ASTI reject Lansdowne Road Agreement.

Alex Meier

How long before the next vote?

74% NO
26% YES

31.5% turnout.

GSOIRL

Absolutely delighted. There should be no agreements until there is equality for new teachers. For a new teacher who is equally qualified and equally experienced to be paid 30%+ less than a colleague for doing the same job is a disgrace. No Union can stand over this. We should not even be asked to vote again until this discrimination is rectified.

Alex Meier

GSOIRL wrote: »

Absolutely delighted. There should be no agreements until there is equality for new teachers. For a new teacher who is equally qualified and equally experienced to be paid 30%+ less than a colleague for doing the same job is a disgrace. No Union can stand over this. We should not even be asked to vote again until this discrimination is rectified.

I agree.

I also personally want an end to the Croke Park hours.

I'm prepared to do PTMs outside school but that's IT

No doubt Pat King is arranging the ballots for the second vote already.

mirrorwall14

31% turnout? That's very low!

Alex Meier

mirrorwall14 wrote: »

31% turnout? That's very low!

It is.

A sign that members of the ASTI have disengaged from their union especially in relation to their ballots.

This is what happens when you take the piss and keep running ballots until you get you result you want. . . . People lose faith in the democratic process.

Geuze

GSOIRL wrote: »

Absolutely delighted. There should be no agreements until there is equality for new teachers. For a new teacher who is equally qualified and equally experienced to be paid 30%+ less than a colleague for doing the same job is a disgrace. No Union can stand over this. We should not even be asked to vote again until this discrimination is rectified.

I know new PS are on 10% lower scale.

Where is the other 20% from?

No allowances?

deiseindublin

31% is a low turnout but it's still a high NO from those members that bothered to vote.

TUI ballot not closed until 5pm (now basically). Wonder will we hear result before tomorrow?

deiseindublin

Geuze wrote: »

I know new PS are on 10% lower scale.

Where is the other 20% from?

No allowances?

Allowance and starting on pt 1 of scale, instead of pt 3 traditionally.

doc_17

That low turnout is a joke

joebloggs32

doc_17 wrote: »

That low turnout is a joke

Time for the ASTI to organise votes in the workplace like the TUI. When the school steward hands you a ballot paper and posts it back you will get a higher turnout. Also the union would save a lot of cash on postage, by sending multiple ballots to each school in one large envelope, as opposed to one out to every individual member.

Inspector Coptoor

joebloggs32 wrote: »

Time for the ASTI to organise votes in the workplace like the TUI. When the school steward hands you a ballot paper and posts it back you will get a higher turnout. Also the union would save a lot of cash on postage, by sending multiple ballots to each school in one large envelope, as opposed to one out to every individual member.

Spot on.
Such an easy solution.

deiseindublin

I'm hoping Christie turns things on it's head! It's time.

joebloggs32

TUI turnout 59 %

Yes 8%
No 92 %

Now that's what I call a mandate. Ingrid Miley won't be able to pick holes in that result.

TheDriver

joebloggs32 wrote: »

TUI turnout 59 %

Yes 8%
No 92 %

Now that's what I call a mandate. Ingrid Miley won't be able to pick holes in that result.

Mother of God!

Inspector Coptoor

joebloggs32 wrote: »

TUI turnout 59 %

Yes 8%
No 92 %

Now that's what I call a mandate. Ingrid Miley won't be able to pick holes in that result.

She fairly picked a few holes in the ASTI turnout....

With all the other unions acceptin the LRA, it will be interesting to see what happens next.

There are fempi legislations in place now to impose the LRA on groups like the ASTI & TUI who have rejected the deal.
Sanctions can be imposed on groups who "repudiate" the deal according to Miley

Makes a mockery of the democratic process really.

Oh, I see you voted against what we wanted, we'll make up legislation to ensure we can do what we want anyway.

km79

Inspector Coptoor wrote: »

She fairly picked a few holes in the ASTI turnout....

With all the other unions acceptin the LRA, it will be interesting to see what happens next.

There are fempi legislations in place now to impose the LRA on groups like the ASTI & TUI who have rejected the deal.
Sanctions can be imposed on groups who "repudiate" the deal according to Miley

Makes a mockery of the democratic process really.

Oh, I see you voted against what we wanted, we'll make up legislation to ensure we can do what we want anyway.

fempi legislations won't hold much water soon hopefully

gaiscioch

Why are the teachers' unions the last to vote on Lansdowne Road? Design or coincidence? Given that they've delivered two massive 'No' votes to it, it's fortunate for this government that they didn't lead by example before all the other unions voted.

A decent turnout from TUI, and a fantastically high 'No' result - 92%! An abysmal turnout from the ASTI once again - when will the penny drop that they/we have to organise the voting at school level? - but also a resounding 'No' to the attempt by this government to make emergency legislation a permanent feature in our working conditions long after Howlin, Burton and the rest of this "Do as we say, not as we do" government have gone off on their recently-increased ministerial pensions.

joebloggs32

I'd love to see them try not to give us back the s&s money.
If they renege on that one we'll shut the schools.

TheDriver

I think we need a standard letter that we all send our TDs about legislation they voted on and the concern they are going back on agreements that ARE in place I.e. Hra

GSOIRL

TheDriver wrote: »

I think we need a standard letter that we all send our TDs about legislation they voted on and the concern they are going back on agreements that ARE in place I.e. Hra

Check out Equal Pay for NQTs on Facebook or Twitter. They have lots of template letters to send.

GSOIRL

Great results.

In regards to the ASTI turnout. I did not hear the Government complaining when the INTO voted yes with a turnout of less than 50%

jank

This could have a direct knock-on affect of the 2,260 new teaching posts announced in this weeks budget.
To be honest, I would have thought this would be viewed as good news seeing that so many new teachers are being given a job?

mirrorwall14

The no vote is good news? Damn right it is. There is absolutely nothing in it addressing the disgraceful new conditions of employment that new teachers are being appointed under. It has nothing to do with the reduction in the teacher ratios (long overdue) and should not be mixed up with it.

Similarly I'm already pissed off with the government and media trotting out the "we will withhold S and S payment", that is not part of the new agreement so F off and pay us the money you owe us under the current agreement. We fulfilled our part of the bargain.

solerina

jank wrote: »

This could have a direct knock-on affect of the 2,260 new teaching posts announced in this weeks budget.
To be honest, I would have thought this would be viewed as good news seeing that so many new teachers are being given a job?

Are these the same teaching jobs which are going to arise due to lowering JC teachers timetables by one 40 min period ????

spurious

solerina wrote: »

Are these the same teaching jobs which are going to arise due to lowering JC teachers timetables by one 40 min period ????

Or only some of the jobs that have been lost over the past years.

700 second level schools
3300 primary schools
less than 2500 jobs isn't really much.

km79

http://www.asti.ie/news/latest-news/news-article/article/standing-committee-discusses-non-acceptance-by-members-of-lansdowne-road-proposals/
the fight goes on

MrJones1973

GSOIRL wrote: »

Absolutely delighted. There should be no agreements until there is equality for new teachers. For a new teacher who is equally qualified and equally experienced to be paid 30%+ less than a colleague for doing the same job is a disgrace. No Union can stand over this. We should not even be asked to vote again until this discrimination is rectified.

I'm a member of dublin south west. I never see any new pay scale teachers at meetings. How do you expect union to take you seriously?? I'm sure you attend branch meetings but your age group rarely do

MrJones1973

Inspector Coptoor wrote: »

Spot on.
Such an easy solution.

Jesus if They can't see the importance of the ballot then they deserve everything coming to them. I know some teachers didn't vote because they are near retirement and feel they don't want to impose but the rest deserve to be screwed over

mirrorwall14

Off topic, I just read my earlier reply. Man I was in a bad mood! 3rd year PT meetings...

SligoBrewer

Mrwhite1970 wrote: »

How do you expect union to take you seriously??

Because a union is meant to look out for the most vulnerable members in its ranks.

deiseindublin

SligoBrewer wrote: »

Because a union is meant to look out for the most vulnerable members in its ranks.

IF they are members, most in our place haven't bothered joining. You can only be represented if you sign up.

evolving_doors

SligoBrewer wrote: »

Because a union is meant to look out for the most vulnerable members in its ranks.

Yup, we still make a point of asking the junior teachers to join (about 6 at this stage)... but nothing, just brush it off with a laugh. Some have reasonably good PT hours and live at home (and have been around the school longer than a year) so the 'cost' reason can only go so far.

katydid

SligoBrewer wrote: »

Because a union is meant to look out for the most vulnerable members in its ranks.

They do.

TheDriver

A union is supposed to look after all its members. I want to write to my local TD about my situation and my loss in money and I would expect my union to equally fight for my situation AND everyone else's.

mirrorwall14

My understanding would be that the union campaigns on the issues of greatest importance as deemed by its members. As in they campaign in order of the priorities raised by their members. The young teachers need to join, and attend and promote their agenda.

The notion that teachers should have docked their own pay in solidarity with teachers who weren't graduated yet is a lovely idea but was never going to happen in reality. Human nature is to look after yourself at the heel of the hunt

GSOIRL

Lots of comments about NQTs joining and not joining the Unions. Well I am an NQT, I joined my Union, I attend meetings, I speak up about the discrimination I face, I speak up about the hardships of NQTs. However I've been restricted from being more active in the Union because I am an NQT. Here is a copy of a post I sent to Voice for Teachers on Facebook.

I qualified in 2014 so I am one of the many unlucky teachers who are on the lower pay scale, started on point 1 of the scale and receive no allowances. So to try to change this I joined a Union, the ASTI, as I've been constantly told that if I want change I have to get active in the Union. As well as joining I attend meetings and was lucky enough to get elected from my Branch to the CEC. Great I thought, I'm doing exactly as I've been told to do and will get my voice heard. However my nomination had to be withdrawn. The reason for this is I haven't been able to be a member of the ASTI long enough to be allowed on the CEC. So NQTs are told to join a Union and get active in that Union in order to be heard and end the discrimination we are suffering but rules are in place to stop this happening. We, NQTs, need all members of Standing Committees, CECs, General Secretary's, & Presidents of the Unions to speak up for us as we can't, even when we want to, speak up for ourselves in these committees. Without equality and unity can a Union truly be a Union?

So instead of giving out to NQTs how about supporting them in the fight for equality.

katydid

GSOIRL wrote: »

Lots of comments about NQTs joining and not joining the Unions. Well I am an NQT, I joined my Union, I attend meetings, I speak up about the discrimination I face, I speak up about the hardships of NQTs. However I've been restricted from being more active in the Union because I am an NQT. Here is a copy of a post I sent to Voice for Teachers on Facebook.

I qualified in 2014 so I am one of the many unlucky teachers who are on the lower pay scale, started on point 1 of the scale and receive no allowances. So to try to change this I joined a Union, the ASTI, as I've been constantly told that if I want change I have to get active in the Union. As well as joining I attend meetings and was lucky enough to get elected from my Branch to the CEC. Great I thought, I'm doing exactly as I've been told to do and will get my voice heard. However my nomination had to be withdrawn. The reason for this is I haven't been able to be a member of the ASTI long enough to be allowed on the CEC. So NQTs are told to join a Union and get active in that Union in order to be heard and end the discrimination we are suffering but rules are in place to stop this happening. We, NQTs, need all members of Standing Committees, CECs, General Secretary's, & Presidents of the Unions to speak up for us as we can't, even when we want to, speak up for ourselves in these committees. Without equality and unity can a Union truly be a Union?

So instead of giving out to NQTs how about supporting them in the fight for equality.

Mind you, when I qualified first, back in the early eighties, you weren't allowed join the union unless you were a full time teacher. Things have moved on a bit from there, but what you describe is ridiculous.

katydid

TheDriver wrote: »

A union is supposed to look after all its members. I want to write to my local TD about my situation and my loss in money and I would expect my union to equally fight for my situation AND everyone else's.

There's nothing stopping you writing to your local TD, but unless she's the Minister for Education, I'm not sure what you reckon they can do for you.

Your union will fight for all its members. It can't fight all battles to the same degree at all times, and since not many younger teachers are members, their issues have not been at the top of the priority list. I take it you're a union member, in which case that's your better bet than writing to a TD. Get in there and fight your corner.

joebloggs32

There is numerous groups of teachers out there who have been shafted over time by different agreements. The NQT's are at the bottom of the food chain now but others have also had inferior conditions imposed on them. The pension rights of teachers post 05 are much worse than those who started between 96 and 05.
And pre 96 have a different deal again.
The lesson is that people tend to look after their own interests, it's human nature, and like others have said the teachers who started in the last few years need to make their voice heard on this issue. In my school there are number of them who haven't joined yet will moan about the poor level of pay.
Personally I would give up any pay rise in the next couple of years if the new salary scales were scrapped.
PS I started in 05 so I know what its like to be screwed over.

TheDriver

katydid wrote: »

There's nothing stopping you writing to your local TD, but unless she's the Minister for Education, I'm not sure what you reckon they can do for you.

Your union will fight for all its members. It can't fight all battles to the same degree at all times, and since not many younger teachers are members, their issues have not been at the top of the priority list. I take it you're a union member, in which case that's your better bet than writing to a TD. Get in there and fight your corner.

I appreciate your point but if local TDs are seeing votes disappearing, it creates more pressure than writing to minister. Why would I vote for you when you voted for legislation to cut my pay.....

Subutai

The problem with claiming that the Union are blameless over the situation the NQTs find themselves in, or even that the NQTs are to blame themselves because they failed to engage with the Union, is that it focuses on an incredibly narrow and ultimately self-defeating model of labour organisation. Most Trade Unions that are successful have moved on from that model, because it isn't sustainable.

It's particularly important for workers who are part of a profession, because ultimately when standards change that has effects on the profession as a whole and on the power dynamics within it.

It's very easy to say that the Union can't be blamed for failing to stand up robustly for NQTs, but that doesn't hold much water. For Unions to be sustainable they have to be able to think strategically and work beyond the most immediate and narrow interests of the members. It is obviously not in the interests of well-established teachers to go out on strike over changes to conditions for new entrants to the profession. However by failing to do that we now see a situation in which new entrants not only distrust a union that they see as fundamentally opposed to their own interests, but also are prevented from being able to engage fully with the Union due to fears over their own precarious conditions.

Ultimately it is in the interest of workers to ensure that strategies of divide and conquer are not allowed to manifest themselves successfully in their organisations. The teachers unions, for whatever reason, have failed in that regard. They have allowed conditions within the profession to become two tier (and as some have pointed out, not for the first time). They should fear reaching a breaking point, because it does not take much of a loss of union penetration for the union to lose a significant amount of its power. If NQTs are failing to join, or even just failing to robustly engage with the union, then that is a problem for all teachers, not just NQTs; especially if the Union cannot represent their interests without their involvement. It will become a vicious cycle in which new teachers feel more and more alienated, which results in the union representing them less, which results in further alienation and lack of involvement. The end result will be a union that does not have adequate penetration to project the power of the workers over the profession.

Members of a union do have a responsibility to consider the interests of future members. Indeed, it is in their own self interest to do so.

mirrorwall14

However you could argue that the union did the best they could and were taking the long view. It's one hell of a lot easier to argue for equal pay scales now with the economy improving and having a cohort of members on the better scale than it would have been trying to get back the pay if everyone had been slashed. Look at the battle the union are facing into over getting our s and s payment when we have fulfilled our side of the bargain

Lets not forget the state the economy was in at that stage and the sense of doom in the country. The public was against us and the money wasn't there to make the argument. In addition the threats of further pay cuts loomed large. The union did ok under the circumstances depending on your viewpoint

mirrorwall14

GSOIRL wrote: »

Lots of comments about NQTs joining and not joining the Unions. Well I am an NQT, I joined my Union, I attend meetings, I speak up about the discrimination I face, I speak up about the hardships of NQTs. However I've been restricted from being more active in the Union because I am an NQT. Here is a copy of a post I sent to Voice for Teachers on Facebook.

I qualified in 2014 so I am one of the many unlucky teachers who are on the lower pay scale, started on point 1 of the scale and receive no allowances. So to try to change this I joined a Union, the ASTI, as I've been constantly told that if I want change I have to get active in the Union. As well as joining I attend meetings and was lucky enough to get elected from my Branch to the CEC. Great I thought, I'm doing exactly as I've been told to do and will get my voice heard. However my nomination had to be withdrawn. The reason for this is I haven't been able to be a member of the ASTI long enough to be allowed on the CEC. So NQTs are told to join a Union and get active in that Union in order to be heard and end the discrimination we are suffering but rules are in place to stop this happening. We, NQTs, need all members of Standing Committees, CECs, General Secretary's, & Presidents of the Unions to speak up for us as we can't, even when we want to, speak up for ourselves in these committees. Without equality and unity can a Union truly be a Union?

So instead of giving out to NQTs how about supporting them in the fight for equality.

I read that post on Facebook and kudos to you for attending and going for it-I think that's brilliant. I agree union rules here are ridiculous.

However. You attend meetings. Can you honestly say that you are not a minority among your peers on the new pay scales? Maybe I'm wrong because my evidence is anecdotal but the absolute naivety of the young staff (and some older staff) in my staff room is staggering. The idea that I would use the union to fight for my CID (which I did and got a full 22hrs) was completely alien to them and they ae far more inclined to keep 'hoping' for hours.

Subutai

mirrorwall14 wrote: »

However you could argue that the union did the best they could and were taking the long view. It's one hell of a lot easier to argue for equal pay scales now with the economy improving and having a cohort of members on the better scale than it would have been trying to get back the pay if everyone had been slashed. Look at the battle the union are facing into over getting our s and s payment when we have fulfilled our side of the bargain

Lets not forget the state the economy was in at that stage and the sense of doom in the country. The public was against us and the money wasn't there to make the argument. In addition the threats of further pay cuts loomed large. The union did ok under the circumstances depending on your viewpoint

To be honest, I don't think that's an argument that would hold water for most NQTs. Particularly when they see that the Union pulled out all the stops in combatting Junior Cert Reform, but engaged in the weakest possible manner in protecting their interests.

The problem will really become apparent as recruitment increases over the next few years, and newer teachers return from abroad (primarily the UK). Many will feel that they were exiled by the Union who refused to fight for them but were happy to fight on other issues. They will also have a different perception of what is acceptable in encroachment upon standards and conditions. That can be a very dangerous mixture even for established teachers, and could significantly impact on the ability of the Union to resist further movement of the Irish system towards the English model.

mirrorwall14

Subutai wrote: »

To be honest, I don't think that's an argument that would hold water for most NQTs. Particularly when they see that the Union pulled out all the stops in combatting Junior Cert Reform, but engaged in the weakest possible manner in protecting their interests.

The problem will really become apparent as recruitment increases over the next few years, and newer teachers return from abroad (primarily the UK). Many will feel that they were exiled by the Union who refused to fight for them but were happy to fight on other issues. They will also have a different perception of what is acceptable in encroachment upon standards and conditions. That can be a very dangerous mixture even for established teachers, and could significantly impact on the ability of the Union to resist further movement of the Irish system towards the English model.

You are aware that the payscale cuts applied across the Public service not just teaching? http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056988855
And that the teaching unions are some of the only unions who even bothered voting against it? And that there was a massive financial emergency in the country and that many studies had shown that Irish public servants were overpaid? I'm dead certain that the only reason the government didn't go for every payscale was that a) it would have involved another paycut for themselves and b) whatever hope they had of getting a new entrants cut through by threats, threats wouldn't have worked if they had tried to cut every public servant. Public servants who voted against the deal were threatened with the full weight of FEMPI legislation if they wouldn't accept the deal

You can't compare it to the JC reform which was a totally different kettle of fish in all ways. It was (supposedly) not being introduced to save money so there was no threats of job losses accompanying. There was a lot of data from the UK showing it didn't work and there was at least some hope in hell of stopping it or at least changing the reform. None of that is comparable to cuts during a financial emergency

Subutai

mirrorwall14 wrote: »

You are aware that the payscale cuts applied across the Public service not just teaching? And that the teaching unions are some of the only unions who even bothered voting against it? And that there was a massive financial emergency in the country and that many studies had shown that Irish public servants were overpaid? I'm dead certain that the only reason the government didn't go for every payscale was that a) it would have involved another paycut for themselves and b) whatever hope they had of getting a new entrants cut through by threats, threats wouldn't have worked if they had tried to cut every public servant.

You can't compare it to the JC reform which was a totally different kettle of fish in all ways. It was (supposedly) not being introduced to save money so there was no threats of job losses accompanying. There was a lot of data from the UK showing it didn't work and there was at least some hope in hell of stopping it or at least changing the reform. None of that is comparable to cuts during a financial emergency

You are speaking of what the government felt they would be able to get through in an agreement, and what they would not. The key criterion in what can be stopped by any labour organisation is not the data, the level of funding, or even public support. It is the appetite of its members to strike. That was the key difference between the cuts applied to NQTs and the JCSA reform. In the latter the union had appetite for a strike, in the former it did not.

That is where the problem lies, because NQTs know that just as well as the government did. The union was willing to strike over issues that affected some over issues that affected others. Those others were NQTs. Many of them do, therefore, feel that the Union does not represent their interests (because it didn't), and the excuses don't hold up in the light of the fact that the Union were willing to strike over other issues.

My larger point however is that a massive problem is now potentially brewing for the Teachers unions. Through a lack of strategic foresight on the part of its members it has now allowed a divide and conquer strategy to take root. If it succeeds it can massively diminish union power. We are seeing the beginnings of that, and if there is to be any hope in combating it the Union need to take a lead in restoring the ability of NQTs to place their faith in it by fighting vigorously for their interests; and that has to happen without NQTs being there to drive the effort, sadly.

mirrorwall14

I would argue completely differently that the unions had no appetite for strike at all and it was only the members pushing it that got the strike on for the JC. And as I said there was no threat of FEMPI hanging over teachers striking for JC unlike the paycuts so I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one rather than go around in circles.

I personally believe the TUI and ASTI will survive this however there seems to be serious issues with the INTO. They are not only out of step with their members but also out of step with their colleagues at second level. TUI are firing shots across the governments bow on NQT pay scales already http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/teachers-union-for-strike-ballot-over-discriminatory-pay-1.2394706

dingding

In the third level sector the TUI members agreed to bring in the assistant lecturer grade about 1998. This drastically changed the conditions of new entrants. It is a bit disenginous to be concerned about new entrants now.

katydid

TheDriver wrote: »

I appreciate your point but if local TDs are seeing votes disappearing, it creates more pressure than writing to minister. Why would I vote for you when you voted for legislation to cut my pay.....

If all the people who wrote to politicians withdrew their vote, nobody'd ever vote...

Why don't you write if you think it would have any effect?

katydid

Subutai wrote: »

Members of a union do have a responsibility to consider the interests of future members. Indeed, it is in their own self interest to do so.

Indeed. But surely not at their own expense.

dingding

katydid wrote: »

Indeed. But surely not at their own expense.

That's what happened with the Assistant Lecturer grade in the Institutes of Technology, the existing members lined their pockets at the expense of future members.