'Expert' committee on casualisation etc...

linguist

Well here we are, middle of June, and sure isn't it great not to have to think about anything for another couple of months... Unless of course you're one of the thousands of RPTs or unemployed teachers or even a permanent teacher who might like to voluntarily move job.

Why is it that nobody seems to be drawing attention to the fact that the expert committee dealing with casualisation and related issues - put in place under Haddington Road - has dropped completely off the radar and those involved: the unions, the DES and ordinary teachers - seem not to care less?

This, remember, was the one crumb from the table for us! An acknowledgement that casualisation was a problem and a commitment to deal with it. In addition, voluntary redeployment must be extended nationally from next year as a way of ensuring that teachers can move to a location that better suits them without having to give up on the tenure they've waited years to get. I know of situations where rpts are struggling for hours for next year and yet there are permanent teachers of their subjects in their own school who would move voluntarily if they could. The situation is that critical.

The expert committee was set up in January to deal with the matter urgently. It is now too late for meaningful changes to be made for the next school year. At what point do we take it upon ourselves to bombard our unions with emails and phone calls and demand an update and some progress?

Peter Flynt

The "expert" committee was a con used by the DES and the unions to extract YES votes for Haddington Road.

Who's on the committee?

How many times have they met?

Where are the minutes for teachers to read?

Notice how quiet the unions are on this one.

linguist

Peter Flynt wrote: »

The "expert" committee was a con used by the DES and the unions to extract YES votes for Haddington Road.

You're entitled to hold that view and I suspect you and I may have disagreed on HRA, but the fact is that it is the agreement in force and we need to push to see it implemented.

I know the committee has met because they produced a concession for those being given retrospective CIDs whereby hours they were currently doing (year 4) could be added to their CID (based on year 3) to enhance their CID. I have also heard a rumour which seems well founded that the management bodies are objecting to further erosion of their right to recruit and retain their own staff. If that is so, it needs to be knocked on the head and I think the unions should name and shame. That horse bolted as soon as the current redeployment scheme came in and they can't be allowed to backtrack on cross-sectoral redeployment or enhanced tenure for RPTs now. This is something we need to face up to: sometimes, our biggest adversary is not the DES - it is our own management bodies which our own principals are a part of!

Here's what I would like to see: any RPT teacher timetabled for more than 18 hours should receive full salary if they sign a form which expresses a willingness to cover certified absences etc up to 22 hours thus foregoing their hourly casual rate for doing so. They want to combat casualisation - there's a way of doing away with casual payments:)

Peter Flynt

linguist wrote: »

Here's what I would like to see: any RPT teacher timetabled for more than 18 hours should receive full salary if they sign a form which expresses a willingness to cover certified absences etc up to 22 hours thus foregoing their hourly casual rate for doing so. They want to combat casualisation - there's a way of doing away with casual payments:)

The DES would never agree to that.

linguist

Well here's why I think they should or it should at least be a key union demand. That is almost exactly the condition upon which people on 18 hour CIDs etc are paid full salary. They sign a H22 form which allows them to be timetabled up to 22 hours. So they are prepared to allow large numbers of teachers be paid for work they mightn't do for their entire careers but not to allow RPTs short of 22 hours to sign up for work which will be available to them anyway. The casual rate of pay is actually higher than the basic scale rate because holiday pay is built into it. Plus, it falls into the logic of the magic 18 hours (full increment, full CID etc).

I hear you that it might be wishful thinking but casualisation is the issue here. In reality, those short of hours usually work a full week at least between November and April in my experience.

Peter Flynt

I believe the unions should fight to REDUCE the maximum number of hours per week to say 20 and that the overflow of hours be given to those with lesser hours.

The problem with the unions is theta they've bought entirely into the austerity agenda without ever asking themselves what it is they wish to achieve for their members in 5 years, 10 years. . .

They're drifting along with no ambition, no direction and no goals.

linguist

Given Croke Park and HRA has been about increasing the working time of public servants, as well as other measures, surely you can see that this is most unlikely. Believe me, I have no desire to dismiss your suggestion. I just wish we could be told some of what's actually on the table.

The reason why I respectfully think mine is more plausible is that it follows the logic of an arrangement already in place for people in CID posts and it may actually save money given that the hourly rate is, in fact, higher. There has to come a point where it is acknowledged that people above a certain number of hours (let's say 18) are, for all intents and purposes, working full time. They cannot just go home or take up another job during the day and this should be formalised. Indeed, they are regarded as such under the new S&S arrangements where they have to nominate the full number of periods. They also must deliver the full complement of Croke Park hours.

sitstill

I emailed the ASTI in March to ask what was being done about casualisation and the promised panel that would be set up for teachers drifting school to school for years on end. They said they'd get back to me in due course. I'm waiting 3 months now.

km79

This was one of the major perks to get people to vote yes. How do the people who did feel now?

sitstill

km79 wrote: »

This was one of the major perks to get people to vote yes. How do the people who did feel now?

It was the reason I voted yes so feeling a bit cheated now.

whiteandlight

I would propose there should be serious hoops for management to jump through in order to advertise and fill a post that has less than say 16 hours (just under 75%). This would force schools to manage the timetable (the way it used to be done) to try and avoid smaller contracts instead of the current system.

I would also argue for incremental CID's, where once you have a CID management is obliged to attempt to increase that CID on a yearly basis. In other-wards no one should be permitted to be hired to their subjects until they have reached full hours.

ed06

The expert panel had nothing to do with the reduction in years required for a CID. that was a condition that the unions negotiated under HR. I must admit that I am rather frustrated that the panel have met once if not twice. It was stated at convention that the "panel" had wrote to the Dept and stated that no perm. jobs should be advertised until a panel was formed and that the teachers on the panel were offered these positions first. I was very disillusioned when I saw a number of permanent jobs advertised on education posts on the last number of weeks. what annoys me more is the fact that I was one of the lucky people that was allowed to opt out of s+s at a cost. The Dept have now stated that they will be deducting our pay at the rate of 136euro for the next 6 months. It seems that all of the elements of the HR have now been implemented bar the setting up of the panel!!! It appears evident that this will never be in operation and that the younger teachers were again sold out and hoodwinked into accepting the agreement!

TheDriver

whiteandlight wrote: »

I would propose there should be serious hoops for management to jump through in order to advertise and fill a post that has less than say 16 hours (just under 75%). This would force schools to manage the timetable (the way it used to be done) to try and avoid smaller contracts instead of the current system.

I would also argue for incremental CID's, where once you have a CID management is obliged to attempt to increase that CID on a yearly basis. In other-wards no one should be permitted to be hired to their subjects until they have reached full hours.

True however there are serious hoops already and with TC registration in every subject, its hard to advertise posts effectively. Unfortunately its not as straightforward as it seems because the amount applying for jobs can be small or big so flexibility is required at the advertising stage.
Secondly, there is a circular that CID staff get 1st refusal on hours before its given to a new person (same subject) and a lot of schools do this. All schools should do it.......

MacGyver007

TheDriver wrote: »

there is a circular that CID staff get 1st refusal on hours before its given to a new person (same subject) and a lot of schools do this. All schools should do it.......

Do you happen to know which circular that is?

RealJohn

sitstill wrote: »

It was the reason I voted yes so feeling a bit cheated now.

With all due respect, that's what you get for believing them after they'd already broken the Croke Park agreement and told us we had to just take it, reminiscent of the Humphrey Bogart line "When you're slapped, you'll take it and like it."
Anyone who voted yes let themselves down and they let everyone who had the good sense to vote no down.

sitstill

RealJohn wrote: »

With all due respect, that's what you get for believing them after they'd already broken the Croke Park agreement and told us we had to just take it, reminiscent of the Humphrey Bogart line "When you're slapped, you'll take it and like it."
Anyone who voted yes let themselves down and they let everyone who had the good sense to vote no down.

Do you have a permanent job?

Cos after 9 years teaching, I don't. Any slight chance of getting a permanent job I would jump at it and this seemed like one of those chances. That's why I voted Yes.

Peter Flynt

sitstill wrote: »

Do you have a permanent job?

Cos after 9 years teaching, I don't. Any slight chance of getting a permanent job I would jump at it and this seemed like one of those chances. That's why I voted Yes.

Permanent jobs are not handed out anymore.

It's all CIDs from here on in.

teacherhead

MacGyver007 wrote: »

Do you happen to know which circular that is?

34/09 I think

seavill

Peter Flynt wrote: »

Permanent jobs are not handed out anymore.

It's all CIDs from here on in.

Untrue.

There was 2 permanent jobs given out in my school last year and one in a neighbouring school

happywithlife

sitstill wrote: »

Do you have a permanent job?

Cos after 9 years teaching, I don't. Any slight chance of getting a permanent job I would jump at it and this seemed like one of those chances. That's why I voted Yes.

I'm in a similar predicament but still voted a big fat NO
Unions have absolutely diddly squat interest in looking after part timers but I do think we also have to take responsibility for not being more vocal. I attended some (not all) union meetings in the cork area and it was bloody shocking to see the miserable turnout at those meetings at the height of the HRA talks etc