landsdowne road agreement

mirrorwall14

To be honest I've no idea why any of the unions would be advocating a yes vote without serious concessions. The reality is that FEMPI is on its last legs, it's already pretty dodgy ground claimin a financial emergency when having a giveaway budget. HR is to finish in 2017 anyways. Why on earth would we sign up to another agreement when there's absolutely nothing in it for us? We're due the Pension Levy to be removed anyways

Alex Meier

mirrorwall14 wrote: »

To be honest I've no idea why any of the unions would be advocating a yes vote without serious concessions. The reality is that FEMPI is on its last legs, it's already pretty dodgy ground claimin a financial emergency when having a giveaway budget. HR is to finish in 2017 anyways. Why on earth would we sign up to another agreement when there's absolutely nothing in it for us? We're due the Pension Levy to be removed anyways

Haddington Road finishes on June 30 2016

This LRA extends HR to 2018 it seems.

doc_17

I was surprised at the rejection recommendation to be honest from the TUI. Are we bind by an aggregate vote of ictu?

man_no_plan

doc_17 wrote: »

I was surprised at the rejection recommendation to be honest from the TUI. Are we bind by an aggregate vote of ictu?

Is that not the 'TUI Problem'?

As someone else said the extra hours only arrived as part of the Croke Park agreement. If it expires then they have no basis to continue.

Pay cuts and pension levy were part of FEMPI. It is on thin ice at the minute, Brendan Howlin will tell you that.

I think the danger is the s&s. That is to be taken into account in future pay negotiations according to the HRA. if that is used to put the 33 hours on a permanent footing we may forget it. Remember that that has already been promised and is due but with strings attached.

We would be in a better position to unwind these hours, or at least minimise them if we rejected the new deal that's not a deal.

I don't think many teachers will gain in real terms from this.

katydid

mirrorwall14 wrote: »

To be honest I've no idea why any of the unions would be advocating a yes vote without serious concessions. The reality is that FEMPI is on its last legs, it's already pretty dodgy ground claimin a financial emergency when having a giveaway budget. HR is to finish in 2017 anyways. Why on earth would we sign up to another agreement when there's absolutely nothing in it for us? We're due the Pension Levy to be removed anyways

I don't understand why they are saying we will get €2,000 back. Most teachers will be over the €30,000 where that will kick in. So there's basically nothing in it for us.

katydid

doc_17 wrote: »

I was surprised at the rejection recommendation to be honest from the TUI. Are we bind by an aggregate vote of ictu?

Gerry Quinn was on the radio yesterday, and he said we weren't. I'm delighted they are showing some cojones at last. Why would anyone vote for something that is of no benefit to them?

If there were something productive, like allowing the extra hours to be used more flexibly, such as for personal CPD at a time of your choosing, people wouldn't resent them so much. We all do extra work anyway; having it recognised, rather than thrown in our face, would go a long way.

doc_17

katydid wrote: »

I don't understand why they are saying we will get €2,000 back. Most teachers will be over the €30,000 where that will kick in. So there's basically nothing in it for us.

Can you explain your calculation there? Are people over 30k not getting a rise? I thought it was a claw back on the pension levy and everyone would get it.

katydid

doc_17 wrote: »

Can you explain your calculation there? Are people over 30k not getting a rise? I thought it was a claw back on the pension levy and everyone would get it.

From what I understand - and I'm sure I understand it right - the pay back and the pension levy will be scaled heavily towards the lower paid. Under 25k, slightly less for under 30K, and even less as you move up the scale.

It's absolutely right that those on such low pay should get more back, but it means that most teachers, other than part timers, would be above the limit, and what we would get back would be minimal.

As far as I'm concerned, it's the pension levy that is the disgrace, and should be abolished immediately. It's simply daylight robbery; we pay our pension contributions, and yet we have to pay a levy for having the pension system in the first place. And even people in non-pensionable employment have to pay it.

The USC and the Pension Levy are just inventions to take more money off us without calling it tax.

doc_17

The threshold on which the levy applies increases from 15 to 25k. I'd imagine that applies to all teachers? So we won't pay the levy now on as much of our income, or at least as high a rate on it.

katydid

doc_17 wrote: »

The threshold on which the levy applies increases from 15 to 25k. I'd imagine that applies to all teachers? So we won't pay the levy now on as much of our income, or at least as high a rate on it.

That's true. But it's not going to make a huge difference, as far as I see. It's still blatant daylight robbery

TheDriver

i thought the cut off was that you pay it on all your income if you went over the threshold?

mirrorwall14

IMO saying vote no too. We're not on our own. Be interesting to see who else comes out

man_no_plan

TheDriver wrote: »

i thought the cut off was that you pay it on all your income if you went over the threshold?

I think you only pay it on the amount of your income over the new threshold.

political analyst

Alex Meier wrote: »

The Croke Park hours are here to stay.

The Haddington Road hours are here to stay.

Heck we're even doing the 12 hours of Circular 58/2004 . . . .

What is Circular 58/2004 about? I've never heard of it.

political analyst

mirrorwall14 wrote: »

To be honest I've no idea why any of the unions would be advocating a yes vote without serious concessions. The reality is that FEMPI is on its last legs, it's already pretty dodgy ground claimin a financial emergency when having a giveaway budget. HR is to finish in 2017 anyways. Why on earth would we sign up to another agreement when there's absolutely nothing in it for us? We're due the Pension Levy to be removed anyways

Surely, if the unions had challenged FEMPI pay-cuts in the courts, the judiciary would have had to rule solely on whether or not the pay-cuts were constitutional and thus disregard the economic situation.

Alex Meier

political analyst wrote: »

What is Circular 58/2004 about? I've never heard of it.

This is a circular from 2004 which was part of the reform given for a recent small increase in benchmarking at the time (which has long since been wiped out).

It involved half staff meetings/parent teacher meetings taking place outside of normal school time.

It was the circular which initially brought PTMs into the evenings

evolving_doors

political analyst wrote: »

Surely, if the unions had challenged FEMPI pay-cuts in the courts, the judiciary would have had to rule solely on whether or not the pay-cuts were constitutional and thus disregard the economic situation.

Possibly yes, but that's all a bit shouldawouldacoulda.

deiseindublin

Have ASTI made any comment on LRA yet?

Benicetomonty

deiseindublin wrote: »

Have ASTI made any comment on LRA yet?

No. CEC not meeting until August I think.

deiseindublin

That's a long way off! Hope they recommend a big fat NO.