-state bodies were always considered to be part of the public sector. Hence the wages which were less than comparable companies in the private sector (with the possible exception of the boards of directors, but that's Ireland for you...).

So our choice, really, is to pay a higher wage to civil servants and eliminate tenure, or to accept the situation.

parsi

It seems to escape most people (judging by the letter above) that Civil & public servants and Semi-State workers are on the PAYE system as well..

ixoy

Originally posted by Sparks
The reason the disparity between private and public sector pay levels is accepted is that public sector workers accept tenure as compensation.

Semi-state bodies were always considered to be part of the public sector. Hence the wages which were less than comparable companies in the private sector (with the possible exception of the boards of directors, but that's Ireland for you...).

So our choice, really, is to pay a higher wage to civil servants and eliminate tenure, or to accept the situation.

Do they get paid less anymore, though? I mean with the recent pay agreement is this true? Also remember that many of them, in the administrative sector, work less hours and have flexi-time programs. So per hour are they being paid less at all?

bonkey

Originally posted by ixoy
I see the whining unionsed semi-state "civil servants" (in all but name) are now demanding jobs for life (taken from today's Indo):
...
Anyone else then irritated like hell about this latest outrageous demand?

I don't see that they're demanding jobs for life unreasonably at all. What they are demanding is equal treatment.

From the first line of the article, we see that some semi-state employees have been promised "job-for-life" status by the current minister.

Well, answer me this : If I was an employer and I turned around and promised all male employees in my office a half-day every Friday, do you think the women would be being unreasonable to demand the same? What if I promised it to employees who were, say, over 30, or some other relatively arbitrary category? What if I said that the sales team would get it, but not anyone else (including the sales-support teams)? Do oyu think that the remaining employees would happily sit back and say "well, he's the employer, he can do what he wants"???

The simple fact is that the minister has basically turned around and said "this semi-state body deserves special treatment that the others do not". All that is happening is that the remaining semi-state bodies are refusing to accept such inequality of treatment. Whether or not they even agree with the specific issue, they don't have much choice, as a union would lose credibility and effectiveness if it started saying "this inequality of treatment is fine, but we won't accept that other inequality of treatment because you must treat us all the same".

So lets not bo too quick to blame the employees or the unions. This is a mess of the Minister's own making, and someone should be asking him what drugs he was on the day he made such a short-sighted, foolish promise.

jc

ixoy

Fair point bonkey. What I'm getting at though is that the principal of jobs for life is stupid and noone should expect it. The Minister shouldn't, of course, have promised this sort of thing because it's unworkable. He's a moron for doing it. Do people believe though that semi-state works and civil servants SHOULD have a job for life, be heavily protected by the unions [as the letter points out]? Is this fair (ignoring any judgments or political precedents by blind ministers) when private sector workers rarely, if ever, get the same assurances (and no, we don't all get paid great wages).

star gazer

One point though, weren't relativities ended with the benchmarking agreement?

ixoy

Originally posted by star gazer
One point though, weren't relativities ended with the benchmarking agreement?

I thought so too. I mean wasn't the benchmarking agreement to address the apparenty disparity between wage levels? Why not now address the disparity in attitudes to work, such as hours and the job-for-life concept then. There's a gap there - don't civil servants want us to address it too

Sparks

The idea was that the disparity was meant to be addressed by the partnership agreements.

That's not quite what happened, of course.

Instead all that was eliminated was the right to expect tenure as a compensation.

star gazer

originally posted by ixoy
There's a gap there - don't civil servants want us to address it too

No, they made the verification reports for the 'benchmarks' confidential, they obviously don't want scrutiny.

Cork

Not satisfied with the benchmarking or benefits from social partnership - they seemed to have secured "jobs for life".

This gaurentee will be at our expense.

Where else would you get it? - "jobs for life".

It is amazing - if governments privatise a state company - workers look for a stake?

If a private company gets taken over - workers are lucky to retain their jobs.

Public Sector workers wanted to catch up with the private sector with benchmarking.

It is only right - they themselves accept private sector job security.

Capt'n Midnight

Originally posted by parsi
It seems to escape most people (judging by the letter above) that Civil & public servants and Semi-State workers are on the PAYE system as well..

RANT - don't they still pay less PRSI and get a higher milage allowance than private sector workers, not to mention in a lot of cases Sick Days can be taken if unused etc. etc. /RANT

Yeah I'd like to have "the iron rice bowl" (as it's known in China) - never having to worry about job security or paying off the mortgague - and what most of wouldn't give to be able to take a Career break - a year off work - with a guarantee you job will be there when you come back (ok not all public sector get these - but snowball's chance of getting one for the rest of us) /RANT

Sparks

Originally posted by Cork
It is amazing - if governments privatise a state company - workers look for a stake?

Seems about right. You work for the company for 30 years at 60% or so of the private industry pay level, in return for tenure. Then the government sells the company out from under you (in an unbelievably incompetent manner, no less) and you expect people to suddenly accept the loss of tenure and accept the same pay?

The choice is simple, stark and clear - you can have private sector pay or the lower by ~40% public sector pay and tenure.

It is only right - they themselves accept private sector job security.

No, they don't. That's the point.

And CM, all you have to do to get that deal is to take a serious pay cut and join the civil service.

gurramok

Seems about right. You work for the company for 30 years at 60% or so of the private industry pay level, in return for tenure.

Where did you get these figures from?

Teachers(yes i loathe the worst of them) for example earn alot more than the likes of me in the private sector considering i had to take a 25% pay cut during the dot com bust.

Plus to add insult to injury, i would need Irish language qualification to take a teachers job considering the teacher that taught me the language in the first place was one of the worst teachers in my secondary school and still in his job.(that guarantee thing)

Its simply not right for certain civil servants whether state or semi-state to bully the govt for better pay(benchmarking) without adequate quality of service in return especially when we simply cannot afford it.

Trade unions are what will bring this country to its knees, thats my view as i live in a 'working-class' area, they only serve their own interests and not for the common good. (same for sh1tty govt)

The letter writer is bang on, Andrew rulez the waves

Sparks

Originally posted by gurramok
Where did you get these figures from?

My parents have worked in the public sector for decades, in Eircom, the Civil Service and in Teaching. So have most of my extended family in fact.

Teachers(yes i loathe the worst of them) for example earn alot more than the likes of me in the private sector considering i had to take a 25% pay cut during the dot com bust.

Indeed? And when you say "teachers", who do you mean? Remember, not all teachers have permanent jobs, in fact it's heading for the situation where at least half are on contract. And they get lousy hours, lousy pay and no job security. And no, they do not get 3 months off for summer, unless you count invigilating and then correcting a thousand scripts to be a holiday.

Plus to add insult to injury, i would need Irish language qualification to take a teachers job

And I needed honours maths to become an engineer. Doesn't life just suck?

Its simply not right for certain civil servants whether state or semi-state to bully the govt for better pay(benchmarking) without adequate quality of service in return especially when we simply cannot afford it.

Indeed? You seem to be forgetting that the better pay they were looking for was not 100% of the private sector wage, but more than the 40% or so they had at the time. The private sector had taken off, wages had skyrocketed, the cost of living had gone up with it, but public sector pay wasn't increasing to match it, so in effect, public sector workers were taking pay cuts while the private sector had a boom period.
If the government takes the entire boom to sort out an agreement and then finds it's in the post-boom slump when it's time to pay up, is that the fault of the people who signed up? Or are they just meant to take it in the shorts when the private sector does well and when it does badly?

Trade unions are what will bring this country to its knees, thats my view as i live in a 'working-class' area, they only serve their own interests and not for the common good. (same for sh1tty govt)

Damn right! Trade unions are not there to look out for the whole country, they exist to look out for their members and no-one else. And that's right and proper and frankly, they're the only defence that ordinary joe soaps have - or did you notice the government looking out for the common man at some point in the last six years?

parsi

Originally posted by Capt'n Midnight
RANT - don't they still pay less PRSI and get a higher milage allowance than private sector workers, not to mention in a lot of cases Sick Days can be taken if unused etc. etc. /RANT

Yeah I'd like to have "the iron rice bowl" (as it's known in China) - never having to worry about job security or paying off the mortgague - and what most of wouldn't give to be able to take a Career break - a year off work - with a guarantee you job will be there when you come back (ok not all public sector get these - but snowball's chance of getting one for the rest of us) /RANT

Since 1996 new entrants pay full PRSI, mileage allowances are set.. private companies can choose whatever mileage they want to give and if its no more than the Civil Service rate then its not taxable.. if a private company wants to give a smaller mileage rate then thats their business... there are 5 uncertified sick days per year..not a lot really...plenty of private sector people get career breaks eg banks and larger orgs.

As regards the mortgage a lot of lower paid civil servants don't have the luxury of one with house prices being so high (a problem shared with private secor workers)

Meh

Originally posted by Sparks
And no, they do not get 3 months off for summer, unless you count invigilating and then correcting a thousand scripts to be a holiday.

...which is optional and which they get paid extra for.

Sparks

Originally posted by Meh
...which is optional and which they get paid extra for.

Which is about as optional as eating food, and for which they get paid less per hour than I do for invigilating college exams.

And that's not mentioning the large amount of unpaid work that teachers are regularly expected to do without pay or complaint - hence the debacle last year of trying to find people to supervise lunch hours and extra-cirricular activities and so on.

gurramok

Originally posted by Sparks
My parents have worked in the public sector for decades, in Eircom, the Civil Service and in Teaching. So have most of my extended family in fact.

Well, i must say that they did extremely well paywise in their professions. Where did you get 60%, word of mouth ?

And they get lousy hours, lousy pay and no job security.

Lousy ???
Their hours are the same 9-5 like the rest of us for less time of the year we work.
They get mid-term breaks as well as the extended summer/xmas/halloween/easter holidays.
Their job security must be one of the best. My old school had mostly crap teachers(bar the Maths teacher who was good ) with 30 yr careers and nothing was done to get them to perform up to standard.

And no, they do not get 3 months off for summer, unless you count invigilating and then correcting a thousand scripts to be a holiday.

A 1000 scripts ?
A single teacher might have 3 classes at most, avg class size 30, total 90 scripts.
Hardly rocket science to correct scripts.

And I needed honours maths to become an engineer. Doesn't life just suck?

You wont need honours Irish to become an engineer.

Hardly an equivalent anyway, as Maths is required in nearly every walk of life for a good career path in any country. Irish is mandatory if you want to work for the state. Only 3 of my class out of 34 that left school in my year 10 years ago got honours Irish.
Reason?...Crap teacher, we all couldnt of been that thick

If the government takes the entire boom to sort out an agreement and then finds it's in the post-boom slump when it's time to pay up, is that the fault of the people who signed up? Or are they just meant to take it in the shorts when the private sector does well and when it does badly?

Shouldn't public sector take in the shorts when the private sector is not doing too well for the last few years ?....No, they get generous benchmarking.

Damn right! Trade unions are not there to look out for the whole country, they exist to look out for their members and no-one else. And that's right and proper and frankly, they're the only defence that ordinary joe soaps have - or did you notice the government looking out for the common man at some point in the last six years?

Selfish trade unions do not defend the ordinary joe soaps. The outbreak and threat of strikes in the past has been wrong. Its the ordinary joe soap that suffers at the hands of these actions, not the govt.
Remember the train/bus/esb strikes ?
It was the joe soap who suffered physically.(I remember the long walk to work in the freezing rain)
The unions got their way, the taxpayer(you and i) coughed up.

Meh

Originally posted by Sparks
And that's not mentioning the large amount of unpaid work that teachers are regularly expected to do without pay or complaint...

Considering that their regular workday finishes at 4pm, you'll excuse me if I don't feel sorry for them if they have to *gasp* stay on till 5 or 5:30.

I wouldn't mind getting off at 4pm (or even 5:30) every day, and having a guaranteed job for life, and three months off (with part-time work for extra pay available if I want it) during the summer. Pity I hate kids...

Sparks

Originally posted by gurramok
Well, i must say that they did extremely well paywise in their professions.

Do you mean they were getting above the average public sector pay level?

Where did you get 60%, word of mouth ?

Comparing salaries to those offered for jobs in the private sector with the same responsibilities and requiring the same qualifications.

Lousy ???
Their hours are the same 9-5 like the rest of us for less time of the year we work.

Where did you hear that they worked from 9 to 5? College lecturers might get to work 9 to 5, I've yet to meet a teacher that got away with that little. Or do you think that they get assistants to do all the paperwork?

They get mid-term breaks as well as the extended summer/xmas/halloween/easter holidays.

They also get to set/invigilate/correct exam scripts for each of those periods.

Their job security must be one of the best.

If and only if they get a permanent job.

nothing was done to get them to perform up to standard.

Here's the kicker. What do you do to benchmark a teacher's performance? The proposals usually centred on the one metric that was easy to measure - exam results. Which not only doesn't measure teacher performance, but which has an extremely detrimental effect on the educational system, because schools with students that don't do well get less funding - which in practise means entry tests so a pupil doesn't get in without a set ability so as not to threaten the school's funding; students from disadvantaged areas (who don't do well in school because that's a bit difficult when you live the life some of these kids lead) are suddenly not people to be helped, but a threat to a teacher's salary level; and basicly, it all falls apart rather rapidly.
Until you come up with a decent way to measure teacher performance, this is going to be an unsolved problem, because no teacher worth his or her salt will accept the consequences of a bad metric.

A 1000 scripts ?
A single teacher might have 3 classes at most, avg class size 30, total 90 scripts.
Hardly rocket science to correct scripts.

And how many times have you corrected scripts? Firstly, a teacher doesn't correct his or her own students for the Leaving or Inter Certs, secondly you get given a lot more than 90 scripts (try batches of 300 or so, together with all the usual Garda security and paperwork), and then there's the arrangements that are taken to ensure that scripts are corrected in a consistent manner.

Basicly, it's not a simple job and they earn more than they're paid for it.

You wont need honours Irish to become an engineer.

And you won't need honours maths to become a teacher. The point was that some jobs carry minimum requirements - and in this case, every school in the country was required to provide you with the opportunity to sit honours Irish. You just didn't take it. So complaining now seems a waste of effort - especially since you can go back and resit that exam anytime you like.

Hardly an equivalent anyway, as Maths is required in nearly every walk of life for a good career path in any country.

You know that, and I know that - but the majority of students this year took pass maths.

Irish is mandatory if you want to work for the state.

And that's how it's been since the founding of the state. It's not just a teacher's requirement, and it's not a difficult thing to get (in the sense that you can get the course at any school and take the exam at any school - unlike, for example, applied maths, which I had to study on my own and which the school had to arrange for me to sit on my own - one of the wierder exams I've ever sat, with a 1:1 pupil:invigilator ratio )

Only 3 of my class out of 34 that left school in my year 10 years ago got honours Irish. Reason?...Crap teacher, we all couldnt of been that thick

I wish I could agree with you, but even kids passing honours maths these days are in need of remedial maths and english classes when they show up for engineering courses in college. (Unfortunately only UL is running them, the rest of us are forced to muddle through). So it certainly seems like the average application level, if not the average intelligence level, is falling off rapidly.

Selfish trade unions do not defend the ordinary joe soaps. The outbreak and threat of strikes in the past has been wrong. Its the ordinary joe soap that suffers at the hands of these actions, not the govt.
Remember the train/bus/esb strikes ?
It was the joe soap who suffered physically.(I remember the long walk to work in the freezing rain)

So you remember the strikes then?
And next time they threaten to strike, you'll notice it?
Sounds like they did their job so. An unnoticed strike serves only to bankrupt the striking workers.

The unions got their way, the taxpayer(you and i) coughed up.

So if you're in a union, you don't pay taxes? :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Sparks

And how many times have you corrected scripts? Firstly, a teacher doesn't correct his or her own students for the Leaving or Inter Certs, secondly you get given a lot more than 90 scripts (try batches of 300 or so, together with all the usual Garda security and paperwork), and then there's the arrangements that are taken to ensure that scripts are corrected in a consistent manner.

Basicly, it's not a simple job and they earn more than they're paid for it.

I thought that teachers correcting leaving cert scripts during their holidays was optional and that they get paid extra for that.
The combination of both meaning they dont have to do that part if they dont want to.

Indeed I know quite a few teachers who have earned thousands during their holidays working on building sites.
It's a perk of their job that they can do that.

Sparks

Originally posted by Meh
Considering that their regular workday finishes at 4pm, you'll excuse me if I don't feel sorry for them if they have to *gasp* stay on till 5 or 5:30.

I don't know of any teacher who finishes work by 4 except part-time teachers who would teach a single subject and so wouldn't have a full day's work (or a full day's pay) every day. The rest have paperwork to do after the class (lesson plans for upcoming classes have to be done on a day-to-day basis and are checked by the Dept. of Education, homework assignments have to be corrected, and the hundred-and-one other things that need to be done to prepare for the following day).

I wouldn't mind getting off at 4pm (or even 5:30) every day, and having a guaranteed job for life, and three months off (with part-time work for extra pay available if I want it) during the summer. Pity I hate kids...

And would you be willing to accept :
finishing your paid hours by 1600, having to do an average of 2 to 3 hours extra unpaid time per day in paperwork and another hour in extra supervisory duties, for which you are not paid, but are liable for any accidents that occour;
to be required to accept pretty much any kind of abuse from little brats all year round because even if you catch them smoking pot in class, you can't discipline them;
to be required to work in an environment where half the class are coming into school hungry because their families are not arranged along the Waltons model, and the other half are carrying knives;
and at the end of all that, to find that you could earn more doing nearly any other job that needs an undergrad degree and a postgraduate diploma?

If so, all you need do is get your honours Irish L.Cert, sit a H.Dip in college, and then apply to every school in the county looking for a temporary part-time job (because you don't get a permanenr job for a few years after graduation - and then only if you're lucky or sycophantic to the right people).

Enjoy!

Sparks

Originally posted by Man
I thought that teachers correcting leaving cert scripts during their holidays was optional and that they get paid extra for that.

Yup. Totally optional. No need whatsoever for you to do it. I mean, it's not like you need money when you're not working and thus not being paid, right?
Permanent teachers get paid all year round. But nearly half the teachers working in schools here are not permanent.
On top of which, what if they all say "naw, feck it, don't want to do it this year"? No-one gets their Leaving Cert. results.

Indeed I know quite a few teachers who have earned thousands during their holidays working on building sites.
It's a perk of their job that they can do that.

It's also a perk of their job that doing that brings them up to within ten or twenty percent of the pay level of a private sector job requiring an undergrad degree of a 2.2 standard or higher and postgraduate study.

Meh

Originally posted by Sparks
an average of 2 to 3 hours extra unpaid time per day in paperwork

...most of which gets done between 9 and 4 during free periods. See, you're not the only one who had a teacher in the family

On top of which, what if they all say "naw, feck it, don't want to do it this year"? No-one gets their Leaving Cert. results.

The very fact that they haven't refused to do it is evidence that they're being fairly compensated for it.

Sparks

Originally posted by Meh
...most of which gets done between 9 and 4 during free periods. See, you're not the only one who had a teacher in the family

And I'm glad to see that your family member was that organised. Mine aren't, being mere mortals...

The very fact that they haven't refused to do it is evidence that they're being fairly compensated for it.

Or proof that they can't afford not to do it.

Originally posted by Sparks
I don't know of any teacher who finishes work by 4 except part-time teachers who would teach a single subject and so wouldn't have a full day's work (or a full day's pay) every day.

Actually a good friend of mine, a full time teacher, finishes regularally before 4, has all his "extra" work done and proceeds to do at least another four or five hours carpentery work after that.
This is also done from 8 till 8 during school holidays.
I know for a fact that the head teacher is delighted with his teaching work.
Indeed I know of a lady teacher who runs a childminding service as well as teaching.
She actively participates in the minding during the holidays and does the organising during terms.
Teaching is good and flexible like that for those that are hard working and progressive

Cork

It is crazy kids getting 3 months off for Summer & when they come back - many kids have forgotten much of the 3rs.

Kids used get 3 months off to help their parents with the harvest.

where is the justification for getting 3 months holidays?

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks
And how many times have you corrected scripts? Firstly, a teacher doesn't correct his or her own students for the Leaving or Inter Certs, secondly you get given a lot more than 90 scripts (try batches of 300 or so, together with all the usual Garda security and paperwork), and then there's the arrangements that are taken to ensure that scripts are corrected in a consistent manner.

Sorry Sparks, but in your enthusiasm to tell everyone how big a bum deal teachers get, you're starting to make no sense.

You argued previously that teachers cannot afford to not correct Inter and Leaving - that if they want to eat, they have to do this allegedly optional work.

Now, firstly, while that logic might hold true for the non-permie teachers, how can it hold true for both the permie and non-permie? If - as a permanent teacher - my salary over the summer months is not enough to live on, then surely its not enough to live on the whole year round....which makes no sense unless you posit that the couple of extra bucks the teachers will make from exam corrections is enough to balance their books on a meagre lifestyle. However, if you do that, then the non-permie teachers, who earn significantly less on account of not being paid during holiday time could not possibly afford to live. And yet they can.

So something is wrong there. Its simply hot possible that these two categories of people can not afford to do without this marking, and yet can survive once they do it. The math doesn't work.

Lets leave that aside though, and assume that you were correct (or can explain the flaw in the logic) and that almost all teachers do correct exams, because they can't afford not to.

Now, Regardless of whether they are correcting their own students papers, or someone elses, they should still be correcting approximately the same amount. If you have 10 teachers teaching 10 subjects to 10 students, then each of the teachers will have to correct 10 subject from each of 10 students...regardless of whether or not they are their own students. To have a higher count per teacher is impossible, unless less than 10 teachers are correcting...right?

So, by your posts, any individual teacher's students cover a minimum of 300 exam scripts each summer (them coming in blocks of 300).

For that to be true, each teacher would have to be teaching enough students to produce 300 exam papers in the Inter & Leaving each year - an average of 6 seperate subjects to classes of 50 students, in only two of five years of secondary school (inter- and leaving- year).

Because we are talking still about all teachers, we must also conclude that they teach a similar amount to non-exam classes, of which there are another 3 years (minimum).

So thats now saying that each and every teacher teaches an average of 15 seperate classes, each with an average of 50 students (note seperate subjects to the same students count as seperate classes), each and every school-week.

Sorry, but no way. Simply not possible. I doubt there are any teachers in the entire country teaching student loads that high, and if there are, it sure as hell is not the average.

So we must conclude that all teachers do not mark exams. So what happens to the others? Do they starve to death? You have alternately implied that the permies don't get paid enough, and the non-permies have no option but to do this or they don't get paid.....and yet the figures you produce to back this up seem to show that you are grossly exaggerating things. You have argued that they cannot afford not to mark exams, and yet it is patently obvious that this is not universally true - because nowhere near all teachers can be marking exams by the figures you've been using.

Look - if a teacher teaches 6 different classes in a week (seperate subjects to the same people counting as seperate classes...but having the same people for the same subject every day only counts as one class) to an average of 50 people per class, then there is scope for every teacher to mark exactly 300 papers at the end of each year, on average.

The further you get from those class-sizes, then either the 300 papers figure has to shrink, or the percentage of teachers marking exams has to shrink. But seeing as the bundles come in chunks of 300 - according to your figures - then it is only the percentage of teachers marking them which can be wrong.

So you tell me - you have relations in the game. How many distinct classes a week, and what average size? Most teachers I know tought between 3 and 5 exam-classes (i.e. not religion or anything else which doesn't have a formal exam subject at the end), each of which had less than 40 students. That gives me a max of 200 papers across 5 years, or 80 papers across 2 years. So, to be marking in bundles of 300, less than 30% of the teachers could possibly be marking exams.

So either teachers are now teaching far, far more than I have ever suspected, or your figures are highly contradictory to the argument that anywhere near the vast majority of teachers are financially obliged to mark exams.

jc

Sparks

Originally posted by bonkey
You argued previously that teachers cannot afford to not correct Inter and Leaving - that if they want to eat, they have to do this allegedly optional work.

Actually, I said that that was true of non-permanent teachers. Just to be clear, because the two situations are very different. When made permanent, you get a year-round salary. Until then, you don't get paid during the summer, and you're only paid for the hours you actually teach in the classroom.
Basicly, it's a bum deal.
(Which, by the way, is why you don't see the best and the brightest becoming the teachers for the next generation - why would they? They're smart enough to see the stress levels, the low pay levels and the long hours and long qualification times for teachers and to decide to do something that actually rewards that much effort. And you know what happens when the best and brightest don't go into teaching - the quality of teaching falls off unrelentingly over the successive years until we're really in trouble).

So something is wrong there. Its simply hot possible that these two categories of people can not afford to do without this marking, and yet can survive once they do it. The math doesn't work.

Permanent teachers can get by (though depending on your experience level, there are different levels of getting by).

Now, Regardless of whether they are correcting their own students papers, or someone elses, they should still be correcting approximately the same amount. If you have 10 teachers teaching 10 subjects to 10 students, then each of the teachers will have to correct 10 subject from each of 10 students...regardless of whether or not they are their own students. To have a higher count per teacher is impossible, unless less than 10 teachers are correcting...right?

No. You're assuming all teachers correct all the scripts. Those who can get by well enough on a permanent pay packet don't tend to mark scripts becuase it's a lot of work and hassle for not enough money.

For that to be true, each teacher would have to be teaching enough students to produce 300 exam papers in the Inter & Leaving each year - an average of 6 seperate subjects to classes of 50 students, in only two of five years of secondary school (inter- and leaving- year).

Or you could work the hours the teachers in my school worked. Year of just 150 students in five classes (not all 30 students, some classes were larger), and some teachers would teach two or three subjects for the entire year. That's 600 to 900 L.Cert/J.Cert scripts from each teacher. If there's one thing a school is good at, it's generating paperwork....

So either teachers are now teaching far, far more than I have ever suspected, or your figures are highly contradictory to the argument that anywhere near the vast majority of teachers are financially obliged to mark exams.

No, the vast majority of temporary teachers are financially obligated to mark exams. That's about half the teachers in the country. Plus the permanent teachers on the bottom salary levels. But it doesn't add up to all the teachers.

The thing is Bonkey, that it boils down to this:
Teachers get a poor perception publicly because all most people know about the job is what they saw of it as pupils. They don't see the hour or two of work that each hour of class generates. They don't notice that the teachers watching the kids at lunchtime are not being paid for it. They don't notice the fact that the teachers don't drive fancy cars, tend to brown-bag it for lunch all the time, don't wear new clothes, and they never see the stress levels that they cause those teachers. They don't see the temporary teachers signing up for the dole during the summer break because they're not being paid until the scripts are available to be marked. They never get to appreciate what it feels like to spend five years in college only to wind up teaching for three or four hours a week, while being randomly inspected by the Department of Education and the school, and while earning less per week than a Tesco shelf-stocker.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks
Actually, I said that that was true of non-permanent teachers.

Yes, and then you went on in successive posts to apply your logic to "teachers" - of unspecified type.

Just to be clear, because the two situations are very different. When made permanent, you get a year-round salary. Until then, you don't get paid during the summer, and you're only paid for the hours you actually teach in the classroom.

Not true. I have a relation who is currently working as a part-time teacher while trying to get into an appropriate GradDip course to gain her qualifications. Last year, she was paid only during the term. This year - while still an unqualified, part-time teacher, she has been moved to an alternate pay-scheme where she will get paid out of term.

Basicly, it's a bum deal.

Im' not denying that. I'm saying that the logic you are using to show how bum a deal it is is completely flawed.

I mean, your defence of it is now apparently that you've only been talking about those teachers who don't have tenure.....not all teachers at all.

Maybe you could be clearer and specify when you're talking about all teachers, teachers with tenure (permanent teachers), and teachers without tenure (temporary teachers).

No. You're assuming all teachers correct all the scripts. Those who can get by well enough on a permanent pay packet don't tend to mark scripts becuase it's a lot of work and hassle for not enough money.

And yet you threw a complete wopbbly when someone suggested that teachers have long holidays...whilst he was clearly referring to teachers where they have job security which is amongst the best there is. I'm amazed you couldn't agree with this and then point out that this only covers some teachers....rather than insisting that its complete horse, that he doesn't know what he's talking about, and that teachers have it so hard.....only now to clarify that you're not talking about the teachers he was referring to at all, but rather the other teachers....those without tenure.

Or you could work the hours the teachers in my school
worked. Year of just 150 students in five classes (not all 30 students, some classes were larger), and some teachers would teach two or three subjects for the entire year. That's 600 to 900 L.Cert/J.Cert scripts from each teacher.

Incidentally, how did the teachers manage this? 5 classes of 3 subjects is 15 class/subject combinations. For it to generate 600-900 scripts, we're clearly talking about exams which have 2 papers apiece...which means that they must be subjects which are taught for a minimum of an average of 4 lessons a week. So thats 60 lessons per week just to cover that workload. At 5 days, thats 12 lessons per teacher, per day.

Are you sure that those figures are correct? If so, then your school had the shortest lessons I've ever seen timetabled, or it didn't teach the major subjects in sufficient detail. Either way...would you not agree tha this extreme situation it is most definitely not representative of the national average, and therefore not terribly relevant. After all, as you yourself pointed out, they don't mark their own papers. So whats relevant is the average generated per teacher.

The thing is Bonkey, that it boils down to this:

I have never questioned any of that. Go back and look at what I criticised. I said your argument was beginning to contradict itself - you were getting so worked up in your indignation that you were presenting a picture which was blatantly impossible.

You are very quick to detail the plight of the temp teacher, whilst ignoring the fact that the vast majority of people mentioning teachers have been doing so in terms of having tenure etc. In other words, you're telling us how badly off group B is when someone says how group A has it quite cushy. And you have repeatedly done it by using ambiguous references, so that it appears as though your description of group B is applicable (and being applied) to both groups.

Now you are admitting the two situations are very different I'd suggest you go back and look at the initial comment you took so much indignation from, and see which group it was referring to. From my reading, it is clearly not the temp teachers.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks
No, the vast majority of temporary teachers are financially obligated to mark exams. That's about half the teachers in the country.

Incidentally, where do you get this "half" figure from?

ASTI describes itself thusly (http://www.asti.ie/ab_main.htm):

The ASTI is Ireland's main second level teachers union and represents 17,000 teachers in community schools, community colleges, comprehensive schools and voluntary secondary schools attended by 80% of all second-level students.

Now, assuming the average holds...17,000 for 80% should give approximately 21,250 teachers in total for Secondary Education.

Now....taken from The Irish Examiner in September '03

There are more than 3,000 non-permanent teachers in the country's 750 second-level schools, most of them represented by the Association of Secondary Teachers Ireland (ASTI).

Now, I think its reasonable to assume that when they say "over 3000", they don't mean "10, 625", but rather somewhere between 3,000 and 3,500.

So, 3 months ago, about one in six secondary school teachers were classified as non-permanent, not one in two as you have been asserting.

So, given that you've just clarified in your last post that you weren't talking about the permies, it would appear that you were clearly defending the criticism of teachers based on the plight of a relatively small minority of them, without knowing the actual figures involved....which is kinda amusing when you're posting saying about how so many people don't seem to understand the situation!!!

Like I said earlier....there's no sense in that.

jc

Victor

Looks like they just might get jobs for life, just not the way they intended

http://home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/topstories/2412836?view=Eircomnet

New Bill will extend careers of civil servants
From:ireland.com
Monday, 26th January, 2004

The Government will shortly publish a Bill to remove the compulsory retirement age of 65 from newly recruited public servants and to increase the minimum pension age for new-entrant civil servants, teachers, gardaí and others.

The Pensions (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill is among 25 Bills to be published between now and the end of April, Government Chief Whip Ms Mary Hanafin announced yesterday.

The Bill will be published early in this Dáil session and the Government hopes to have it passed into law by the end of March. It will implement, from April 1st next, the changes to the public service pension regime announced by the Minister for Finance, Mr McCreevy, in the Budget in December.

As well as ending compulsory retirement at 65, it will increase the minimum ages at which various public servants can retire on pension.

New-entrant civil servants will no longer be able to retire early at 60 and must stay until 65. The minimum retirement age for Garda retirement will increase from 50 to 55, with their compulsory retirement age going up to 60. Minimum pension ages for new-entrant teachers, prison officers and firefighters will also go up.

The Government said yesterday that a Disability Bill was now at the top of its legislative agenda and would be published shortly.

A Disability Bill to provide measures for equal participation of people with disabilities in society has been promised by the Government since 1999.

One was published in December 2001 but was withdrawn after severe criticism from the disability sector over the difficulty of enforcing rights and the time scale for the delivery of some provisions.

Disability campaigners believed the Bill fell short of their demand for an approach which would set out rights for those with disabilities which could then be enforced through the courts if necessary.

A new one was to be published before the May 2002 general election, but this did not happen. It was listed last January for publication in the first half of last year and then last autumn as due to be published before the start of the current Dáil session.

It is now listed to be published at some stage during this session.

The Driver Testing and Standards Authority Bill, setting up a public sector agency to run the driver testing service, will be published on schedule during this session.

The Government will also publish promised legislation reviewing health and safety at work.

As part of the series of measures to try to reduce insurance costs, another Bill will reduce the period in which a claim for personal injury can be made from three years to one year after the event.

It will also provide for a fine or up to 10 years' imprisonment for submitting a false claim.

As usual, much of the new Dáil session will be dominated by debate on the Finance Bill and Social Welfare (miscellaneous provisions) Bill giving effect to the changes announced in the December Budget.

Other Bills will include measures modernising the regulation of the veterinary profession, removing councillors and professional representatives from health boards, and promised legislation to deal with Garda complaints and to reform the criminal law.

The Minister for Justice, Mr McDowell, is also expected shortly to introduce legislation designed to close the loophole in immigration law resulting from a High Court judgment last week.

gandalf

Originally posted by Sparks
My parents have worked in the public sector for decades, in Eircom, the Civil Service and in Teaching. So have most of my extended family in fact.

Hardly a scientific study then to say that the average Civil Servant etc earns just 60% of the average wage Sparks. Provide better data please or retract the statement.

Indeed? And when you say "teachers", who do you mean? Remember, not all teachers have permanent jobs, in fact it's heading for the situation where at least half are on contract. And they get lousy hours, lousy pay and no job security. And no, they do not get 3 months off for summer, unless you count invigilating and then correcting a thousand scripts to be a holiday.

No they don't but why should teachers who are on part time contracts be kept on them by ones who are just making up the numbers and cannot do their jobs properly. From my point of view anyone who cannot reach a certain standard of teaching should be removed from the job. BTW my Irish teachers were also the worst teachers during my school years.

And I needed honours maths to become an engineer. Doesn't life just suck?

I think the point that you need Irish to become a teacher is quite valid. For most teaching posts it is not required and excluding otherwise qualified candidates.

Indeed? You seem to be forgetting that the better pay they were looking for was not 100% of the private sector wage, but more than the 40% or so they had at the time. The private sector had taken off, wages had skyrocketed, the cost of living had gone up with it, but public sector pay wasn't increasing to match it, so in effect, public sector workers were taking pay cuts while the private sector had a boom period.
If the government takes the entire boom to sort out an agreement and then finds it's in the post-boom slump when it's time to pay up, is that the fault of the people who signed up? Or are they just meant to take it in the shorts when the private sector does well and when it does badly?

Again where do you get these figures from. They get job security. Most cannot be fired. From the figures I have heard they are paid well for what they do. Unless they are prepared to accept proper accessment of their work and weeding out those who do not pull their weight then they should be paid less. Btw my personal belief is that most State Employees are paid well for what they do (except for Gardai, Nurses, Prison Officers).

As for wages skyrocketed mine havent infact thanks to being made redundant and having to accept a job with lower wages I'm worse off now than I was 5 years ago. If this happened to any State Employees we would know about it rapidally. Sparks I think you need a reality check from the other side!

Gandalf.

bonkey

Originally posted by gandalf
I think the point that you need Irish to become a teacher is quite valid. For most teaching posts it is not required and excluding otherwise qualified candidates.

Not only that, but I believe they have changed the rules in recent times (or are planning on doing so in the near future) so that this only applies to Irish citizens. Foreigners can apply for teaching posts without any qualification in Ireland.

Once such a distinction is made, it is fair to say that the requirement is a load of toss.

I can see it now....

"I'm sorry Mr. Gandalf...even though you're better qualified to teach this subject than Herr Bonkey, you need Irish and he doesn't....and seeing as neither of you speak it, we have to give him the job".

jc