Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Ruairí Quinn: Teachers don't appreciate gravity of economic crisis
Options
Comments
-
This post has been deleted.0
-
That's rich of Quinn to say considering his salary, perks and holidays.0
-
-
nice_guy80 wrote: »I'd argue strongly that the average salary quoted does not represent what most teachers earn.
Not my issue.
And as these are the very salaries I take issue with as being protected with under the CPA and by the Unions I would prefer look at numbers which include them.nice_guy80 wrote: »Principals and Vice principals' salaries are included.nice_guy80 wrote: »Yard supervision allowances are included. That is not actually part of the salary but is paid at the end of the year for extra work. (and its very heavily taxed)
If it is paid to you for the year it is part of your compensation package and so it should be included. Doesn't matter when it is paid.
Oh, and it is no higher taxed than any higher level income. It is taxed at your marginal rate. That your credits have been offset against your salary doesn't mean the allowance is being taxed at a higher marginal rate. Allowance and salary combined is what is taxable for the year, to argue that the allowance is taxed more highly requires you to argue that you're getting a tax break on your salary.
You've just lost some brownie points in my book for making a facile argument.0 -
delta_bravo wrote: »Not true, realistically a teacher receives an additional €500 for a masters as they do not get the degree allowance.
It's still pretty farcical that they get an allowance of thousands of Euros for having the basic minimum qualification for the job.0 -
Advertisement
-
Moderators, Education Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 12,479 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 12025
Master's allowance is being done away with.I object to the "Irish teachers are better paid than other countries' teachers" line. EVERYONE here is paid more than their European counterparts.delta_bravo wrote: »Not true, realistically a teacher receives an additional €500 for a masters as they do not get the degree allowance.
Our private sector bankers had to have extra money added to the salary cap so we can "attract the best", because we all know what a wonderful job bankers have made of our finances.0 -
People need to step back before they start a witch hunt.
You can bet your bollocks to a barn dance that the teachers receiving these salaries are much older and have been in the game a long time.
General sweeping cuts like the ones being advocated by the blood thirsty masses will do little to harm these teachers who arein the minority but will deal a crippling blow to the already under paid young teachers who are in the majority.0 -
byhookorbycrook wrote: »Master's allowance is being done away with.
The masters allowance, as has already been pointed out, is only a few hundred Euros extra, compared to the €4,426 allowance for having an honours primary degree. I'd love to know when was the last time anyone was appointed to a teaching post with a bare pass degree (for which, anyway, there's a consolation prize of €1,658 annually . . .)0 -
byhookorbycrook wrote: »Master's allowance is being done away with.I object to the "Irish teachers are better paid than other countries' teachers" line. EVERYONE here is paid more than their European counterparts.
Our private sector bankers had to have extra money added to the salary cap so we can "attract the best", because we all know what a wonderful job bankers have made of our finances.
Everyone here is paid more than their European counterparts?
What are you basing that on? You have a reference?
Also is there any point in pointing out the handful of very top banking positions as a comparison to the average salary of teachers? Or are you saying the average worker in a bank earn more then the salary cap?0 -
beeftotheheels wrote: »Not my issue.
And as these are the very salaries I take issue with as being protected with under the CPA and by the Unions I would prefer look at numbers which include them.
If it is paid to you for the year it is part of your compensation package and so it should be included. Doesn't matter when it is paid.
Oh, and it is no higher taxed than any higher level income. It is taxed at your marginal rate. That your credits have been offset against your salary doesn't mean the allowance is being taxed at a higher marginal rate. Allowance and salary combined is what is taxable for the year, to argue that the allowance is taxed more highly requires you to argue that you're getting a tax break on your salary.
You've just lost some brownie points in my book for making a facile argument.
principals and vice principals are classed as management, not teachers. why include their salaries in the average?
you can opt out of yard supervision. so not everyone gets it. therefore it is not part of your basic salary.
because the yard duty is paid in one lump sum, you are taxed to the hilt on it. if it was spread throughout the year if wouldn't be taxed as high0 -
Advertisement
-
nice_guy80 wrote: »principals and vice principals are classed as management, not teachers. why include their salaries in the average?
CPA isn't protecting them then?
Either it is salary to be protected by CPA, or it is not and therefor isn't covered. Pick one.nice_guy80 wrote: »you can opt out of yard supervision. so not everyone gets it. therefore it is not part of your basic salary.
In the private sector we do loads of small things not in our standard job description because we don't insist on narrowly defining our job. We can't. Lots of us don't get overtime because it is taken as given that you will do the hours required in order to get the job done. So not big on the sympathy for allowances, the kids are in teachers care from the time they go in until the time they leave. I don't think it unreasonable for the teachers to divvy up the task of supervising the yard.
No, if it was spread through the year you'd pay exactly the same amount of tax. You'd pay a sliver more on your basic salary and a sliver less on the allowance, but you'd pay the exact same amount of tax in total. To understand this you have to grasp the fact that the allowance forms part of the total emoluments from your employment, which is what you're taxable on.nice_guy80 wrote: »because the yard duty is paid in one lump sum, you are taxed to the hilt on it. if it was spread throughout the year if wouldn't be taxed as high0 -
Idbatterim wrote: »you cant blame the teachers or unions for creaming off as much as they can, the government ultimately are the ones to blame!
I agree, the government are responsible...especially for the dishing out of an obscene amount of money to teachers and substitute teachers over the years but ( i say this having many close friends who are teachers) It really annoys me when I hear teachers being so greedy about their salaries and cuts to their salaries.. in this current economic crisis it really pisses me off... they need to open there eyes.. stop whinging and get on with educating and stop trying to get more money off the tax payer.
apologies if I sound harsh..I just hate greediness!0 -
beeftotheheels wrote: »CPA isn't protecting them then?
Either it is salary to be protected by CPA, or it is not and therefor isn't covered. Pick one.
In the private sector we do loads of small things not in our standard job description because we don't insist on narrowly defining our job. We can't. Lots of us don't get overtime because it is taken as given that you will do the hours required in order to get the job done. So not big on the sympathy for allowances, the kids are in teachers care from the time they go in until the time they leave. I don't think it unreasonable for the teachers to divvy up the task of supervising the yard.
No, if it was spread through the year you'd pay exactly the same amount of tax. You'd pay a sliver more on your basic salary and a sliver less on the allowance, but you'd pay the exact same amount of tax in total. To understand this you have to grasp the fact that the allowance forms part of the total emoluments from your employment, which is what you're taxable on.
I never said yard allowance was part of the basic salary. However, if teachers are not paid for working during their breaks (would you???) then children wouldn't be allowed outside the classroom due to health and safety.
Principals and Vice Principals are protected by the CPA, however you and others are quoting average salary figures which include their pay. Including the higher pay of management positions distorts the salary which most teachers earn.
Teachers also do lots of extra things not included in their basic salary - like cleaning classrooms, fundraising, attending various meetings and courses outside of school hours. Upkeep of IT equipment. Training sports teams outside of school hours. School table quizzes in the evenings. etc
And as for the Tax issue, I only see one third of the yard duty payment as when it is paid my earnings that month go into the higher tax bracket. if the payment was spread out over the year I would be taxed less. Simple as.0 -
The majority of you are making an ignorant generalisation.
All newly qualified teachers are earning a fraction of what well established teachers are. Our pensions and wages are cut dramatically in comparison. The only way I can make money from my profession is to leave the country like every other person of my age. So this "cushy" lifestyle you speak of is non existent in the younger generation of teachers.
And upping ratios is all well and good until it's your child who actually needs the support.
This scapegoating teachers isnt about the wages at all, admit it your jealous of our holidays!!0 -
nice_guy80 wrote: »I never said yard allowance was part of the basic salary. However, if teachers are not paid for working during their breaks (would you???) then children wouldn't be allowed outside the classroom due to health and safety.
Breaks? I don't understand this strange concept. You leave your desk, grab a sandwich and get back to work. You leave and go out for lunch a couple of times a month when things aren't too hectic. In a 20 teacher school if the work was spread evenly each teacher would have to do yard duty one day ever 4 weeks. I really don't see that killing anyone.nice_guy80 wrote: »Principals and Vice Principals are protected by the CPA, however you and others are quoting average salary figures which include their pay. Including the higher pay of management positions distorts the salary which most teachers earn.
Teachers also do lots of extra things not included in their basic salary - like cleaning classrooms, fundraising, attending various meetings and courses outside of school hours. Upkeep of IT equipment. Training sports teams outside of school hours. School table quizzes in the evenings. etc
My issue is, predominantly, with older better paid teachers including principals and vice principals and as such I will insist on using numbers which include them until such point as the CPA distinguishes them from the rank and file and stops protecting them. If you object to people including them in the data then suggest that your union stop protecting their interests and protect the interests of the younger, less secure, and less well paid teachers.nice_guy80 wrote: »And as for the Tax issue, I only see one third of the yard duty payment as when it is paid my earnings that month go into the higher tax bracket. if the payment was spread out over the year I would be taxed less. Simple as.
You see one third of it because by coming in last it is the top slice of your income. If you spread it over the year it would be included in your earnings but the total effect is that you would pay the same amount of tax which or whether. You are getting confused with the cumulative nature of PAYE allocating most of your credits and basic rate to the earlier periods of the year. You would not pay any less tax.
Lets try some numbers. We'll step into Narnia where there the tax free allowance is Narnian $ 12,000. The next NRN$12,000 is taxable at 25%. Above that the income is taxable at 50%. Narnia applies PAYE just as we do.
A Narnian teacher earns NRN$36,000. They also get an allowance paid in December of $4,000.
In Jan through November their salary is NRN$3k. The first thousand is tax free, the second thousand is taxable at 25% ($250 tax), and the third thousand is taxable at 50% $(500 tax). So they end up with NRN$2,250 cash and pay NRN$750 in tax. Total tax ($750 x 11 = $8,250)
In December their salary is NRN$7,000, the first $1k at 0%, the second $1k @25% (250 tax) and the final $5,000 @ 50% ($2,500 tax). Cash of $4,250 and tax of $2,750) So the Narnian teacher wails no fair, I'd pay less tax if my allowance was spread.
Total tax for the year in the above scenario is $8,250 + $2,750 is $11,000.
If we spread the $4,000 over the year it is an additional $333.33 per month. So we have 12 months of $1k @ 0%, $1k @25% (250) and $1,333@ 50% ($667) giving us total tax of $917. Which we now multiply by the 12 months of the year and end up back at $11,000.
Because that is the appropriate tax, under Narnian law, for an employee with emoluments of NRN$40k.
Narnia uses a tax free allowance (makes illustration easier) whereas Ireland uses tax credits. But the net effect is still the same.
Spreading the payment doesn't make you pay less tax on it. Like the last €1 of your salary it is taxed at your higher marginal tax rate unless the allowance itself pushes you into a higher rate band.0 -
beeftotheheels wrote: »Breaks? I don't understand this strange concept. You leave your desk, grab a sandwich and get back to work. You leave and go out for lunch a couple of times a month when things aren't too hectic. In a 20 teacher school if the work was spread evenly each teacher would have to do yard duty one day ever 4 weeks. I really don't see that killing anyone.
There is a flaw in your logic, you are presuming that there is only one person on break time supervision. Min of 2 each time, plus if talking about a primary school a lot of schools will have a yard for the Junior school and a yard for the senior school so that works out at 4 people a day, not including the fact that there is 2 break times so if everyone takes turns thats 8 people a day in a 20 teacher school that works out at on yard duty every 3rd day or so, not once every 4 weeks.
Take my school, a secondary school, due to the terrible layout of the grounds due to years of putting prefabs everywhere and no design thought put in and approx 600 students, off the top of my head there is approx. 10 teachers on duty at each 11 o clock break for example, plus a couple of SNAs for their own particular children. In a school of about 40 teachers thats once every 4 days, plus there will be a little less supervision needed at lunch time due to a small number of students going home for lunch, plus we do 15 minutes before school and 15 after school. Obviously there is no need for 10 at each time there.
Morning supervision 4 teachers
11 o clock break 10 teachers
Lunch 5 teachers
after school 4
So each day requires 23 teachers to take a turn as in your example, thats every other day. Not including when some teachers may be out sick, or away at a match. Also in the secondary example do the teachers who are on 5 hours a week, or 11 hours a week need to do the same amount of supervision as the teacher on full hours. Again using my example out of our 40 teachers at least 15 are on 14 hours a week or less. Now work out how many times a week the full time teacher has to do it.
No where near your example of once every 4 weeks.
It is easy to say once every four weeks until you think it through fully.
I don't mean to sound rude but please don't comment on things that you clearly know nothing about.0 -
There is a flaw in your logic, you are presuming that there is only one person on break time supervision. Min of 2 each time, plus if talking about a primary school a lot of schools will have a yard for the Junior school and a yard for the senior school so that works out at 4 people a day, not including the fact that there is 2 break times so if everyone takes turns thats 8 people a day in a 20 teacher school that works out at on yard duty every 3rd day or so, not once every 4 weeks.
Take my school, a secondary school, due to the terrible layout of the grounds due to years of putting prefabs everywhere and no design thought put in and approx 600 students, off the top of my head there is approx. 10 teachers on duty at each 11 o clock break for example, plus a couple of SNAs for their own particular children. In a school of about 40 teachers thats once every 4 days, plus there will be a little less supervision needed at lunch time due to a small number of students going home for lunch, plus we do 15 minutes before school and 15 after school. Obviously there is no need for 10 at each time there.
Morning supervision 4 teachers
11 o clock break 10 teachers
Lunch 5 teachers
after school 4
So each day requires 23 teachers to take a turn as in your example, thats every other day. Not including when some teachers may be out sick, or away at a match. Also in the secondary example do the teachers who are on 5 hours a week, or 11 hours a week need to do the same amount of supervision as the teacher on full hours. Again using my example out of our 40 teachers at least 15 are on 14 hours a week or less. Now work out how many times a week the full time teacher has to do it.
No where near your example of once every 4 weeks.
It is easy to say once every four weeks until you think it through fully.
I don't mean to sound rude but please don't comment on things that you clearly know nothing about.
Not to be dismissive, but have you ever worked an 80 hour week for 8 months in a row (while obviously contracted to work under 40 and being contractually entitled to an hour for lunch and no over time)?
I'm not saying that that is the norm in the private sector. It is not. It is not even normal in my job. But having done it, and having worked 60+ hour weeks as the norm, you'll understand why someone having to give up their fifteen minute 11 o'clock break to take a walk around the yard is not going to cause me to be reaching for the hankies at your plight.
Even if you had to do it every day, if you're a secondary teacher you have free periods so you'll still have time to get lunch, if you're a primary teacher you're working a really short day so you'll be fine.
I still cannot understand why it should be paid for other than as part of the entitlement culture of the public service.0 -
beeftotheheels wrote: »Not to be dismissive, but have you ever worked an 80 hour week for 8 months in a row (while obviously contracted to work under 40 and being contractually entitled to an hour for lunch and no over time)?
I'm not saying that that is the norm in the private sector. It is not. It is not even normal in my job. But having done it, and having worked 60+ hour weeks as the norm, you'll understand why someone having to give up their fifteen minute 11 o'clock break to take a walk around the yard is not going to cause me to be reaching for the hankies at your plight.
Even if you had to do it every day, if you're a secondary teacher you have free periods so you'll still have time to get lunch, if you're a primary teacher you're working a really short day so you'll be fine.
I still cannot understand why it should be paid for other than as part of the entitlement culture of the public service.
No where did I say that we were entitled to anything.
I have never on this website claimed anything of the sorts.
I have never said that we should get paid for supervision or that we should not get paid for it.
There has been an ongoing debate on the T&L forum lately (which I was not part of) about people saying things as fact when actually being completely and utterly wrong. It did not bother me either way until I read your previous statement, putting it out as almost fact just because that is the way you perceived it to be.
You stated something that was wrong and I replied by giving you and example of how it actually works. There was no argument from me in relation to your stance on the issue.
And again just to clear up something I will use myself as the example as i would not be aware of others.
Because of the way my timetable has been set up I have 9 classes Tuesday out of 9.
8 on a Wednesday and 8 on a Thursday, the free class each day being the first class in the morning so essentially working through from 9.30-4. If I were to give up my lunch and break these days I would have no break during the day. Due to my practical subjects I cannot eat or drink in the classrooms.
And before anyone jumps on me claiming I am moaning about having to work from 9-4 I am doing no such thing I am just again pointing out a serious flaw in what you are using as the basis of your arguments.
I am not permanent, I do not get paid for holidays like permanent teachers.
I am contracted for 22 hours teaching a week, I calculated before the holidays I worked 35 hours the two weeks before the holidays. This was NOT including ANY planning time or time spent on corrections. I did not even bother to start counting this time at home.
Again before I am jumped on I am not saying poor me having to work 35 hours where you have to work 60+, I am just getting in ahead before I am slated for my short days etc. I am just giving actual facts.0 -
No where did I say that we were entitled to anything.
I have never on this website claimed anything of the sorts.
I have never said that we should get paid for supervision or that we should not get paid for it.
There has been an ongoing debate on the T&L forum lately (which I was not part of) about people saying things as fact when actually being completely and utterly wrong. It did not bother me either way until I read your previous statement, putting it out as almost fact just because that is the way you perceived it to be.
You stated something that was wrong and I replied by giving you and example of how it actually works. There was no argument from me in relation to your stance on the issue.
And again just to clear up something I will use myself as the example as i would not be aware of others.
Because of the way my timetable has been set up I have 9 classes Tuesday out of 9.
8 on a Wednesday and 8 on a Thursday, the free class each day being the first class in the morning so essentially working through from 9.30-4. If I were to give up my lunch and break these days I would have no break during the day. Due to my practical subjects I cannot eat or drink in the classrooms.
And before anyone jumps on me claiming I am moaning about having to work from 9-4 I am doing no such thing I am just again pointing out a serious flaw in what you are using as the basis of your arguments.
I am not permanent, I do not get paid for holidays like permanent teachers.
I am contracted for 22 hours teaching a week, I calculated before the holidays I worked 35 hours the two weeks before the holidays. This was NOT including ANY planning time or time spent on corrections. I did not even bother to start counting this time at home.
Again before I am jumped on I am not saying poor me having to work 35 hours where you have to work 60+, I am just getting in ahead before I am slated for my short days etc. I am just giving actual facts.
I apologize. I inferred from your post that you were supporting paid supervision. I was wrong. Thank you for correcting me.
In your scenario if there was no wiggle room then it would be incredibly harsh on you to have to supervise on the days when you have a full schedule.
But do you not think it possible that the person with the assistant principals allowance for timetabling should be able to organize the timetable to allocate out yard supervision duties on a fair an equitable basis amongst the staff?
And as for that allowance....0 -
beeftotheheels wrote: »I apologize. I inferred from your post that you were supporting paid supervision. I was wrong. Thank you for correcting me.
In your scenario if there was no wiggle room then it would be incredibly harsh on you to have to supervise on the days when you have a full schedule.
But do you not think it possible that the person with the assistant principals allowance for timetabling should be able to organize the timetable to allocate out yard supervision duties on a fair an equitable basis amongst the staff?
And as for that allowance....
No problem and apologies if it sounded like I was attacking you. It is just very easy to get annoyed when you get given out to about things that are not actually true, its easier to get the facts out there and hope you are talking to someone who can accept different facts.
Oh it is definitely possible to do, however I'm sure it would be an absolute nightmare to factor in all timetables and free classes etc. however I'm sure there is probably some computer programme that could do it.
The problem is, as I see it that pay was brought in originally for this as it was seen to be doing extra work for free. This was obviously during the good times.
People in general did not have a problem up to recent times with this. And I am sure you can see it from the teachers point of view back then that who would agree to work extra hours for no money.
I know times are different now, however again from the teachers point of view, no one in their right mind would just roll over and say yea no problem take the money off me and I will work for free. Everyone is going to try their best to hold on to as much as they can for as long as they can.
(i do realise that this is happening all over the place these days, people working longer for less, however if you had a choice would you just hand it over no questions asked?)
Again I am not saying I agree or disagree with this stance but this is where the teachers are coming from.
And for what its worth, the overall savings from this I am sure would not be huge in the grand scheme of things, compared to other expenses that the ministers etc are on. Although from my own point of view every little does add up. It angers me when politicians are asked to defend expenses and they say sure its only small money compared to what we are trying to save.
To explain my situation the payment I received for the first period was approx €680, however after taxes etc. the amount of money I came away with was again approx €220. (I do not have the exact figures on me right now but these are not too far away.). I think the general public think that we are on thousands for this we are not.
As I explained I do not get paid for holidays so I only get paid 33 weeeks of the year so in my case as you can imagine every little helps, little being the appropriate word.
Again I am not saying that the payment should stay, just that when it is there I will gladly take every penny I can get to pay the household charge, the new water charges etc.0 -
Advertisement
-
Oh it is definitely possible to do, however I'm sure it would be an absolute nightmare to factor in all timetables and free classes etc. however I'm sure there is probably some computer programme that could do it.
Not sure if there's a standardised programme, there certainly ought to be. When the role first came out my Dad used excel. Took him about a day a year. Hence I view it as a joke. And the fact that "seniority" is one of the criteria for appointment to a post? That one makes me laugh because generally the 50+ who has the post will do it less efficiently than a 30 something who can use a computer while still knowing the place and people well enough to be able to get it mostly right first time around.
Given the pay and conditions of our more senior teachers I accept their right to try and hold onto the money. They must accept my right to view them as selfish. I don't view younger teachers this way, but I do view you as enabling the overpaid senior lot to remain protected at your expense, at the expense of education because as has been pointed out our educational standards have slipped while rates went up, and at the expense of the country at large. If young dynamic teachers are in the majority why are there no unions representing their interests? I'd be all for improving the terms for younger teachers prepared to make a difference, I cannot support teachers supporting nonsensical allowances relating to minimal duties.I know times are different now, however again from the teachers point of view, no one in their right mind would just roll over and say yea no problem take the money off me and I will work for free. Everyone is going to try their best to hold on to as much as they can for as long as they can.
(i do realise that this is happening all over the place these days, people working longer for less, however if you had a choice would you just hand it over no questions asked?)
You, the younger teachers without job security are not the target. You're collateral damage to the CPA.To explain my situation the payment I received for the first period was approx €680, however after taxes etc. the amount of money I came away with was again approx €220. (I do not have the exact figures on me right now but these are not too far away.). I think the general public think that we are on thousands for this we are not.
If the CPA was scrapped, if people could be sacked when not fit for purposes, if allowances were scrapped, there would be space within the education budget to improve terms and conditions for people who are good at their jobs, people determined to make a difference.
But the CPA is not protecting you, it is protecting my Dad's former colleagues who are burnt out, getting post of responsibility allowances for posts that either are minimal or being done inefficiently because of their ages and length of service.
Allowances like the honors degree one should be folded back into salary because I assume they're almost universal at this stage in the game and as such are effectively core salary. But others like timetabling, should be replaced with a computer program.
Young teachers should be able to get full time jobs in the system, they should be properly remunerated for what they do. But older teachers should not be massively over-rewarded for what they do.
There is a problem with expectations, of course there is. Once people have something they're reluctant to part with it. But every action has its consequence and it seems like the teachers unions are oblivious to public sentiment. Which can go on for so long. And then along comes a Thatcher with massive public support because the Unions have seemed to be protecting a cossetted minority.0 -
beeftotheheels wrote: »Not sure if there's a standardised programme, there certainly ought to be. When the role first came out my Dad used excel. Took him about a day a year. Hence I view it as a joke.
From all schools I have been in timetabling is done by the DP as part of their job, S& S roster is done by either the DP and P, or the DP/P and Secretary. I have not come across any teacher getting paid for this post in any school I have been in (5 in 6 years, more if I include the odd day subbing here or there) , not saying this isnt the case in other schools
And the fact that "seniority" is one of the criteria for appointment to a post? That one makes me laugh because generally the 50+ who has the post will do it less efficiently than a 30 something who can use a computer while still knowing the place and people well enough to be able to get it mostly right first time around.
This would be a huge personal gripe of mine to be honest. I recently overheard a teacher explaining how they "were next in line for the next post if one comes up and god help anyone younger like X if they get in the way" Nothing to do with computers etc, just getting something just because of being there the longest not because you are the best person for the job. Unions have basically done nothing to help this issue, although they do say everyone is entitled to go for jobs, they may just be advised locally not to rock the boat. It is all down to traditions in schools. The principals are the ones who need to change this. This is probably the only area that I would agree there is a sense of entitlement in the teaching sector.
Given the pay and conditions of our more senior teachers I accept their right to try and hold onto the money. They must accept my right to view them as selfish. I don't view younger teachers this way, but I do view you as enabling the overpaid senior lot to remain protected at your expense
What can young teachers do to change this? This is a silly argument put out there a lot I personally feel.,
at the expense of education because as has been pointed out our educational standards have slipped while rates went up,
I'm personally not going to get into this argument as it usually goes nowhere
and at the expense of the country at large. If young dynamic teachers are in the majority why are there no unions representing their interests? I'd be all for improving the terms for younger teachers prepared to make a difference, I cannot support teachers supporting nonsensical allowances relating to minimal duties.
Some posts are far from minimal, year heads for example do a huge amount of extra work, and I recently found out that in many schools year heads are not actually part of any posts it is just added on like a class tutor for no extra pay. This amazed me as it is a huge responsibility.
There are certain posts that are ridiculous alright, however again the principal is responsible for allowing this to continue
You, the younger teachers without job security are not the target. You're collateral damage to the CPA.
For us, the younger teachers, this is the problem. Everywhere we turn, every paper we pick up, every news programme, or current affairs programme we watch "Teachers" are slated. There is no distinction.
It is very annoying to be constantly branded like this. My neighbour finds it funny almost every day for the last 2 and half years to say some job ye teachers have. It does get tiresome.
If the CPA was scrapped, if people could be sacked when not fit for purposes,
Untrue fact. Teachers can be sacked.
Maybe not enough or often enough, but that is an untruth as the Mahon tribunal would say
if allowances were scrapped, there would be space within the education budget to improve terms and conditions for people who are good at their jobs, people determined to make a difference.
But the CPA is not protecting you, it is protecting my Dad's former colleagues who are burnt out, getting post of responsibility allowances for posts that either are minimal or being done inefficiently because of their ages and length of service.
Allowances like the honors degree one should be folded back into salary because I assume they're almost universal at this stage in the game and as such are effectively core salary.
I think you may be the first member of the public I have heard say this. That allowance is part of pay, however it is termed. Thanks for that
But others like timetabling, should be replaced with a computer program.
Young teachers should be able to get full time jobs in the system, they should be properly remunerated for what they do. But older teachers should not be massively over-rewarded for what they do.
There is a problem with expectations, of course there is. Once people have something they're reluctant to part with it. But every action has its consequence and it seems like the teachers unions are oblivious to public sentiment.
I often get annoyed by this type of statement to be honest. And this is in no way supporting of unions. people who have read previous posts by me know I hate the teachers unions for how I was treated.
However it is the job of any union to protect its members interests. If the unions were to say well look the public don't like that we get paid for S&S lets just give that up to keep them happy, they would not be doing their jobs at all.
When there are layoffs in the Public Sector unions go in to try to get a better deal and more money for the people being laid off. This may be from a company that is closing certain branches for a reason (I.e. no money). However that is what the union are there for.
I was reading in the paper yesterday about the union trying to get extra money for Tesco workers because they had built a new store 1 mile down the road. They were looking for 1,500 a head for relocation, for new car sharing, for having to find where things were in the new store.
Now imagine that was a school where there was an amalgamation of 2 schools to a new location and the teachers went looking for extra pay for having to move 1 mile down the road. The uproar that there would be and rightly so. However I have not heard or read any uproar from people in relation to the Unions representing those Tesco workers.
Which can go on for so long.
And in all fairness if we were to work for what some people want us to work for I would be earning minimum wage or even less if they had their way
And then along comes a Thatcher with massive public support because the Unions have seemed to be protecting a cossetted minority.
a0 -
I posted this yesterday in the Irish Economy forum not realising that there was a dedicated thread here:
I've always noticed that David McWilliams has steered well clear of ever passing comments on the Public Sector wage issues. I assumed that this was because he didn't want to alienate anybody on a topic that ignites strong feelings on either side of the debate. So it was with a whole lot of interest that I read his latest piece which was on the topic:I have to ‘fess up. I have a soft spot for teachers. I am from a family of teachers on one side. Both my mother and one of my sisters are teachers, as are my uncles and aunts. Further back, there are teachers dotted around all over the place, so I am genetically pro-teacher. I also remember the teachers who influenced me years ago. These people made a huge impression on me and changed the way I looked at the world.
So it is with a certain amount of familial trepidation that I write this piece....But from the point of view of salaries and pay rates, it seems that the idea that our country is bankrupt has evaded the teachers’ union leaders.
Teachers are not being singled out, nor are they being picked on. There just isn’t the cash out there.But for the Croke Park Agreement, the writing is on the wall. The State can’t afford it. Never mind all the spin we are seeing and hearing right now from the likes of the NTMA or the Department of Finance. There will be no going back to the markets next year. The Spanish and Italian bond markets are getting hammered. There is no way in the world that anyone is going to lend to Ireland, unless we offer a realistic way out of this and stop pretending that national wage deals signed in 2010 have any realistic hope of being paid.
It strikes me that the union bosses are leading their members up a garden path if they keep telling them that the commitments entered into in the Croke Park deal can be met. This can only lead to disappointment. And there are few things more irresponsible than false hope.
Teachers need to learn hard lessons about pay0 -
beeftotheheels wrote: »In my school how many teachers taught maths? Probably 20 of various degree backgrounds.
But how many taught leaving cert honors maths? One, with a degree in maths, physics and mathematical physics. He rarely taught junior cert science, the biologists and chemists generally did. But he taught leaving cert higher level maths, and indeed referred to the junior cert syllabus, and the ordinary level syllabus, as sums, not maths (and I have inherited my Daddy's prejudices here)
I think you maybe onto something here. When students actually take HL Maths they have a high Honours rate and a low fail rate.
So the problem could well be the poor level of Maths teaching, the syllabus, maybe a middle level Maths is needed at say Junior Cert or 4th year?
Or maybe Physics, HL Maths and Chemistry just aren't subjects for a wider audience.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
confuzzled3 wrote: »The majority of you are making an ignorant generalisation.
All newly qualified teachers are earning a fraction of what well established teachers are. Our pensions and wages are cut dramatically in comparison. The only way I can make money from my profession is to leave the country like every other person of my age. !
I went to a teaching university in the UK, teachers there work longer hours, longer terms with less pay. Before you pack your bags and go look at the pay, here in Ireland we have some of highest paid PS in the EU including teachers http://www.iiea.com/blogosphere/public-sector-pay-at-a-glance.0 -
I went to a teaching university in the UK, teachers there work longer hours, longer terms with less pay. Before you pack your bags and go look at the pay, here in Ireland we have some of highest paid PS in the EU including teachers http://www.iiea.com/blogosphere/public-sector-pay-at-a-glance.
A completely irrelevant link from July 2011.
Both Irish and English teachers starting as NQT's are generally on about the same amount now.
Ireland €27,000
England €25000 - 32000 (inner London)
http://www.asti.ie/pay-and-conditions/pay/salary-scale/salary-scale-for-teachers-appointed-after-january-2011/
http://www.education.gov.uk/get-into-teaching/salary/starting-salary.aspx
Very little difference in pay these days starting out.
Cost of living is a different issue. From the link below April 2012 rest seems to be lower in Ireland but food etc seems to be higher, it may level itself off overall I don't know.
http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_countries_result.jsp?country1=United+Kingdom&country2=Ireland&displayCurrency=EUR
Indexes Difference
Consumer Prices in Ireland are 3.58% higher than in United Kingdom
Consumer Prices Including Rent in Ireland are 1.46% higher than in United Kingdom
Rent Prices in Ireland are 8.35% lower than in United Kingdom
Restaurant Prices in Ireland are 7.76% higher than in United Kingdom
Groceries Prices in Ireland are 11.50% higher than in United Kingdom
Local Purchasing Power in Ireland is 0.88% lower than in United Kingdom
Taxes etc is a different issue I don't have time to look up at the moment I am not sure what effect that has on net pay.0 -
A completely irrelevant link from July 2011.
Both Irish and English teachers starting as NQT's are generally on about the same amount now.
Ireland €27,000
England €25000 - 32000 (inner London)
http://www.asti.ie/pay-and-conditions/pay/salary-scale/salary-scale-for-teachers-appointed-after-january-2011/
http://www.education.gov.uk/get-into-teaching/salary/starting-salary.aspx
Very little difference in pay these days starting out.
That is the problem. The majority of teachers are not new entrants to the profession, so the new figures do not apply to them. I personally have no issue whatsoever with the starting salary of a new teacher. It's pointless comparing the current pay rates between the UK and Ireland if it doesn't apply to the majority. The government and the teaching unions have created a two tier system within education which is unfair. Quite honestly why a new teacher would join one of the teaching unions is beyond me.t.0 -
That is the problem. The majority of teachers are not new entrants to the profession, so the new figures do not apply to them. I personally have no issue whatsoever with the starting salary of a new teacher. It's pointless comparing the current pay rates between the UK and Ireland if it doesn't apply to the majority. The government and the teaching unions have created a two tier system within education which is unfair. Quite honestly why a new teacher would join one of the teaching unions is beyond me.t.
Read the posts above from confuzzled3. We were discussing nqts.
It is not pointless because it applies to a huge amount of people for the last couple of years and EVERY new teacher coming from here on.
The other point in relation to what utility say is even taking out nqts the vast majority of teachers who have qualified over the last 5 years and who have managed to find any work are on at best half hours. So low pay and conditions go to represent a huge number of teachers out there. As I mentioned above over 1/3 of the teachers in my school are on less than 16 hours a week some down to 6 hours a weel. And unable to have another job as thosec16 hours are spread throughout the week from minday to Friday. They are getting hardly any subbing within the school either so no way to top up that 16 or less hours0 -
Read the posts above from confuzzled3. We were discussing nqts.
It is not pointless because it applies to a huge amount of people for the last couple of years and EVERY new teacher coming from here on.
The other point in relation to what utility say is even taking out nqts the vast majority of teachers who have qualified over the last 5 years and who have managed to find any work are on at best half hours. So low pay and conditions go to represent a huge number of teachers out there. As I mentioned above over 1/3 of the teachers in my school are on less than 16 hours a week some down to 6 hours a weel. And unable to have another job as thosec16 hours are spread throughout the week from minday to Friday. They are getting hardly any subbing within the school either so no way to top up that 16 or less hours
The majority of currently practicing teachers did not join the profession since these new scales were brought in. So while the current payscales affect a lot people, they are not what people take issue with. I do agree that it is not pointless, but its not relevant to the majority of teachers.
The problem of teachers not being able to find enough work is something that needs to be looked at. Certainly the restrictions of the CPA and the attitude of the teaching unions will do nothing to improve that situation. Although I do wonder is there a case of over supply at the moment which will correct itself in time? Though again, it shows the massive inequality that exists within the teaching profession.0 -
Advertisement
-
What is always strange in these discussions is that there is more discussions on what is "fair" (subjective argument). How can people make comparisons with the UK ? Are they getting bailouts from the EU/IMF or are they still in control of their public finances (certainly more then we are!).
The most important thing is that cuts will have to be made, not because its fair or because "they deserve it", but simply because we are in a great depression (certainly in this country). It really still hasnt seeped in yet, I cant say this enough . . I know people in public and private sector jobs who feel they are having it tough when in truth its just that they cant buy a car every two years , go on as many holidays as they used to and have to think twice about using their credit card.
There has to be a revolution of mindsets in this country because people have become accustomed to getting things their way too much and thinking that they are entitled to whatever they feel is right for them. Remember we are in this mess because Bertie gave the public/civil service workers, the pensioners and those on welfare what they demanded. The annual deficit is because we are spending more then we are getting in taxes, not because the banks collapsed (wish people would stop confusing the two!).
In truth, the teachers are not alone. They are no less self vested and clueless/ignorant to what is going on in this country then most people in ireland who are quick to say that cuts are needed, but they throw their toys out of the pram as soon as there is a knock on their door from government asking for them to give an extra contribution to Ireland Inc . .
The simplest answer is for the government to run itself like a private company. Paycuts or job cuts based on a prudent (not populist) budget. Since the government doesnt treat the public money like a private employer would their own, we get waste after waste, complacency and a public workforce that thinks it has an entitlement to take only the cuts that it subjectively feels is fair . .
Ah, but think about the children ! ! An extremely pathetic excuse of an argument. I turn that argument back around, the cuts are gonna have to be made unless there is a ridiculous economic recovery. If the unions continue to protect certain vested groups , then the children and patients in hospitals will be hit, not because they have to be but so that certain employees can keep their own perks/remuneration, instead of us having a more efficient public service (with an appropriate amount of employees on lower wages). .
What would I do if I was ASKED to take a paycut ? I would say "no thanks". What would I do if I was told I could take a paycut and have guaranteed job security or quit ? " Where do I sign" . . Would I be happy ? Of course not, but I dont believe the government is there to service its employees, its there to make the most of our taxes. Give people a choice, but dont make it easy . . Many people are holding out for the EU/IMF to force the changes that our government are too pathetically incapable/unwilling to make.0
Advertisement