km79 wrote: So we WONT be paid and they are CURRENTLY seeking legal advice Sure no rush with it !!!!! Are they still seeking legal advice on challenging FEMPI too WORRYING
feardeas wrote: » Worrying is putting it mildly. They knew this was coming since last May. The stuff Pat King warned about is all coming to pass it appears.
acequion wrote: » How could they legally get away with taking us off the payroll? And how could they legally get away with docking the pay of members who are already docked due to having opted out of S&S? To me that smacks of tyranny. I would be gobsmacked if they got away with that,I really would!
coillsaille wrote: » I agree with you wholeheartedly acequion. But apparently withdrawing from the SnS scheme includes withdrawal from the opt out part of the scheme.
Eintrachtrob wrote: » King was an utter spoofer who gave away one term of condition of employment after another without so much of a word of opposition.
amacca wrote: » Rules of the game IMO If both sides initially dig their heels in and stand firm...first to blink or back down loses - actually a lose lose situation for both sides in the heel of the hunt * If negotiation (and I mean an actual proper negotiation not this "its the only show in town bull****") where both sides issues are addressed takes place then perhaps some face saving (for both sides) solution can can happen which will probably contain a large smattering of can kicking (on the equal pay issue at very least and probably "reform" of the nonsensical CP hours given all the other unseen and seemingly unappreciated voluntary hours put in) What I see happening for teachers 1) Payment of the SS.......I can't see how the Govt have a leg to stand on with this issue, it was part of a previous agreement whose terms have been honoured by teachers.......getting paid for work done was never contingent in entering into another agreement - if schools do have to shut on 7th then the blame lies squarely at the Govt door as they have reneged on an agreement with no excuse except for using it as a lever to bully a group of workers.......any hint of removal from payroll etc etc for this imo should be met with a strong united resistance for the kind of precedent it sets.........what is the point of agreeing to any "agreement" if this is how one side keeps the bargain and then attempts to treat the side who have kept their part of the bargain. 2) Existing steps towards pay equalisation with perhaps some window dressing of an extra sweetener and a promise of further steps towards pay equalisation in the future more or less not much if anything beyond what TUI etc has already accepted but it may still have been a worthwhile exercise as perhaps they won't get to kick the can as far down the road as they were hoping too on this one.......without this kind of action I believe the Govt side would keep stringing this out indefinitely 3) No reduction on CP hours (which is wrong, very wrong imo) but much much more flexibility in how they can be used given the nature of the job and the amount of extra hours most teachers put in or are forced to put in due to the nature of the job nowadays....there are lots of necessary tasks that can't be avoided for all teachers that could come under the umbrella of CP, if the Govt doesn't accept this then they don't think they are necessary so they shouldn't be done. (if 3 above doesn't happen then I wouldn't be surprised if a large cohort of teachers start to slowly withdraw much much more than the CP hours in free/voluntary labour they give but get no credit for and in some cases take abusee for doing..........and quite understandably imo) Not a betting man but I'm interested to see how this develops.
man_no_plan wrote: » I would say that that analysis is fairly accurate on first reading. ASTI will effectively enter the LRA.
Eintrachtrob wrote: » Agree pretty much with what amacca stated there, as it's the most likeliest of outcomes. One where terms and conditions of LPTs are slightly improved on the last offer, with a commitment from government for a full restoration date (this may be harder to achieve than it seems). The CP hours will probably remain at 33 hours. We were stupid ever to sign into them, but the time to fight that battle is in the next "agreement".
km79 wrote: » This is the last battle Whatever we sign up to next is it IMO
Eintrachtrob wrote: » Wouldn't be so sure about that There's definitely another "agreement" coming down the line
amacca wrote: » 3) No reduction on CP hours (which is wrong, very wrong imo) but much much more flexibility in how they can be used given the nature of the job and the amount of extra hours most teachers put in or are forced to put in due to the nature of the job nowadays....there are lots of necessary tasks that can't be avoided for all teachers that could come under the umbrella of CP, if the Govt doesn't accept this then they don't think they are necessary so they shouldn't be done. (if 3 above doesn't happen then I wouldn't be surprised if a large cohort of teachers start to slowly withdraw much much more than the CP hours in free/voluntary labour they give but get no credit for and in some cases take abusee for doing..........and quite understandably imo) Not a betting man but I'm interested to see how this develops.
jayo76 wrote: » I for one will be pretty annoyed if I lose a number of days pay, maybe even a week and all we end up with is signing LRA anyway with full acceptance of Croke Park hours and a promise of looking at pay equalisation down the line, how can we work on promises after what happened with Haddington Road?? Seriously if thats all we're gong to get we may as well have just accepted Lansdowne Road last year and then S ans S payments would never have even been an issue. If the Government docks pay on days when we are turning up to school and available for work as instructed by this letter today and some of us have even been paying not to do the duties we are supposedly not doing, how can we just turn around and then sign an agreement with this government? Do you all see full acceptance of the Junior Cert as it currently stands then as well?? If so and all these agreements are signed off in one sweeping deal we might as well forget about the ASTI as an effective Union.
km79 wrote: » And we will give more not less We will certainly not lose CP hours if they stay now
political analyst wrote: » Even if the Department allows for continuous professional development and meetings with inspectors to take place in the CP hours?
man_no_plan wrote: » LRA is dead in 2018 , HRA was to run until this Summer. You can be very sure that they are doing the sums now on the next agreement. The big picture is the public pay commission for equalisation, Restoration is guaranteed once FEMPI unwinds. Once FEMPI passed in the Rail it was game over to my mind, the govt are following the law. The law is you're in or you're out. The law is s/s is part if your contract. I really hope the ASTI do manage to get some concessions, there are some very good people with some very strong moral positions in the union, I'd hate to see them being hung out to dry if this goes tits up. I think that the current leadership has bitten off more than it can chew on this one.
jayo76 wrote: » To be honest if it was just Continuous Professional Development and meetings with inspectors I'm not sure it would swing it for me. Proper recognition of CPD yes would be a major step forward in usage of these hours, meetings with inspectors are not a huge time consideration. I have previously said I have no problem with at least 26 hours, 18 for PT meetings and 8 for Staff meetings outside schools. I could probably stretch to another four for subject department meetings if we as departments not the Principal got to set the agenda and I genuinely saw them as beneficial. If the other hours are to remain in place which I guess they are gong to I would just genuinely love if they could recognise that look the vast vast majority of teachers are contributing way above these hours anyway in correcting. preparation, extra curricular, organisation and participation in school trips.
jayo76 wrote: I have previously said I have no problem with at least 26 hours, 18 for PT meetings and 8 for Staff meetings outside schools. I could probably stretch to another four for subject department meetings if we as departments not the Principal got to set the agenda and I genuinely saw them as beneficial.
man_no_plan wrote: » I really hope the ASTI do manage to get some concessions, there are some very good people with some very strong moral positions in the union, I'd hate to see them being hung out to dry if this goes tits up. .
feardeas wrote: » Three ptm were bought out under previous deals like sustaining progress before cp. Mind you the pay gains were wiped out by cuts
jayo76 wrote: » Yeah there are 12 hours which predate CP, 3 PT meetings and 3 half in/ half out staff meetings. No problem for me obviously with those remaining in situ plus the other 3 ptm's for 9 hours and 5 more hours for staff meeting to allow for 8 hours of meetings wholly outside of school time. I suppose I genuinely know it's a forlorn hope but I would really love the other hours outside of these to take account of what teacher contribute in a variety of ways other than sitting in meetings together.
man_no_plan wrote: » I posted a few pages back of how to use all the hours in a reasonable way. We have not had a speaker in for any croke park meeting since they were introduced, we work together or separately but the main thing is that we use the hours to get stuff done. That seems to be the main gripe, not home til 7 but no further on. At least when I get home there's a sense that something has been addressed or improved or even disbanded! It shouldn't be all doom and gloom. Maybe the lack of reasonableness was a response to a rigidity from teachers ? That's not on the list so I'm not doing it, OK, let's all have a meeting. If you go for win - lose there's always a loser.
