Croke Park Agreement Vote

delta_bravo

I got a ballot paper yesterday morning for this.

I read through some of the agreement and I will be voting no on this.

I dont agree with NQTs receiving a drastic paycut while others simply have a pay freeze (I would be in favour of a an all for one, one for all approach as I feel this will really fracture the profession)

Theres a new government coming and I would like to see what they have proposed in the education sector. All I have heard from FG is making Irish optional, not much else. This plan has been made by the outgoing government and will affect us for 4 years.

I feel it should be scrapped and let the incoming government to assess the situation and offer solutions.

What are your thoughts?

TheDriver

and when FG imposes a pay cut, we might all looking back at the agreement wishing we had voted yes?

Pegasusbridge

I find it hard to believe how anyone can vote no on the croke park agreement. It is unfair that NQTs will get a drastic pay cut but that is going to happen whether teachers vote yes or no. In fact I suspect the result doesn't really matter as I can't see any government not introducing more pay cuts before 2014.

delta_bravo

154 views, 10 votes and only 2 comments. Could people give their reasons for voting yay or nay? I'm new to this game but its seems that discussion of unions and pay is very "hush-hush" and far from open (I'm not talking about this forum but teachers in general).

solerina

I voted yes....Im not happy with the croke park agreement, or the fact that my wages are gone back to 2006 levels but I cant see that voting no to the Croke Park agreement is going to change this....In fact I think if we dont get the Croke Park agreement we will be on even less money....and if FG or Labour get in we are screwed anyway, they will do a hatchet job on the remaining pay......which for me is less than I would earn if I went on the production line at a local factory, which after 5 years of Uni and 10 plus years of teaching is a disgrace

mrboswell

I'll probably vote no as the unions are doing nothing for new or up and coming teachers.

The deal does not offer any protection against any further pay cuts or redundancies until 2014 because the government can legally renege on any aspect of the deal at any time according to get-out clause, paragraph 1.28, page 16.

Also if we vote yes then we would be acknowledging that for the 1st time since the foundation of the state that permanent teachers can be made redundant unless significant concessions on working conditions are made.

Redeployment can mean being passed pillar to post, for year to year. I wouldn't fancy having to move every year...

Fizzical

I'm almost definite I'll vote no. I just can't seem to get past voting myself 2 weeks extra work for less pay.

I dont agree with NQTs receiving a drastic paycut while others simply have a pay freeze (I would be in favour of a an all for one, one for all approach as I feel this will really fracture the profession)

Nothing to do with the Croke Park agreement.

Also if we vote yes then we would be acknowledging that for the 1st time since the foundation of the state that permanent teachers can be made redundant unless significant concessions on working conditions are made.

This.

Benicetomonty

No guarantee whatsoever that salaries will remain untouched until 2014, incredible ambiguities in the areas of redeployments and the rights of those affected to replace RPTs or people one year short of CIDs, the ludicrous FAS scheme (which is always worth a bash, regardless of whether it has anything to do with Croke Park) and a proposed worsening of conditions that is probably unmatched in any other area of any other public sector in the country? No, no, no.

sitstill

I voted no because as a young teacher I feel that the agreement offers me nothing.

kippy

Its irrelevant lads, it'll be renegotiated (at best) or torn up (at worst) in the next 12-18 months.
Public and Civil servants will be looking back at it thinking what a great deal it was.


If the agreement isnt renegotiated or torn up - we're gonna get to a stage where no one gets paid anything.

delta_bravo

kippy wrote: »

If the agreement isnt renegotiated or torn up - we're gonna get to a stage where no one gets paid anything.

Are we not near that stage already? I know of a teacher who is earning just €50 a week more than an SNA in a school (both full time). We're not far from the tipping point here and it needs a complete overhaul.

The new government will need to act unilaterally and bring out its proposal for teachers and education. The days of "partnership" are over I think.

kippy

delta_bravo wrote: »

Are we not near that stage already? I know of a teacher who is earning just €50 a week more than an SNA in a school (both full time). We're not far from the tipping point here and it needs a complete overhaul.

The new government will need to act unilaterally and bring out its proposal for teachers and education. The days of "partnership" are over I think.

I am speaking in general terms, not only in relation to teachers......
I actually mean that NO public servant will get paid should the deficit not be brought under control fast and the CP agreement doesnt seem to be making any inroads there at the moment.

Pwpane

Just realised the vote got passed.

Now we have discussions as to how the extra hours should be spent - what fun!

These extra hours won't save money. They won't get more extra-curricular activities done or give students extra tuition or homework help after school. They won't increase our score on the PISA scale. They won't even get the kids minded till the parents get home from work.

Feels like grown-up kids are getting back at their old teachers by keeping them in after school for detention. Were we cheeky, do you think?

And God help the new teachers: 2 points behind on the scale, 10% less pay plus pension levy, permanently part-time, 33 hours extra a year, no promotion...

dory

Pwpane wrote: »

And God help the new teachers: 2 points behind on the scale, 10% less pay plus pension levy, permanently part-time, 33 hours extra a year, no promotion...

No promotion?!? :eek:

delta_bravo

Wow, by a 2 to 1 majority. Very odd considering from just a small sample on this site it was 85% against it.

I read in the Irish Times that retired members of the ASTI were allowed vote on this, seems ridiculous that they would have a vote considering it doesnt affect them as much as current teachers.

rainbowtrout

Pwpane wrote: »

And God help the new teachers: 2 points behind on the scale, 10% less pay plus pension levy, permanently part-time, 33 hours extra a year, no promotion...

That's quite sensationalist.


The payscale and paycut I accept.

• Current teachers are already paying pension levy, no different to new teachers.
• Teachers who are in a school for four years are entitled by law to a CID same as teachers already in the system. Permanencies are not being given out to current teachers either.
  
• Current teachers will also have to work 33 hours extra a year. It's also pro-rata so if you are on half hours, you will work 16.5 hours extra per year.
  
• Promotions are few and far between for current teachers too. Promotions still exist but on a restricted scale. A school is currently allowed under the moratorium to have one assistant principal per 100 students. So if a school of 400 students has 6 assistant principals if one of them leaves, that post will not be given out and neither will the next one and there will not be a post in that school until there are less than 4 in that school. So yes, posts have been cut, but they still exist and the current teachers are subject to the same 'lack of chance of promotion' as new teachers.

By all means debate the terms of CPA but don't be sensationalist about it and paint it like these facts only apply to new teachers and not existing ones.

rainbowtrout

delta_bravo wrote: »

Wow, by a 2 to 1 majority. Very odd considering from just a small sample on this site it was 85% against it.

I read in the Irish Times that retired members of the ASTI were allowed vote on this, seems ridiculous that they would have a vote considering it doesnt affect them as much as current teachers.

It's a union vote not a teacher vote. I guess if you are a full paid up member of the union you are entitled to a vote, just as if you are a teacher but not in a union you don't get a vote.

delta_bravo

rainbowtrout wrote: »

It's a union vote not a teacher vote. I guess if you are a full paid up member of the union you are entitled to a vote, just as if you are a teacher but not in a union you don't get a vote.

Yes but its a teachers union. Just like people that emigrate from the country cannot vote in the general election. This agreement is about the future of how teachers work and really doesn't effect retired teachers (unless theres some pension changes included i'm not aware of). I'm not saying that retired teachers all voted YES and swayed the vote but I find it odd that they can have a say in this matter.

rainbowtrout

delta_bravo wrote: »

Yes but its a teachers union. Just like people that emigrate from the country cannot vote in the general election. This agreement is about the future of how teachers work and really doesn't effect retired teachers (unless theres some pension changes included i'm not aware of). I'm not saying that retired teachers all voted YES and swayed the vote but I find it odd that they can have a say in this matter.

I don't disagree with you, just highlighting the fact that anyone can be a member of a union regardless of employment status and once they're in they have a vote on union issues.

E.g. student teachers can join teacher unions on some sort of student rate. I know most Dip students probably have other things to worry about in their Dip year than joining a union, but having said that if a large number of them joined this year they would have had a vote.

The other side of that is that teachers who choose not to join a union don't have a say in matters such as this which is not fair either. But the flip side of that coin is that when a pay rise is voted on by unions and ratified they get the benefit of it too.

Pwpane

rainbowtrout wrote: »

That's quite sensationalist.


The payscale and paycut I accept.

• Current teachers are already paying pension levy, no different to new teachers.
• Teachers who are in a school for four years are entitled by law to a CID same as teachers already in the system. Permanencies are not being given out to current teachers either.
  
• Current teachers will also have to work 33 hours extra a year. It's also pro-rata so if you are on half hours, you will work 16.5 hours extra per year.
  
• Promotions are few and far between for current teachers too. Promotions still exist but on a restricted scale. A school is currently allowed under the moratorium to have one assistant principal per 100 students. So if a school of 400 students has 6 assistant principals if one of them leaves, that post will not be given out and neither will the next one and there will not be a post in that school until there are less than 4 in that school. So yes, posts have been cut, but they still exist and the current teachers are subject to the same 'lack of chance of promotion' as new teachers.

By all means debate the terms of CPA but don't be sensationalist about it and paint it like these facts only apply to new teachers and not existing ones.

New teachers have the pension levy on top of their reduced pay. They may get a CID but probably not for full hours - and then have mandatory extra hours that are unpaid. And the small chance of promotion has been cut even further.

To my mind, this does not constitute a career.

I repeat - God help them!

rainbowtrout

Pwpane wrote: »

New teachers have the pension levy on top of their reduced pay. They may get a CID but probably not for full hours - and then have mandatory extra hours that are unpaid. And the small chance of promotion has been cut even further.

To my mind, this does not constitute a career.

I repeat - God help them!

All PS workers have to pay the pension levy. Why would new entrants be exempt??

There are plenty of teachers in schools across the country who do not have CIDs for full hours. There seems to be a policy in my place of ensuring teachers are not on 18 hours or above in their fourth year preventing them from getting a CID for full hours. There is a teacher in my school who has a CID for only 7 hours. CIDs for less than full hours are not a new concept. They have been around for a number of years.

And again, all teachers will have to do the unpaid hours, they are not any different.

kippy

delta_bravo wrote: »

Wow, by a 2 to 1 majority. Very odd considering from just a small sample on this site it was 85% against it.

I read in the Irish Times that retired members of the ASTI were allowed vote on this, seems ridiculous that they would have a vote considering it doesnt affect them as much as current teachers.

Not surprising when you consider the alternative.
Of course this effects retired teachers. Their pay is linked directly to full time teachers pay.

killbillvol2

delta_bravo wrote: »

Wow, by a 2 to 1 majority. Very odd considering from just a small sample on this site it was 85% against it.

I read in the Irish Times that retired members of the ASTI were allowed vote on this, seems ridiculous that they would have a vote considering it doesnt affect them as much as current teachers.

rainbowtrout wrote: »

It's a union vote not a teacher vote. I guess if you are a full paid up member of the union you are entitled to a vote, just as if you are a teacher but not in a union you don't get a vote.

rainbowtrout wrote: »

I don't disagree with you, just highlighting the fact that anyone can be a member of a union regardless of employment status and once they're in they have a vote on union issues.

E.g. student teachers can join teacher unions on some sort of student rate. I know most Dip students probably have other things to worry about in their Dip year than joining a union, but having said that if a large number of them joined this year they would have had a vote.

The other side of that is that teachers who choose not to join a union don't have a say in matters such as this which is not fair either. But the flip side of that coin is that when a pay rise is voted on by unions and ratified they get the benefit of it too.

Can either of you quote a source, other than a vague reference to a newspaper, that either retired teachers or students had a vote?

Neither group has full membership (entitling them to voting rights) in any of the three teacher unions AFAIK.

mrboswell

I heard today that ~33% of those that were entitled to vote actually did.
Very poor postal vote.

The agreement will be reneged by the incoming government anyway.