How do people feel about this one? Will it be short and sweet?
Mod warning:
https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121425200/#Comment_121425200
Over the years, the Irish language requirement has been used as an effective barrier to foreign teachers coming here, I have heard it has been relaxed, but not sure that is the case.
Talks begin tomorrow
I thought it as just the unions meeting tomorrow?
https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2023/1115/1416611-unions-pay-talks/
Your right I read that wrong and had thought it was unions meeting government
Unions meet tomorrow to consider whether they'll do their job or not.
If as you state:
"Paddy puts experienced teachers into the top 20% of all income earners in the country for the majority of their career.
Paddy gives graduate teachers higher than average starting salaries."
Why are teachers fleeing the place .. something is not adding up
there is a lot more than an irish language barrier going on.. no irish language barrier in secondary schools and they are crying out for staff
Both can be true, they're not mutually exclusive.
Compared to the rest of society, teachers are well compensated.
Compared to the rest of the world, qualified teachers find jobs in other countries more attractive. Or people opt not to become teachers because the conditions of work for teachers is unattractive.
i.e. teaching in ireland isn't an attractive job.
The most obvious way to attract more teachers is either to improve working conditions (it's an awful job) or provide better pay.
Salonfire isn't factually wrong in what he says but it also provides little to no insight as to why there is a teacher shortage.
Are they crying out for full time staff?
well documented staffing crisis - some schools considering sending students home certain days if crisis persists
Yes, a lot of it is about schools not being able to offer full hours alright. Even the list of survey questions at the end doesn't make distinction between posts offered for full hours and those not, which I find a bit strange.
That is a union survey.
I think we all know the reasons teaching is seen as unattractive, which is all the more baffling to people like me to hear teachers, those actually at the coalface, only refer to pay.
Paperwork, student behaviour, part time work, lack of accommodation - teachers can't wfh. Start tackling these issues would go along way to address the shortage. But teachers don't want these addressed, they want more pay.
In fairness , they are going to mainly to tax free havens. That is not something we can compete with. It is a fact they are in the top 20% of earners.
wheres your evidence teachers dont want these issues addressed
ultimately this is public pay talks thread so of course posters are discussing concerns about below inflation pay rises
They are also comparing teachers' pay with that of non-graduate and indeed entirely unskilled occupations.
Disingenuous in the extreme.
Probably because they have absolutely no say on building improvements, student numbers etc. lack of accommodation is fixed with more money/moving. The average PS/CS worker can do sweet FA about systemic issues.
So what do we think will happen from here. The unions have stated a multi year deal won't be possible without the removal of the emergency industrial action clauses introduced during the financial crisis. Is there any chance they will stick to this and it will be a 1 year deal? If so what percentage do we need? 5% at least surely.
Government won't agree to a one year deal. It'll be two minimum.
Why should we take 5%? Seriously
FAR too much uncertainty over inflation to agree a multi-year deal. Also the loss of earnings caused by the last deal must be addressed immediately as part of any new deal.
This is presumably FEMPI - which is nothing more than fascist legislation designed to entirely neutralise the unions and make them irrelevant.
A FF/FG/Official Ireland 5% is like 1% on 1st January, 1% on October 1st 2024, 2% on April 1st 2025 and 1% on October 1st 2025.
In other words it's a total scam and not anywhere near 5%.
I meant 5 percent if it was a 1 year deal. Hard to see much more than that being realistic.
What emergency legislation is remaining that the unions are seeking to have undone?
Your pay would be 5% higher by the end of the deal. i really struggle to see how it's a scam.
Structuring a deal like that benefits you. If the government has a $2 billion budget, spreading it out over several increases means we can get a higher percentage which is permanent rather then a lower percentage which may appear bigger but isn't.
Over 2 years? Just stop will you
"Your pay would be 5% higher by the end of the deal. i really struggle to see how it's a scam."
Then you've a poor grasp of Mathematics.
I'm not making any statement about 5%, a percentage increase over two years like that would be crap. I'm stating structuring a deal into several increments is in the employees interest as it allows the government's budget to be spread out allowing for a higher perccentage increase by the end of the deal which is permanent.
It makes sense from the governments perspective from a cash flow perspective.
There's a reason unions also like this structure. That's the reason. People really have no clue how these deals actually work.
If I'm on 100k in Janurary 2024, I'd be on 105k by October 2025. Last time I checked, that's a 5% increase "by the end of the deal" and in 2026, that's what your pay will be.
Really struggling where the maths is breaking down differently or where my poor grasp of mathematics is. People really need to stop just insulting people.
Structuring means less money in your pocket today but more money in your pocket long term. Its bizarre you can't see the logic to that.
If the government have a budget of 1.8 billion (and let's say total pay is $30 billion, yes the actual number is lower but that's irrelevant it's the concept and not the figures that matter) and offered me a 6% increase on January first or a 4% increase in January first and another 3.5% increase on July first, id take the second because my wage has increased by 7.5% by the end of the deal. Over the course of the year, both deals cost the government the same amount of money. That's one reason why deals are structured. It makes sense for everyone.
I think the actual figure is 18.7 billion but you can play around with percentages yourself to see how structuring works. I just picked a nice number to make the maths easier.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w7.vanillicon.com/v2/7a1d0f49d56f52d3cfb2145c5b8cbe5a.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/ee3bbaed7151f7c3b682bc3fc04ae67e.svg)
