Who do the Teaching Unions serve?

vallo

It seems to me that they only look after the interests of teachers who are in permanent pensionable positions.
Brilliant if you are one, but they take my money too and I don't have a permanent job.
It seems that if the unions put pressure to maintain all the pay and conditions that teachers currently have (all hard-fought for, I know) then the government, needing to save on overall costs, will cut ratios. This will mean less jobs, so that when those permanent teachers retire on their brilliant pensions, young teachers still wont get a job.

Has anybody got any thoughts on this?

spurious

I felt the time I most needed the union was while I was part-time and temporary.

slickmcvic

go to your area meetings,they should be held monthly in a rotation between schools...your school rep will know when they're held....theres a void in non-CID members attending them but if you want your issues to be heard and dealt with by an area rep then thats where to go

rainbowtrout

I was union rep in my school last year (I'm permanent). We do it on a rotational basis. While there are lots of issues within my school, the union did help three teachers to get their CIDs for the hours they were entitled to. I can see where you're coming from but I know that the part time staff in my school would not dream of leaving the union while they are part time.

implausible

vallo wrote: »

It seems to me that they only look after the interests of teachers who are in permanent pensionable positions.
Brilliant if you are one, but they take my money too and I don't have a permanent job.

I couldn't disagree more! Most of the work our branch does is in regard to part-time, contract and non-traditional teachers (e.g. Youthreach tutors). In fact, after the education cuts, these teachers' issues take up most of the time at meetings. As rep and branch secretary in the past, I found a huge amount of my time dealing with non-granting of CIDs and arguing with the VEC over contracts. I'd even go as far as to say that the union, in my experience, spends a disproportionate amount of time dealing with non-permanent members of staff. The job of a union is, after all, to protect its weakest members.

As an aside, I find that the people who complain most about the union are the ones who never attend a meeting and prefer to b*tch in the staff-room, rather than raise an issue and get something done.:rolleyes:

spurious

deemark wrote: »

As an aside, I find that the people who complain most about the union are the ones who never attend a meeting and prefer to b*tch in the staff-room, rather than raise an issue and get something done.:rolleyes:

This is true.
I'm sick of a colleague in another school saying 'the union should do something' when they never take one evening out to go and make their branch aware of the issue.

vallo

Thanks for your thoughts. I suppose that my experience of the unions so far hasn't been great, though as some of you have said, I may think different if and/or when I need them.
I'll make a point of going to a meeting and see the lie of the land. I am actually curious to witness the workings of it.
But I really think that my "issue" isn't specific enough to raise at a meeting. This is more of a broad policy of the union - maintaining conditions for existing teachers but reducing teacher numbers overall.
Thanks again, you've all given me food for thought!

spurious

A lot of the valuable stuff at Branch meetings happens in the bar afterwards. You can talk to experienced members, people who know the workings of the Dept/VEC and can advise as to what likely outcomes would be of 'what if' situations.

When I was younger, I spent about 15 years regularly attending meetings and in one officership after another. I found it very useful and every year think about going back.

To be honest what stops me is I know if I walked in the door of an AGM I'd find myself walking out with an officership since (in my experience) newer people are very slow at coming forward and I've done my stint.

implausible

vallo wrote: »

But I really think that my "issue" isn't specific enough to raise at a meeting. This is more of a broad policy of the union - maintaining conditions for existing teachers but reducing teacher numbers overall.

I think you'll find that this is Government policy, not union policy:rolleyes:

vallo

deemark wrote: »

I think you'll find that this is Government policy, not union policy:rolleyes:

Welllllll ... government want to save money. They can do that by cutting pay and conditions (which there would be a lot of public support for :mad:) or by reducing ratios. Is it unreasonable that the government would see having the lowest student/teacher ratios in the EU as being bad for the image of Ireland Inc, so I doubt that cutting ratios would be their first choice.
I'd imagine that a lot of teachers who are starting out would prefer more jobs, even if the pay and conditions were not as good as before.
Also, there's a massive disincentive for people to go into teaching after 10 or 15 years of industry experience if they might have to wait years and years for a permanent position. You could be talking about having very few years of pensionable service when it comes to retirement.
Anyhoo, interesting chat.

implausible

vallo wrote: »

They can do that by cutting pay and conditions (which there would be a lot of public support for :mad:) or by reducing ratios.

Also, there's a massive disincentive for people to go into teaching after 10 or 15 years of industry experience if they might have to wait years and years for a permanent position. You could be talking about having very few years of pensionable service when it comes to retirement.

Em, the Govt has already cut our pay and is attempting to change our conditions. Reducing ratios would cost the Govt money, that's why they've being doing the opposite. If you reduce the pupil-teacher ratio you get more teachers in every school, it's the basic equation that every school runs on. The unions have been fighting to get the PTR lowered, both for the students' sake and for teachers.

Do you think that someone who has spent years doing something else should walk into a permanent job with full pension while those who originally trained as teachers should have to work 40 years to get the same pension?

To be honest, I can see why you've a problem with the union, you don't seem to have a basic grasp of the issues facing our profession. :rolleyes:

rainbowtrout

vallo wrote: »

Welllllll ... government want to save money. They can do that by cutting pay and conditions (which there would be a lot of public support for :mad:) or by reducing ratios. Is it unreasonable that the government would see having the lowest student/teacher ratios in the EU as being bad for the image of Ireland Inc, so I doubt that cutting ratios would be their first choice.
I'd imagine that a lot of teachers who are starting out would prefer more jobs, even if the pay and conditions were not as good as before.
Also, there's a massive disincentive for people to go into teaching after 10 or 15 years of industry experience if they might have to wait years and years for a permanent position. You could be talking about having very few years of pensionable service when it comes to retirement.
Anyhoo, interesting chat.

Are you sure you're a teacher? Because you don't seem to understand the basics of what is going on at the moment.

The government can increase pupil teacher ratio to save money, not cut it

The cuts and conditions are not about who wants to get into the profession, it's about who is already in it. People who want to get into teaching are hypothetical. I'm not worried about the opinion of the pay and conditions of the student who is doing a degree in college who might want to teach when they graduate.

I'm not sure I agree with the point you make about it anyway; I've seen so many threads here in the last year of the nature 'Sick of my job/ can't get work in my field I think I'll try teaching. I have a degree in German, I think I'd like to teach History, Biology and a bit of Woodwork' There seems to be a lot of people out there that think there are oodles of teaching jobs, that it's easy to get one and you only have to have a degree and they'll let you teach any subject you want. God forbid you might have actually studied the subject at a higher level than Leaving Cert. So, yes I do think pay and conditions seem to be a huge attraction to this cohort.

You don't have to be permanent to have pensionable service. If you work a certain number of hours a year in teaching, it's eligible for pensionable service. Why are you so concerned about people moving out of industry and into teaching anyway? Just because they've worked in industry doesn't mean they'll be good teachers and it doesn't give them the right to a permanent job either.

vallo

deemark wrote: »

Em, the Govt has already cut our pay and is attempting to change our conditions.

Yes, I know. You don't think they'd like to reduce it further?

deemark wrote: »

Reducing ratios would cost the Govt money, that's why they've being doing the opposite. If you reduce the pupil-teacher ratio you get more teachers in every school, it's the basic equation that every school runs on. The unions have been fighting to get the PTR lowered, both for the students' sake and for teachers.

What I was referring to was the government reducing the number of teachers. That would save them money and they already did this in the private schools last budget. Anyway I hope you know what I mean - fewer teachers, means that existing schools are over quota, means retiring teachers won't get replaced, means fewer jobs for new teachers.

deemark wrote: »

Do you think that someone who has spent years doing something else should walk into a permanent job with full pension while those who originally trained as teachers should have to work 40 years to get the same pension?

Why would you think any differently of someone who trained late as a teacher rather than someone who did the dip straight after their degree? I'd like both to have a reasonable chance of getting a job. Do you not think that people with industry experience could bring something of value to the profession? Do you think they should be discouraged?

deemark wrote: »

To be honest, I can see why you've a problem with the union, you don't seem to have a basic grasp of the issues facing our profession. :rolleyes:

I think I just see it from a different perspective to he honest. An unemployed perspective.

vallo

rainbowtrout wrote: »

The cuts and conditions are not about who wants to get into the profession, it's about who is already in it.

Cuts in teacher numbers are not about people already in permanent jobs though, they are about people who want to get into the profession.

rainbowtrout wrote: »

People who want to get into teaching are hypothetical. I'm not worried about the opinion of the pay and conditions of the student who is doing a degree in college who might want to teach when they graduate.

That answers my original question, thanks. Without a permanent job I guess I am a hypothetical also.

spurious

Have you ever been to a union meeting?

vallo

No, I said that earlier on. I also said I will go to one as some of the points made earlier made me re-assess my position.
The later contributions make me less optimistic, but I will still go.

doc_17

Hey folks. I've been to a good few union meetings over the last 3 years and in the coming year I'm thinking about raising the following issue. Thought this would be a good place to test it!!!

I'm a young non-permanent/CID teacher who will have to pay the pension levy for a lot longer than teachers in their 50s and I will have to work longer as well since I'm post March 04. That's the way it is. I'd say the lump sum, in its current form, will be history by the time I retire.

Now here's my idea. I supervised the State Exams for 2 years but did not get it this year. In that particular school there were lots of retired teachers in working as Superintendents (to my knowledge many or most are not union members). An older teacher (1 year from retirement) opted out last year but opted in this year and got supervising the exams.

I'd like to get the union to lobby the case that State Exam supervision should only be done by current teachers. Would that be divisive?

rainbowtrout

vallo wrote: »

Cuts in teacher numbers are not about people already in permanent jobs though, they are about people who want to get into the profession.

No they are not. Cuts in teacher numbers directly affect teachers who have PRPT contracts and are not permanent/CID. Me personally, I am more concerned about teachers who are in the profession and losing their jobs ( like the 5 teachers in my school who lost jobs in the last two years) than students in college who may want to teach.

Students have not yet entered the profession, they have not given years of service to it and can go in a different direction if the need arises. Teachers who have been teaching for 15 years and have lost their jobs and have not any experience of any other type of work or qualification find it harder to adjust, so to be honest I'm more concerned about them that people who haven't yet entered the profession yet.

There are threads here every week about people wanting to get into teaching. They haven't yet applied for the PGDE and don't seem to hear the message that there are little or no teaching jobs out there. Of course they can choose to gain a teaching qualification, but if they are going to do the PGDE they can't expect a job to be sitting there at the end of it simply because they have done the course.

Students are still applying to architecture courses now and I seriously hope they are aware that there is little or no work out there in that profession at the moment, but they shouldn't expect it to turn around just because they have qualified.

Every industry and profession is fairly screwed at the moment so I don't think it's realistic for teacher unions to be campaigning for people that are not teachers. They exist to serve teachers, not wannabe teachers.

Now maybe if the third level colleges reduced the numbers they were taking into teaching courses that might mean a reduction in the numbers qualifying and finding no work each year. Also if they stopped accepting applications from students with a rubbish combination of subjects (ICT and CSPE) the students graduating from these courses would actually be employable.

vallo

rainbowtrout wrote: »

No they are not. Cuts in teacher numbers directly affect teachers who have PRPT contracts and are not permanent/CID. Me personally, I am more concerned about teachers who are in the profession and losing their jobs ( like the 5 teachers in my school who lost jobs in the last two years) than students in college who may want to teach.

So for those teachers who are losing their jobs (and who have been paying their dues to their union) do you not agree that they would have been better served if the unions had tried to negotiate on terms and conditions while maintaining jobs.
It comes back to my original point, which is that the unions serve the interests of teachers in permanent jobs.

vallo

doc_17 wrote: »

I'd like to get the union to lobby the case that State Exam supervision should only be done by current teachers. Would that be divisive?

That sounds fair to me. Ditto for subbing jobs.
I would be very curious to see what the union's view would be.

spurious

doc_17 wrote: »

I'd like to get the union to lobby the case that State Exam supervision should only be done by current teachers. Would that be divisive?

I can't see there being a problem with that, as long as it was not limited to 'teachers' currently in employment.

Fizzical

vallo wrote: »

What I was referring to was the government reducing the number of teachers. That would save them money and they already did this in the private schools last budget. Anyway I hope you know what I mean - fewer teachers, means that existing schools are over quota, means retiring teachers won't get replaced, means fewer jobs for new teachers.

They did this in all schools. Teachers lost jobs.

I think I just see it from a different perspective to he honest. An unemployed perspective.

You seem to see it from a non-teacher's point of view, not an unemployed teacher's point of view. Your posts show basic lack of knowledge!

Fizzical

vallo wrote: »

So for those teachers who are losing their jobs (and who have been paying their dues to their union) do you not agree that they would have been better served if the unions had tried to negotiate on terms and conditions while maintaining jobs.

This is an amazing statement!!:eek:

Do you read the newspapers at all?

vallo

Fizzical wrote: »

This is an amazing statement!!:eek:

Do you read the newspapers at all?

Yes I do. Do you answer questions at all, or do you just prefer to comment on their amazingness?

If you ask teachers who lost their jobs would they have preferred it if their colleagues who kept their jobs took a bigger hit on pay and conditions rather than having them lose everything I wonder what they would say.

doc_17

spurious wrote: »

I can't see there being a problem with that, as long as it was not limited to 'teachers' currently in employment.

Absolutely. If anything I would give priority to newly qualified and part time teachers over the likes of myself. I just don't think the current system is fair and the union should be more engaged in trying to change it Thanks for the feedback folks.