Micheá Martin's teaching post

gizmo555

From yesterday's (Feb 12) Irish Independent:

Mr Martin also admitted he had not yet given up his teaching post, because his former school would lose the post and he did not want to make his substitute unemployed. He said he had not drawn down any salary or pension entitlements since becoming a TD in 1989 and was surrendering the post this year.

So, Mr Martin still hasn't formally resigned from a teaching post he freely admits he has no intention of ever returning to. The reason he gives is that he wants, in the case of this particular school, to subvert the recruitment embargo he himself introduced, along with his colleagues in government. He pleads sympathy for the teacher concerned as a justification.

First of all, he has been a TD for 22 years and a minister for 14. If he had resigned from this post after a decent interval, say after his first re-election to the Dáil, the post would presumably have long since been filled on a permanent basis rather than by the unfortunate temporary teacher he's now shedding crocodile tears for.

Secondly, who is he to unilaterally decide that he should make an exception in this case to the policy that applies to every other school in the country?

It's very like Gormley and Sargent's announcements that they're going to give their minsterial severance pay to charity. Guys, in case you've missed the point, we're having to borrow that money you're being so flaithiúlach with from the EU/IMF at 5.8% interest . . .

byhookorbycrook

nice lump of a pension he's amassing too.

johnmcdnl

what about the school children there that are going to loose a teacher in their school so class sizes will increase...

we're going to have to borrow the substitute's dole money anyways so we may as well borrow a few extra euro and pay this teacher's salary and at least help the children in the class...


yeah I know it's not right in any form or shape but of all the things that's wrong in this country I wouldn't start picking out just this one

gizmo555

johnmcdnl wrote: »

what about the school children there that are going to loose a teacher in their school so class sizes will increase...

What about all the other schools which are in the same situation, because of the recuitment policy Martin and his government introduced? What he's saying is, "I want this policy, just not for the school I used to work in."

johnmcdnl wrote: »

we're going to have to borrow the substitute's dole money anyways so we may as well borrow a few extra euro and pay this teacher's salary and at least help the children in the class...

In my view, the pressure from the teachers unions about class sizes is mainly about reducing their own workload. The evidence that class sizes - once they're not completely unreasonable - have a significant effect on educational outcomes is mixed, at best. But that's a different discussion and it's not the argument Martin is making.

johnmcdnl wrote: »

yeah I know it's not right in any form or shape but of all the things that's wrong in this country I wouldn't start picking out just this one

What annoys me about this is first of all that Martin hung on to this post for so long, blocking someone else who actually wanted a career in teaching as opposed to politics from getting an permanent job. Twenty two years - more than half a normal working life. Secondly, now he's trying to make a virtue of it by claiming he's only doing it for the benefit of his substitute. Pass the sick bag . . .

henryporter

Totally agree with the OP - Martin is trying to spin this one and he can't, because it was his party and their policies which has created the same situation throughout the country. Don't know how we're going to achieve a 'smart' economy with such dumb fvckers in charge

Tragedy

gizmo555 wrote: »

What annoys me about this is first of all that Martin hung on to this post for so long, blocking someone else who actually wanted a career in teaching as opposed to politics from getting an permanent job. Twenty two years - more than half a normal working life.

What? You already showed you knew that there was a substitute teacher filling in for him for the last however long, so what nonsense are you spewing?

deanh

being from Cork, I think that the real issue is that his 'old teaching post' is in a school that has long closed down (Sullivan's Quay?). Martin is being paid for a teaching post that he couldn't possibly return to. Wait until the meedia gets a hold of that, as if they didn't know. Last few days of campaign?

Tragedy

deanh wrote: »

being from Cork, I think that the real issue is that his 'old teaching post' is in a school that has long closed down (Sullivan's Quay?). Martin is being paid for a teaching post that he couldn't possibly return to. Wait until the meedia gets a hold of that, as if they didn't know. Last few days of campaign?

He already said he gave up his teaching pension past time actually worked a while ago, there isn't enough new 'news' for the media to get itself worked up over.

gizmo555

Tragedy wrote: »

gizmo555 wrote: »

What annoys me about this is first of all that Martin hung on to this post for so long, blocking someone else who actually wanted a career in teaching as opposed to politics from getting an permanent job. Twenty two years - more than half a normal working life. Secondly, now he's trying to make a virtue of it by claiming he's only doing it for the benefit of his substitute. Pass the sick bag . . .

What? You already showed you knew that there was a substitute teacher filling in for him for the last however long, so what nonsense are you spewing?

Just because you can't understand the point (or pretend not to) doesn't make it nonsense. The operative word above is permanent. The person now filling in for Martin in the post is a temporary substitute and as Martin points out, if he (Martin) now resigns the post, his sub will lose this work.

Does anyone seriously believe that if Martin had resigned this post, say, when he was Minister for Education in 1997-2000, that the school concerned wouldn't have immediately gotten sanction to fill it on a permanent basis?

I know there are many other teachers of various parties in the Dáil who are clinging to posts in a similar way and it's an ongoing scandal. Martin, however, is the only one I know of who has the sheer effrontery to claim he's doing it for the benefit of his sub . . .

deanh

deanh wrote: »

being from Cork, I think that the real issue is that his 'old teaching post' is in a school that has long closed down (Sullivan's Quay?). Martin is being paid for a teaching post that he couldn't possibly return to. Wait until the meedia gets a hold of that, as if they didn't know. Last few days of campaign?

Don't suppose you have any proof about this, do you?

rebel10

deanh wrote: »

being from Cork, I think that the real issue is that his 'old teaching post' is in a school that has long closed down (Sullivan's Quay?). Martin is being paid for a teaching post that he couldn't possibly return to. Wait until the meedia gets a hold of that, as if they didn't know. Last few days of campaign?

No that was the Christian Brothers school, he taught in the Presentation school on the mardyke. Still well and truely open

After a cursory glance, it appears that Martin worked for Presentation Brothers in Cork. Which are still up, running and taking on new students.

Very different to Christian Brothers which is nought but a husk.


So lets move on, shall we?

gizmo555

Papa Smut wrote: »

Don't suppose you have any proof about this, do you?

Accoring to his Wikipedia page, he taught in Presentation College. What's mind-boggling is the sum total of his teaching experience is one year and yet he's still in principle entitled to return to this post after 22 years in politics.

Whichever parties get into government, one of the political reforms they must introduce is to seriously limiit, or better still, get rid of this widely abused safety net which is exclusive to teachers.

gandalf

gizmo555 wrote: »

Martin, however, is the only one I know of who has the sheer effrontery to claim he's doing it for the benefit of his sub . . .

You forgot to add because of the decisions that his party made while in Government to put an embargo on full time recruitment.

This is a major issue for me. I have no problem with a TD being on leave for one term, but once they start a second term then they should relinquish any state held jobs they have. The reason we are over represented with teachers as TD's is because they can hold their jobs like this.

gizmo555

gandalf wrote: »

You forgot to add because of the decisions that his party made while in Government to put an embargo on full time recruitment.

Not so

gizmo555 wrote: »

So, Mr Martin still hasn't formally resigned from a teaching post he freely admits he has no intention of ever returning to. The reason he gives is that he wants, in the case of this particular school, to subvert the recruitment embargo he himself introduced, along with his colleagues in government.

gizmo555 wrote: »

What about all the other schools which are in the same situation, because of the recuitment policy Martin and his government introduced? What he's saying is, "I want this policy, just not for the school I used to work in."

gandalf wrote: »

This is a major issue for me. I have no problem with a TD being on leave for one term, but once they start a second term then they should relinquish any state held jobs they have. The reason we are over represented with teachers as TD's is because they can hold their jobs like this.

I struggle to see why they should be able to hold onto their posts at all. It's an unfair advantage that's not available, as of right, to most other workers. But I certainly agree that if it's not removed, it should be strictly limited. Even George Lee only got a year's leave of absence from RTE.

Tragedy

gizmo555 wrote: »

Just because you can't understand the point (or pretend not to) doesn't make it nonsense. The operative word above is permanent. The person now filling in for Martin in the post is a temporary substitute and as Martin points out, if he (Martin) now resigns the post, his sub will lose this work.

There was new employment legislation introduced a while ago (sometime around 2005, can't find exact date) to allow for teachers who had been working as substitutes for over 4 years to be entitled to a fixed term contract to remove any uncertainty about their position. Hence why the INTO has consistently stated that it doesn't have a problem with the practice(not that it matters now as any new member of the Oireachtas can only hold on to a teaching post for a maximum of 10 years, and won't accrue pension increments).

Should he have been able to keep his job for 22 years(or however long it has been)?
Nope.
Should he have not blathered on about how he was doing it for the good of the school when he most probably couldn't care less?
Nope.
Are you trying to make a non-issue an issue?
Yup

gizmo555

Tragedy wrote: »

There was new employment legislation introduced a while ago (sometime around 2005, can't find exact date) to allow for teachers who had been working as substitutes for over 4 years to be entitled to a fixed term contract to remove any uncertainty about their position.

Then why is Martin himself saying that the person concerned would lose their temporary post if he (Martin) resigned? Presumably the reason is that there has been a series of subs over the 22 years and the current sub hasn't been in post for four years.

Tragedy wrote: »

Are you trying to make a non-issue an issue?
Yup

The point is that Martin in a completely self-serving way is trying to justify his subversion of government policy that he is personally responsible for. You may regard that as a non-issue - I and others would beg to differ.

Tragedy

gizmo555 wrote: »

Then why is Martin himself saying that the person concerned would lose their temporary post if he (Martin) resigned? Presumably the reason is that there has been a series of subs over the 22 years and the current sub hasn't been in post for four years.

Or else it's a facile excuse he came out with when backed into a corner and surprised?

Either way, it's not the "same teacher working 22 years as a sub denied a full time post" scenario you were painting.

The point is that Martin in a completely self-serving way is trying to justify his subversion of government policy that he is personally responsible for. You may regard that as a non-issue - I and others would beg to differ.

It's a non-issue because it's an old issue that was already widely reported.

You may wish it wasn't already widely reported so you could break the news on it, but unfortunately...

gizmo555

Tragedy wrote: »

Either way, it's not the "same teacher working 22 years as a sub denied a full time post" scenario you were painting.

Where in the thread did say or even infer that the same person had been substituting for Martin for 22 years?

Tragedy wrote: »

It's a non-issue because it's an old issue that was already widely reported.

So what? Given the additional excuses that Martin has being making this week to defend the indefensible, it bears being widely reported again.

Tragedy wrote: »

You may wish it wasn't already widely reported so you could break the news on it, but unfortunately...

Well obviously I didn't break the news on it - my first post referred to a newspaper article. What I was doing was expressing my opinion on the spin Martin was trying to put on the situation. This is, after all, a discussion forum, not a news agency.

Tragedy

gizmo555 wrote: »

Where in the thread did say or even infer that the same person had been substituting for Martin for 22 years?

blocking someone else who actually wanted a career in teaching as opposed to politics from getting an permanent job

You phrased it quite clearly as being one individual.
"Someone" individual
"else" individual
"who" individual
"an" individual
Sorry to nitpick, I just want to make it clear.

So what? Given the additional excuses that Martin has being making this week to defend the indefensible, it bears being widely reported again.



Well obviously I didn't break the news on it - my first post referred to a newspaper article. What I was doing was expressing my opinion on the spin Martin was trying to put on the situation. This is, after all, a discussion forum, not a news agency.

He made the same excuses last year(about not wanting to give it up as the school would lose a teaching position). Another FF minister(Hanafin I think?) gave the same excuse at the same time.

I'm not trying to argue that he should have been allowed to keep it, I'm not trying to argue that he's telling the truth(realistically, why the hell would he care?) I just see it as a non-story as the same thing was reported last year. It smacks of dirty tricks being played at election time, especially as every party is equally culpable in this respect yet Martin is the only one getting publically castigated on it.

91011

deanh wrote: »

Martin is being paid for a teaching post that he couldn't possibly return to.

You don't get paid when you're on leave of absence. Neither do pension credits roll up and neither do increments roll up.


I have a similar situation. My wife works in my business but used to work in a state supported role.
She's currently on year 3 of a five year leave of absence. This can be renewed for a further 5 years and a further 5 years again.

Why is this so important? - We have a mortgage & living bills. If the company started to go downhill, we absolutely must have this safety net in place otherwise the risk would ahve been too much.

We currently employ 6 people, so in effect the benefit of the safety net has allowed for us to grow and employ more people - If this safety net was taken away in the morning, we would have to evaluate if it was worth continuing as we are. - Things are tight, but the safety net makes it worthwhile to see out the recession.

Same rules applies to MM & others - but maybe some people would wish for this "perk" to be taken away just because he's a politician?

NSNO

91011 wrote: »

Same rules applies to MM & others - but maybe some people would wish for this "perk" to be taken away just because he's a politician?

Yes.

It is a safety net only available to teachers and it has directly led to teachers being dangerously over-represented in Dáil Éireann.


If a future Government wishes to bring in legislation that allows for leaves of absences from state jobs to allow state employees to take a break from work to engage in useful private enterprise then that is a completely different matter. That is something that should be encouraged. It would encourage people to leave our bloated public sector temporarily to try their hand at innovating this country out of our current mess.

I completely and utterly fail to see how allowing teachers to hold onto their jobs while in political office benefits anybody but the teachers/politicians in question.

deanh

rebel10 wrote: »

No that was the Christian Brothers school, he taught in the Presentation school on the mardyke. Still well and truely open

Apologies for incorrect information about Sullivan's Quay, but I'm not certain that he taught in Pres. on the Mardyke. Was there another Presentation Brother's school in the city centre?

rebel10

deanh wrote: »

Apologies for incorrect information about Sullivan's Quay, but I'm not certain that he taught in Pres. on the Mardyke. Was there another Presentation Brother's school in the city centre?

Think it was pres. on the mardyke he taught, could be wrong though. Are there many others in the city? Can only think of the Presentation secondary sch in Ballyphehane, which would obviously be near where he grew up, but don't think it was where he taught.

spurious

I hope he kept up his Teaching Council registration.