New union to represent non-permanent teachers?

linguist

With the redeployment scheme apparently threatening the tenure of RPT teachers and the Department of Education apparently trying to displace even RPT teachers with more than one year's service, the question is whether it is finally time to acknowledge that the ASTI and TUI fundamentally exist to serve those at the top of the ladder, ready to sacrifice those of us who are non-permanent whenever required.

Is it time to up the ante with a new union devoted to getting proper treatment for non-permanent teachers?

rainbowtrout

linguist wrote: »

With the redeployment scheme apparently threatening the tenure of RPT teachers and the Department of Education apparently trying to displace even RPT teachers with more than one year's service, the question is whether it is finally time to acknowledge that the ASTI and TUI fundamentally exist to serve those at the top of the ladder, ready to sacrifice those of us who are non-permanent whenever required.

Is it time to up the ante with a new union devoted to getting proper treatment for non-permanent teachers?

I'm not for or against this, I'm just wondering why this is pointed out. No teacher has CID/Permanency rights in a school until they've served their four years regardless of the state of the economy. Teachers have been let go after a couple of years in the past.

Within my own VEC, two of our teachers were redeployed to another school in the VEC for this academic year because we were over quota. Both are CIDs and I'm sure displaced RPT teachers. This was happening before Croke Park. It's now just going to happen on a wider scale.

spurious

In my experience, TUI (and I'm sure ASTI) have spent most of the last 25 years fighting for non-permanent teachers' conditions - EPT contracts, jobs in PLCs, CIDs etc..

There's no need to divide people more. The priority should be (and for TUI always has been) getting proper permanent full time jobs for as many people as possible.

implausible

As a union rep, I spend a lot of time helping out part-time and new teachers. Union meetings regularly feature RPT issues and would discuss them more if more RPTs turned up to them! My branch and the last one I was a member always put CIDs on the agenda i.e. pushing the VEC to grant them and/or speed them up.

It is completely unfair and untrue to suggest that the unions only serve permanent members of staff. If you are a member, you have a voice - use it! B*tching about the union in the staffroom is not using that voice.

Unfortunately for some teachers, redeployment is a long overdue reality and if you ask me, is a logical step (it's the details that will cause the problems). We, in the VEC sector, have always had this possibility hanging over us. The fact is that teachers rarely get to chose the school they teach in.

rainbowtrout

deemark wrote: »

As a union rep, I spend a lot of time helping out part-time and new teachers. Union meetings regularly feature RPT issues and would discuss them more if more RPTs turned up to them! My branch and the last one I was a member always put CIDs on the agenda i.e. pushing the VEC to grant them and/or speed them up.

It is completely unfair and untrue to suggest that the unions only serve permanent members of staff. If you are a member, you have a voice - use it! B*tching about the union in the staffroom is not using that voice.

Unfortunately for some teachers, redeployment is a long overdue reality and if you ask me, is a logical step (it's the details that will cause the problems). We, in the VEC sector, have always had this possibility hanging over us. The fact is that teachers rarely get to chose the school they teach in.

Same situation here. I was union rep last year and most meetings centred around hours for RPT teachers and getting (long overdue) CIDs for staff that were entitled to them.

linguist

It's clear that if you are RPT you can be let go if your job is no longer viable. However once you have done over 12 months, the hours are there and your service is satisfactory you have the protection of the Unfair Dismissals Act. You are entitled to the job if it is there. That is the unions' position and I acknowledge that they are prepared to defend this position at law if necessary.

The earlier redeployment scheme in the event of school closures acknowledged all this by exempting RPTs with more than 12 months service from redeployment. The wording of the new deal is much woollier and the ASTI website acknowledges that there is a disagreement between them and the Department regarding this point.

On rainbowtrout's point, those staff may well have displaced RPTs, but probably only if they were in their first year. That's the law as I have read it and understand it.

I suppose my argument is that there would appear to be something of an inherent conflict between a union trying to stand up for its permanent members and struggling to defend its non-permanent members at the same time when something such as redeployment is on the table. You could argue that with so many non-permanent teachers out there, there might be an argument for their having a body of their own that could push their interests at its sole priority. That's the debate I am trying to open.

I do think that many non-permanent teachers would share my misgivings regarding the extent to which the unions really defend their interests. As regards dividing people, I suppose they would have to be united to start with and I don't believe that there is genuine solidarity either in staffrooms or in the unions. Many of us who are non-permanent feel that those at the top seek to hold what they have and we are just the hired help.

rainbowtrout

linguist wrote: »

It's clear that if you are RPT you can be let go if your job is no longer viable. However once you have done over 12 months, the hours are there and your service is satisfactory you have the protection of the Unfair Dismissals Act. You are entitled to the job if it is there. That is the unions' position and I acknowledge that they are prepared to defend this position at law if necessary.

The earlier redeployment scheme in the event of school closures acknowledged all this by exempting RPTs with more than 12 months service from redeployment. The wording of the new deal is much woollier and the ASTI website acknowledges that there is a disagreement between them and the Department regarding this point.

On rainbowtrout's point, those staff may well have displaced RPTs, but probably only if they were in their first year. That's the law as I have read it and understand it.

Do you mean RPTs with more than 12 months service couldn't be displaced by a permanent teacher being redeployed? Don't think it's true. A friend of my was teaching in a school for 2 years when a school closure meant a permanent teacher was redeployed to her school in her place and she lost her job.

You are entitled to your hours if they exist AND if the nature of the contract doesn't change. So a job which is RPT in one year and RPT in the following year doesn't constitute a change of contract and the RPT teacher is entitled to keep their hours.

However what is essentially happening in a redeployment is that a job is being made permanent. You could argue that it should be advertised but when the nature of the contract changes, the person who is in the job does not have an automatic right to it and I suspect that is how the idea of redeployment functions or how it can be got around in the voluntary secondary sector.


I can't say for sure if those teachers were in their first year but my VEC has lost a lot of staff over the last few years so I doubt they were in their first year as we haven't really been hiring anyone. In a VEC you are employed by the VEC, not the school and while you are essentially employed by one school the VEC can move you to another school at any time as the need arises. In practice this doesn't happen, but we had first hand experience of it this year.

jimbo28

"You are entitled to your hours if they exist AND if the nature of the contract doesn't change. So a job which is RPT in one year and RPT in the following year doesn't constitute a change of contract and the RPT teacher is entitled to keep their hours."


Don't know how true that is. I was in that exact same situation a couple of years ago and lost my job for so called trouble making. Had a very interesting chat with the principal at the time who refused to answer any questions regarding my employment within the school.Was a member of the asti at the time and to be honest they didn't do a whole lot about it. left them since and as far as im concerned, am better off. Unions are fine and i agree with their practice, but i have seen first hand what schools can do to you if they want, and there isn't a whole lot unions can do for people with R.P.T contracts. When im permanent i will rejoin, but not before then.


"There's no need to divide people more. The priority should be (and for TUI always has been) getting proper permanent full time jobs for as many people as possible."

Not trying to be smart but why are there 2 unions. why not an amalgamation of vec/secondary unions?

spurious

jimbo28 wrote: »

Not trying to be smart but why are there 2 unions. why not an amalgamation of vec/secondary unions?

It's historic.
Different employers, different groups with negotiating rights with each.
In VECs we've always had the possibility of redeployment. I've moved twice myself in 25 years, once in a school closure, the other in an amalgamation.

There was a 'Teachers United' movement years ago - don't know why it fizzled out - possibly to do with different structures within the unions and how they work. I only know TUI, I don't know the structure of the ASTI.