'new entrants' to public sector liable for 10% pay cut

ballymoefc · 02-09-2012 07:55AM #1

Hi Guys,
I have been working for Dublin City Council as a general operative in the Cultural, Recreational and Amenities Dept. prior to January 2011.

I have recently been offered a teaching job obviously to work under the Dept. of Education.

My query is am I classed as a 'new entrant' and liable for the 10% pay cut even though from my understanding I have worked in the public sector prior to January 2011 when this ruling was effective from???

Any advice or help would be appreciated...

phoenix999 · 02-09-2012 12:52PM

ballymoefc wrote: »

Hi Guys,
I have been working for Dublin City Council as a general operative in the Cultural, Recreational and Amenities Dept. prior to January 2011.

I have recently been offered a teaching job obviously to work under the Dept. of Education.

My query is am I classed as a 'new entrant' and liable for the 10% pay cut even though from my understanding I have worked in the public sector prior to January 2011 when this ruling was effective from???

Any advice or help would be appreciated...

I think the Department of Education conditions are slightly different, it's new entrants to teaching, rather than new entrants to the public service. As you are new to teaching, you wouldnt get the qualification allowances and would be liable for the 10% cut. Details available here:

http://www.corkvec.ie/vacancies/documents/NewPayScalesforNewAppointeestoTeachingin2011_004.pdf

Zipppy · 04-09-2012 12:45PM

phoenix999 wrote: »

I think the Department of Education conditions are slightly different, it's new entrants to teaching, rather than new entrants to the public service. As you are new to teaching, you wouldnt get the qualification allowances and would be liable for the 10% cut. Details available here:

http://www.corkvec.ie/vacancies/documents/NewPayScalesforNewAppointeestoTeachingin2011_004.pdf

That looks fairly clearcut...

I would have thought as an existing public servant you wouldnt be liable to reduced rate but apparently so........

phoenix999 · 04-09-2012 12:54PM

Very unfair too. New teachers have been screwed with the 30% pay cut. No other group took a hit that big.

wyndhurst · 04-09-2012 08:11PM

Sorry to be a bit cruel here but not sure how you can be talking about a "pay cut" for a job you do not have. The pay level is clear before you join or accept a position. Your choice whether you accept it or not.

phoenix999 · 04-09-2012 08:27PM

Well pay levels are about as clear as mud due to cuts in allowances etc. And it's never a good idea to pay people doing the exact same job different rates. It will do wonders for morale.

marnieb · 05-09-2012 08:48AM

Yes but when you think about it in other sectors people do the same jobs and get paid different amounts all the time, maybe that is what is wrong with the public sector that everyone gets the same regardless of talent, experience etc, suppose you have to take the rough with smooth,

RacoonQueen · 05-09-2012 09:09AM

marnieb wrote: »

Yes but when you think about it in other sectors people do the same jobs and get paid different amounts all the time, maybe that is what is wrong with the public sector that everyone gets the same regardless of talent, experience etc, suppose you have to take the rough with smooth,

One of the problems with this in the public sector is that there is no incentive to do an extra little bit of work, be flexible and take on extra tasks or stay a little later at the end of the day because it wouldn't earn you anything(in areas where there is no scope for a higher position). One of the jobs I had the only move you could make was a sideways one, but coming from the private sector I was in the mindset of not having a contract that listed specific roles. Other staff members were nay impressed when I did things that ''were not my job'', never stopped me but I wasn't a favourite.

markpb · 05-09-2012 09:49AM

phoenix999 wrote: »

And it's never a good idea to pay people doing the exact same job different rates. It will do wonders for morale.

It's extremely common in the private sector. People who are better qualified, have more relevant experience or who are simply are better negotiators usually start on higher salary. Once in the door, employees who prove themselves can earn more than competent workers.

It's only really in the public and civil sectors that the communist ideal of everyone being equal seems to taken root.

syklops · 05-09-2012 09:52AM

phoenix999 wrote: »

Very unfair too. New teachers have been screwed with the 30% pay cut. No other group took a hit that big.

Aside from people who lost their job and suffered a 100% pay cut.

Mrs OBumble · 05-09-2012 12:29PM

markpb wrote: »

It's only really in the public and civil sectors that the communist ideal of everyone being equal seems to taken root.

In fairness, even there, it's unevenly applied.

Ever heard of "yellow pack EO's?"

hardybuck · 07-09-2012 10:42AM

phoenix999 wrote: »

Very unfair too. New teachers have been screwed with the 30% pay cut. No other group took a hit that big.

Few groups had so much fat that could be trimmed off, and there is still more to go in my opinion. The 4k or therabouts allowance/bonus for having a bachelor's degree is absolute madness - this is a minimum requirement for the job surely.

The school year should be extended also - I'm talking about mid term breaks in particular.

hardybuck · 07-09-2012 10:44AM

RacoonQueen wrote: »

One of the problems with this in the public sector is that there is no incentive to do an extra little bit of work, be flexible and take on extra tasks or stay a little later at the end of the day because it wouldn't earn you anything(in areas where there is no scope for a higher position). One of the jobs I had the only move you could make was a sideways one, but coming from the private sector I was in the mindset of not having a contract that listed specific roles. Other staff members were nay impressed when I did things that ''were not my job'', never stopped me but I wasn't a favourite.

Not 100% true. There is a performance rating system, although there is a lack of consistency in how it is applied across the system. Extra work, extra responsibility etc. gives you a higher rating which in theory is used to earn a promotion.

JRant · 07-09-2012 10:53AM

hardybuck wrote: »

phoenix999 wrote: »

Very unfair too. New teachers have been screwed with the 30% pay cut. No other group took a hit that big.

Few groups had so much fat that could be trimmed off, and there is still more to go in my opinion. The 4k or therabouts allowance/bonus for having a bachelor's degree is absolute madness - this is a minimum requirement for the job surely.

The school year should be extended also - I'm talking about mid term breaks in particular.

And how would they fit in their holidays abroad then? Sure it's tight enough as it is with only around 4 months off a year.

JRant · 07-09-2012 11:03AM

phoenix999 wrote: »

Very unfair too. New teachers have been screwed with the 30% pay cut. No other group took a hit that big.

As has been pointed out, it's not a cut if they never had it in the first place.

All that's happening now is that new entrants are paying the price for the unions refusal to allow any sort of change to their current members.

I think they are paid to much considering the hours they work and the fact that the standards of the education system has declined (according to OECD figures) since 2000 despite an increase in renumeration for teachers.

marnieb · 07-09-2012 01:15PM

Yes it is crazy that teachers get thousands every year not just a once off for having a degree, not only that but even if they just pass it they get x amount, for a 2.1 so much, for a 2.2 so much etc. why give so much for having passed your degree exams, and why pay it every year for the rest of their career, no wonder the country is broke

Denerick · 07-09-2012 02:44PM

marnieb wrote: »

Yes it is crazy that teachers get thousands every year not just a once off for having a degree, not only that but even if they just pass it they get x amount, for a 2.1 so much, for a 2.2 so much etc. why give so much for having passed your degree exams, and why pay it every year for the rest of their career, no wonder the country is broke

A 2:1 from one university is worth a lot more than a 2:1 from another. I don't think that would be a particularly sensible way to allocate pay, way too much credit is given for exam results in our education system anyway (Some people have an autistic ability to retain and process generally irrelevant information, try talking to them in conversation about it and often they'll find it difficult as they are merely trying to condense the information so that it'll get top marks in an exam)

'new entrants' to public sector liable for 10% pay cut

Comments