Would you abide by a Union suggestion to not vote FG/Lab in General Election?

deiseindublin

I'd love if all the Education Unions gone together and suggested NOT voting for FG/Lab in the GE in Nov/Feb until we get New JC/CP Hours/FEMPI/Pension Levy etc sorted or off the table. Pay restored as per agreements to date etc.

How many 1000s of public servants and teachers are there in the country? It'd be a fairly potent threat.

maynooth_rules

We are already held in low esteem from many in the general public, something like this would not help that cause. Also for this to happen we would need Unions with a strong back bone, and that too is lacking

katydid

deiseindublin wrote: »

I'd love if all the Education Unions gone together and suggested NOT voting for FG/Lab in the GE in Nov/Feb until we get New JC/CP Hours/FEMPI/Pension Levy etc sorted or off the table. Pay restored as per agreements to date etc.

How many 1000s of public servants and teachers are there in the country? It'd be a fairly potent threat.

I can't see a union ever advocating such a thing, so I think the question is moot.

Personally, I won't be voting for either anyway, so for me it's definitely moot. I used to vote Labour, but not after their wrecking the education system.

acequion

maynooth_rules wrote: »

We are already held in low esteem from many in the general public,

Sorry but statements like the above really make my blood boil! A foreigner just arriving on Irish soil on reading that would be forgiven for thinking that Irish teachers en masse must have done something absolutely dreadful.

Well Irish teachers have done absolutely nothing all, apart from existing and having holidays and having the cheek to kick up a few times and the Sindo reading breed who begrudge that are not worth worrying about. You might feel like tip toeing around apologising for your existence maynooth_rules but I certainly don't!!

So rant over and my view is that no union need tell me not to vote FG / Labour because neither mself nor any one in my family will ever vote for them again. And we always voted Labour!

acequion

maynooth_rules wrote: »

We are already held in low esteem from many in the general public,

Sorry but statements like the above really make my blood boil! A foreigner just arriving on Irish soil on reading that would be forgiven for thinking that Irish teachers en masse must have done something absolutely dreadful.

Well Irish teachers have done absolutely nothing all, apart from existing and having holidays and having the cheek to kick up a few times and the Sindo reading breed who begrudge that are not worth worrying about. You might feel like tip toeing around apologising for your existence maynooth_rules but I certainly don't!!

So rant over and my view is that no union need tell me not to vote FG / Labour because neither mself nor any one in my family will ever vote for them again. And we always voted Labour!

km79

and vote for who ?
I have always and will always vote for whomever I think is the strongest candidate regardless of party
I just don't get the tyoemof person who always votes for one particular party
They are not sports teams !

katydid

km79 wrote: »

and vote for who ?
I have always and will always vote for whomever I think is the strongest candidate regardless of party
I just don't get the tyoemof person who always votes for one particular party
They are not sports teams !

They might not be sports teams, but different parties have - or should have - different philosophies. I just don't get the type of person who votes for a person regardless of their political philosophy...

maynooth_rules

acequion wrote: »

Sorry but statements like the above really make my blood boil! A foreigner just arriving on Irish soil on reading that would be forgiven for thinking that Irish teachers en masse must have done something absolutely dreadful.

Well Irish teachers have done absolutely nothing all, apart from existing and having holidays and having the cheek to kick up a few times and the Sindo reading breed who begrudge that are not worth worrying about. You might feel like tip toeing around apologising for your existence maynooth_rules but I certainly don't!!

So rant over and my view is that no union need tell me not to vote FG / Labour because neither mself nor any one in my family will ever vote for them again. And we always voted Labour!

Why are you bothering ranting. I agree with you completly, but due to the way teachers have been perceived and stories have been turned by spin doctors we are not in anyway respected to the level that teachers once were

Uncle Ben

I believe there is a motion at the Siptu conference next week calling for the link with the Labour Party to be broken. I hope it's supported.

acequion

True km but in rural Ireland that is very much the way it has been. I think it's changing at last though.

I would always have been slightly left of centre so voted a lot for Labour as they seemed to embody my views. Never again though.Total champagne socialists and blue shirt side kicks. I have no idea who I will vote for in the next election but it sure won't be the present incumbents.

Many people also say that FG were never known for their niceness to public servants. I was out of the country for much of the 90's so don't much remember them in power before now. And I've seen enough!

km79

acequion wrote: »

True km but in rural Ireland that is very much the way it has been. I think it's changing at last though.

I would always have been slightly left of centre so voted a lot for Labour as they seemed to embody my views. Never again though.Total champagne socialists and blue shirt side kicks. I have no idea who I will vote for in the next election but it sure won't be the present incumbents.

Many people also say that FG were never known for their niceness to public servants. I was out of the country for much of the 90's so don't much remember them in power before now. And I've seen enough!

yes I now live in very rural Ireland and I just don't understand the mentality on a lot of matters

acequion

maynooth_rules wrote: »

Why are you bothering ranting. I agree with you completly, but due to the way teachers have been perceived and stories have been turned by spin doctors we are not in anyway respected to the level that teachers once were

No, you're right but my point is that the lack of respect is totally and completely unjustified,so not even worth talking about. So fear of what a hostile public think should never influence union policy. And we shouldn't even waste typos on it.

katydid

acequion wrote: »

I would always have been slightly left of centre so voted a lot for Labour as they seemed to embody my views. Never again though.Total champagne socialists and blue shirt side kicks. I have no idea who I will vote for in the next election but it sure won't be the present incumbents.

We were talking about this in the staffroom today, and that was more or less the consensus.

D4RK ONION

katydid wrote: »

I can't see a union ever advocating such a thing, so I think the question is moot.

The whole point of a discussion forum is to discuss things. This is a hypothetical situation. Whether the unions would actually do this or not is irrelevant. There is absolutely no reason for the above statement. Most of the threads on boards could be locked with your reasoning.

katydid

D4RK ONION wrote: »

The whole point of a discussion forum is to discuss things. This is a hypothetical situation. Whether the unions would actually do this or not is irrelevant. There is absolutely no reason for the above statement. Most of the threads on boards could be locked with your reasoning.

Discussing things doesn't mean that you have to take every suggestion seriously as a hypothetical. Unions don't make a habit of telling their members how to vote, so it doesn't make sense to me to consider it as a valid option.

The issue of how teachers might vote is, however, an interesting and valid departing point for discussion, in my opinion.

deiseindublin

Thank you D4rk Onion. I know they wouldn't do this but IF they did, I was wondering if it would be heeded.

It's such a pity that so many of us are fighting for Education but we all seem to be on different sides/unions. It'd be a powerful voice if there was more unity and would scare the bejaysus out of any political party.

I haven't decided who I'm voting for yet either but by process of elimination I don't seem to have any options.

GSOIRL

You missed one huge aspect that will stop me and any new teacher, who has respect for themselves, voting for Labour or FG. I'm an NQT and because of this government I am paid a lot less than some of my equally qualified and equally experienced just because of when I qualified. This is disgraceful and is entirely inconsistent with the principles of equality and fairness.

On another note, whatever chance you have of the ASTI or the TUI coming out against Labour you've no chance of the INTO doing it. The INTO CEC seem to be Labour spokespeople.

Check out the Facebook page:

Equal Pay for NQTS

It has lots of interesting things about how our Government are treating teachers.

deiseindublin

I've been reading that on VFT page. It's a really inequitable system at the mo.

Saw a horrible post there today about a young teacher that was asked to give up her evening job if she wanted a contract in the school and was asked to come in Saturdays.

GSOIRL

deiseindublin wrote: »

I've been reading that on VFT page. It's a really inequitable system at the mo.

Saw a horrible post there today about a young teacher that was asked to give up her evening job if she wanted a contract in the school and was asked to come in Saturdays.

Yes not only are NQTs discriminated in pay terms (Between 30% - 40% less pay than their colleagues) they are also under huge pressure to do everything that is asked of them and more in order to have a chance of being employed the next year. It is a very worrying time for the teaching profession and the Trade Union movement. Allowing members to be discriminated against to me makes a Union defunct.

katydid

GSOIRL wrote: »

Yes not only are NQTs discriminated in pay terms (Between 30% - 40% less pay than their colleagues) they are also under huge pressure to do everything that is asked of them and more in order to have a chance of being employed the next year. It is a very worrying time for the teaching profession and the Trade Union movement. Allowing members to be discriminated against to me makes a Union defunct.

It hardly makes a union defunct - this was imposed on them, and they had no power to stop it. It certainly should have fought harder, and it still can. It won't if its members give up and it loses even more power.

GSOIRL

katydid wrote: »

It hardly makes a union defunct - this was imposed on them, and they had no power to stop it. It certainly should have fought harder, and it still can. It won't if its members give up and it loses even more power.

No power to stop it? If they have no power what is there purpose?

I'm not trying to be smart. This is a genuine question.

katydid

GSOIRL wrote: »

No power to stop it? If they have no power what is there purpose?

I'm not trying to be smart. This is a genuine question.

Their purpose is to try their best. They aren't omnipotent. Some members expect them to work wonders.

GSOIRL

katydid wrote: »

Their purpose is to try their best. They aren't omnipotent. Some members expect them to work wonders.

I'll except that. That is all anyone or anything can do. However I'm not sure that they have tried their best or if they have their best is not good enough. According to Mr Pat King all they have really done or can offer NQTs is and I quote "You will be aware that as a gesture of support the ASTI fee for NQT’s is waived in year one."
Yippee a years free membership. That makes up for the €8,493 less I was paid last year compared to my my equally qualified and equally experienced colleague and I haven't even mentioned the pensions. I suppose that's a good effort? As long as they're trying their best.

deiseindublin

I think membership numbers among NQT is a lot of the problem. Looking around our staffroom a lot of (new) teachers that have joined the staff in the last 5/6 years have not joined the union. It's very hard to have a voice if you're not a member.

NQT were definitely sold down the river by older staff members, but that couldn't/wouldn't have happened if they had the same strength of membership that older members have. I found it depressing when I saw the ballots being given out last week. Nearly 1 full table sitting together were not being given an envelope.

Obviously, you/I could argue that NQT are being paid peanuts and can't afford membership. However, I think this was a growing trend, ever more the yellow pack salary scale came into being.

katydid

I disagree that younger teachers were sold down the river by the older ones. The slashing of pay for new teachers was nothing to do with the Croke Park deal; it was imposed on the profession by the government.

Of course, you could argue that in trying to protect conditions for existing teachers, the unions took their eye off the ball,and, as you say, had more young teachers become engaged with the union they might have influenced them to fight more.

Hard to argue that unions shouldn't fight for their members, and that's what the Croke Park negotiations were all about.

GSOIRL

deiseindublin wrote: »

I think membership numbers among NQT is a lot of the problem. Looking around our staffroom a lot of (new) teachers that have joined the staff in the last 5/6 years have not joined the union. It's very hard to have a voice if you're not a member.

NQT were definitely sold down the river by older staff members, but that couldn't/wouldn't have happened if they had the same strength of membership that older members have. I found it depressing when I saw the ballots being given out last week. Nearly 1 full table sitting together were not being given an envelope.

Obviously, you/I could argue that NQT are being paid peanuts and can't afford membership. However, I think this was a growing trend, ever more the yellow pack salary scale came into being.

The discrimination of NQTs happened before many current NQTs were eligible to join a Union.

acequion

deiseindublin wrote: »

NQT were definitely sold down the river by older staff members, .

I take issue with that!! What on earth were older members expected to do? It's the union's job to protect all members!

Completely agree with GSOIRL that "best" is a long way from good enough where the unions are concerned. That's why we're in the sorry state we're in. And I'd wager that it's pressure from the membership that is keeping the ASTI some little way more militant. Possibly only a small cohort of members but a strong,militant one nonetheless.

spurious

Down tools until...

The proper common payscale is restored.
The waste of time that is Croke Park hours is done away with.
Supervision and substitution goes back to the way it was - a chance for those on low or no hours to get some work.

For a start. Nothing terribly objectionable there for Joe public and the chattering classes. They are supposed to be trade unions, working for us, not the kids, not the schools, not the subjects, not the exam system - us and only us.

Not stupid lunch time protests or whispered threats of 'possible' action. Get out and stay out until it happens - regardless which lily livered Irish version of so called political standpoints is in office.

solerina

deiseindublin wrote: »

I found it depressing when I saw the ballots being given out last week. Nearly 1 full table sitting together were not being given an envelope.

Totally agree, but this sentence shows that they are not helping themselves until they actually join up...it's not that expensive when you are not on full hours/ permanent either !!

acequion

spurious wrote: »

Down tools until...

The proper common payscale is restored.
The waste of time that is Croke Park hours is done away with.
Supervision and substitution goes back to the way it was - a chance for those on low or no hours to get some work.

For a start. Nothing terribly objectionable there for Joe public and the chattering classes. They are supposed to be trade unions, working for us, not the kids, not the schools, not the subjects, not the exam system - us and only us.

Not stupid lunch time protests or whispered threats of 'possible' action. Get out and stay out until it happens - regardless which lily livered Irish version of so called political standpoints is in office.

Not so sure I'd go along with this. Going out and staying out would get us nowhere but bad feeling from our students and the public, not to mention loss of pay, which many in our profession just cannot do. We should play way smarter than that. Which is why this new JC presented us with a loaded weapon to the Govt. A weapon, which surprisingly, few were prepared to use. My view would be that until pay parity is restored, until S&S returns to how it was,until CP hours are gone,until a commitment to reduce the PTR is secured [and that is not forgetting what happened to sick pay,extra qualification allowances just to name a few more of recent cuts] JC reform is completely off the table.

That,I think,is how the union should have and still could play this. At election time that is quite a weapon.

evolving_doors

SIPTU used to give a bit over €100,000 in donations to Labour.. Is this still going on?

To my mind anyway Ruairi Quinn epitomised the champagne socialism of 'New Labour', so when they come to my door I'll ask them if they were for the croke park agreement or not (and Haddington Road and Lansdown Road).

I still have the little Lansdown Road booklet here and flicking thorugh it, it speeks a lot about reforming the public sector... but all I'm physically seeing are paycuts and increased working hours (with less teaching time!!).

As regards the Older teachers selling the NQT's down the road, it's a complex issue with many factors, don't forget that it was one vote per member with a multitude of things to consider for each member, they didn't 'just' vote to cut NQT's pay, there was stuff in there directly affecting them too. And even then they voted against it a few times (but capitulated in the end). I wonder if more of the nqt's had voted would the outcome be any different.

But yes none of the recent NQT's in our school are in the union and had a great chuckle about the paid day off they were getting the last strike day.

acequion

Gebgbegb wrote: »

But yes none of the recent NQT's in our school are in the union and had a great chuckle about the paid day off they were getting the last strike day.

The above bit is interesting but not representative,I hope,of NQT's in general. So,is the capitulation on HR what is considered older teachers selling out on the younger ones? Well if so that is a total load of bollix and shame on any young teacher who buys into it. In my circle of older teachers,everyone held out and voted no all the way. Anyone we knew giving in were all young.

So just who betrayed who??

evolving_doors

Maybe everybody just looked out for themselves (as there was so much in the pot).. and those not in the union got underrepresented!

Wasn't there also the 'CID after 2 years' sweetener thrown in (or was that a different vote)?

mirrorwall14

Significant amount of young teachers not in the union in our place either. they'll happily moan about how they were sold down the river but haven't even read the Haddington road agreement or the junior cycle proposals?! It drives me nuts. I cannot understand people who don't get involved in things that are really important to their working lives

RealJohn

We (the older teachers) did sell the newer ones down the river. It's an uncomfortable truth but it's not helped by making excuses for it. The unions protected their current members, not their future members and their (then) current members allowed it to happen. We should have been on strike to prevent it. It probably wouldn't have worked but it didn't happen anyway and I don't remember anyone calling for it at the time because at the end of the day, we all knew we would be standing up for people who weren't even teachers yet so there was no appetite to do it when we were all protected. It was selfish of us and it's offensive to claim that it was anything else.

On FG/Labour, come on, we all saw this coming. It's easy to point out why FF were awful (again, we weren't complaining until the bubble burst but that's FF's fault too I suppose) but I don't remember a FF minister for education, poor as they were, saying "I don't care if we get the teachers to support this or not, it's going ahead anywa." (Not a direct quote but that's pretty much what Jan said.) I don't remember FF lying to us, telling us that they weren't cutting our pay and then cutting it anyway, while still telling us they weren't cutting our pay.
Labour are no better. They got gay marriage in. That'll be their legacy. They never cared about genuine socialist values.

We're all to blame for this but that's natural. Most people will always look out for themselves. Let's just hope we've learned from it this time (but we haven't).

katydid

RealJohn wrote: »

We (the older teachers) did sell the newer ones down the river. It's an uncomfortable truth but it's not helped by making excuses for it. The unions protected their current members, not their future members and their (then) current members allowed it to happen. We should have been on strike to prevent it. It probably wouldn't have worked but it didn't happen anyway and I don't remember anyone calling for it at the time because at the end of the day, we all knew we would be standing up for people who weren't even teachers yet so there was no appetite to do it when we were all protected. It was selfish of us and it's offensive to claim that it was anything else.

On FG/Labour, come on, we all saw this coming. It's easy to point out why FF were awful (again, we weren't complaining until the bubble burst but that's FF's fault too I suppose) but I don't remember a FF minister for education, poor as they were, saying "I don't care if we get the teachers to support this or not, it's going ahead anywa." (Not a direct quote but that's pretty much what Jan said.) I don't remember FF lying to us, telling us that they weren't cutting our pay and then cutting it anyway, while still telling us they weren't cutting our pay.
Labour are no better. They got gay marriage in. That'll be their legacy. They never cared about genuine socialist values.

We're all to blame for this but that's natural. Most people will always look out for themselves. Let's just hope we've learned from it this time (but we haven't).

We should have gone on strike on behalf of other people, who would be our colleagues in the future?? Hmm, that's not how strikes work.

Exiled1

Down the years the teaching unions have always backed seniority and older teachers benefits to the detriment of younger teachers eg. posts since 1968, early retirement, pensions, etc. In this country it is as if the younger ones cannot be trusted to do anything until they are into their forties (that is the case in almost all of the public sector).
Their second mantra has been to resist change irrespective of the benefits of such change. For much of my teaching career I have seen teachers grow old and crochety and increasingly unable to deal with the real issues in front of them (the kids). These types have rarely bothered to upskill themselves...... they are often among the few found at union meetings.
Unfortunately that culture grew out of clerical mismanagement of schools, where lay teachers were initially seen as being there on sufferance, because of a shortage of clergy (male and female). Old enough to remember the horror stories of seventies and eighties treatment of teacher sin many religious run schools. VECs had other issues but were not nearly as bad in this regard.

katydid

Exiled1 wrote: »

Down the years the teaching unions have always backed seniority and older teachers benefits to the detriment of younger teachers eg. posts since 1968, early retirement, pensions, etc. In this country it is as if the younger ones cannot be trusted to do anything until they are into their forties (that is the case in almost all of the public sector).
Their second mantra has been to resist change irrespective of the benefits of such change. For much of my teaching career I have seen teachers grow old and crochety and increasingly unable to deal with the real issues in front of them (the kids). These types have rarely bothered to upskill themselves...... they are often among the few found at union meetings.
Unfortunately that culture grew out of clerical mismanagement of schools, where lay teachers were initially seen as being there on sufferance, because of a shortage of clergy (male and female). Old enough to remember the horror stories of seventies and eighties treatment of teacher sin many religious run schools. VECs had other issues but were not nearly as bad in this regard.

The younger teachers are more than welcome to join the unions and let their voice be heard.

Exiled1

I joined the union in the seventies. I went to the first branch meeting a week later that was dominated by three teachers scoring points off each other. Very like a poor mans L&H. Thirty years later they remained branch representatives and CEC members and continuing with same old tired rhetoric. Why I continued to pay my sub over those years remains a mystery to me, because my views were rarely listened to nor was my voice heard. If you are not part of a small union herd and speaking the language of trade unionism (rabid is better) then you would not have had a hearing in asti, whatever about other unions.

katydid

Exiled1 wrote: »

I joined the union in the seventies. I went to the first branch meeting a week later that was dominated by three teachers scoring points off each other. Very like a poor mans L&H. Thirty years later they remained branch representatives and CEC members and continuing with same old tired rhetoric. Why I continued to pay my sub over those years remains a mystery to me, because my views were rarely listened to nor was my voice heard. If you are not part of a small union herd and speaking the language of trade unionism (rabid is better) then you would not have had a hearing in asti, whatever about other unions.

When I was a young, subbing teacher in the eighties I wasn't allowed join the union, as you had to be full time. I queued at the dole office every holiday, because there were no contracts other than full time.

Teachers coming out now have far more job security as part timers as I did, and they can join the union and fight for their rights. The people who fought for the rights of part-timers are primarily people in permanent jobs who saw the need to include their less fortunate colleagues in the process.

It's up to those colleagues now to use that vehicle to try to make things even better for themselves. There's only so much permanent teachers can do for them, while still trying to look after their own terms and conditions and to put a halt to the attempted destruction of the Irish education system.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the language of trade unionism". Trade unions exist to protect workers, and are run by those workers. The language is the language of the workers concerned.

acequion

RealJohn wrote: »

We (the older teachers) did sell the newer ones down the river.

I completely and totally disagree with this. Both the way it's put,"sold down the river" and the sentiment behind it. You would think older teachers got some kind of benefit from the shafting of younger teachers.They most certainly did not. And this notion that they should have staged a strike over it is complete utopia. Nobody stages a strike in solidarity with anybody any more. In any age group or in any sector. It's a sad fact of life but it is how it is. Claiming or intimating that older teachers are somehow responsible for the fate of younger teachers is like saying that people with jobs are somehow responsible for those without. It's nonsense.

And young teachers resenting their older collegues is extremely churlish. I've been that young teacher too,subbing in schools resenting the older permanent ones, some of whom had really bad reputations as teachers. I'd have had the job out from under some of them if I could. I cringe now looking back. What an upstart I was!

The fact is that this is supposed to be a job you stay in for life. So there will always be the older teachers. And while they might be permanent and a bit financially better off because they're further up the scale the deterioration in conditions is just as hard for them. As for the unions looking after the older ones, I'd take that with a pinch of salt.

So, let's stop this older and younger nonsense once and for all. We are all teachers, we have all been badly treated these past years and we're all in the profession together. And we have a hell of a lot better chance at fighting back if we stick together!

GSOIRL

katydid wrote: »

We should have gone on strike on behalf of other people, who would be our colleagues in the future?? Hmm, that's not how strikes work.

A Trade Union is not just about the members, it's about the Trade. The clue is in the name. The Government must think it's great that they have managed to get a Trade Union to agree to allow them to treat it's own members differently and cause a division in the teaching profession.

GSOIRL

acequion wrote: »

I completely and totally disagree with this. Both the way it's put,"sold down the river" and the sentiment behind it. You would think older teachers got some kind of benefit from the shafting of younger teachers.They most certainly did not. And this notion that they should have staged a strike over it is complete utopia. Nobody stages a strike in solidarity with anybody any more. In any age group or in any sector. It's a sad fact of life but it is how it is. Claiming or intimating that older teachers are somehow responsible for the fate of younger teachers is like saying that people with jobs are somehow responsible for those without. It's nonsense.

And young teachers resenting their older collegues is extremely churlish. I've been that young teacher too,subbing in schools resenting the older permanent ones, some of whom had really bad reputations as teachers. I'd have had the job out from under some of them if I could. I cringe now looking back. What an upstart I was!

The fact is that this is supposed to be a job you stay in for life. So there will always be the older teachers. And while they might be permanent and a bit financially better off because they're further up the scale the deterioration in conditions is just as hard for them.[/SIZE] As for the unions looking after the older ones, I'd take that with a pinch of salt.

So, let's stop this older and younger nonsense once and for all. We are all teachers, we have all been badly treated these past years and we're all in the profession together. And we have a hell of a lot better chance at fighting back if we stick together!

I think you should check the facts. the deterioration in conditions is no where near as hard for pre 2011 teachers. Just check the pay scales and the allowances out on any of the Union websites.

katydid

GSOIRL wrote: »

A Trade Union is not just about the members, it's about the Trade. The clue is in the name. The Government must think it's great that they have managed to get a Trade Union to agree to allow them to treat it's own members differently and cause a division in the teaching profession.

It's about the members of the "trade". The members, naturally, look after their own interest, and in the case of the CP negotiations, the teaching profession was faced with very serious threats to jobs and conditions. Do you seriously expect members of a trade union to willingly agree to a serious deterioration of their working conditions, and not to try to lessen the impact?

The differentiation in pay was not part of the Croke Park negotiations. It was imposed on the teaching profession by the government of the day. It was not connected to the teaching unions attempts to stop the attack on their working conditions.

GSOIRL

katydid wrote: »

It's about the members of the "trade". The members, naturally, look after their own interest, and in the case of the CP negotiations, the teaching profession was faced with very serious threats to jobs and conditions. Do you seriously expect members of a trade union to willingly agree to a serious deterioration of their working conditions, and not to try to lessen the impact?

The differentiation in pay was not part of the Croke Park negotiations. It was imposed on the teaching profession by the government of the day. It was not connected to the teaching unions attempts to stop the attack on their working conditions.

Whatever makes you sleep well at night. We'll have to agree to disagree because I would not naturally just look after my own interest as I don't think that's what being part of a Union is all about. But maybe I've just taken too many bangs to the head.

acequion

GSOIRL wrote: »

I think you should check the facts. the deterioration in conditions is no where near as hard for pre 2011 teachers. Just check the pay scales and the allowances out on any of the Union websites.

Excuse me but it is still very hard,perhaps in some cases just as hard! Not only financially but because:
An older teacher has less energy.
An older teacher has less motivation.
Some older teachers may have health issues.
It's way harder for an older teacher to get another job.
It's way harder for an older teacher to emigrate.
An older teacher generally has heavier financial commitments.
Many older teachers are trying to put their kids through college.

This antagonism towards older teachers is dreadful. It's like the antagonism from private sector towards public at the height of the recession. Is it an Irish thing this need to blame someone? Well go and blame the union leaders who allowed it to happen!

GSOIRL

acequion wrote: »

Excuse me but it is still very hard,perhaps in some cases just as hard! Not only financially but because:
An older teacher has less energy.
An older teacher has less motivation.
Some older teachers may have health issues.
It's way harder for an older teacher to get another job.
It's way harder for an older teacher to emigrate.
An older teacher generally has heavier financial commitments.
Many older teachers are trying to put their kids through college.

This antagonism towards older teachers is dreadful. It's like the antagonism from private sector towards public at the height of the recession. Is it an Irish thing this need to blame someone? Well go and blame the union leaders who allowed it to happen!

I'm pretty sure I have not mentioned age once. I have no issues with anyones age. I also have never said anything about blaming pre 2011 teachers. I have just constantly pointed out the situation that post 2011 teachers find themselves in. I want the Unions to start fighting for all teachers and I would expect all teachers to fight to end the unequal treatment of post 2011 teachers. I urge this in order to protect OUR profession and keep OUR Unions strong.

El_Duderino 09

spurious wrote:

The proper common payscale is restored. The waste of time that is Croke Park hours is done away with. Supervision and substitution goes back to the way it was - a chance for those on low or no hours to get some work.

You should also down tools until the union makes it 2003 again and you need them to put Bertie Ahern back in power.

spurious wrote:

For a start. Nothing terribly objectionable there for Joe public and the chattering classes. They are supposed to be trade unions, working for us, not the kids, not the schools, not the subjects, not the exam system - us and only us.

Yeah screw the kids and their education. You sound like the children are only there to keep you in a job.

Shocking lack of self awareness displayed in that post not to mention the lack of economic awareness. I thought that was just a stereotype of teachers used by private sector agitators.

As a public servant, I'm embarrassed after reading that last paragraph.

evolving_doors

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You should also down tools until the union makes it 2003 again and you need them to put Bertie Ahern back in power.



Yeah screw the kids and their education. You sound like the children are only there to keep you in a job.

Shocking lack of self awareness displayed in that post not to mention the lack of economic awareness. I thought that was just a stereotype of teachers used by private sector agitators.

As a public servant, I'm embarrassed after reading that last paragraph.

As a public servant are you OK with any change in work practices?

Do you have a rationale for this change in work practices for teachers (besides something,something, Finland,Pisa)?

Would you accept that maths teachers have accepted major reforms in their subject and have accepted those changes... are they different to other teachers or was there something different about the roll out of the Project maths Syllabus and the new English Syllabus?

As a public servant who does your union serve?

katydid

GSOIRL wrote: »

Whatever makes you sleep well at night. We'll have to agree to disagree because I would not naturally just look after my own interest as I don't think that's what being part of a Union is all about. But maybe I've just taken too many bangs to the head.

Who else other than the members do union members of any union look after? I'm genuinely confused why you think that unions would look after non-members?

I agree that union members also have a responsibility to look out for and to defend the profession they work in - they do that by looking out for those who work in the profession and those they work with in the profession, i.e. the students.

But I fail to see how and why they would fight on behalf of non-members.

El_Duderino 09

Gebgbegb wrote:

As a public servant are you OK with any change in work practices?

Any change that makes sense and allows progress for the stakeholders

Gebgbegb wrote:

Do you have a rationale for this change in work practices for teachers (besides something,something, Finland,Pisa)?

Strawman someone else please. If you want a serious answer, ask your question with civilly.

Gebgbegb wrote:

Would you accept that maths teachers have accepted major reforms in their subject and have accepted those changes... are they different to other teachers or was there something different about the roll out of the Project maths Syllabus and the new English Syllabus?

People accept changes all the time. If maths and the world in which maths is applied was static, there would be little need for change. if you had a perfect system today, it would still need to be ready to change. Maths teachers accepted change like a 21st century human being in employment. Anyone incapable of change, or who needs major incentives just to keep up with the world around them, is liable to be left behind.

Gebgbegb wrote:

As a public servant who does your union serve?

The stakeholders, including me.

Demanding to be allowed to party like it's 2003, is ridiculous and demonstrates how out of touch some of my public servant colleagues are with the financial reality in which the rest of the world lives.