Govt attempt to restart Croke Park talks

Fizzical

From RTE:

The Government is to make another effort to reach agreement with unions on cuts to the public service pay and pensions bill.
Cabinet has agreed to ask the chief executive of the Labour Relations Commission to make contact with the parties in the coming days to establish if there is a basis for a negotiated agreement.
Speaking in the Dáil, Taoiseach Enda Kenny said the Government expected a response from unions within two weeks.
The Government has reaffirmed its requirement for €300m of pay and pension savings in 2013, and €1bn by 2015.

Meanwhile, Minister for Finance Michael Noonan has said if there is spare cash after next year’s budget, it will be used to grow the economy and create jobs.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0423/385076-siptu-promissory-note/


My pay is not 'spare cash'.

If there are signs of the economy improving, there is even less of a case for abandoning CP 1.

If it came to it, I could handle the loss of S&S money but that's it, with no increase of S&S hours - and take back the previous 33 hours.

That would be my offer. Where would you all stand?

RealJohn

Fizzical wrote: »

If it came to it, I could handle the loss of S&S money but that's it, with no increase of S&S hours - and take back the previous 33 hours.

That would be my offer. Where would you all stand?

I'd rather keep the 33 hours than have to S&S for nothing. I realise that doesn't save any money but I don't think I need to tell anyone who does it, S&S is work and can be more stressful than regular teaching at times.

There was a time when my attitude was "Of course teachers should have to do supervision for free. Sure it's part of the job." That was before I became a teacher and actually experienced it first hand at which point I came to realise that there's more to it than just walking around the yard or sitting at your desk while a class of students quietly does their homework.

I still say a straight cut across the entire public sector is the way to go with no messing with conditions unless there's a clear reason to change them (ie. that money is being wasted by not changing them) with a larger cut for those on very high salaries (100k or higher) but even if they came to us with a deal that would be reasonable in isolation, the fact is that Croke Park 1 still has a year to run and allowing any renegotiation sets a very bad precedent. What's the point in agreeing a time frame if the government aren't going to stick to it? Rejecting this one was a step in the right direction but accepting any renegotiation is sending the message that we will bend over if we're threatened. A deal is a deal and the deal was for three years, not two.

Boober Fraggle

My take on it is thanks but no thanks. Come back to me in July 2014, and we can have a chat...

TheDriver

Across the board cut, we work to rule, tax man is the looser because he gets most of it anyways and we all get on with our life without worrying about crappy hours........
Plus S&S is maintained....

byhookorbycrook

According to Ingrid Miley on twitter:
"Ps workers to be redeployed beyond 45km if no deal on #crokepark within 2 wks + lose protection from compulsory redundancy\outsourcing"

And

"Mulvey tells ps unions govt will legislate for pay cuts if deal nor agreed in next fortnight incl indefinite freeze on ALL increments"

And

"Ps workers on 65k-100k will have permanent pay cuts under #crokepark 2 would gradually have got back to old rate"

Trotter

I wish they'd stop threatening to cut our pay.
Gwan.. Do it and stop telling me you're going to do it.

But.. what goes around comes around and some TDs might have to put up with my smug head looking at them in the count centre when they have their own pay cut too!

Powerhouse

Fizzical wrote: »

If it came to it, I could handle the loss of S&S money but that's it, with no increase of S&S hours - and take back the previous 33 hours.

That would be my offer. Where would you all stand?

I would have no difficulty with this. The pointless 33 hours does my head in. The subject meetings that are genuinely necessary happen during 'free' classes anyway.

km79

Powerhouse wrote: »

I would have no difficulty with this. The pointless 33 hours does my head in. The subject meetings that are genuinely necessary happen during 'free' classes anyway.

I'd accept that !

Powerhouse

RealJohn wrote: »

I still say a straight cut across the entire public sector is the way to go

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask someone on €70 or €90 to take a bigger hit than someone on €20k or €30k. I realise that it can be argued that they already pay more tax and in taking the same percentage cut they are automatically taking a bigger hit as they earn more. But they are bound to have far more disposable income and will in reality be affected less.

Powerhouse

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

According to Ingrid Miley on twitter:
"Ps workers to be redeployed beyond 45km if no deal on #crokepark within 2 wks + lose protection from compulsory redundancy\outsourcing"

And

"Mulvey tells ps unions govt will legislate for pay cuts if deal nor agreed in next fortnight incl indefinite freeze on ALL increments"

And

"Ps workers on 65k-100k will have permanent pay cuts under #crokepark 2 would gradually have got back to old rate"

I don't understand the government. They have made an agreement which will (supposedly) yield €300 million. If they must impose a solution then why not impose the one they spent so long discussing? Unless of course they actually want to kick off industrial strife.

doc_17

The threats being released by the government this evening, particularly the increment freeze, are being directed at Siptu. That alone will scare enough of them into changing their vote.

If the government move to legislate then I can see the Labour Party being ripped apart by the issue.

Given the time frame involved I don't think there will be time for sectoral discussions.

2011abc

Powerhouse wrote: »

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask someone on €70 or €90 to take a bigger hit than someone on €20k or €30k. I realise that it can be argued that they already pay more tax and in taking the same percentage cut they are automatically taking a bigger hit as they earn more. But they are bound to have far more disposable income and will in reality be affected less.

I wouldnt bet my life on that!In teaching typically the lower paid will be a younger , single ,childless person -as likely as not to be renting (God help them if theyre NOT!)I know with my wife's part time wages and no child care fees (relations mind them)and a combined income heading well into what is now considered 'higher' few would feel any sympathy -yet I havent been able to save anything in the last year -in fact what paltry money we had in account has dropped to almost nothing .OK so we go out to the cinema and eat out a bit but for flips sake , if a teacher cant do that what class of misery is an 'ordinary' worker expected to endure ?No TV!?I live in a small house -less than modest ,drive a small , old car and wear out clothes and shoes ...Yet I see all those who are MEANT to be 'broke' still living the high life -Teachers who got out of the rat race 4-6 years ago are LOADED compared with me -young teachers will never be more than barely coping at this rate -theres something seriously wrong here !

RealJohn

Powerhouse wrote: »

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask someone on €70 or €90 to take a bigger hit than someone on €20k or €30k. I realise that it can be argued that they already pay more tax and in taking the same percentage cut they are automatically taking a bigger hit as they earn more. But they are bound to have far more disposable income and will in reality be affected less.

I don't want to sound like a prick here but did you get tired of reading and stop at the point you ended that quote? I said I was in favour of a bigger cut for those earning more (though I suggested 100k rather than 70) and I clarified that by a "straight pay cut" I meant as opposed to trying to cut "allowances", S&S or messing with our conditions generally.

I'm actually quite disturbed by the number of you who seem to be willing to let them take S&S provided you can avoid those 33 "Croke Park hours". I dislike them as much as anyone but they represent far less stress than yard duty and supervising free classes in many schools. I think those of you in nice schools where the students actually behave themselves reasonably most of the time should spare a thought for those of us who don't have it so easy because a teaching career tends to cover a long time span and just because you don't run into many issues on supervision now doesn't mean you won't in ten years time.

I say again, if they're going to cut our pay (which is what cutting S&S is anyway), let them be honest about it and cut core pay and not insult us by telling us (and in this case, arguably more importantly, telling the general public) that they're not cutting our pay.

Fizzical

Losing S&S would not be a pay cut as such - it's an extra as it is a voluntary scheme. For many years I did S&S for free and considered it as something I ought to do for the school that I was part of, so I wouldn't be too put out to return to that in its original form.

It would be a big problem for me if the number of hours of S&S were increased, as the teaching day has become so packed that the job is almost ruined already, mostly by the appalling shortening of class times that's now rampant.

S&S must be tougher in 'not-so-nice' schools but who else do you suggest should do it rather than the teachers of the school?

Lord TSC

I fear any S&S cuts from the point of view of an NQT; as I've said before in previous discussions, they are already the only entry point for new teachers to get into a school, and if S&S become some sort of voluntary exercise, it could compeltly close the door on all new teachers trying to enter the profession. Whatever about a pay cut to S&S wages (And even then, it's already nearly as financially prudent to stay on the dole than it is to take a day's sub work), I'd be devastated to see them compeltly disappear, and I'd be horrified to see them all sacrificed...

gerrybbadd

The scaremongering is getting out of hand. The should just shut the f*ck up at this point. They've proven their word is not to be believed over and over again. So, I'd you have to go down the road of legislating to get the cuts, do that, and see what happens... The country would be ground to a halt. Old fairy Face Howlin would have to resign. Go for it. Legislate. Your signing your own death warrant.

Susie120704

Under no circumstances would I agree to a different CP2 because the government failed to deliver on certain promises for CP1. For my own personal agenda it was voluntary redeployment. I have the perfect job, a nice school, a nice school, great colleagues, good management and some smashing pupils. The only problem is my permanency is 150 miles away from my husband. I quite readily voted for CP1 to solve this situation to no avail.
I would forgo payment for S&S but I cannot trust the government as they did not deliver on CP1 whereas we did.

doc_17

I can see Siptu accepting this "offer" from the government. That will bring them through the 50% needed at ICTU. I think by the time we go back in September we will be in dispute with the government. The key here is the Labour Party. Will they legislate for pay cuts? They get funding from ICTU. There was a report on RTE a few days ago with one reporter saying that there were at least 4 Labour TDs saying (off the record) that they will not under any circumstances legislate for pay cuts.

I'd say others are keeping their cards closer to their chest to see how this plays out. One thing Labour can't really afford is another 4 TDs outside the parlimentary party. Would that be 8 then since the election? Plus Nessa Childers.

Susie120704

I would rather a pay cut even though I can't afford it to a further erosion of conditions

micosoft

doc_17 wrote: »

I can see Siptu accepting this "offer" from the government. That will bring them through the 50% needed at ICTU. I think by the time we go back in September we will be in dispute with the government. The key here is the Labour Party. Will they legislate for pay cuts? They get funding from ICTU. There was a report on RTE a few days ago with one reporter saying that there were at least 4 Labour TDs saying (off the record) that they will not under any circumstances legislate for pay cuts.

I'd say others are keeping their cards closer to their chest to see how this plays out. One thing Labour can't really afford is another 4 TDs outside the parlimentary party. Would that be 8 then since the election? Plus Nessa Childers.

It's interesting that the OP and posters posit everything as if this was a "decision" by the FG/Labour govt. Has it not dawned on ye that we as a people lost our right to run our own financial affairs a long time ago. It does not matter what a couple of labour TD's think. The die was set when we as a people decided to pay ourselves far to much during the bubble. We now have to take the medicine.
Other people such as the troika make these decisions now. And they make these decisions because they are loaning us the money to run our public sector that nobody else will. As for talk of strike - go ahead, that will only make us poorer. The people making decisions are unsympathetic and unmoved by the highest paid public service in the Euro.

TheDriver

you are indeed correct but it is still our Govt decision to get money from us rather than raise taxes etc. Lets look at a few things: medical cards for over 65s yet they piped up and govt backtracked. There are many other stories similar, the public service has taken enough hits already.

I too wish they would stop threatening, its getting sickening. And I wouldn't be confident of SIPTU getting a yes, people voted no that would have very little change in conditions because its time to make a stand....

RealJohn

Fizzical wrote: »

Losing S&S would not be a pay cut as such - it's an extra as it is a voluntary scheme. For many years I did S&S for free and considered it as something I ought to do for the school that I was part of, so I wouldn't be too put out to return to that in its original form.

I certainly accept that it used to be the norm but to accept it again is essentially a pay cut to those of us who do it voluntarily and it is the same as accepting more Croke Park hours for no pay (but a more stressful version of them in many cases) to those who don't do them currently. We can't let this government get away with trying to pull the wool over our eyes by telling us that they're not cutting our pay.

doc_17

micosoft wrote: »

It's interesting that the OP and posters posit everything as if this was a "decision" by the FG/Labour govt. Has it not dawned on ye that we as a people lost our right to run our own financial affairs a long time ago. It does not matter what a couple of labour TD's think. The die was set when we as a people decided to pay ourselves far to much during the bubble. We now have to take the medicine.
Other people such as the troika make these decisions now. And they make these decisions because they are loaning us the money to run our public sector that nobody else will. As for talk of strike - go ahead, that will only make us poorer. The people making decisions are unsympathetic and unmoved by the highest paid public service in the Euro.

Ah jeez I didn't mention strike did I? Loads we can do if they erode our pay, terms and conditions without striking.

tayto lover

micosoft wrote: »

It's interesting that the OP and posters posit everything as if this was a "decision" by the FG/Labour govt. Has it not dawned on ye that we as a people lost our right to run our own financial affairs a long time ago. It does not matter what a couple of labour TD's think. The die was set when we as a people decided to pay ourselves far to much during the bubble. We now have to take the medicine.
Other people such as the troika make these decisions now. And they make these decisions because they are loaning us the money to run our public sector that nobody else will. As for talk of strike - go ahead, that will only make us poorer. The people making decisions are unsympathetic and unmoved by the highest paid public service in the Euro.

Spoken like a true Govt follower.
De party always comes first :rolleyes:
Let them tax their rich friends first before coming after the low paid workers.
Did you notice how Noonan couldn't get involved in the debate over the Banking CEO's wages yet managed to come out and say he wants the wages of bank workers, ordinary lads, cut? The hypocrite.

Powerhouse

2011abc wrote: »

I wouldnt bet my life on that!In teaching typically the lower paid will be a younger , single ,childless person -as likely as not to be renting (God help them if theyre NOT!)I know with my wife's part time wages and no child care fees (relations mind them)and a combined income heading well into what is now considered 'higher' few would feel any sympathy -yet I havent been able to save anything in the last year -in fact what paltry money we had in account has dropped to almost nothing .OK so we go out to the cinema and eat out a bit but for flips sake , if a teacher cant do that what class of misery is an 'ordinary' worker expected to endure ?No TV!?I live in a small house -less than modest ,drive a small , old car and wear out clothes and shoes ...Yet I see all those who are MEANT to be 'broke' still living the high life -Teachers who got out of the rat race 4-6 years ago are LOADED compared with me -young teachers will never be more than barely coping at this rate -theres something seriously wrong here !

If you are in the bracket I mentioned (€70-90k) have a small old car, wear out clothes and shoes and still have no money it is odd. To be in that sort of bracket you'd have to be teaching for 25 years at least. I would imagine most people in that boat would have far more disposable income than a young person or €20k or €25k even by dint of the stage of life they are likely to be at (with mortgage well advanced and also a pre-boom mortgage amount).

I certainly don't think it's fair that someone who earns half what I do should be expected to take the same cut as me. Nor that someone who earns twice what I do should be expected to take the same cut as me.

Powerhouse

micosoft wrote: »

It's interesting that the OP and posters posit everything as if this was a "decision" by the FG/Labour govt. Has it not dawned on ye that we as a people lost our right to run our own financial affairs a long time ago. It does not matter what a couple of labour TD's think. The die was set when we as a people decided to pay ourselves far to much during the bubble. We now have to take the medicine.
Other people such as the troika make these decisions now. And they make these decisions because they are loaning us the money to run our public sector that nobody else will. As for talk of strike - go ahead, that will only make us poorer. The people making decisions are unsympathetic and unmoved by the highest paid public service in the Euro.

The Troika does not make this decision. The troika was not ivolved in the CP2 talks. The government makes the decision albeit in a particular set of economic circumstances (but every government faces its own circumstances and is held to account). The troika is interested in the bottom line only. The government parties cannot and will not escape responsibility for how we get there.

Powerhouse

Fizzical wrote: »

Losing S&S would not be a pay cut as such - it's an extra as it is a voluntary scheme. For many years I did S&S for free and considered it as something I ought to do for the school that I was part of, so I wouldn't be too put out to return to that in its original form.

It would be a big problem for me if the number of hours of S&S were increased, as the teaching day has become so packed that the job is almost ruined already, mostly by the appalling shortening of class times that's now rampant.

S&S must be tougher in 'not-so-nice' schools but who else do you suggest should do it rather than the teachers of the school?

My understanding was that S&S was going to be made compulsory under CP2, and if that is true then it does amount to a pay cut. It is extra work for the same pay - that's a paycut in any language. That people did if free years ago is neither here nor there. I don't have a big issue with it in the sense that I do see it was being arguably part of the core job - but when it is a pay cut let's call it that. I also have a bit of a personal issue with it in that in my schooll not all pull their weight in this area and I wouldn't mind a bit of compulsion for some of them.

Incredibly short sighted move by the unions here. Unions will lose out in the end.

Boober Fraggle

Powerhouse wrote: »

I also have a bit of a personal issue with it in that in my schooll not all pull their weight in this area and I wouldn't mind a bit of compulsion for some of them.

Are you referring to people who have opted out here? They are perfectly entitled to do so, and anyone who has extra hours because of this should be paid for them. If they aren't being paid then their issue is with management, not people who opt out.

If you are referring to people who have signed up and don't turn up, I don't see how taking the payment away for s and s is going to change that! Again, it is a management issue.

tricolore

we have to protect the profession - more s+s = less time to prepare classes and or going into teach your class after supervising not at 100% This is my second year teaching - i dont get any prep done supervising. Also the 33hour meetings are not flexible enough and result in nothing being resolved - we dont get to talk about issues that are happening on the ground/subject meetings its all policies and being talked to my management.

We need to bring the half day for students at principal's discretion back so that teachers have the proper amount of time to hold worthwhile meetings - get rid of useless red tape saying everyone has to be there.

My good will is gone and if i have a job next year i will not b doing anything extra outside of my subject area. Of course I don't have a CID but honestly im not going to wreck myself to get one (luckily i rent and have no children)

This is a real pity as it goes against what i'm about but i am physically wrecked and dont have enough time to prepare classes - my school management, and government not looking after me. If i hear one more person say but under the croke park agreement we cant/we cant because this policy says this - have u not read it etc. The original Croke PArk agreement i didn't get to vote in it and how it has affected my job as a teacher is unreal. I've decided to become a méféiner and im going to start saying no - that is not in my vocabulary but for my own health i'm going to start using it.

Unfortunately its the students who are going to suffer - and that's who we are here for. Well done to all the people who got the country into this mess. The sooner the students and their parents realise what is actually going on in schools and start actively writing to their local councillors the better.

Ok rant over, i just have to stop being idealistic and get back to reality

Powerhouse

Boober Fraggle wrote: »

If you are referring to people who have signed up and don't turn up, I don't see how taking the payment away for s and s is going to change that! Again, it is a management issue.

I am referring to these people. Of course I could have no issue with someone opting of out something - that's their own business. Those who have signed up and are shy about putting their names down (where a shared responsibility exists as in my school) can easily be dealt with by putting it automatically on their timetables and if you don't "show up" then it is the same as not showing up for your class. And, yes, it is a management issue and yes, the payment per se is not causing the problem. But I do have severe difficulty with people getting paid for work they are not doing.

RealJohn

That's all well and good Powerhouse and you're right to feel aggrieved. I would too. It has nothing to do with what's being discussed here though.

the_syco

doc_17 wrote: »

If the government move to legislate then I can see the Labour Party being ripped apart by the issue.

The Labour Party were great in opposition; when they could promise the world and demand the moon. It seems they've found this not so easy to do when in power.

=-=

In the current climate of unemployment, I'm not are how the public will react to the teachers striking. We'll probably tell the bankers to go f**k themselves, but I'd wonder what sort of response the teachers will get from the unemployed?

=-=

Forced redundancies were mentioned; apart from Irish, what is there to stop the government importing subs in from england? Will teachers from a different grading system be worse than no teachers?

tayto lover

the_syco wrote: »

The Labour Party were great in opposition; when they could promise the world and demand the moon. It seems they've found this not so easy to do when in power.

=-=

In the current climate of unemployment, I'm not are how the public will react to the teachers striking. We'll probably tell the bankers to go f**k themselves, but I'd wonder what sort of response the teachers will get from the unemployed?

=-=

Forced redundancies were mentioned; apart from Irish, what is there to stop the government importing subs in from england? Will teachers from a different grading system be worse than no teachers?

Are you for real?
If that happened the entire PS would walk out en mass.

klairondavis

the_syco wrote: »

Forced redundancies were mentioned; apart from Irish, what is there to stop the government importing subs in from england? Will teachers from a different grading system be worse than no teachers?

There are plenty of unemployed teachers out there too thanks to measures taken by successive governments to turn the profession into a yellow-pack one. There is a shortage of teachers in England and a big proportion of Irish NQTs will emigrate to fill those posts after being trained here.

Ruairí Quinn seems happy to export a generation of teachers yet at the same time he hopes to attract higher quality graduates to the profession? :rolleyes:

the_syco

tayto lover wrote: »

Are you for real?
If that happened the entire PS would walk out en mass.

I did find it odd that the government mentioned it, and wondering why they mentioned it. Also, if it was at all possible for them to do it? Have they mentioned/threatened this sort of thing before?

Trotter

They threaten ridiculous things so that people who are public servants and have no interest in the situation and dont read up on any of it will see it in the paper and think Oh no I better vote the way they want..

Powerhouse

the_syco wrote: »

Forced redundancies were mentioned; apart from Irish, what is there to stop the government importing subs in from england? Will teachers from a different grading system be worse than no teachers?

What a wacky suggestion. This puts me in mind of Black and Tans and Auxies being brought in from England in 1920. That didn't go so well either. That's leaving aside the fact that England can hardly fill its own teaching jobs never mind Ireland's.

Powerhouse

RealJohn wrote: »

That's all well and good Powerhouse and you're right to feel aggrieved. I would too. It has nothing to do with what's being discussed here though.

I think this is very unfair. In the first instance I answered a question about S&S (which I assumed was relevant to CP2) and Croke Park hours - as to whether I would be okay to forego them and nothing else. Then I was asked by another poster for some detail on what informs my attitude to S&S. I think it's unfair to be told that it has nothing to do with what's being discussed here when I merely answered other posters.

RealJohn

You're right Powerhouse, I apologise. I might have been more blunt there than I should have been and in fairness, I applaud the fact that you did actually answer. My reply was directed more towards your previous post and my point stands. Those not pulling their weight in your school are irrelevant to the discussion. If they're not pulling their weight doing it now, why would they when they're not being paid for it? If anything, you'd expect them to get worse.
(You don't need to answer that by the way.)
(And that came across as a bit catty. I didn't mean it to be.)

Powerhouse

RealJohn wrote: »

1) Those not pulling their weight in your school are irrelevant to the discussion.

2) If they're not pulling their weight doing it now, why would they when they're not being paid for it? If anything, you'd expect them to get worse.

1) They are relevant to why I hold my opinion. It is reasonable to cite personal experiences where they inform our views isn't it?

2) Why would they pull their weight then? Because as I already outlined in a previous post they would be specifically timetabled for supervision for a particular class period and would be responsible for that period every week and could not get all shy if they didn't like the look of the class or just couldn't be arsed, and leave it to another teacher that they share the roster with.

That system operates in the school my other half teaches in and she says it works a treat. She knows every week going in that if a class needs supervision during a certain period/periods during that week she alone is, in the first instance, responsible. To not show up is like not showing up for your class.

Our Vice Principal told us recently that when subtly raising this issue that one teacher had done zero supervision periods since September. That's my context even if it is deemed irrelevant, and why I would have no issue with changes to S&S.

RealJohn

Powerhouse wrote: »

1) They are relevant to why I hold my opinion. It is reasonable to cite personal experiences where they inform our views isn't it?

That's fair enough but whether it colours your views or not, it shouldn't. It's irrelevant.

Powerhouse wrote: »

2) Why would they pull their weight then? Because as I already outlined in a previous post they would be specifically timetabled for supervision for a particular class period and would be responsible for that period every week and could not get all shy if they didn't like the look of the class or just couldn't be arsed, and leave it to another teacher that they share the roster with.

That system operates in the school my other half teaches in and she says it works a treat. She knows every week going in that if a class needs supervision during a certain period/periods during that week she alone is, in the first instance, responsible. To not show up is like not showing up for your class.

Our Vice Principal told us recently that when subtly raising this issue that one teacher had done zero supervision periods since September. That's my context even if it is deemed irrelevant, and why I would have no issue with changes to S&S.

Why would making it compulsory mean your school will change the way it's rostered though? The system we have sounds the same as the system in your wife's school. I know when I might have to cover a class and when I definitely won't. A sort of "who's free right now?" type of system sounds like a nightmare, especially for whoever's organising it but adding more hours and making everyone do it doesn't sound like a reason to change it.

Anyway, we're sidetracking the discussion. You've explained why you think it's relevant. I still disagree. Let's leave it at that.

Susie120704

Powerhouse wrote: »

1) They are relevant to why I hold my opinion. It is reasonable to cite personal experiences where they inform our views isn't it?

2) Why would they pull their weight then? Because as I already outlined in a previous post they would be specifically timetabled for supervision for a particular class period and would be responsible for that period every week and could not get all shy if they didn't like the look of the class or just couldn't be arsed, and leave it to another teacher that they share the roster with.

That system operates in the school my other half teaches in and she says it works a treat. She knows every week going in that if a class needs supervision during a certain period/periods during that week she alone is, in the first instance, responsible. To not show up is like not showing up for your class.

Our Vice Principal told us recently that when subtly raising this issue that one teacher had done zero supervision periods since September. That's my context even if it is deemed irrelevant, and why I would have no issue with changes to S&S.

it is unreal that a teacher in the scheme can get away with that. I recently showed up five minutes late for yard supervision because I was doing project work at lunch with students. There was such a look from the principal that I felt the need to apologise. In any school I taught not being there when you should be for S&S simply was not tolerated.

Powerhouse

RealJohn wrote: »

That's fair enough but whether it colours your views or not, it shouldn't. It's irrelevant.

Why would making it compulsory mean your school will change the way it's rostered though? The system we have sounds the same as the system in your wife's school. I know when I might have to cover a class and when I definitely won't. A sort of "who's free right now?" type of system sounds like a nightmare, especially for whoever's organising it but adding more hours and making everyone do it doesn't sound like a reason to change it.

Anyway, we're sidetracking the discussion. You've explained why you think it's relevant. I still disagree. Let's leave it at that.

That's fair enough but whether it colours your views or not, it shouldn't.

I don't understand this. How can personal experience not 'colour' one's views? You'd have to live in a vaccuum for it not to wouldn't you? What's the point of this forum at all if people's personal experiences are irrelevant? Most and probably all threads are started because someone has formed a personal opinion or is trying to elicit those of others.

Why would making it compulsory mean your school will change the way it's rostered though?

Because there will be enough teachers in the school to have everyone do at least one period so it will have to change in the view of many teachers.
The current system, incidentally, is not a nightmare for the people running it. Classes are almost always covered. It is for the people who end up having to cover maybe all three classes they are provisionally rostered for during the week while others do none or one that it's unfair.*

*Naturally there is a random element to all of this anyway and depending on who is out and at what time there is no way to guarantee that everyone will do the same substitution but that's not what I am talking about. I can accept the vagaries of real life.

Powerhouse

Susie120704 wrote: »

In any school I taught not being there when you should be for S&S simply was not tolerated.

But in this case things are vague enough to get away with not putting their name down at all. There are two/three names down for every class and if someone is cute enough not to show in the staffroom too early in the day they can avoid getting caught perhaps at all that day or even week. Chances are they also will be down with different teachers for all three classes so it will be noticed less. There's also a kind of informal 'I'll do this class this week and you can do it next week' with some teachers which on the face of it is reasonable but the problem with that is that when you might be getting nailed for the other two every week as well. In a system where people have a specific period to cover then at least if people don't show or get involved it should be obvious.

Fizzical

Powerhouse wrote: »

But in this case things are vague enough to get away with not putting their name down at all. There are two/three names down for every class and if someone is cute enough not to show in the staffroom too early in the day they can avoid getting caught perhaps at all that day or even week. Chances are they also will be down with different teachers for all three classes so it will be noticed less. There's also a kind of informal 'I'll do this class this week and you can do it next week' with some teachers which on the face of it is reasonable but the problem with that is that when you might be getting nailed for the other two every week as well. In a system where people have a specific period to cover then at least if people don't show or get involved it should be obvious.

I don't understand this. You only do one substitution per week. How could you possibly be doing three??

Miss Lockhart

Fizzical wrote: »

I don't understand this. You only do one substitution per week. How could you possibly be doing three??

You can do up to 1.5 hours per week, up to a maximum of 37 hours per year for the standard payment.

RealJohn

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

You can do up to 1.5 hours per week, up to a maximum of 37 hours per year for the standard payment.

But that 1.5 hours includes lunchtime supervision too. In my place, we get one lunchtime, one break and then a maximum of one free class, barring exceptional circumstances.

And Powerhouse, yes, experience will colour your view but most of us are able to then analyse the situation rationally and say "well that annoys me but it doesn't actually have any bearing on the situation so I'll try not to take it into account when I make my decision".

Miss Lockhart

RealJohn wrote: »

But that 1.5 hours includes lunchtime supervision too. In my place, we get one lunchtime, one break and then a maximum of one free class, barring exceptional circumstances.

Yes. But how the 1.5 hours is divided is up to local agreement in the school. So you can be doing more than one supervision.

Fizzical

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

You can do up to 1.5 hours per week, up to a maximum of 37 hours per year for the standard payment.

According to the agreement:

Supervision duties should first be timetabled over the course of the school year. Residual hours available after the timetabling of supervision will be available for substitution.

If classes are 30 mins long and the max time per week is 1.5 hours then that allows for 3 classes of substitution - but only if no supervision is being done. And 1.5 hours per week over the whole year exceeds the yearly max by over 13 hours.

In our school we do 30 mins of supervision and one class (40 mins) of substitution, which if fully implemented over the year would bring us to 2 hours over.

Miss Lockhart

Fizzical wrote: »

According to the agreement:

If classes are 30 mins long and the max time per week is 1.5 hours then that allows for 3 classes of substitution - but only if no supervision is being done. And 1.5 hours per week over the whole year exceeds the yearly max by over 13 hours.

In our school we do 30 mins of supervision and one class (40 mins) of substitution, which if fully implemented over the year would bring us to 2 hours over.

Yes, but there can be a choice given to teachers whether they want to opt for supervision or for substitution, once the supervision needs of the school will be met. This is common enough in schools I know. Some people prefer supervision and others prefer substitution.

Not all schools have big supervision needs - not all schools have students in for lunch time.