Can someone explain this story

Donald Trump

Hi all,


I saw this story in independent.ie:

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/education/i-would-be-30000-better-off-if-id-qualified-a-year-earlier-its-a-bitter-pill-to-swallow-38037434.html


I was somewhat aware that the starting points changed (although I thought that was in 2010 as I had a friend that entered into the HSE literally a few days after the changeover and that would have been around Jan 2010).


I was wondering about claims she would have had 30k more now had she qualified a year earlier.


Because she also talks about only only working part time (at least initially), and then obviously you would have to take tax into account. So to have 30k now she must have had to have actual income of, say, 50k or more compared to what she actually had. Was there really a gap of 10k+ a year between nominal salaries of new graduates and those that started a year earlier? What would that work out as? like 12-15 Euro an hour per contact hour or something like that (just very rough back-of-envelope.....and I don't know how many contact hours is a full week. guess low 20's for maybe ~36 weeks or something.)




I'm not saying X doesn't deserve Y. Not saying one way or the other. Just wondering if the nominal discrepancy was in fact that big.

Monotype

33,041+1,236+4,918=39,195
Assuming Honours degree.
Source:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120108035446/http://www.asti.ie/pay-and-conditions/pay/salary-scale/salary-scale-for-teachers-appointed-prior-to-january-2011/

vs

€30,702
https://www.education.ie/en/Circulars-and-Forms/Active-Circulars/cl0008_2013.pdf


Starting difference of €8,493, gross.

Edit: Since she had a masters, that's actually +578, so €9,071 of a difference.

Donald Trump

Monotype wrote: »

33,041+1,236+4,918=39,195
Assuming Honours degree.
Source:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120108035446/http://www.asti.ie/pay-and-conditions/pay/salary-scale/salary-scale-for-teachers-appointed-prior-to-january-2011/

vs

€30,702
https://www.education.ie/en/Circulars-and-Forms/Active-Circulars/cl0008_2013.pdf


Starting difference of €8,493, gross.

Edit: Since she had a masters, that's actually +578, so €9,071 of a difference.

Thanks. I was confused as same article mentioned a 10% decrease so my guess is that either the article is wrong on that or there were additional allowances which were removed (and not included in the 10%). I will read through your links again!

Donald Trump

Sorry for one additional very basic question.

Would it be correct that those allowances were not cumulative? I see from your post that you added only 578 for the MSc on top of the primary degree. But it looks like you added 1,236 for a HDip. It doesn't say in the article that she had one. If someone had an Masters and a PhD for example, could they have gotten two allowances, or if you had two Masters.
(I see that an M.Sc. by thesis would be the same as only having a primary honours degree. That would be a pain in the arse.)


Still the article also quotes 27k which is listed in your link as the unqualified rate. So I would think that she does not have a HDip. That brings you back down to roughly 7800 difference.


She might be close enough to the 30k if her period of working 8 hours a week was only very brief, but even then, I think she might be exaggerating a bit!

Inspector Coptoor

You can have one of Degree, Masters or PhD.
Degree is worth just short of €5k, Masters €5.5k, PhD €6k.

One supercedes the other so you you get the one with the highest number associated with it.

Donald Trump

Inspector Coptoor wrote: »

You can have one of Degree, Masters or PhD.
Degree is worth just short of €5k, Masters €5.5k, PhD €6k.

One supercedes the other so you you get the one with the highest number associated with it.

But crappy though for a research Masters not to give you anything above a primary degree.....given that other things do. Well the HDip does at least.


I would imagine that the average person who started pre-2010 had an undergraduate degree and a HDip. And if the bottom of the scale at the time was the now point 3 that would mean they were starting on over 39k for a job with nice long holidays. Good enough deal when you compare it to the likes of engineers who would be coming out and starting on a fair bit less than that for a longer week and a lot more weeks on the job.


One last question. What is "unqualified"? Does it mean someone with no degree at all?

evolving_doors

It's a bit unclear, but I'm assuming she graduated from the Hdip pre 2012 cut off (PDE, BEd or whatever it was called) but as she hadn't started earning from the dept. (Cos of masters) she was kicked into post 2012 payscale.

Donald Trump

evolving_doors wrote: »

It's a bit unclear, but I'm assuming she graduated from the Hdip pre 2012 cut off (PDE, BEd or whatever it was called) but as she hadn't started earning from the dept. (Cos of masters) she was kicked into post 2012 payscale.

It could just be a badly written article. I was trying to figure it out when I read it but it didn't appear consistent. Not blaming her - I'd say it's the journalist.

evolving_doors

Donald Trump wrote: »

But crappy though for a research Masters not to give you anything above a primary degree.....given that other things do. Well the HDip does at least.


I would imagine that the average person who started pre-2010 had an undergraduate degree and a HDip. And if the bottom of the scale at the time was the now point 3 that would mean they were starting on over 39k for a job with nice long holidays. Good enough deal when you compare it to the likes of engineers who would be coming out and starting on a fair bit less than that for a longer week and a lot more weeks on the job.


One last question. What is "unqualified"? Does it mean someone with no degree at all?

Shur look at this hairdresser guy getting paid buckets to do Kim's hair, I think us Teachers and Engineers missed a trick there..... and the fella had no college at all.

https://www.her.ie/celeb/turns-hairdresser-styles-kardashians-hair-irish-388328

Donald Trump

But what is the "unqualified" rate for? Is it a legacy thing from when people might not have needed to have any qualifications to be a teacher? Or does it just mean an non-education-specific qualification?

mtoutlemonde

Donald Trump wrote: »

But what is the "unqualified" rate for? Is it a legacy thing from when people might not have needed to have any qualifications to be a teacher? Or does it just mean an non-education-specific qualification?

Well the ETBs make full use of the unqualified rate if you're subbing or get part time hours which you are not registered to teach e.g. I have a contract as an English teacher but there are three maths classes that have no teacher, if I were deemed suitable enough to teach these classes, I would be paid unqualified for that.

With regards the department, you would get the unqualified rate if you were subbing but that is a PME/someone on TP. Also if you register for further education and work in post primary, you are unqualified.

It's a strange article but the one positive thing that it says, she only had 8 hours in her first contract and although it did quote her full pay it says she would only get a fraction of that. It's time people actually knew how long and how difficult it is to find work/survive on a teacher's 'big' salary.

Donald Trump

mtoutlemonde wrote: »

Well the ETBs make full use of the unqualified rate if you're subbing or get part time hours which you are not registered to teach e.g. I have a contract as an English teacher but there are three maths classes that have no teacher, if I were deemed suitable enough to teach these classes, I would be paid unqualified for that.

With regards the department, you would get the unqualified rate if you were subbing but that is a PME/someone on TP. Also if you register for further education and work in post primary, you are unqualified.

I had to google your acronyms. Not a teacher so didn't have a clue.


So you register as a teacher of subject X. Then if you teach subject Y you are "unqualified"? Or at least if you are subbing or temporary? Is that right? In your own case, what stops you from registering as a maths teacher as well?

mtoutlemonde wrote: »

It's a strange article but the one positive thing that it says, she only had 8 hours in her first contract and although it did quote her full pay it says she would only get a fraction of that. It's time people actually knew how long and how difficult it is to find work/survive on a teacher's 'big' salary.

Well on the other hand some people would look at it (as I did) and think "Pat qualified before the changes. Mary qualified after the changes. Both work for 8 hours a week. Pat takes home 5k a year more than May because she is on a better contract" and conclude that Pat is onto a good thing!



Because my initial thing was, if she was only working one third of a full teachers week (am I about right with that?), then imagine the difference had she been working a full quota. You'd have been talking an extra 90k into the pocket.....

mtoutlemonde

Donald Trump wrote: »

I had to google your acronyms. Not a teacher so didn't have a clue.

Apologies. Education and Training Boards formerly VEC ... they ran the local 'tech's

Donald Trump wrote:

So you register as a teacher of subject X. Then if you teach subject Y you are "unqualified"? Or at least if you are subbing or temporary? Is that right? In your own case, what stops you from registering as a maths teacher as well?

That's how it works with ETBs or it used to - it was/is money saving. This doesn't happen with the Department unless you're a student teacher.

Registration of subjects is decided upon by the Teaching Council who set the requirements to teach a subject. It used to be 54 ECTS (now 60 I believe) and depending on your subject, other criteria e.g. if a language teacher, you must spend x amount of time in the country and study x,y and a literature etc.

Now taking the example above, the Teaching Council only ensures that teachers have met the requirements and leave it up to each school individually to decide who teaches what. In that example, the English teacher may have studied maths in their first/second year of their degree so would be well able for a first/second year maths class. A school may slot them in there temporarily but would probably still advertise the job. Also that teacher would not be interviewed for those hours.

Donald Trump wrote: »

Well on the other hand some people would look at it (as I did) and think "Pat qualified before the changes. Mary qualified after the changes. Both work for 8 hours a week. Pat takes home 5k a year more than May because she is on a better contract" and conclude that Pat is onto a good thing!

Yes for sure. That is what the ASTI have been fighting for 'Equal pay for equal work'.

[ QUOTE=Donald Trump;109999634]
Because my initial thing was, if she was only working one third of a full teachers week (am I about right with that?), then imagine the difference had she been working a full quota. You'd have been talking an extra 90k into the pocket.....[/QUOTE]

Yes again as above. I hold my allowances and sometimes look at my payslip and wonder how the teachers who came after me survive. This would be one of the reasons why I would discourage anyone from going into teaching. Now saying that if I were to start again I would still choose teaching as I love the job even with all the changes that have occurred in the past ten years.

I hope that makes sense.

Donald Trump

Thanks very much for the post. Very informative. One thing I'd just like to ask about as I might have a misconception on this:

mtoutlemonde wrote: »

Yes for sure. That is what the ASTI have been fighting for 'Equal pay for equal work'.

It was my understanding that at the time cuts were imposed on the public sector, that the Unions didn't really care about the people coming in and were happy to see them shafted as long as the people already there were mainly protected.


I was not in the public sector, but that was what I had gathered.


And if that is true, I would imagine that as ~10 years have now passed and a lot of older teachers have retired, and that the "new entrants" who were given proper contracts in those 10 years would now constitute a sizeable portion of their (potential) membership.


Is it also true that some public sector workers got some things back but that some did not because their unions refused to accept them? Is that what the girl in the article is alluding to towards the end. I think she mentions there being a differential there somewhere. But was that the reason or am I wrong on that


Oh, and on the "equal pay for equal work", I'm not trying to drag things off on a tangent but you can happily have two teachers teaching identical subjects and identical hours etc. for a year and get different pay because one has been employed for say 10 years longer.....even though both do the same work!

mtoutlemonde

Donald Trump wrote: »

Thanks very much for the post. Very informative. One thing I'd just like to ask about as I might have a misconception on this:






It was my understanding that at the time cuts were imposed on the public sector, that the Unions didn't really care about the people coming in and were happy to see them shafted as long as the people already there were mainly protected.


I was not in the public sector, but that was what I had gathered.


And if that is true, I would imagine that as ~10 years have now passed and a lot of older teachers have retired, and that the "new entrants" who were given proper contracts in those 10 years would now constitute a sizeable portion of their (potential) membership.


Is it also true that some public sector workers got some things back but that some did not because their unions refused to accept them? Is that what the girl in the article is alluding to towards the end. I think she mentions there being a differential there somewhere. But was that the reason or am I wrong on that


Oh, and on the "equal pay for equal work", I'm not trying to drag things off on a tangent but you can happily have two teachers teaching identical subjects and identical hours etc. for a year and get different pay because one has been employed for say 10 years longer.....even though both do the same work!

The ASTI had strike days two years ago and it was under the equal pay for equal work umbrella. The ASTI have been forefront in the above for a long time now. We would still be fighting it but a certain individual and cronies called an EGM with support from the members to accept what was on the table.

When we were out on strike, the other two unions were happily accepting everything that came their way. As a result, the INTO balloted for industrial action but have yet to do anything. ASTI have also voted on industrial action but are waiting for the other union to jump first as we did two years ago and are down an increment as a result. TUI accept everything going so u won't even go there. So your inference about the old members shafting the new is false.

Teachers have always been paid differently that is a fact of life. Teachers are paid on an incremental basis so two teachers side by side teaching the same subject and hours will be different and could be considerably so e.g. teacher on top of scale vs teacher point 3 but that point 3 teacher will reach 25 aswell someday.

evolving_doors

Donald Trump wrote: »

Thanks very much for the post. Very informative. One thing I'd just like to ask about as I might have a misconception on this:






It was my understanding that at the time cuts were imposed on the public sector, that the Unions didn't really care about the people coming in and were happy to see them shafted as long as the people already there were mainly protected.


I was not in the public sector, but that was what I had gathered.


And if that is true, I would imagine that as ~10 years have now passed and a lot of older teachers have retired, and that the "new entrants" who were given proper contracts in those 10 years would now constitute a sizeable portion of their (potential) membership.


Is it also true that some public sector workers got some things back but that some did not because their unions refused to accept them? Is that what the girl in the article is alluding to towards the end. I think she mentions there being a differential there somewhere. But was that the reason or am I wrong on that


Oh, and on the "equal pay for equal work", I'm not trying to drag things off on a tangent but you can happily have two teachers teaching identical subjects and identical hours etc. for a year and get different pay because one has been employed for say 10 years longer.....even though both do the same work!

The old chestnut of 'senior teachers shafting younger members'. It's good you're asking these questions... so sit down there now and I'll tell you a true story Don.
During recession all teachers signed up to an agreement which forbade industrial action... Fair enough... but then on the floor of the Dáil the new entrants bill was introduced without any union consultation or vote... but you might be pleasantly surprised to hear that the ASTI took action (and suffered further paycuts) in defence of these teachers and in protest at certain aspects of the new junior cycle reform.

On the equal pay for equal work thing you have to take the cumulative effect. So over the lifetime of 2 teachers one year apart (pre and post 2012) the loss runs into tens of thousands. It might seem relatively small by year 1 when you'll take any hours going and won't complain.... but by year 6 you can really feel the divergence, as is the example of that teacher.
And don't forget that's coupled with a new 'career average' pension which if you've just been working part time hours for years (as many do at the start), then that average significantly reduces your pension. So the days of the 'so called' gold plated pension are gone.
And triple that with.... that the inability to get a mortgage in certain areas of the country, you won't have a mortgage paid off when you retire or when kids hit college.

I know it's probably the same issue with other professions in Dublin etc. but if you want your kids to have a teacher then taking up the mantra of 'find another job somewhere else' is obviously just biting off your nose to spite your face.

People need to look at the cohort of teachers who are complaining at the situation. It doesn't impact on me that much if my school can't get an Irish or home ec. teacher but for the greater good ill moan and complain. It's nothing got to do with increasing my pay as I'm pre 2012 (But still had cuts too).

Donald Trump

evolving_doors wrote: »

The old chestnut of 'senior teachers shafting younger members'. It's good you're asking these questions... so sit down there now and I'll tell you a true story Don.
During recession all teachers signed up to an agreement which forbade industrial action... Fair enough... but then on the floor of the Dáil the new entrants bill was introduced without any union consultation or vote... but you might be pleasantly surprised to hear that the ASTI took action (and suffered further paycuts) in defence of these teachers and in protest at certain aspects of the new junior cycle reform.

Is this the action you refer to? https://www.asti.ie/news/campaigns/junior-cycle-campaign/ . Says Sept 2015.



This link says they went on strike in 2016
https://www.asti.ie/news/campaigns/post-2010-entrants-pay/


Did they protest in 2009/2010? Genuine question

mtoutlemonde

Donald Trump wrote: »

Is this the action you refer to? https://www.asti.ie/news/campaigns/junior-cycle-campaign/ . Says Sept 2015.



This link says they went on strike in 2016
https://www.asti.ie/news/campaigns/post-2010-entrants-pay/


Did they protest in 2009/2010? Genuine question

If anything it was the younger teachers joining TUI in their droves. Now there was a reason, if applying for a CID (Contract of Indefinite Duration), TUI could get it in two years as opposed to four with ASTI. Just to add, I wonder did any ASTI teachers get their CIDs after two years? I don't think I heard of any legal action.

evolving_doors

Donald Trump wrote: »

Is this the action you refer to? https://www.asti.ie/news/campaigns/junior-cycle-campaign/ . Says Sept 2015.



This link says they went on strike in 2016
https://www.asti.ie/news/campaigns/post-2010-entrants-pay/


Did they protest in 2009/2010? Genuine question

Genuine answer... there's been so much industrial action I can't recall everything...

But to start you off on your genuine quest, have a look at this boards thread 10 years ago for first bout of protests in 2009..

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2055506464/1

Pay close attention to post no.2

I thought teachers were supposed to be intelligent. They will have zero support for this. What's the point in striking with the way things are at the moment? Patethic choice IMO.

If you want to go through each year you can input the year here and away ya go... https://www.asti.ie/news/media-centre/press-releases/

Donald Trump

evolving_doors wrote: »

Genuine answer... there's been so much industrial action I can't recall everything...

But to start you off on your genuine quest, have a look at this boards thread 10 years ago for first bout of protests in 2009..

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2055506464/1

Pay close attention to post no.2


If you want to go through each year you can input the year here and away ya go... https://www.asti.ie/news/media-centre/press-releases/

But those protests in 2009 were about cuts that then current teachers were potentially facing.


They limited their own exposure to cuts and lumped it all down on new entrants. Pulling up the ladder so to speak. That's my interpretation.

I suppose that now that there has been 10 years of them (lets say 30% of teachers) it's a bit difficult now to ask for raises for the better paid class when they abandoned the low 30%. Unions know that the 30% now have to be lifted up before the rest of the can get another decent lift.


If I was a new entrant, I wouldn't be giving any of those unions my fees if I could help it. There were definitely strikes in 2008, at least in the primary sector. I had a friend who had a temporary job doing some kind of support/subbing. She wasn't a qualified teacher so was on a very low rate. But I remember her saying that union fees were taken out of her wages....but then when they went on strike, she didn't get paid because she wasn't full time staff.

spurious

I never got paid when on strike. I don't know of anyone who did.

If we give up on the unions we may throw our collective hats at it.

Donald Trump

spurious wrote: »

I never got paid when on strike. I don't know of anyone who did.

If we give up on the unions we may throw our collective hats at it.

Union called the strike. Teachers went on strike.
Full time teachers were paid. Perhaps by the government or maybe as back pay eventually as part of a deal. That was what I understood. My friend lost out but was certain the full-timers didn't. But she was only doing it for a year or so. She's not a teacher. So I could have it wrong.



You've always lost out a day's pay when you went on strike and never got it back? Is that true?

Inspector Coptoor

Donald Trump wrote: »

Union called the strike. Teachers went on strike.
Full time teachers were paid. Perhaps by the government or maybe as back pay eventually as part of a deal. That was what I understood. My friend lost out but was certain the full-timers didn't. But she was only doing it for a year or so. She's not a teacher. So I could have it wrong.



You've always lost out a day's pay when you went on strike and never got it back? Is that true?

Yes

That’s how striking works

Donald Trump

Inspector Coptoor wrote: »

Yes

That’s how striking works

Fake news I suppose then

Inspector Coptoor

Donald Trump wrote: »

Fake news I suppose then

Teachers who went on strike & picketed weren’t paid.

Those that weren’t in a union and didn’t picket got paid.

86% didn’t get paid.

It’s not that hard to follow.

Fake Tan getting to your brain?

Donald Trump

Inspector Coptoor wrote: »

Teachers who went on strike & picketed weren’t paid.

Those that weren’t in a union and didn’t picket got paid.

86% didn’t get paid.

It’s not that hard to follow.

Fake Tan getting to your brain?

Sure go on strike all you want. You do still get paid at least partially when you go on strike. I think that it should be pro-rated properly. I'd say that would soften a lot of coughs. Strike for a day and lose 1/167 of your annual salary, not 1/360 . That fair. On a 40k wage drop 240 a day rather than 110 which would be currently done. (From the links/info I have looked at, if a teacher went on strike every working day for a full academic year, they would still receive 53.6% of their annual salary...despite not working at all)



Teachers were well able to strike and threaten to strike when there was danger of more money being taken out of their own pockets. When they were able to put the burden of those cuts on those who hadn't managed to get onto the ladder before it was pulled up, the number of &$%^s given was zero. "I'm alright Jack"






I used to do a bit of lecturing part time. I wasn't doing it strictly for the money but was getting the going rate and I thought it was decent enough. Looking at the hourly rate a 23 year old with a HDip would have been getting at the time, the rate per contact hour was about the same (The teacher would have been getting a fraction more!). Bit mad that they'd have been whinging about it.

Inspector Coptoor

Donald Trump wrote: »

Sure go on strike all you want. You do still get paid at least partially when you go on strike. I think that it should be pro-rated properly. I'd say that would soften a lot of coughs. Strike for a day and lose 1/167 of your annual salary, not 1/360 . That fair. On a 40k wage drop 240 a day rather than 110 which would be currently done. (From the links/info I have looked at, if a teacher went on strike every working day for a full academic year, they would still receive 53.6% of their annual salary...despite not working at all)



Teachers were well able to strike and threaten to strike when there was danger of more money being taken out of their own pockets. When they were able to put the burden of those cuts on those who hadn't managed to get onto the ladder before it was pulled up, the number of &$%^s given was zero. "I'm alright Jack"






I used to do a bit of lecturing part time. I wasn't doing it strictly for the money but was getting the going rate and I thought it was decent enough. Looking at the hourly rate a 23 year old with a HDip would have been getting at the time, the rate per contact hour was about the same (The teacher would have been getting a fraction more!). Bit mad that they'd have been whinging about it.

You’re showing you’re true colors now.

Cherry picking the bits you like and don’t like to make a “point”.

I’m now finished engaging with you.

Donald Trump

Inspector Coptoor wrote: »

You’re showing you’re true colors now.

Cherry picking the bits you like and don’t like to make a “point”.

I’m now finished engaging with you.

Hard to deal with facts I suppose.




Actually, to modify my story above, a 22 year old with just an undergraduate degree would have been getting a better per-contact-hour rate than we would have been getting for lecturing. And I thought we we getting decent enough money. Mad when you think about it.


I still don't think it's fair that the new entrants get relatively less. But I blame the Unions and existing old teachers for going along with that. I gather from what I read that two lower starting increments were introduced and the allowances were removed. Maybe they could have agreed for only one lower increment to be introduced and for all teachers to be shifted down one increment and the allowances to remain. I'm sure that would have saved even more. So maybe they new increment would only have had to be a small decrease for the new starters.

spurious

Donald Trump wrote: »

You've always lost out a day's pay when you went on strike and never got it back? Is that true?

Yes and every single day (and half day) was taken into account for my pension.

Donald Trump

spurious wrote: »

Yes and every single day (and half day) was taken into account for my pension.

Ok. That's fair enough. I was wrong on that. My friend had told me years ago that she was getting fecked over because she was forced to go on strike and she got nothing but the rest of them did.



So maybe she told me wrong or I took her up wrong. I never went on strike so I don't know. I had thought that it was common enough that if an agreement was reached, that pay would be given retrospectively for the days missed as part of the deal.

After the new entrants pay was cut and the IMF were running the country, there was little noise from the unions as compared to now.

Once the economy picked up and the number of new entrants grows, the higher up the agenda it becomes.


Exact same thing is happening today with the new pension scheme. It is terrible value to those post 2013. But because it is not impacting anyone now, there is little action taken on it.

That will be kept quiet for now to allow pushes for more general pay increases. Down the line, once more of the post 2013 recruits retire will it become a big issue just like lower starting salaries are now.

Sir123

mtoutlemonde wrote: »

If anything it was the younger teachers joining TUI in their droves. Now there was a reason, if applying for a CID (Contract of Indefinite Duration), TUI could get it in two years as opposed to four with ASTI. Just to add, I wonder did any ASTI teachers get their CIDs after two years? I don't think I heard of any legal action.

Yes they did after those hooligans on the hooligan bus voted to overturn our campaign at special convention. CIDs were then backdated as we had sold ourselves out to government. Also many older teachers joined TUI, with whole schools even leaving, a mixture of old, middle age and young staff. I hate being ageist here in my comment.

Sir123

salonfire wrote: »

After the new entrants pay was cut and the IMF were running the country, there was little noise from the unions as compared to now.

Once the economy picked up and the number of new entrants grows, the higher up the agenda it becomes.


Exact same thing is happening today with the new pension scheme. It is terrible value to those post 2013. But because it is not impacting anyone now, there is little action taken on it.

That will be kept quiet for now to allow pushes for more general pay increases. Down the line, once more of the post 2013 recruits retire will it become a big issue just like lower starting salaries are now.

You are so right! The pension is such a big problem and rates of superannuation paid by the teacher post 2013 is still the same as those pre 2013, so unfair. Although ASC is slightly lower, us post 2013 teachers shouldn't even be paying it imo.

I think the pension issue needs to be highlighted more. Equal pay first I think is on the agenda by unions etc and then we should be working from there. Although, doing both simultaneously would bring light to the issue more rapidly than currently being done. It's a double whammy for some of us.

mtoutlemonde

Sir123 wrote: »

Yes they did after those hooligans on the hooligan bus voted to overturn our campaign at special convention. CIDs were then backdated as we had sold ourselves out to government. Also many older teachers joined TUI, with whole schools even leaving, a mixture of old, middle age and young staff. I hate being ageist here in my comment.

Yes and I think of that crowd everyday I have to attend JCT training days and SLARs. To think one of those individuals still thinks they have a chance at becoming VP is ludicrous.

Yes it wasn't only the young that left but had to answer the point that the old teachers sold out the younger ones. Have heard of teachers changing close to retirement.

The school I was working in that year was almost all TUI with management and young teachers on second RPT contracts changing from ASTI to TUI.

evolving_doors

salonfire wrote: »

After the new entrants pay was cut and the IMF were running the country, there was little noise from the unions as compared to now.

Once the economy picked up and the number of new entrants grows, the higher up the agenda it becomes.


Exact same thing is happening today with the new pension scheme. It is terrible value to those post 2013. But because it is not impacting anyone now, there is little action taken on it.

That will be kept quiet for now to allow pushes for more general pay increases. Down the line, once more of the post 2013 recruits retire will it become a big issue just like lower starting salaries are now.

So what do you recommend teachers do. Would you support an industrial action maybe?

evolving_doors

Donald Trump wrote: »

Ok. That's fair enough. I was wrong on that. My friend had told me years ago that she was getting fecked over because she was forced to go on strike and she got nothing but the rest of them did.

What did they get that she didn't get exactly?

evolving_doors

Donald Trump wrote: »

Hard to deal with facts I suppose.




Actually, to modify my story above, a 22 year old with just an undergraduate degree would have been getting a better per-contact-hour rate than we would have been getting for lecturing. And I thought we we getting decent enough money. Mad when you think about it.


I still don't think it's fair that the new entrants get relatively less. But I blame the Unions and existing old teachers for going along with that. I gather from what I read that two lower starting increments were introduced and the allowances were removed. Maybe they could have agreed for only one lower increment to be introduced and for all teachers to be shifted down one increment and the allowances to remain. I'm sure that would have saved even more. So maybe they new increment would only have had to be a small decrease for the new starters.

Introduced on the floor of the Dáil, keep up Donald. This was covered in yesterday's class.

Geuze

Donald Trump wrote: »

Ok. That's fair enough. I was wrong on that. My friend had told me years ago that she was getting fecked over because she was forced to go on strike and she got nothing but the rest of them did.

Workers on strike do not get paid by their employer.

In the PS, records are kept, and your pension will be reduced by that day(s) of lost service.

Geuze

If the issue of new entrants to teaching on 10% less pay is to be dealt with, how come all the other PS who have started on 10% less aren't been mentioned?

Donald Trump

evolving_doors wrote: »

Introduced on the floor of the Dáil, keep up Donald. This was covered in yesterday's class.

Well you are very naive if you think these things aren't floated before being raised. There is life outside the nice bubble of 33 22-hour working weeks . There was a reason why the then teachers kicked off and went on strike in 2009. Unions met with government/public sector management and hey-presto, it turned out that existing staff were protected at the expense of incoming staff. And there were no more strikes on that matter......... Happy to threaten strikes later on though when changes were proposed to the Junior Cert and the old teachers wanted to use that to try to get a few more quid for themselves!

Donald Trump

Geuze wrote: »

Workers on strike do not get paid by their employer.

In the PS, records are kept, and your pension will be reduced by that day(s) of lost service.

I had thought that it was not unusual for those lost days to be returned as part of a deal if a deal is reached. But apparently that has never happened!






And that ignores the fact that they still do get partially paid. I pointed out above that this is over 50%.



I'll break down my work . One ASTI document I saw say that secondary teachers work 167 days a year. Another said that when on strike they are deducted 1/30th of their monthly wage i.e. 1/360th of a year.



Given that the argument is given (when it comes to questions about correcting exams etc.) that teachers are not on holiday during the summer - but that the money they earn is just paid over 12 months - and that that is the reason why they can get paid extra to work by their employer during what would be normal business time in any other profession. Then I think that it is fair that if you don't do 1/167th of your work, then you miss out on 1/167th of your salary!

Donald Trump

Geuze wrote: »

If the issue of new entrants to teaching on 10% less pay is to be dealt with, how come all the other PS who have started on 10% less aren't been mentioned?

Busy working. I'd say most of the rest of them don't get a few weeks off for the Easter holidays.

evolving_doors

Donald Trump wrote: »

Well you are very naive if you think these things aren't floated before being raised. There is life outside the nice bubble of 33 22-hour working weeks . There was a reason why the then teachers kicked off and went on strike in 2009. Unions met with government/public sector management and hey-presto, it turned out that existing staff were protected at the expense of incoming staff. And there were no more strikes on that matter......... Happy to threaten strikes later on though when changes were proposed to the Junior Cert and the old teachers wanted to use that to try to get a few more quid for themselves!

How did older teachers get a few more quid from themselves out of the changes to the Junior Cert?

evolving_doors

Geuze wrote: »

If the issue of new entrants to teaching on 10% less pay is to be dealt with, how come all the other PS who have started on 10% less aren't been mentioned?

What, like the nurses, firefighters and the Gardai?

Donald Trump

evolving_doors wrote: »

How did older teachers get a few more quid from themselves out of the changes to the Junior Cert?

I didn't say that they did or didn't. All I know is that teachers threatened strike at the time.....whereas they didn't when the soon-to-be new entrants were to get shafted. They only kicked up when they thought they would be cut themselves, but once it was burdened onto new people, not a single $%#^ was given.


It is safe to assume that if there was a majority of people in favour of strike over JC reform, that older teachers were obviously also in favour of it!

evolving_doors

Donald Trump wrote: »

I didn't say that they did or didn't. All I know is that teachers threatened strike at the time.....whereas they didn't when the soon-to-be new entrants were to get shafted. They only kicked up when they thought they would be cut themselves, but once it was burdened onto new people, not a single $%#^ was given.


It is safe to assume that if there was a majority of people in favour of strike over JC reform, that older teachers were obviously also in favour of it!

Is that the new entrants bill which was introduced by the Dáil ?

Would you have supported a teachers strike back then?

I'm a bit confused as on the one hand you say the senior teachers get a cushy number but on the other hand you maintain that post 2013 teachers were shafted. Is what you're saying that teachers now aren't being paid enough?

Would you support a teachers strike now?

Donald Trump

evolving_doors wrote: »

Is that the new entrants bill which was introduced by the Dáil ?

Would you have supported a teachers strike back then?

No. But they did strike when they thought trouble was coming. No? Once it wasn't coming for them personally they didn't care. You can pretend all you like that if the Dail had introduced a bill introducing one new starting increment and pushing back all existing teachers by one step that there would not have been strikes. But we all know that it would have been. If "allowances" for being qualified were also removed for existing teachers, you can be sure that there'd have been mayhem.

evolving_doors wrote: »

I'm a bit confused as on the one hand you say the senior teachers get a cushy number but on the other hand you maintain that post 2013 teachers were shafted. Is what you're saying that teachers now aren't being paid enough?

Teachers get well paid for what they do. But they should all get paid the same amount. (That includes this automatic increment business even though no new responsibilities are taken on).....in fact, I'd imagine that there is a big chunk of effort the first year your teach a course and after a year or two you should be able to do it in our sleep. Even though you will get paid more for teaching it the second and subsequent years. No? I mean if you've been teaching French for 20 years, you hardly have to spend hours revising how to count to 10 the night before you teach your first years.



A small reduction for all in 2010 would have been fairer than allowing new entrants to take all the pain. The unions and old teachers should not have stood for it. But they did.

evolving_doors wrote: »

Would you support a teachers strike now?

I wouldn't be that arsed. Let them strike if they want. Just be honest that the strikes are inherently selfish rather than based on any actual principle. The government should just deduct the full pro-rated salary impact rather than this 1/360 fudge.

evolving_doors

Donald Trump wrote: »

No. But they did strike when they thought trouble was coming. No? Once it wasn't coming for them personally they didn't care. You can pretend all you like that if the Dail had introduced a bill introducing one new starting increment and pushing back all existing teachers by one step that there would not have been strikes. But we all know that it would have been. If "allowances" for being qualified were also removed for existing teachers, you can be sure that there'd have been mayhem.








Teachers get well paid for what they do. But they should all get paid the same amount. (That includes this automatic increment business even though no new responsibilities are taken on).....in fact, I'd imagine that there is a big chunk of effort the first year your teach a course and after a year or two you should be able to do it in our sleep. Even though you will get paid more for teaching it the second and subsequent years. No? I mean if you've been teaching French for 20 years, you hardly have to spend hours revising how to count to 10 the night before you teach your first years.



A small reduction for all in 2010 would have been fairer than allowing new entrants to take all the pain. The unions and old teachers should not have stood for it. But they did.






I wouldn't be that arsed. Let them strike if they want. Just be honest that the strikes are inherently selfish rather than based on any actual principle. The government should just deduct the full pro-rated salary impact rather than this 1/360 fudge.

Well I'll take your substantive point that the unions backed down to easily and they should have prolonged the industrial action, although I doubt you would have supported teachers at any stage (although maybe a little bit after hearing your friend's anecdote).

So did you get your answer to the original post?

Donald Trump

evolving_doors wrote: »

Well I'll take your substantive point that the unions backed down to easily and they should have prolonged the industrial action, although I doubt you would have supported teachers at any stage (although maybe a little bit after hearing your friend's anecdote).

So did you get your answer to the original post?

Not fully. I'm still not sure why she started on 27k. Because from what I now understand, if she had taken enough college courses in what she wanted to teach, she would be on the "qualified" scale. Article might just be badly written though.





Another question for you. I read something which defined a full week as 22 hours. Is this correct? If you teach less (or more) is it pro-rated? And does 22 hours mean 22 contact hours? So, for example, I think in my school we used to have 40 minute classes. So a teacher would have needed to teach 33 classes a week for their full rota?

Donald Trump

Actually, just had a look at something there. When the sums were being done earlier, it was suggested that there was allowance lost for HDip and degree.

Just looking at this here https://www.asti.ie/pay-and-conditions/pay/salary-scales-and-qualification-allowances/salary-scale-for-teachers-appointed-after-january-2011/ it seems that the HDip allowance was paid til 31st Jan 2012.

I'm reading that the ~5k allowance for having a degree was abolished starting 1st Jan 2011 and then the extra HDip bit from 31st Jan 2012. The payscales changed for 1st Jan 2011. The girl in the article says she qualified in 2012 but that if she had qualified one year earlier she would have had an extra 30k net income over her first 6 years.

Would she not have had to qualify 2 years earlier to get the old big bump? If she had qualified in 2011, she still would have missed the allowance part for the degree. Am I reading that incorrectly?

This is what that bit says. It's confusing as it seems to imply that there are people who entered between 1st Jan 2011 and 31st Jan 2012 who still get degree allowance. But then it says that all post 1 Jan 2011 are on the quoted payscale which includes the degree allowance.

Qualification Allowances are not payable to those who entered teaching on or after 1 February 2012 apart from inclusion in the scale of the Honours Primary Degree Allowance from 1 January 2018
For those who entered teaching between 1 January 2011 and 31 January 2012 and who are already in receipt of qualification allowances above that of Honours Primary Degree allowance level will continue to receive those allowances, as follows:

Unless it means that allowances were paid til 31st Jan 2012 and if you were on a Masters or Phd one for that 13 month period, you still keep that.

Moody_mona

Donald Trump wrote: »

Another question for you. I read something which defined a full week as 22 hours. Is this correct? If you teach less (or more) is it pro-rated? And does 22 hours mean 22 contact hours? So, for example, I think in my school we used to have 40 minute classes. So a teacher would have needed to teach 33 classes a week for their full rota?

22 is contact class time. It's genuinely impossible to get by with that bare bones. In my experience the vast majority would put in at least an hour a day above that, be it following up discipline issues, photocopying or correcting. I accept not everyone does but that's not really the point.

Then there is S&S, which is paid technically I suppose in that it's worked into our payscale. If you were lucky enough to be in a position to opt out of this, then you need to take a paycut for the privilege. That averages out at slightly over an our a week of before or during school supervision, and substituting for teachers absent due to illness etc.