Teachers should vote No to Pay deal (non teachers views welcome!)

FlashGordon1969

Firstly, let me say I was open to a deal. I fully accept previous pay cuts and was willing to do supervision for free-something even current deal does not ask.My objection is this-after the vote (assuming they get a yes) their will be negotiations to change teaching contracts to remove 'Impediments to learning' That could mean anything. Its very obtuse. If I dont like what comes out of these negotiations-tough-because I voted Yes. Im not against reform but at least let me see full details then I can decide yes or no. But Im not handing signing a new contract with a blindfold on-which is what all teachers are in effect being asked.
Again I state Im open to change but can I at least know the parameters of this change. All I know is that beyond the extra hour and more availability for supervision,that talks will, start in June about changes to my contract. These talks start after I vote.

Fizzical

I'm with you on that. How can we vote on something we haven't seen?

It's bullying tactics (again) - "Vote Yes to allow us to do what we like with your job description or we'll take more money off you!"

Not sure why they're asking, actually. They seem to able to do what they like...

walshkvn

yes must say didn't like the sneaky stuff in there ... Should stop paying dues to the union.

FlashGordon1969

I think Teachers would want to wake up and smell the coffee on this one. They are being fed the mantra of no more pay cuts without realising their contracts will be changed after they vote yes -without knowing changes when they vote!

looksee

I really don't want to be involved in any industrial action, and would accept the other points, but it would be very foolish to agree to something as important as a changed contract without any knowledge of what might be changed.

http://www.tui.ie/_fileupload/sectoragree.pdf

this is the document in question (teachers p.9)

rainbowtrout

FlashGordon1969 wrote: »

I think Teachers would want to wake up and smell the coffee on this one. They are being fed the mantra of no more pay cuts without realising their contracts will be changed after they vote yes -without knowing changes when they vote!

I don't think there's any fear of teachers not realising what the consequences could be for voting yes. Give us some credit.
Not one delegate voted yes for the agreement at the TUI Congress yesterday and ASTI have voted No at their's as well.

INTO of course are different but a primary school teacher's day is quite different to that of a secondary teacher. I imagine they won't have any issue with signing up for extra cover/supervision etc as they don't have 'free classes' in their day so it doesn't affect them. I can't imagine why they've voted to a yes in allowing a change in contracts.

Riskymove

FlashGordon1969 wrote: »

.My objection is this-after the vote (assuming they get a yes) their will be negotiations to change teaching contracts to remove 'Impediments to learning' That could mean anything.

you'd have to vote again on the outcome of negotiations

there is no way you could sign up to agreeing to things not even yet proposed

implausible

Teachers:
• The provision, with effect from the start of the 2010/11 school year, of an
additional hour per week to be available to facilitate, at the discretion of
management, school planning, continuous professional development, induction, substitution and supervision (including supervision immediately before and after school times). This list is not exhaustive.
• With effect from the start of the 2010/11 school year, post-primary teachers to be available for three timetabled class periods per week under the supervision and substitution scheme (while leaving the current maximum number of hours used per teacher per week under this scheme the same as at present).
• Full implementation of new procedures providing for redeployment of surplus
teachers, to commence from June 2010 and to be fully implemented for the start of the 2011/12 school year.
• A comprehensive review and revision of the teaching contract to identify and remove any impediments to the provision of efficient and effective teaching to students in all sectors. This review and revision to be completed in advance of the start of the 2010/11 school year.

Sorry, had to cut and paste to get my head around it (bloody tippex all over my screen now:D). Here's my tuppence-worth anyway:

This extra hour, does that mean adding one hour onto the working week of the school or are they (as I suspect) expecting us to prepare, mark and deal with administration and students with 2 (in my case) less free classes a week? Does this not mean losing every 22nd teacher in the system? This is another cutback!

Surely it could be argued that the moratorium on promotions is an "impediment to the provision of efficient and effective teaching to students". Any hope of these being restored and if so, at what price?

Nobody expected a reversal of the paycuts, but this sh*te is undermining and downright sneaky. How the hell can we vote on something as obscure as this? I'm actually looking forward to the next union meeting and maybe getting some answers.

I apologise if this has been covered already, but haven't really been tuned into the media this week.

Fizzical

"I'm actually looking forward to the next union meeting and maybe getting some answers."

I figure that the union reps got the best deal they could with the people they were dealing with, and when they could get no further they brought it back to the members.

The only answers you can get are from reading the document itself. There's no point asking anyone to explain it really as it will be implemented word for written word so you really need to just read it. It doesn't matter what union people thought at the time or what Mary Coughlan says it really means - what matters is what the legal eagles say is written down. Use your own eyes.

And it's worth reading the general section at the start too, not just the section that applies specifically to teachers. There are interesting things there e.g. redeployment across sectors with retraining if necessary.

This whole section needs to be read in conjunction with the lack of detail about the extra hour, about the new redeployment scheme and about the new contract.

And considered in the light of a pension averaged over a career most likely shorter than 40 years and containing many years at reduced hours.

The govt are trying to dismantle and re-assemble our careers, and reverse everything the unions achieved over many, many years.

Should we actually vote for this?

They may make these changes anyway by pronouncement and by legislation.

And if they do?

What do you all think - do teachers have the stomach to fight?

E.T.

Up to the end of last year I didn't give out (too much) about pay cuts - I saw them as inevitable. This vague contract changing rubbish is too much. At this stage I couldn't care less what people think of us as teachers - I do a damn good job and put in a lot of extra work and I know plenty of other teachers who do too. I'll be voting no unless the agreement is completely clarified.

Tim Robbins

With respect, you seem to think this is just a moral issue about what is and what isn't fair. What matters first and foremost is that other countries buy our bonds. If our country can sell or repay on bonds we go bankrupt. Here's a good article on it:
http://trueeconomics.blogspot.com/2010/04/economics-07042010-another-lesson-from.html

Secondly, we must get our budget deficit in order. We have signed up to a stability pack within the EU. If we don't respect this, we are not only damaging our own economy but recking the entire euro zone.

Do the teachers think they are persuading people to their pov?

TheDriver

I appreciate your points Tim and you are dead right but this is a lot lot different to merely economics, when our contracts etc get discussed, this could be forever and its not like private sector where you get a bonus when times come good. We have to be lot more careful about our employer because being honest, they would ride us for all we are worth otherwise.

Tim Robbins

TheDriver wrote: »

I appreciate your points Tim and you are dead right but this is a lot lot different to merely economics, when our contracts etc get discussed, this could be forever and its not like private sector where you get a bonus when times come good. We have to be lot more careful about our employer because being honest, they would ride us for all we are worth otherwise.

Sorry but again basic economics shows the flaw in your argument. People get a bonus, company car, high wage or high wage if they are worth it. If they don't get it and think they are worth it, they'll go to an employee who pay it and if they can't find one its because they are not worth it.

That's normal economics.

In the world of the Unions, what happens is a group of individuals come together and negotiate what they want. If they don't get what they want, they strike. There is no market reality. It's a false economy where price / value / cost are completly detached from normal economic laws.

When times were good you all called for benchmarking. If benchmarking was fair and objective call for it again.

E.T.

Tim Robbins - have you seen/read the paragraphs that are causing all the trouble? They're the ones that are completely vague - why would anyone agree to a contract that is deliberately non-specific:

"The provision, with effect from the start of the 2010/11 school year, of an additional hour per week to be available to facilitate, at the discretion of management, school planning, continuous professional development, induction, substitution and supervision (including supervision immediately before and after school times). This list is not exhaustive."

Personally I couldn't care less about doing an extra official hour a week - I usually do an average 10-15 hours a week outside of class time. We also do staff meetings outside of school time every week in our school. I do object to babysitting - we take turns supervising at the gate anyway, and I've had parents collect their children half an hour late, without any apology. If this supervision is made official, people will totally take the p*ss.

"A comprehensive review and revision of the teaching contract to identify and remove any impediments to the provision of efficient and effective teaching to students in all sectors. This review and revision to be completed in advance of the start of the 2010/11 school year. "

What on earth does this mean? This could cover absolutely anything? If they want to "remove any impediments to the provision of efficient and effective teaching" then they could stop clustering 2-3 students (who have multiple professional recommendations for an individual SNA) under the care of 1 SNA.

Tim Robbins

E.T. wrote: »

Tim Robbins - have you seen/read the paragraphs that are causing all the trouble? They're the ones that are completely vague - why would anyone agree to a contract that is deliberately non-specific:

"The provision, with effect from the start of the 2010/11 school year, of an additional hour per week to be available to facilitate, at the discretion of management, school planning, continuous professional development, induction, substitution and supervision (including supervision immediately before and after school times). This list is not exhaustive."

Personally I couldn't care less about doing an extra official hour a week - I usually do an average 10-15 hours a week outside of class time. We also do staff meetings outside of school time every week in our school. I do object to babysitting - we take turns supervising at the gate anyway, and I've had parents collect their children half an hour late, without any apology. If this supervision is made official, people will totally take the p*ss.

"A comprehensive review and revision of the teaching contract to identify and remove any impediments to the provision of efficient and effective teaching to students in all sectors. This review and revision to be completed in advance of the start of the 2010/11 school year. "

What on earth does this mean? This could cover absolutely anything? If they want to "remove any impediments to the provision of efficient and effective teaching" then they could stop clustering 2-3 students (who have multiple professional recommendations for an individual SNA) under the care of 1 SNA.

The devil is in the detail and you raise some very good points especially about the SNA. However, the arguments such as "don't blame us" "we didn't cause the recession" which purely focus on keeping the teachers economically immune from the reality the country are in are awful.

It's a pity you aren't representing the teachers as I think you'd do a better job of highlighting meaningful issues.

E.T.

I think a lot of the "don't blame us" arguments came about as a result of some of the more "fictional" media coverage last year. There was an awful lot of completely false information printed as fact in newspapers that I'd have previously regarded as fairly unbiased eg the examiner printed an editorial calling for all public servants (specifically naming teachers) to accept a pay cap of €150,000!!! Seriously!

I think the unions did a crap job in not highlighting rubbish like this and did too much bleating about it not being our fault.

bernardo mac

Flash,I would certainly vote no to the New Pay Deal.Regarding the terms which are quite vague,I presume you mean abstruse not "obtuse". and I do not fully understand:" But I'm not handing signing a new contract...."

rainbowtrout

Tim Robbins wrote: »

The devil is in the detail and you raise some very good points especially about the SNA. However, the arguments such as "don't blame us" "we didn't cause the recession" which purely focus on keeping the teachers economically immune from the reality the country are in are awful.

It's a pity you aren't representing the teachers as I think you'd do a better job of highlighting meaningful issues.

to be fair Tim, if you have a look at the threads posted here regularly by teachers, you'll probably see that it's this kind of stuff that we are not happy with. Personally I can live with the pay cut/pension levy, I'm not happy about it but who is happy about a pay cut , private or public? However I'm not happy about being asked to agree to something that basically says 'We want you to agree to let us change your contract in whatever way we see fit, but we won't tell you what we're going to do until you've agreed'. I don't think anyone in any type of employment would agree to that.

Or asking teachers to ask one extra hour a week, again while I have my reservations I don't have a huge issue with the idea behind it but when a phrase such as 'this list is not exhaustive' is tacked on to a sample list of the duties you might be asked to carry out in this time, it leaves me wondering what I will be asked to do with my time, as again it leaves it open to be (ab)used for anything

TheDriver

Well I will also be voting no. The non exhaustive list is something I have awful problems with. Its grand for most people in other jobs where within your working day you stroll down to the photocopiers/laminators etc which are always working and use them. I must use these in my free classes which are usually busy anyways and spend most of my "free classes" trying to get stuff done and hence usually after school. You spend half your lunch break waiting for the one microwave that everyone wants to use etc so making our day jam packed won't help education one bit and adds on a lot of work supervising which would make you not as well prepared and energetic for the proper teaching classes which is totally counter productive.

ucd.1985

Will teachers strike over the summer?

E.T.

ucd.1985 wrote: »

Will teachers strike over the summer?

Oh totally - in between going down to the school where I work to tidy out the classroom, redo schemes for each subject area (for 2 classes, and separate ones for children with special needs in some subjects), sort out furniture orders and drop off supplies I've bought with my own money.:D

KerranJast

I've a genuine question as someone with 3 teaching in my family. If (when) this deal is torpedoed, what do you all expect to happen?

My own view is the Govt will push ahead with further cuts and any Industrial action (as seen with the Passport office debacle) will only anger the public rather than putting any pressure on the Govt.

I honestly can't see how the teachers can gain from rejecting the deal, bad enough as it may be from their perspective.

E.T.

It looks like most unions so far are recommending that their members reject the deal - it's not just teachers.

Tim Robbins

rainbowtrout wrote: »

to be fair Tim, if you have a look at the threads posted here regularly by teachers, you'll probably see that it's this kind of stuff that we are not happy with. Personally I can live with the pay cut/pension levy, I'm not happy about it but who is happy about a pay cut , private or public? However I'm not happy about being asked to agree to something that basically says 'We want you to agree to let us change your contract in whatever way we see fit, but we won't tell you what we're going to do until you've agreed'. I don't think anyone in any type of employment would agree to that.

Or asking teachers to ask one extra hour a week, again while I have my reservations I don't have a huge issue with the idea behind it but when a phrase such as 'this list is not exhaustive' is tacked on to a sample list of the duties you might be asked to carry out in this time, it leaves me wondering what I will be asked to do with my time, as again it leaves it open to be (ab)used for anything

Well then it's up for you to state your bare minimum needs and make them clear and obvious.

For example, one thing that would worry me both as a parent and if I was a teacher would be that the money allocated to special needs will be cut. This will happen because the minority of kids who have special needs don't have enough political clout. You're job would be ten times more stressful when your school loses its special needs teachers. It is also extremly cruel, mean and unfair to the child and the child's family. It's something you'd get a lot of public support on, but all that comes out is that majority of teachers are only interested in their take home pay.

E.T.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well then it's up for you to state your bare minimum needs and make them clear and obvious.

For example, one thing that would worry me both as a parent and if I was a teacher would be that the money allocated to special needs will be cut. This will happen because the minority of kids who have special needs don't have enough political clout. You're job would be ten times more stressful when your school loses its special needs teachers. It is also extremly cruel, mean and unfair to the child and the child's family. It's something you'd get a lot of public support on, but all that comes out is that majority of teachers are only interested in their take home pay.

I think the onus is on the government to clarify the parts of the agreement that are causing controversy. I can't blindly sign up to an agreement - it's not about looking for a pay rise, it's about what else we'll be expected to do.

We're already under more stress in the classroom (well I am anyway - 4 children with serious special needs (not including children who need learning support) with 1 SNA between them - only 2 of them have been allocated SNA time).

Regarding pay - my take-home pay is €24 a fortnight more than I used get in 2004. Hardly the windfall everyone seems to think we've received from benchmarking.

spurious

Tim Robbins wrote: »

For example, one thing that would worry me both as a parent and if I was a teacher would be that the money allocated to special needs will be cut. This will happen because the minority of kids who have special needs don't have enough political clout. You're job would be ten times more stressful when your school loses its special needs teachers. It is also extremly cruel, mean and unfair to the child and the child's family. It's something you'd get a lot of public support on, but all that comes out is that majority of teachers are only interested in their take home pay.

Money allocated to special needs has been consistently cut and was cut through the 'boom' times.

There is probably some way to give teachers the blame for that too.

Tim Robbins

E.T. wrote: »

I think the onus is on the government to clarify the parts of the agreement that are causing controversy. I can't blindly sign up to an agreement - it's not about looking for a pay rise, it's about what else we'll be expected to do.

It takes two to tango.

We're already under more stress in the classroom (well I am anyway - 4 children with serious special needs (not including children who need learning support) with 1 SNA between them - only 2 of them have been allocated SNA time).

Which is ridiculous and needs to be highlighted. But all the sound bites, rants and arguments coming from the Unions are solely about teachers pay. This is really very sad. It shows how cruel our society is.

Tim Robbins

spurious wrote: »

Money allocated to special needs has been consistently cut and was cut through the 'boom' times.

There is probably some way to give teachers the blame for that too.

Shocking stuff altogether. Shows how messed up Irish society is.

ntlbell

spurious wrote: »

Money allocated to special needs has been consistently cut and was cut through the 'boom' times.

There is probably some way to give teachers the blame for that too.

Well if they were not demanding such high wages maybe there could have been a better distribution of the their budget.

It seems it's everyones fault _except_ the teachers.

E.T.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It takes two to tango.


Which is ridiculous and needs to be highlighted. But all the sound bites, rants and arguments coming from the Unions are solely about teachers pay. This is really very sad. It shows how cruel our society is.

It does take two to tango, but the government is dancing like a drunk old lech at the local nightclub who thinks that grabbing hold of you and squeezing is a form of dance.

Tim Robbins

E.T. wrote: »

It does take two to tango, but the government is dancing like a drunk old lech at the local nightclub who thinks that grabbing hold of you and squeezing is a form of dance.

And the teachers don't realise that the music has changed since the good times...

All I am saying is the teachers could do a much better job of arguing their case.

E.T.

I agree with you there - some of the unions are doing a terrible job. But I have heard from colleagues who are active in the INTO that certain chat-shows/newspapers have refused to air/print some the union's reply to some of the inflated/untrue facts and figures. This is unfair and completely biased journalism.

MazG

Tim Robbins wrote: »

With respect, you seem to think this is just a moral issue about what is and what isn't fair. What matters first and foremost is that other countries buy our bonds. If our country can sell or repay on bonds we go bankrupt. Here's a good article on it:
http://trueeconomics.blogspot.com/2010/04/economics-07042010-another-lesson-from.html

Secondly, we must get our budget deficit in order. We have signed up to a stability pack within the EU. If we don't respect this, we are not only damaging our own economy but recking the entire euro zone.

Do the teachers think they are persuading people to their pov?

Your post was the first one on this thread to bring up the 'it's not our fault'/'it's not fair' argument. Posts previous to yours had been discussing the fact that teachers are being asked to sign up to a new deal where the terms are vague and their employer reserves the right to add new clauses to their contracts after the deal has been agreed. You are the only one attempting to bring the discussion down the 'we didn't cause the recession' route here!

I do agree with you though that cuts are inevitable and are the only practical action available to the government in tackling the public finances.

Tim Robbins

E.T. wrote: »

I agree with you there - some of the unions are doing a terrible job. But I have heard from colleagues who are active in the INTO that certain chat-shows/newspapers have refused to air/print some the union's reply to some of the inflated/untrue facts and figures. This is unfair and completely biased journalism.

What about all the debates where they are interviewed live? Seriously they have had more then their fair share of air time. A lot more than a parent with special needs would ever get.

Tim Robbins

MazG wrote: »

Your post was the first one on this thread to bring up the 'it's not our fault'/'it's not fair' argument. Posts previous to yours had been discussing the fact that teachers are being asked to sign up to a new deal where the terms are vague and their employer reserves the right to add new clauses to their contracts after the deal has been agreed. You are the only one attempting to bring the discussion down the 'we didn't cause the recession' route here!

I do agree with you though that cuts are inevitable and are the only practical action available to the government in tackling the public finances.

Well let's see some posters and placards with "The terms are vague" then. They are certainly better than "Don't blame us".

E.T.

Ed Walsh probably got more airtime in the last year than some of the union reps! And he was left free to spout absolute and total BS without being stopped or corrected.

ntlbell

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well let's see some posters and placards with "The terms are vague" then. They are certainly better than "Don't blame us".

Indeed, or

"I get kicked by 6yr olds and my manager does nothing"

MazG

Fair point TR. However that's not what is happening on this thread.

E.T.

ntlbell wrote: »

Indeed, or

"I get kicked by 6yr olds and my manager does nothing"

If you're going to quote my post from another thread please do it in full or else stop trolling.

ntlbell

E.T. wrote: »

Ed Walsh probably got more airtime in the last year than some of the union reps! And he was left free to spout absolute and total BS without being stopped or corrected.

There some days over the last few weeks were they live all in the same day on

Morning Ireland, Pat Kenny, eamon keane, george hook AND matt cooper

all live live on all day and still talking nonsense.

They have plenty of opportunity to say whatever they liked, these guys are paid in excess of 100K.

if you're not happy, pull your union fee's :rolleyes:

TheDriver

This thread is getting majorly sidetracked at moment, needs to get back on track as to whether this "agreement" should be approved or rejected and not discuss the usual merits of teachers and the whole who caused the recession lark, its ad nausuem at this stage when a thread gets the usual anti teacher lark.
And why should we strike during the summer, would you strike during your weeks holidays? And of course take home pay is one of the most important things, who isn't concerned with the fuel for our lifestyles but that still doesn't mean I want my conditions deteriorated such that doing my job will be affected etc

E.T.

ntlbell wrote: »

There some days over the last few weeks were they live all in the same day on

Morning Ireland, Pat Kenny, eamon keane, george hook AND matt cooper

all live live on all day and still talking nonsense.

They have plenty of opportunity to say whatever they liked, these guys are paid in excess of 100K.

if you're not happy, pull your union fee's :rolleyes:

Are you on this thread just to troll or have you a constructive point to make? I disagree with Tim Robbins on a lot of his points but at least he's making points!

ntlbell

E.T. wrote: »

Are you on this thread just to troll or have you a constructive point to make? I disagree with Tim Robbins on a lot of his points but at least he's making points!

Your point, They have had no air time.

My point, they have had plenty and I've given examples of in one day they were on a number of shows live.

Your point:

"you have no point"

Right.

E.T.

TheDriver wrote: »

This thread is getting majorly sidetracked at moment, needs to get back on track as to whether this "agreement" should be approved or rejected and not discuss the usual merits of teachers and the whole who caused the recession lark, its ad nausuem at this stage when a thread gets the usual anti teacher lark.
And why should we strike during the summer, would you strike during your weeks holidays? And of course take home pay is one of the most important things, who isn't concerned with the fuel for our lifestyles but that still doesn't mean I want my conditions deteriorated such that doing my job will be affected etc

Sorry think I posted my last post while you were posting this! I haven't heard from many people who will be voting yes. As I've said, the pay isn't the sticky point here, it's the deliberate lack of clarity in the revamp of our contracts and working conditions.

drusk

A 'No' vote seems to be the only sane thing to do given the ambiguity of what's on offer.

However, I am disgusted and outraged at the sheer incompetency of the unions in not being able to broker some sort of a deal. It looks as though the deal will be rejected and the only subsequent move, as far as the unions are concerned, is to strike. Why on earth can't the INTO/TUI/ASTI come together and draw up a deal which agrees to certain specific areas of reform in return for no further cuts. The union could then publish it to members (who would accept it providing it wasn't ambiguous like the current deal) and offer it to the government. Let the government then be the ones to either accept or reject public sector reform.

Let's face it - teachers will be portrayed here as the unreasonable ones for rejecting public sector reform. Then, when industrial action ensues, the public will have absolutely no sympathy and teachers will be vilified in the media (passport workers). Then, come December, teachers will get what they deserve - MORE cuts.

The unions are absolutely and utterly f**king useless.

TheDriver

Well said drusk, must say it sums it up but think the Unions themselves know its only to save face to be honest knowing quite well there is no proper deal but also shows how much lack of respect the govt has for their employees.

amz5

The government have a get out clause in this agreement. If the economic climate gets worse they can still cut our wages. So they are going to cut our wages either way. VOTE NO - we do not want our working conditions changed.

Tim Robbins

drusk wrote: »

A 'No' vote seems to be the only sane thing to do given the ambiguity of what's on offer.

However, I am disgusted and outraged at the sheer incompetency of the unions in not being able to broker some sort of a deal. It looks as though the deal will be rejected and the only subsequent move, as far as the unions are concerned, is to strike. Why on earth can't the INTO/TUI/ASTI come together and draw up a deal which agrees to certain specific areas of reform in return for no further cuts. The union could then publish it to members (who would accept it providing it wasn't ambiguous like the current deal) and offer it to the government. Let the government then be the ones to either accept or reject public sector reform.

I think its possible that's its way too difficult to come up the "specific" areas of reform. Especially since we have a coalition government.

but you're right by rejecting a deal the public perceives you as completly unreasonable.

Fizzical

"However, I am disgusted and outraged at the sheer incompetency of the unions in not being able to broker some sort of a deal. It looks as though the deal will be rejected and the only subsequent move, as far as the unions are concerned, is to strike. Why on earth can't the INTO/TUI/ASTI come together and draw up a deal which agrees to certain specific areas of reform in return for no further cuts. The union could then publish it to members (who would accept it providing it wasn't ambiguous like the current deal) and offer it to the government. Let the government then be the ones to either accept or reject public sector reform."

Sorry - is this not what happened last November?

The unions had drawn up specific areas of reform and offered short-time work.

The govt rejected the reform offered to them on a plate.

FlashGordon1969

bernardo mac wrote: »

Flash,I would certainly vote no to the New Pay Deal.Regarding the terms which are quite vague,I presume you mean abstruse not "obtuse". and I do not fully understand:" But I'm not handing signing a new contract...."

Apologies for the Typos! I meant opaque and I meant I'm not signing a blank contract. By saying Yes now we are effectively saying we agree to any future changes without knowing the details.

TheDriver

Good one fizzical and dead right, the government had this last Nov but cut pay instead and now want their cake and eat it, can't trust them to be honest and too much vagueness in the whole thing for my liking.