nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Martin to resign teaching position

rebel10

[QUOTE Fianna Fáil leader Micheál Martin has confirmed he will resign his teaching position at the end of this academic year.

Mr Martin said this morning that he will not be going back to teaching, and he made the decision last year.

"I've been very clear about this and I've said this on public record already - I will not be going back to teaching," Mr Martin said.

"I will be resigning my post after this academic year."

However, he added, "the person who has the job at the moment will lose the job."

"That's the only consequence of that (decision) - a person loses their job if I do that."

It follows confirmation yesterday from Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny that he will not now take up his own teacher's pension.[/QUOTE]

My God, it took him 20 years to make that decision. Is he also trying to suggest that he was holding out for so long to protect the teacher that had his hours?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

bonerm

It's like something you'd read on TheOnion.

godtabh

It has always been the case that if the TD was a teacher the school can get some one to fill that potion the TD just left. If the TD resigns their teacher role the school lose that position.

Many TDs use that to justify them hanging on to their teachers pension

Lumen

Can someone please clarify the pension rules for teachers? Surely you can't just work a couple of years then claim the full pension at retirement?

seamus

godtabh wrote: »

If the TD resigns their teacher role the school lose that position.

WTF kind of system is that?

Is this something special reserved for TDs, or if a teacher resigns from a school normally, does the school lose that position?

rebel10

godtabh wrote: »

It has always been the case that if the TD was a teacher the school can get some one to fill that potion the TD just left. If the TD resigns their teacher role the school lose that position.

Many TDs use that to justify them hanging on to their teachers pension

Yes, i understand that, but he was a member of the government that brought in these changes to teacher numbers in schools. Why wasn't he picked up on this before? Why does it take a GE to force politicians to do the reasonable/honest thing? Why does he expect anyone to accept change in contracts/hours when he doesn't accept them himself?

rebel10

seamus wrote: »

WTF kind of system is that?

Is this something special reserved for TDs, or if a teacher resigns from a school normally, does the school lose that position?

Pupil ratio is 19:1. If a teacher retires, and their school is over quota, the hours are lost. This is, I think, what has happened here. Plus, if a teacher takes a secondment, their hours are held for them, as far as I know. In my school, a teacher has been out working in Belgium for the last 10 years. Her position is still open to her, and the teacher covering her hours, for the last 10 years, could be told tomorrow this woman is coming back to her job. Unfair.:mad:

MagicSean

rebel10 wrote: »

Yes, i understand that, but he was a member of the government that brought in these changes to teacher numbers in schools. Why wasn't he picked up on this before? Why does it take a GE to force politicians to do the reasonable/honest thing? Why does he expect anyone to accept change in contracts/hours when he doesn't accept them himself?

How is this a reasonable thing? It just creates one extra unemployed person and increases the pupil teacher ratio in that school.

seamus

Bloody ridiculous union nonsense in this country. Why can't it just be like any other job? If you leave to go do something else, someone else gets your job, seeya. FFS.

Lumen

k_mac wrote: »

How is this a reasonable thing? It just creates one extra unemployed person and increases the pupil teacher ratio in that school.

Decisions about appropriate pupil ratios should not be based on the employment requirements of teachers or TDs.

Uriel.

Am I the only one who 1. Thinks it's mad and 2. just plain can't understand that Enda Kenny (legally) is (would have been) entitled to a pension of in excess of €20k per annum and a lump sum of approx. €100k for a job that he only held for 4 years???? I understand that he resigned from this job (position) many years ago, so it doesn't even appear to be a case of him maintaining a duel right throughout his political life.

rebel10

k_mac wrote: »

How is this a reasonable thing? It just creates one extra unemployed person and increases the pupil teacher ratio in that school.

It's reasonable because if the school the position was in, has an increase in pupil numbers or they aren't over quota, that teacher could have that job again, but with his/her own contract, not having to wait year in year out to hear whether they have a job again every year. Every newly qualified teacher is well aware of this. It is unreasonable for someone out of the job for 20 years, to still be able to walk back into it tomorrow.

humanji

I like to think that for the last 20 years, there's been a class of students sitting silently, waiting for him to come back.

opinion guy

seamus wrote: »

WTF kind of system is that?

Is this something special reserved for TDs, or if a teacher resigns from a school normally, does the school lose that position?

Is there a hiring freeze on at the moment ?

ejmaztec

Our local TD, Jimmy Deenihan, first elected in the 1980s, is another teacher, but I don't think that he's ever resigned from that particular post.

How many more are there, I wonder?

Rubik.

Another Martin U-turn. In 2009 his rational for not giving up his teaching post - "I have a young family and a TD's job is a precarious business".

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/shame-of-pensions-on-double-for-teachertds-1726771.html

In the midst of an election campaign his concern has shifted from himself to the other poor sod who is going their job. Funny that.

MagicSean

Lumen wrote: »

Decisions about appropriate pupil ratios should not be based on the employment requirements of teachers or TDs.

I'm talking about the practical effect. One less teacher in the school means a higher pupil teacher ratio.

rebel10 wrote: »

It's reasonable because if the school the position was in, has an increase in pupil numbers or they aren't over quota, that teacher could have that job again, but with his/her own contract, not having to wait year in year out to hear whether they have a job again every year. Every newly qualified teacher is well aware of this. It is unreasonable for someone out of the job for 20 years, to still be able to walk back into it tomorrow.

And if the teacher is not replaced? I thought there was a hiring embargo.

Rubik. wrote: »

Another Martin U-turn. In 2009 his rational for not giving up his teaching post - "I have a young family and a TD's job is a precarious business".

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/shame-of-pensions-on-double-for-teachertds-1726771.html

In the midst of an election campaign his concern has shifted from himself to the other poor sod who is going their job. Funny that.

One might argue his political career is more secure at this time.

Lumen

k_mac wrote: »

I'm talking about the practical effect. One less teacher in the school means a higher pupil teacher ratio.

Stupidity must be tackled at source.

Using a stupid solution to fix stupid problems is just doubly stupid.

rainbowtrout

Lumen wrote: »

Can someone please clarify the pension rules for teachers? Surely you can't just work a couple of years then claim the full pension at retirement?

If a teacher takes up a place as TD they can choose to resign from their job or not. If they don't resign (Kenny, Martin, Hanafin etc) their job is held open indefinitely and a sub is hired in their place. The sitting TD is entitled to the difference in pay between what it would cost to pay them and pay the sub.

Eg. If Mary Hanafin was on 50k a year when she left her teaching job, and it costs 35K to hire a sub in her place (let's assume the sub is a new/recent graduate), she is allowed to pocket the difference between her salary and the sub's salary i.e. 15k.

I assume because they are still essentially in a paid position and are still entitled to increments and 'years of service' :rolleyes: they are then also entitled to pay into the pension. Actually again I'm only assuming this but because PS pension contributions are compulsory they are probably obliged to pay into it while they keep their teaching job open. However, as they are allowed to pocket the difference in pay, in my opinion this would more than pay for their pension contributions for the year, or close enough to it anyway. So I see it as getting a pension for free when they are not in the classroom.

For what it's worth, I'm a teacher myself and I think it's wrong. They shouldn't be keeping a job open because they are in the Dail. It should be one or the other. You wouldn't be able to do it anywhere else. You can count your years of service if you move from one PS job to another, but you still only get one pension at the end. The whole debacle with teaching and being a TD should be no different.

Lumen

rainbowtrout wrote: »

If a teacher takes up a place as TD they can choose to resign from their job or not. If they don't resign (Kenny, Martin, Hanafin etc) their job is held open indefinitely and a sub is hired in their place. The sitting TD is entitled to the difference in pay between what it would cost to pay them and pay the sub.

Eg. If Mary Hanafin was on 50k a year when she left her teaching job, and it costs 35K to hire a sub in her place (let's assume the sub is a new/recent graduate), she is allowed to pocket the difference between her salary and the sub's salary i.e. 15k.

I assume because they are still essentially in a paid position and are still entitled to increments and 'years of service' :rolleyes: they are then also entitled to pay into the pension. Actually again I'm only assuming this but because PS pension contributions are compulsory they are probably obliged to pay into it while they keep their teaching job open. However, as they are allowed to pocket the difference in pay, in my opinion this would more than pay for their pension contributions for the year, or close enough to it anyway. So I see it as getting a pension for free when they are not in the classroom.

For what it's worth, I'm a teacher myself and I think it's wrong. They shouldn't be keeping a job open because they are in the Dail. It should be one or the other. You wouldn't be able to do it anywhere else. You can count your years of service if you move from one PS job to another, but you still only get one pension at the end. The whole debacle with teaching and being a TD should be no different.

Thanks for the detail. The system you've described is completely insane, particularly the bit about being paid for someone less qualified to do your job. Bait and switch!

I had the impression that PS pensions did not require contributions (I know, it's probably because I read the Indo). I guess if the TD has to pay these contributions to retain a pension entitlement, it makes sense for them to get some sort of pension at the end of it, but that's a big "if", and I'm not sure that pension contributions without service can be counted the same.

Is the sub teacher also entitled to a pension?

rebel10

rainbowtrout wrote: »

For what it's worth, I'm a teacher myself and I think it's wrong. They shouldn't be keeping a job open because they are in the Dail. It should be one or the other. You wouldn't be able to do it anywhere else. You can count your years of service if you move from one PS job to another, but you still only get one pension at the end. The whole debacle with teaching and being a TD should be no different.

+1. I'm a teacher, and i think the whole system needs a huge overhaul.

mconigol

lol...it's his government decisions that means someone will loose their job not the fact that he's decided to quit clinging on to his teaching post after so many years.

tipptom

rainbowtrout wrote: »

If a teacher takes up a place as TD they can choose to resign from their job or not. If they don't resign (Kenny, Martin, Hanafin etc) their job is held open indefinitely and a sub is hired in their place. The sitting TD is entitled to the difference in pay between what it would cost to pay them and pay the sub.

Eg. If Mary Hanafin was on 50k a year when she left her teaching job, and it costs 35K to hire a sub in her place (let's assume the sub is a new/recent graduate), she is allowed to pocket the difference between her salary and the sub's salary i.e. 15k.

I assume because they are still essentially in a paid position and are still entitled to increments and 'years of service' :rolleyes: they are then also entitled to pay into the pension. Actually again I'm only assuming this but because PS pension contributions are compulsory they are probably obliged to pay into it while they keep their teaching job open. However, as they are allowed to pocket the difference in pay, in my opinion this would more than pay for their pension contributions for the year, or close enough to it anyway. So I see it as getting a pension for free when they are not in the classroom.

For what it's worth, I'm a teacher myself and I think it's wrong. They shouldn't be keeping a job open because they are in the Dail. It should be one or the other. You wouldn't be able to do it anywhere else. You can count your years of service if you move from one PS job to another, but you still only get one pension at the end. The whole debacle with teaching and being a TD should be no different.

Just wondering rainbow is it usual for a teacher to become a pricipal within 4 years,and the 15k is just for pension purposes or is it actually paid to them.

Sanjuro

Christ, the system in this country is seriously out of whack. Once somebody becomes a paid TD, their previous position and all it's perks should be null and void. Give it to someone who needs a job, ffs.

rebel10

Lumen wrote: »

I had the impression that PS pensions did not require contributions (I know, it's probably because I read the Indo)

:eek:
Of course we are required to make contributions! Yes, the Indo could be the reason why you are misled! All teachers, sub or not, are required to pay into their pensions afaik.

Krusader

Mary Hanafin is the same i think

Duggy747

Fùckin' LOL

He gets to keep his teaching position up until now whereas a person will now lose their job.

My sister has been a teacher in Limerick for a few years now but because her school is over-quota she and others there have to up and leave Limerick now and start all over again securing a position somewhere else in the country. Only thing that's different from doing it before is now she has 2 kids and has to move.

Lumen

Facts from into.ie for the ignorant non-teachers such as myself.

The DES has also commenced the deduction of pension contributions for substitute service with effect from January 1, 2005.

Substitute service prior to 1 January 2005, may be credited for pension purposes following the payment by the teacher of superannuation contributions in respect of such previous service.

The National School Teachers' Superannuation Scheme is a contributory scheme. The basic average superannuation contribution is 7.5% of gross salary and allowances. Teachers who are members of the Spouses' and Children's Pension Scheme pay an additional contribution of 1.5% of gross salary and allowances.

...

Pension is calculated at the rate of one eightieth of retiring salary for each year of pensionable service at the date of retirement subject to a maximum of 40 years. For example, a teacher on a 'retiring salary' of €60,000 with 40 years' contributions to the scheme will receive an annual pension of €30,000 (i.e. 1/80th of €60,000 x 40).

A teacher on the same salary with 35 years' pensionable service will receive an annual pension of €26,250 (i.e. 1/80th of €60,000 x 35).

Pensions are deemed to be income and as such are subject to income tax.

Retired teachers' pensions increase in line with salary increases awarded to serving teachers.

Lump sum is calculated at the rate of three eightieths of retiring salary for each year of pensionable service at the date of retirement subject to a maximum of 40 years. For example a teacher on a retiring salary of €60,000 with 40 years' or more contributions to the scheme will receive a lump sum of €90,000 (i.e. 3/80ths of €60,000 x 40).

A teacher on the same salary with 35 years' pensionable service will receive a lump sum of €78,750 (i.e. 3/80ths of €60,000 x 35).

rainbowtrout

Lumen wrote: »

Thanks for the detail. The system you've described is completely insane, particularly the bit about being paid for someone less qualified to do your job. Bait and switch!

I had the impression that PS pensions did not require contributions (I know, it's probably because I read the Indo). I guess if the TD has to pay these contributions to retain a pension entitlement, it makes sense for them to get some sort of pension at the end of it, but that's a big "if", and I'm not sure that pension contributions without service can be counted the same.

Is the sub teacher also entitled to a pension?

Of course we have to pay into a pension!!! This is the type of mis-information that has been circulating for the last few years and giving PS workers a woeful name. It's compulsory for all PS workers to pay into a pension from the first day they join the PS. There is no way of opting out. I started teaching at 22 and have been paying pension contributions since then. The media have done a very good job in the last few years of making it sound like we were getting the pension for free and that that pension levy was finally a way of making us pay for the pension.

I have no issue in saying that we have a good deal pension wise, because we do. But we have been contributing to that pension all along, and only those that work the full 40 years get the full pension. The rest get a fraction equal to the years worked. Eg. if you work 20 years you get half pension etc etc.

tipptom wrote: »

Just wondering rainbow is it usual for a teacher to become a pricipal within 4 years,and the 15k is just for pension purposes or is it actually paid to them.

No it isn't. Any jobs you see advertised will usually say 'Must have 5 years whole time experience'. However if no other suitable candidates applied for the job they may give it to someone with less than 5 years, it could be that they worked in industry beforehand, or that they teach in a small rural 2 teacher school, or in Enda's case the criteria could have been different back in the 70s. There may have been no lower limit on the years of experience needed to apply for a principal's job back then.

The 15k, I took as an example, it could be more or it could be less, depending on the teacher/TDs number of years of service, and the number of years of service of the sub. It is paid to them. They can choose not to accept it, I have read of a couple of TDs who do not accept the surplus, can't think off the top of my head who they are, but as you can imagine those that do accept it keep it quiet. I also think that for the most part that TDs accepting the surplus should for the most part be able to fund pension contributions from that surplus, so their 'teaching' pension would cost them very little overall. Even moreso because they are getting a pension for a job they are not doing.

It may also arise that the sub has the same level of experience as the TD and would be on the same salary, in this case the TD would get nothing extra and again I would assume while they would still be entitled to make a pension contribution they would make it from their own pocket. However, my heart is not bleeding for the ones in this position as they are entitled to incremental pay, so their pay would go up every year anyway.

rainbowtrout

Lumen wrote: »

Facts from into.ie for the ignorant non-teachers such as myself.

It's also worth pointing out to add to Lumen's quote on teaching pensions that teachers do not get the the old age pension on top of this.

Eg. if a teacher retires on 60k after 40 years and gets a pension of 30k per annum, this includes the OAP, it's not an extra. They would have got the OAP anyway because of PRSI contributions, so the contributions they made over the 40 years are essentially funding the other 19k a year.

Also the Spouses and Children's thing is compulsory too. It might not be for pre 1995 PS workers whose terms and conditions are slightly different. (I'm post 95). You have to pay 1.5% into Spouses and Children's from day one, so there is some small pension for them if you die in service. However again there is no opt out and if you do not have a spouse or children like myself currently, you don't get it back.

maglite

There are about 30 Teacher politicians

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/disgraceful-tds-still-cling-to-teacher-posts-and-perks-1537131.html