ASTI ballot

Icsics

Ballot on pay agreement to go ahead with no recommendation.

Studentblogger

The ASTI are following the TUI stance: sitting on the fence.

judeboy101

Icsics wrote: »

Ballot on pay agreement to go ahead with no recommendation.

Disgusted.

Studentblogger

I'm not one bit surprised.

evolving_doors

I think there may be actually some logic in not recommending.
IF it's a no to PSSA it 'may' be viewed as a repudiation of haddington road, which would put ASTI outside of everything agreed within; been there and done that and lost members as a result. Would they want to risk everyone voting in accordance with No recommendation and then finding that the dept. start to play hardball. It wont be a case of switching sides from ASTI to TUI this time as most of the younger teachers now aren't even in the ASTI to start with.

I doubt the teachers will ever get equality, if that's what they want then it'll be given back piecemeal in return for pounds of flesh... this is how they got the Junior Cycle and changes to AP posts in.

How do people think the new AP post appointment process is going!!!
How do people think the roll out of the new Junior Cycle is going!!!!
When you dine with the devil you need a very long spoon.

acequion

evolving_doors wrote: »

I think there may be actually some logic in not recommending.
IF it's a no to PSSA it 'may' be viewed as a repudiation of haddington road, which would put ASTI outside of everything agreed within; been there and done that and lost members as a result. Would they want to risk everyone voting in accordance with No recommendation and then finding that the dept. start to play hardball. It wont be a case of switching sides from ASTI to TUI this time as most of the younger teachers now aren't even in the ASTI to start with.

I doubt the teachers will ever get equality, if that's what they want then it'll be given back piecemeal in return for pounds of flesh... this is how they got the Junior Cycle and changes to AP posts in.

How do people think the new AP post appointment process is going!!!
How do people think the roll out of the new Junior Cycle is going!!!!
When you dine with the devil you need a very long spoon.

I think you've hit the nail on the head there and pretty much summed up the reasoning behind today's decision.

But as a CEC member who spoke and voted against this stance today, I must admit that Im surprised and very disappointed.I really expected that we would recommend rejection.

Right now Id say you're right.That we probably will never get back pay equality.But I will certainly vote no to this insult of a deal and do my best to persuade others to do likewise.

But re your last bits above, forgive me for being slow on d uptake, Im wrecked after a long day, so what exactly do you mean about dining with the devil etc and your questions just before that?

Studentblogger

evolving_doors wrote: »

I think there may be actually some logic in not recommending.
IF it's a no to PSSA it 'may' be viewed as a repudiation of haddington road, which would put ASTI outside of everything agreed within; been there and done that and lost members as a result. Would they want to risk everyone voting in accordance with No recommendation and then finding that the dept. start to play hardball. It wont be a case of switching sides from ASTI to TUI this time as most of the younger teachers now aren't even in the ASTI to start with.

I doubt the teachers will ever get equality, if that's what they want then it'll be given back piecemeal in return for pounds of flesh... this is how they got the Junior Cycle and changes to AP posts in.

How do people think the new AP post appointment process is going!!!
How do people think the roll out of the new Junior Cycle is going!!!!
When you dine with the devil you need a very long spoon.

The AP Process is going to cause division in staff rooms and it may suck goodwill out of schools. However, the previous system of special duties, determined largely by seniority, was completely antiquated. It had to go. You can't justify a situation whereby a person takes on a role that they are not suitable for and are not really accountable.

The Junior Cycle and its implementation is a complete and utter unmitigated disaster.

SligoBrewer

I’m disappointed in every single member of CEC who thinks that it’s pragmatic to leave thousands of LPTs hired between 2011 and 2015 behind.

Are you trade unionists or not?

Sir123

In general, I am totally bewildered that all unions are not going to be giving a recommendation to members.

I am not surprised that ASTI is doing similar to that of INTO and TUI. Imagine if the ASTI issued a No recommendation and both TUI and INTO accepted. It would be like 2016 all over again.

I am disappointed as an LPT, but not just at the ASTI, to all teacher unions. The truth is, there is no appetite for strike action and the ASTI does not want to be seen once again as the very militant union that is isolated, facing financial penalties and waiting longer for CIDs. The union is still trying to regain the approximate 1000 loss of members since 2016. I don't agree with today's decision at all, don't get me wrong, but the whole process and lack of an appetite for whole disruption between all unions is shocking. I hope it's a NO from all three at this stage, however INTO are pushing this deal big time even thought they have not given any recommendation to members.
I'll be voting No anyway once ASTI issue their ballot papers.

Will we ever be treated as first class teachers? Being a second class teacher sucks.

Benicetomonty

No point in blaming the ASTI here. It was made abundantly clear to members in my school by the president herself that unless there was cross union cooperation, there would be nobody taking industrial action. After the TUI and (especially) the INTO chose to ballot without a recommendation, the writing was on the wall, as, historically, no recommendation is the same as recommending a Yes vote.

Whilst there is a strong lpt cohort that is active on social media, here and elsewhere, the ASTI's failed campaign last time around showed everyone that those members are in a minority, and probably a significant minority. Im aware that a number of senior members defied all sorts of basic tenets of trade unionism in 2016 but in my own place and from what Ive heard anecdotally, the majority of post 2011 recruits chose to take the crumbs on offer from the Lansdowne rd agreement and desert the ASTI for the TUI. Their ex colleagues spent a couple of days on the picket line and several months repudiating the agreement for nothing. Frozen increments have become, retrospectively, a particularly bitter pill to swallow, and, truth be told, even if there was a no recommendation, there would be zero guarantee that it would be carried.

Il be voting no obviously. Would never occur to me to vote otherwise. But I can certainly understand why many like me will vote to accept. Until the vast, vast majority of LPTs are ready to bombard politicians, the media and union leadership into addressing the issue, pay equality wont happen. And, as the last 2 years have proven, we're nowhere near that right now. As such, appealing to or criticising pre 2011 folk and the leadership is pointless.

Nellieelephant

Reject it!!! It’s not equality - end of. The one word I would use to describe today was apathy. No fight, no desire. LPTs need to go to their branch AGM this month and get on CEC or we will coast out of PSSA in 2020 and into the next agreement. Some people are standing on that soap box serving their own needs and I am sick of it. Equality for all!

km79

Here we all are again on a Saturday night 12/24 months on .........
It’s over . It has been for some time . We had our chance and backed down after a couple of days . And that is just those who chose to stand firm in the first place and not jump ship or worse cross the picket line . Their own picket line ...........
It’s now like death by a thousand cuts
There will be a very low turnout and it will be accepted

Sir123

Benicetomonty wrote: »

No point in blaming the ASTI here. It was made abundantly clear to members in my school by the president herself that unless there was cross union cooperation, there would be nobody taking industrial action. After the TUI and (especially) the INTO chose to ballot without a recommendation, the writing was on the wall, as, historically, no recommendation is the same as recommending a Yes vote.

Whilst there is a strong lpt cohort that is active on social media, here and elsewhere, the ASTI's failed campaign last time around showed everyone that those members are in a minority, and probably a significant minority. Im aware that a number of senior members defied all sorts of basic tenets of trade unionism in 2016 but in my own place and from what Ive heard anecdotally, the majority of post 2011 recruits chose to take the crumbs on offer from the Lansdowne rd agreement and desert the ASTI for the TUI. Their ex colleagues spent a couple of days on the picket line and several months repudiating the agreement for nothing. Frozen increments have become, retrospectively, a particularly bitter pill to swallow, and, truth be told, even if there was a no recommendation, there would be zero guarantee that it would be carried.

Il be voting no obviously. Would never occur to me to vote otherwise. But I can certainly understand why many like me will vote to accept. Until the vast, vast majority of LPTs are ready to bombard politicians, the media and union leadership into addressing the issue, pay equality wont happen. And, as the last 2 years have proven, we're nowhere near that right now. As such, appealing to or criticising pre 2011 folk and the leadership is pointless.

We all spent a few days on the picket line, not just pre-2011 teachers. None of the LPTs in my school, including myself, switched unions, we were definitely in it for the long haul.

However a neighbouring dual union school that was predominately ASTI had most members move to TUI, LPTs and senior teachers included. As you probably are aware, it wasn't 1000 LPTs that left the ASTI but a combination of younger, middle and older teachers. That should have never happened and that's a difficult pill to swallow for those that were in it for the long haul.

To think that LPTs were going to get shafted twice in 2016 was unprecedented. Those that were due their CIDs, as well as most ASTI members, were probably unaware that the CID prolongement would happen. To think that the ward report was under the Lansdowne Road agreement never crossed my mind. I actually thought it was an entirely separated entity that would apply to all teachers from a certain date for Indefinite duration.

The government really got members there. And when the ASTI never resumed strike action after going into talks that was it. I don't blame anyone but the government. They made inequality more prevalent by attacking new teachers with waiting longer for their CIDs.

LPTs have had enough of being treated differently to the teacher next to them. It just simply isn't right.

I thank you for voting NO as I believe it's the right thing to do. Voting Yes will mean we are bound by PSSA and will be paying a permanent pension levy as well as continuing Croke Park Hours.
Pay Equality will never happen unless we have all three teacher unions out on strike.

judeboy101

[/quote] Voting Yes will mean we are bound by PSSA and will be paying a permanent pension levy .[/quote]


This is the long term damage to us all, a "worthless" pension

dory

SligoBrewer wrote: »

I’m disappointed in every single member of CEC who thinks that it’s pragmatic to leave thousands of LPTs hired between 2011 and 2015 behind.

Are you trade unionists or not?

I'm confused by this. Why is it only 2011 to 2015 LPTs? What have 2016/17/18 LPTs got that the other don't?

The way I see it , it's say no and wait years for pay equality, or say yes and get a bit now, bit in a few years. Saying No will not make it happen any sooner. They know TUI/ INTO won't strike. In our school all LPTs jumped ship to TUI , making us a dual union school for the first time. So there is no appetite for standing up for them now.

The pension levy is annoying, it's not being highlighted enough.

deiseindublin

Studentblogger wrote: »

However, the previous system of special duties, determined largely by seniority, was completely antiquated. It had to go. You can't justify a situation whereby a person takes on a role that they are not suitable for and are not really accountable.

I find the new system equally farcical, each person, whatever their skill set, is equally suited to each duty - Utopia. Just look around your staffroom and imagine a completely random reshuffle in the morning. There would be carnage.

solerina

Can I ask, I see this new ‘deal’ giving improved pay to LPT and a permanent pension levy ?? Not pay equality after all ??

Sir123

solerina wrote: »

Can I ask, I see this new ‘deal’ giving improved pay to LPT and a permanent pension levy ?? Not pay equality after all ??

You're right. Not pay equality at all. It's just skipping an increment or two, if you're lucky, after approx 4 years of service. A bit of a kick in the teeth really.

acequion

I am bitterly disappointed by yesterday's decision and feel that my collegues on CEC made a big mistake by voting for the "no recommendation." I listened intently to all the speeches by those recommending that position, but not once did I feel swayed or conflicted and not once did I even consider anything other than a resounding No.Many of us did our best to persuade them that this was the wrong course but the vote wasn't even close. As another poster pointed out, there was no spirit,no fight in people,the atmosphere was completely flat.

I get that many or most feel burned by recent events where ASTI stuck their neck out and carried the fight,only to get betrayed by those they were fighting for. And I get the risk a "No" recommendation carries as in what do we do if our members follow our advice and if TUI and INTO vote to accept. And the risk of being battered on all sides yet again.

But you're either committed to something or you're not. There is no such thing as being partially committed while you sit on the fence with your arse in the air. Sometimes in life you have to be single minded,you have to go all out despite the risks and this is one such time.

What sucks the most for me is that this is one war we could win. We have right completely on our side and for once public opinion could not argue with the glaring inequality. I also feel that a "No" recommendation from ASTI could have swung the vote in the other unions. They would have taken courage from it.

At this point I honestly don't see us ever achieving equality and while I blame this rotten Government, I blame the unions more and by unions,I mean the members,all members. And the shocking cowardice from ASTI yesterday has me seriously considering my own involvement going forward.

But I still urge everybody to vote No and to campaign for a No. It's the only hope left.

acequion

Studentblogger wrote: »

The AP Process is going to cause division in staff rooms and it may suck goodwill out of schools. However, the previous system of special duties, determined largely by seniority, was completely antiquated. It had to go. You can't justify a situation whereby a person takes on a role that they are not suitable for and are not really accountable.

The Junior Cycle and its implementation is a complete and utter unmitigated disaster.

Just because a system is antiquated doesn't mean it isn't effective. The seniority system was no less effective than the current one,in fact it worked perfectly well for the most part and you had none of this toxic rivalry and back stabbing that is now an unfortunate feature of the modern staffroom. And such toxicity is a threat to the quality of education. After all, as a teacher, your priority is supposed to be your students, not what you have to do to get your promotion.And as for "accountability" this has also become a new obsession,again at the expense of education. All that matters is getting that box ticked. The whole thing is an absolute farce.

evolving_doors

acequion wrote: »

Just because a system is antiquated doesn't mean it isn't effective. The seniority system was no less effective than the current one,in fact it worked perfectly well for the most part and you had none of this toxic rivalry and back stabbing that is now an unfortunate feature of the modern staffroom. And such toxicity is a threat to the quality of education. After all, as a teacher, your priority is supposed to be your students, not what you have to do to get your promotion.And as for "accountability" this has also become a new obsession,again at the expense of education. All that matters is getting that box ticked. The whole thing is an absolute farce.

At least with the old post system you knew what the roles were and it was set in contract. There were a lot of senior staff who didn't go for posts in my school too... plus senior staff who gave posts up when it got too much and life got in the way.

Now we've been hearing in some schools of the charade of
1. Staff meetings deciding on the needs of school in croke park meetings. Sounds good on paper.
2. report a mishmash of suggestions back to management
3. management 'take it on board' with no decision relayed back to the staff.
4. Posts advertised.
5. Job spec. not specified.
6. Yearly review to change contract at a whim.
7. Interviews where no-one knows what the role will entail (except maybe a select few 'given the nod' beforehand).

These are the concessions teachers make everytime there's talks. 'Talks' is sure way of plamásing the people... and ramming through the departments agenda of divesting education from the state through quid pro quos.
They tried The exam same with The Junior Cycle teacher grading but in fairness The teachers stood firm and got them to step it back a little, but it's still ploughing through.

The recession was the best thing that ever happened for the department mandarins.

Icsics

evolving_doors wrote: »

At least with the old post system you knew what the roles were and it was set in contract. There were a lot of senior staff who didn't go for posts in my school too... plus senior staff who gave posts up when it got too much and life got in the way.

Now we've been hearing in some schools of the charade of
1. Staff meetings deciding on the needs of school in croke park meetings. Sounds good on paper.
2. report a mishmash of suggestions back to management
3. management 'take it on board' with no decision relayed back to the staff.
4. Posts advertised.
5. Job spec. not specified.
6. Yearly review to change contract at a whim.
7. Interviews where no-one knows what the role will entail (except maybe a select few 'given the nod' beforehand).

These are the concessions teachers make everytime there's talks. 'Talks' is sure way of plamásing the people... and ramming through the departments agenda of divesting education from the state through quid pro quos.
They tried The exam same with The Junior Cycle teacher grading but in fairness The teachers stood firm and got them to step it back a little, but it's still ploughing through.

The recession was the best thing that ever happened for the department mandarins.

And after endless round table discussion, generating school needs....the Principal will effectively decide the priorities & who does what anyway......all dressed up in 'consultations'.

Studentblogger

acequion wrote: »

Just because a system is antiquated doesn't mean it isn't effective. The seniority system was no less effective than the current one,in fact it worked perfectly well for the most part and you had none of this toxic rivalry and back stabbing that is now an unfortunate feature of the modern staffroom. And such toxicity is a threat to the quality of education. After all, as a teacher, your priority is supposed to be your students, not what you have to do to get your promotion.And as for "accountability" this has also become a new obsession,again at the expense of education. All that matters is getting that box ticked. The whole thing is an absolute farce.

1. This system hasn't kicked in yet - not fully - so we can't realistically judge its effectiveness.

2. In contrast, let me explain my experience of the old one. I worked in one school where a person's A Post was 'Exam Coordinator'. Twice in the academic year they made the exam timetable and once a year they ordered mock papers.

This teacher was teaching twenty-five years.

Three other teachers had B posts and they were Year Heads.

Now, you can justify that as 'effective', but how in the name of God, on a thread about pay equality, can you justify that, by implication, as fair?

Would you be willing to accept the inherent unfairness in that system just because it is effective?

A system, in the context of pay inequality for LPT's, that rewards you with a post because you are getting older is inherently unfair and is a massive kick in the teeth to LPT's. Youth is no guarantee of innovation, but age is no guarantee of experience. If a younger teacher is better suited to a middle-management position than a more experienced teacher, so be it.

evolving_doors

Studentblogger wrote: »

1. This system hasn't kicked in yet - not fully - so we can't realistically judge its effectiveness.

2. In contrast, let me explain my experience of the old one. I worked in one school where a person's A Post was 'Exam Coordinator'. Twice in the academic year they made the exam timetable and once a year they ordered mock papers.

This teacher was teaching twenty-five years.

Three other teachers had B posts and they were Year Heads.

Now, you can justify that as 'effective', but how in the name of God, on a thread about pay equality, can you justify that, by implication, as fair?

Would you be willing to accept the inherent unfairness in that system just because it is effective?

A system, in the context of pay inequality for LPT's, that rewards you with a post because you are getting older is inherently unfair and is a massive kick in the teeth to LPT's. Youth is no guarantee of innovation, but age is no guarantee of experience. If a younger teacher is better suited to a middle-management position than a more experienced teacher, so be it.

It wasn't 100% based on Seniority in the past though!

Bit of context needed too:
How big is your school? Year head workload for school of 300 is different to school of 800.
When did these teachers get the post?
Have they moved post level since?

Also, just from my experience , the 'year head on B posts' only became prevalent with the cutbacks after 2008 .

acequion

Studentblogger wrote: »

1. This system hasn't kicked in yet - not fully - so we can't realistically judge its effectiveness.

2. In contrast, let me explain my experience of the old one. I worked in one school where a person's A Post was 'Exam Coordinator'. Twice in the academic year they made the exam timetable and once a year they ordered mock papers.

This teacher was teaching twenty-five years.

Three other teachers had B posts and they were Year Heads.

Now, you can justify that as 'effective', but how in the name of God, on a thread about pay equality, can you justify that, by implication, as fair?

Would you be willing to accept the inherent unfairness in that system just because it is effective?

A system, in the context of pay inequality for LPT's, that rewards you with a post because you are getting older is inherently unfair and is a massive kick in the teeth to LPT's. Youth is no guarantee of innovation, but age is no guarantee of experience. If a younger teacher is better suited to a middle-management position than a more experienced teacher, so be it.

First off,you are the one equating the system of promotion with pay equality. Just because they are both being discussed under the one thread doesn't mean they have anything to do with one another. They are day and night in my opinion

Secondly, you cite the example of one school to back up your point. If we're going to base our arguments on our schools, then why not take my school where the enrolment hovers close to 1,200 students. In such a school being exam coordinator requires a hell of a lot more work than the same role in a much smaller school. Ditto for year head.

But that's not even the point. The point or the argument is about which system is more effective or fairer. And I have pointed out that the old system, like all systems,was far from perfect, but had an inherent fairness in that everybody got their turn if interested. This completely eliminated rivalry and enhanced collegiality.Everybody accepted it and waited their turn while getting on with their teaching. Based on what I'm witnessing currently, I'd have it back in a heartbeat.

As for fairness in terms of LPTs, there is no fairness there because of pay apartheid. And as long as that continues LPTs have no business getting worked up over anything else.

r93kaey5p2izun

Studentblogger wrote: »

1. This system hasn't kicked in yet - not fully - so we can't realistically judge its effectiveness.

2. In contrast, let me explain my experience of the old one. I worked in one school where a person's A Post was 'Exam Coordinator'. Twice in the academic year they made the exam timetable and once a year they ordered mock papers.

This teacher was teaching twenty-five years.

Three other teachers had B posts and they were Year Heads.

Now, you can justify that as 'effective', but how in the name of God, on a thread about pay equality, can you justify that, by implication, as fair?

Would you be willing to accept the inherent unfairness in that system just because it is effective?

A system, in the context of pay inequality for LPT's, that rewards you with a post because you are getting older is inherently unfair and is a massive kick in the teeth to LPT's. Youth is no guarantee of innovation, but age is no guarantee of experience. If a younger teacher is better suited to a middle-management position than a more experienced teacher, so be it.

What is to stop the exact scenario described above from happening now under the new system? You will still get some given an easier ride on A posts while B posts and indeed those with no posts do twice as much.

I totally see the unfairness of not being able to get a post purely because you're not senior enough but any claims that the new system will fix problems with lazy or incompetent postholders are not based in fact. If anything we are just more likely to be saddled with a incompetent postholder for even longer now. I have minimal faith in the interview process to pick the most competent person for the job.

Studentblogger

acequion wrote: »

First off,you are the one equating the system of promotion with pay equality. Just because they are both being discussed under the one thread doesn't mean they have anything to do with one another. They are day and night in my opinion.

Precisely. It's not just about pay equality; it's also about equality of opportunity.

Why in the name of God should a younger teacher have to 'wait' for a post? Why not compete for it and base the decision on merit?

acequion wrote: »

Secondly, you cite the example of one school to back up your point. If we're going to base our arguments on our schools, then why not take my school where the enrolment hovers close to 1,200 students. In such a school being exam coordinator requires a hell of a lot more work than the same role in a much smaller school. Ditto for year head.

That's absolutely fine. But are you really suggesting that, in a hypothetical situation in your school, an A post holder's role as the exam coordinator is commensurate with that level of pay, while a B post holder is a Year Head, in the context of a school that size?

acequion wrote: »

But that's not even the point. The point or the argument is about which system is more effective or fairer. And I have pointed out that the old system, like all systems,was far from perfect, but had an inherent fairness in that everybody got their turn if interested. This completely eliminated rivalry and enhanced collegiality.Everybody accepted it and waited their turn while getting on with their teaching. Based on what I'm witnessing currently, I'd have it back in a heartbeat.

Everyone may have got that turn, but what about people got a post just to get a post - because it was their turn.
What sort of nonsense is that? "Oh, it's your turn, so we'll give you a few grand. What's more, we'll find a role for you (because you actually haven't got the skill set to be a Year Head).

I'll give you my perspective of a previous school, the one I mentioned above: Dublin school, enrolment of 650. Exam coordinator was an A post, because, quite frankly, it was created for them. Next A post holder was 6th Year Head (fine, by the way, and they did an excellent job). Next A post holder was Health and Safety - they coordinated fire drills twice a year. Now, I'm all or workplace and student Health and Safety, but there is no way that is worth the level of pay of an A post. By the way, also created for them because they were 'next in line'.

Now, not all schools may have had that negative experience, but at least the new system has the potential to root that nonsense out.

acequion wrote: »

As for fairness in terms of LPTs, there is no fairness there because of pay apartheid. And as long as that continues LPTs have no business getting worked up over anything else.

I work with staff now who are LPT's. They are quite entitled to get worked up over this.

SligoBrewer

dory wrote: »

I'm confused by this. Why is it only 2011 to 2015 LPTs? What have 2016/17/18 LPTs got that the other don't?

50 grand

acequion

Studentblogger wrote: »

Precisely. It's not just about pay equality; it's also about equality of opportunity.

Why in the name of God should a younger teacher have to 'wait' for a post? Why not compete for it and base the decision on merit?



That's absolutely fine. But are you really suggesting that, in a hypothetical situation in your school, an A post holder's role as the exam coordinator is commensurate with that level of pay, while a B post holder is a Year Head, in the context of a school that size?



Everyone may have got that turn, but what about people got a post just to get a post - because it was their turn.
What sort of nonsense is that? "Oh, it's your turn, so we'll give you a few grand. What's more, we'll find a role for you (because you actually haven't got the skill set to be a Year Head).

I'll give you my perspective of a previous school, the one I mentioned above: Dublin school, enrolment of 650. Exam coordinator was an A post, because, quite frankly, it was created for them. Next A post holder was 6th Year Head (fine, by the way, and they did an excellent job). Next A post holder was Health and Safety - they coordinated fire drills twice a year. Now, I'm all or workplace and student Health and Safety, but there is no way that is worth the level of pay of an A post. By the way, also created for them because they were 'next in line'.

Now, not all schools may have had that negative experience, but at least the new system has the potential to root that nonsense out.



I work with staff now who are LPT's. They are quite entitled to get worked up over this.

I'm not going to get into an argument with you about different schools, different posts and whether you think they're fair or not fair. Personally I was never interested in a post, I have always only wanted to teach.

I don't think you should call the old system "nonsense." It worked and it worked for many decades and re the bit from your post which I've emboldened above, competition pits people against each other and competition breeds a win at all costs mentality. That might all be fine in other work places but not in education where the priority is or should be the students. In schools, collegiality is vital and the new system is seriously undermining that.

As for your last comment, I never said that LPTs are not entitled to get worked up about things. But in my opinion their main focus should be on the fight for pay equality because nothing is right or fair while there is a two tier pay scale.

Now can we put this argument to bed please and agree to disagree.

SligoBrewer

Posts of Responsibility aren't on the radar of the vast majority of LPTs.

dory

Just spoke to all LPTs in my school and none have a clue, haven't even looked into it. They want me to tell them what's in it for them.

We're having an ASTI meeting in school Thursday to discuss what the LPTs would like (we'll mention pension levy as well). Seems a lot want this small increment. They know it's that or nothing unless we're striking.

EDIT : I'm doing a lot of reading here, are we only voting on LPT pay? I thought back along someone said we were totally accepting the PSSA with this ballot. So pension levy and the whole shebang?

deiseindublin

Yes, we're voting on Pension levy also.

If we accept this, it will actually be teachers themselves agreeing to 2-tier pay going forward and permanent pension levy going forward.

dory

deiseindublin wrote: »

Yes, we're voting on Pension levy also.

If we accept this, it will actually be teachers themselves agreeing to 2-tier pay going forward and permanent pension levy going forward.

But is there not something somewhere that pay equality will happen by 2021/2022 either way? I'm only asking as I'm being asked in work so would like to know all the facts.

solerina

Very clever really, increase the LPTs pay while taking away more than enough to cover it via the pension levy.
It also puts LPTs against longer serving teachers....vote to improve LPTs pay while at the same time voting to a permanent loss of a considerable amount of money via the pension levy through which all of us lose !!

Sir123

dory wrote: »

But is there not something somewhere that pay equality will happen by 2021/2022 either way? I'm only asking as I'm being asked in work so would like to know all the facts.

Nope, not to my knowledge and it never will if this "deal" passes.

Pension Levy & Croke Park hours also here to stay until 2021. Yet again, the government know we are push overs and both pension levy and Croke Park hours will be here to stay indefinitely unless we make some noise. Make sure you inform your staff of this.

deiseindublin

The starting at point 3 isn't coming back, neither is HDip/MA allowance so will never be parity if this is a YES.

dory

Thanks for feedback y'all. We'll discuss all this on Thursday. I'll be voting no anyway.

It's interesting that the unions choose now as the time to demand pay equality and back pay.

Why did they not choose this course of action while Ajay Chopra and his IMF buddies were walking the streets of Dublin every three months?

Worried that rocking the boat too much could attract IMF-lead demands on further decreases in pay for teachers at that time? Where was the calls (and action) for equality then?

And now, with the inferior pensions new entrants have (where they will probably pay in more than they will receive), why is this not mentioned in the latest demands? Makes the shout for equality ring very hollow.


Regarding the pension levy, what shouldn't it become permanent? Ireland will undergo a dramatic shift in demographics in the coming years. This will be costing extra. So the pension levy is a contribution to that extra cost. I hope there is no implication on behalf of teachers is that someone else carry the additional cost?

It's no one's fault per say, but everyone is going to be paying extra.

evolving_doors

Honestly Salonfire, if you think it's "it's interesting that the unions choose now as the time to demand pay equality and back pay." Then you need to find a new interest.

Cut the flamebaiting or you're out.

Poster warned under charter: Keep it Civil (para. 2) and Get your facts right

Mod

evolving_doors

Thread open again. Any attempts to derail thread will result in ban. E.g. public vs. Private sector, starting salary figures based on permanent full time posts etc.

Mod

wirelessdude01

Will the INMO rejection have any impact of us in the education sector? Maybe make us a little more brave perhaps?

Sir123

wirelessdude01 wrote: »

Will the INMO rejection have any impact of us in the education sector? Maybe make us a little more brave perhaps?

I sure hope so. If Education and Health sectors have both rejected, then surely they have to go back to the drawing board regarding pay equality and provide a quicker mechanism to achieve that.

The lack of commitment from government is shocking. I know pay equality won't happen over night, per say, however a commitment from government is needed and we have never actually received that at all.

If they told us that a 1) the common basic scale and 2) allowances, would be restored over a two year period, I could live with that, and I think other LPTs could too.

However as we have seen, a Fine Gael majority government would never and have never given us their word. 8 years later and we're still fighting for pay equality.... cringe.......

evolving_doors

Sir123 wrote: »

I sure hope so. If Education and Health sectors have both rejected, then surely they have to go back to the drawing board regarding pay equality and provide a quicker mechanism to achieve that.

The lack of commitment from government is shocking. I know pay equality won't happen over night, per say, however a commitment from government is needed and we have never actually received that at all.

If they told us that a 1) the common basic scale and 2) allowances, would be restored over a two year period, I could live with that, and I think other LPTs could too.

However as we have seen, a Fine Gael majority government would never and have never given us their word. 8 years later and we're still fighting for pay equality.... cringe.......

I think the govt. has zero qualms about kicking to touch. And as per usual they'd be looking for concessions with lamb dressed as mutton.
Start work at 8 finish at 5, always be on call on the premises, new Leaving Cycle, June/August erosion.

Just scrap the whole pay equality dance and look for a new common payscale alltogether.

deiseindublin

Any feedback on schools that have voted already? We voted during the week and I'd say it was 95% NO. Only 2 or 3 I could be pretty sure voted YES but I don't think they even read the ballots, just nod along to any meagre offering.

Icsics

Ironically I think the LPTs will vote for this, with a 'sure it's better than nothing' attitude. I'm a NO but see it as a further deterioration in our conditions. TUI & INTO due end of week

Millem

Icsics wrote: »

Ironically I think the LPTs will vote for this, with a 'sure it's better than nothing' attitude. I'm a NO but see it as a further deterioration in our conditions. TUI & INTO due end of week

I am TUI and voted no....found out after the teachers in my school on the new payscale voted YES!! They all sit together and basically said to me they wanted increase in wages now. In my school the teachers on the old pay scale all seemed to vote no.

deiseindublin

Icsics wrote: »

Ironically I think the LPTs will vote for this, with a 'sure it's better than nothing' attitude. I'm a NO but see it as a further deterioration in our conditions. TUI & INTO due end of week

Tbh, I wish everyone would vote with their conscience and ignore what others are doing.

I'm not saying it's here but I suspect a few people I know are saying "ah shur, the LPTs will take this anyway after all our fighting for them" to absolve themselves of any guilt while voting YES.

I voted NO to stop the eternal decimation of my career, any maybe my childrens career. It's getting to the stage, similar to US, where teaching does not give a wage that can be depended on without a second job for every teacher.

Sir123

I hope it's a NO. It looks like ASTI will be waiting until after the midterm to ballot members.
How the TUI and INTO vote will have an influence at the end of the day on ASTI.

Social media highlighting a majority of LPTs voting NO out of a current survey of approximately 1000 people. I hope this is translated overwhelmingly to a rejection this week for TUI and INTO.

I don't think we will be repudiating anything as ASTI if we vote NO to this. I know some people were worried about this but we have been complying with Croke Park Hours etc, and strikes have been halted over a year now. Just because we haven't signed up to PSSA doesn't mean we have/will repudiate the agreement. If we strike or withdraw from Croke Park Hours then yes that would be a different story.

I will definitely be voting NO and I will be waiting anxiously for TUI and INTO to do us proud next week.

acequion

Didn't know about the survey but it's good to hear. And good to hear about teachers in the first two unions out,voting No.

Hard to call it though. I've gotten in touch with loads of friends /contacts in INTO. And what I'm hearing is that older teachers are going with No,LPTs are going with Yes.Any one on here INTO who can fill us in?

Some of those LPTs would badly want to wake up and look long term and also ask themselves what they're doing in a trade union!

But there's no doubt that the TUI and INTO result will really influence ASTI voters.

So fingers tightly crossed!

r93kaey5p2izun

I've been hearing the complete opposite from INTO members. That the Glór group of LPTs has been leading a strong No campaign with all the wear yellow LPT equality days. But that the union itself is selling a Yes. At a TUI meeting we were told that INTO want a Yes and that the deal is a better proposal for primary teachers because they only ever started on point 2 of the scale instead of point 3 and they didn't have a Hdip allowance. We were told it will be "only" a difference of €60 per pay cheque for them so their leaders see it as a good deal!

coillsaille

Sir123 wrote: »

I don't think we will be repudiating anything as ASTI if we vote NO to this. I know some people were worried about this but we have been complying with Croke Park Hours etc, and strikes have been halted over a year now. Just because we haven't signed up to PSSA doesn't mean we have/will repudiate the agreement. If we strike or withdraw from Croke Park Hours then yes that would be a different story..

Just wondering, If we (ASTI) vote yes (hopefully not) does that mean we are signing up to the PSSA?