Infraction on Irish Economy forum

Boombastic

I received an infraction on the Croke Park 2 thread in Irish economy for the following post by K9

Originally Posted by Boombastic

I'd give them the €50,000 after 15 years. As long at the school working week for teachers is lengthened from 22 to 39. (note I said teachers, not students, they can use this as their planning time). Summer holidays shortened to 6 weeks. No more allowances for yard duty etc.

with the following explanation

Moderator Note

The forum is not your blog or somewhere to post stuff that comes into your head. It's a thread about the Croke Park talks, discuss half way realistic options or don't bother at all.



With the deal reached today from the croke park 2 agreement, it seems that the working week will be lengthened and supervision pay will be cut

From the INTO website

Additional Working Time

The unions successfully moved management from its opening position for an extra five hours a week. A demand for increased working hours through a lengthening of the school day / school year was resisted. Each sector was asked to agree to an additional 2 hours and 15 minutes per working week. The teacher unions succeeded in having this met through 37 hours supervision plus some additional covering of the absences of colleagues. Hence there will be an agreement that substitute cover for some absences will no longer be provided such as self-certified sick leave. The school year at primary remains at 183 days.



Supervision and Substitution

The lunchtime supervision payment will be paid as normal this July. The payment will cease for the 2013/14 and subsequent school years.

A) There was talk of lengthening the school year if there was resistance being reported
The hours worked per week under this deal would be increased and
C) Lunch duties would will not be paid after 13/14 school year


So I would like to know how my post was not a half way realistic option and why I deserved an infraction for my post? I would like that infraction removed.

Scofflaw

Hi Boomtastic,

have you discussed the infraction with K9?

moderately,
Scofflaw

Boombastic

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hi Boomtastic,

have you discussed the infraction with K9?

moderately,
Scofflaw

I did scofflaw, the reply was 'expecting teachers to work a 39 hours week with 6 weeks holidays was not a half realistic expectation', then to take it to this forum and stop wasting their time



Edited: Because I looked back over the PM's to see exactly what the reason was

Scofflaw

OK - the mod's position here is that the infraction was not entirely for that post, although he has cited that post as particularly unrealistic, but partly because that post was one of a series of "unrealistic" suggestions, which risked derailing the thread "into discussing Boombastic's plan for the future of the Public Service" (quoting the mod). Regarding the post itself, what Boomtastic was suggesting was a near-doubling of teachers' hours from 22 to 39 with no extra pay, along with additional duties, which K9 regarded as a sufficiently silly suggestion to be worth an infraction in the context of the other posts.

As other posters had also been carded or banned for similar offences, K9 felt that an infraction was also warranted in your case.

Having stated that, I'm going to ask Dades to make the final decision, because I'm also a Politics mod, which might lead to me being biased here.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dades

Okay, so I decided to deal with this so we can all move on.

My recommendation here is to downgrade the red card to a yellow (i.e. a warning). I understand K-9's need to step in as your posts were spiraling into the realms of your own fantasy, and your suggestions weren't really going to achieve anything other than antagonise the "other side".

That said, given it was the first mod interaction with you in that thread, I feel a warning card would have been more appropriate.

If you are content with this outcome I can arrange for this to happen, otherwise make it known here that you want an Admin to look into this (and perhaps explain why, if it's so important, you waited a month to bring this to DRP).

G'luck
Dades

Boombastic

Dades wrote: »

Okay, so I decided to deal with this so we can all move on.

My recommendation here is to downgrade the red card to a yellow (i.e. a warning). I understand K-9's need to step in as your posts were spiraling into the realms of your own fantasy, and your suggestions weren't really going to achieve anything other than antagonise the "other side".

That said, given it was the first mod interaction with you in that thread, I feel a warning card would have been more appropriate.

If you are content with this outcome I can arrange for this to happen, otherwise make it known here that you want an Admin to look into this (and perhaps explain why, if it's so important, you waited a month to bring this to DRP).

G'luck
Dades

I will take the warning. The reason I waited a month is how else could I prove it was a half realistic expectation, until a deal was put forward ?


Anyway thanks Dades

Dades

The red card has now been downgraded to a yellow.

I think we're done here.