Teachers set to be disciplined for obnoxious and greedy behaviour

joela · 25-09-2013 11:12AM

SpaceTime wrote: »

http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/teachers-salaries_teachsal-table-en

That is basic salary right? doesn't include the "B" posts or the yard allowance? The yard supervision allowance is a joke, get paid extra for just doing your job and get your break time anyway after yard duty is finished. All in all I think that is a reasonable salary even without additional allowances and pensions. I'm a very well qualified professional and my job regularly entails 12 hour days during the summer months but that was the profession I chose and I love it most of the time. Teachers have it good, very few deadlines, ability to chose how and what to teach on a daily basis. No formal evaluation of their work, very little informal evaluation of their work, summers off etc etc. The system is wrong and it has to change even if teachers don't like it.

Gerry T · 25-09-2013 11:13AM

chopper6 wrote: »

Sure they are...

http://www.revenue.ie/en/press/defaulters/

Irish private sector is full of chancers...thats what screwed up the country...currently there's an obsession with working for FMCs...that'll end well too when they bugger off to Poland or Bangladesh.

The private sector over time is self regulating, if you provide a poor service and don't keep your ship in order (taxes etc) your business will fail. The one's that survive are doing things properly.
The biggest rule breakers in recent times were the banks, so where was the Govt. appointed financial controller in all this, or the central bank or the Govt ? If they were doing their job this would be very different.

The core of the thread is about teachers being assessed for what they do and while we argue over the public v private debate, does anyone not welcome the change or do they think we should keep things the way they are.

johnr1 · 25-09-2013 11:18AM

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

I've talked about this before but I'll do so again; the "starting salary" for a teacher takes about 7-10 years post-graduating to actually reach. No teacher, especially nowadays, walks out of Uni into a full time job.

The vast majority will struggle to find sub-work for the first few years of their career (and HR gets rid of that anyway). If you're making 200 quid a month, you're considered lucky, cause most teachers barely even get a day a month.

After that, you might eventually get offered some 8 or 12 hour contract, which means you're only getting a portion of the wage. I, for instance, got a 12 hour contract last year, and thus only got half wages. That said, I was still expected to be working full time hours. It's not that half wage means half hours. I was still in from 8 till 5. As such, for the "part time job", I would still have only been making about 12k a year. But, of course, poor job security means that after two months, they decided not to renew my contract so back to the unemployment line.

Realistically then, I was lucky getting that. The true starting wage for newly qualified teachers is whatever the Jobseekers Allowance is that they can get.

So because you can't compete in a competitive jobs market, then the overpaid incumbents shouldn't be touched... how does that help you?
I suggest retraining in a field where we actually need you, and to which you might be better suited.

L.Jenkins · 25-09-2013 11:25AM

NuckingFacker wrote: »

Yeah! And then, when we've fecked up their lives and reduced them to the breadline, we can start on all the other types of workers! This is gonna be great!

You say that like Teachers will be the first to suffer in this way. Teachers should not enjoy the comforts they've enjoyed this long, especially the incompetent.

Janedoe10 · 25-09-2013 11:26AM

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

I've talked about this before but I'll do so again; the "starting salary" for a teacher takes about 7-10 years post-graduating to actually reach. No teacher, especially nowadays, walks out of Uni into a full time job.

The vast majority will struggle to find sub-work for the first few years of their career (and HR gets rid of that anyway). If you're making 200 quid a month, you're considered lucky, cause most teachers barely even get a day a month.

After that, you might eventually get offered some 8 or 12 hour contract, which means you're only getting a portion of the wage. I, for instance, got a 12 hour contract last year, and thus only got half wages. That said, I was still expected to be working full time hours. It's not that half wage means half hours. I was still in from 8 till 5. As such, for the "part time job", I would still have only been making about 12k a year. But, of course, poor job security means that after two months, they decided not to renew my contract so back to the unemployment line.

Realistically then, I was lucky getting that. The true starting wage for newly qualified teachers is whatever the Jobseekers Allowance is that they can get.

According to http://www.asti.ie/?id=133 which is the union site , teachers part time are still not working for minimum wage either. Over 34 an hour even if it is part time is very good .

blucey · 25-09-2013 11:27AM

WIZE wrote: »

Hi All,

Just a few questions.

How much does the average secondary school teacher earn per year and what is the weeks hours worked.

click on the link in the post above. A vast cornucopia of facts...

Bannasidhe · 25-09-2013 11:28AM

johnr1 wrote: »

So because you can't compete in a competitive jobs market, then the overpaid incumbents shouldn't be touched... how does that help you?
I suggest retraining in a field where we actually need you, and to which you might be better suited.

We don't need teachers???

Did you emerge from the womb able to read and write?

How 'competitive' we would be as a country of innumerative illiterates??

Lord TSC · 25-09-2013 11:28AM

johnr1 wrote: »

So because you can't compete in a competitive jobs market, then the overpaid incumbents shouldn't be touched... how does that help you?

Please choose to continue putting words in my mouth, despite the fact I've already said I'd be quite happy to see those people targeted.

I'm not, however, going to let myself get mauled in the process of seeing those on stupidly high wages get a slight pay cut. If there's a deal which targets JUST the high earners, or even targets them proportionally, then I'll back it.

But right now, HR targets younger teachers disproportionately, destroying their jobs to actually protect the jobs of the high earners. The agreement removes so many young and motivated teachers from the profession without actually working to remove the "bad" teachers everyone gives out about. People give out about the "bad" teachers, the ones who get a wage over the summer, who squeeze every penny out of the budget and make a bad name for the profession....but then are arguing for an agreement which does very little to them, but instead targets the teachers who don't get paid high wages, don't get a wage over the holidays and who actively wanted to become teachers inspite of the hatred they face from the public and the declining conditions.

These are the people, imo, that SHOULD be protected. And instead, they actually get far more hits from the public who insist teachers are greedy and obnoxious for turning down an agreement which was designed to attack the weakest and cheapest of the profession

blackwhite · 25-09-2013 11:32AM

Are there statistics posted anywhere about the actual supply and demand for teachers?

Every year there seems to be a couple of hundred additional teaching graduates churned out by the various colleges.
Is there a need for these new potential teachers every year?

It seems to me that one of the biggest problems for young teaching graduates is that there aren't many full-time positions available, and that there aren't enough part-time and subbing positions to go around.
Some of these teaching graduates seems to think that graduating from college means that they government should provide them with a full time job, whether or not there is a requirement for the position or not.

If you choose to train in a field which has high competition for jobs then you have to live with the consequences of that decision - and if you can't find sufficient work in your first choice area, then you need to be prepared to look at other types of work.

The Dept of Education should really start putting restrictions on the numbers allowed to enter teaching courses, so that the supply of new teaching graduates qualifying each year is somewhat aligned to the annual requirement for new teachers.

SEPT 23 1989 · 25-09-2013 11:36AM

chopper6 wrote: »

Sure they are...

http://www.revenue.ie/en/press/defaulters/

Irish private sector is full of chancers...thats what screwed up the country...currently there's an obsession with working for FMCs...that'll end well too when they bugger off to Poland or Bangladesh.

Any comment on benchmarking fcuking up the country?

johnr1 · 25-09-2013 11:38AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

We don't need teachers???

Did you emerge from the womb able to read and write?

How 'competitive' we would be as a country of innumerative illiterates??

And where did I suggest that we do away with teachers????

Every second recently qualified teacher is whinging about there being no jobs fir them.

Stupid post is stupid.

christ on a bike! · 25-09-2013 11:39AM

Gerry T wrote: »

Sorry just saw your attachment SpaceTime. 33.5k starting is fair, most graduate engineers and professionals can expect to start at 28k to 32k. The lucky few get more but that's an exception. Now 55k for doing the same job 15 yr's later is taking the p1ss big time. If you were doing that in the private sector that wouldn't happen, you would be lucky with 45k. Then 62k as a Max, that's crazy high, are teachers on the same planet !! I appreciate its a hard job but really ? You could cut that to 50k and there would be a cue a mile long to do the job because of the conditions, notably the very very very short hr's and the very very very long annual leave.

Maybe you want little, or live in a cheap area, but 55k after 15 years work and 62k max for a career is pretty damn limited to me.

Also doesn't take into account that a teacher now needs to work part time at a single school for 5 years before being made permanent.
If they change school they are back to square one.

Look, if it were that great we'd all be doing it.

One common theme I have heard however, is that teachers are genuinely pissed off that lazy useless teachers make the same as everyone else and will not be fired...

Lord TSC · 25-09-2013 11:42AM

blackwhite wrote: »

It seems to me that one of the biggest problems for young teaching graduates is that there aren't many full-time positions available, and that there aren't enough part-time and subbing positions to go around.
Some of these teaching graduates seems to think that graduating from college means that they government should provide them with a full time job, whether or not there is a requirement for the position or not.

If you choose to train in a field which has high competition for jobs then you have to live with the consequences of that decision - and if you can't find sufficient work in your first choice area, then you need to be prepared to look at other types of work.

The Dept of Education should really start putting restrictions on the numbers allowed to enter teaching courses, so that the supply of new teaching graduates qualifying each year is somewhat aligned to the annual requirement for new teachers.

I've been arguing for a restriction for ages now. Fairly certain the Gardai have it already, and it's obvious it's needed. But the way teachers are employed and trained right now, especially with the amount of private courses on offer, means that I'm not sure how the government could implement such an idea. They'd have to completely reform how teachers are trained and more importantly how they are employed.

That said, on a personal level, when I was training, it wasn't a case of it being an oversubscribed field. During my training year, we were constantly told by our lecturers that there was loads of jobs out there, and there'd be even more soon when teachers were retiring. Up until maybe two years ago, there wasn't the same obvious over subscription problems, or at least they weren't as obvious. But thanks to the newer private courses as well, there's 1000 new teachers being churned out every year and only 50 or so jobs between them and everyone from the previous years.

But again I'd ask not to put words into people's mouths. Very few will expect jobs coming out of Uni. That's something that some people say to try and discredit young teachers. Most, myself included, just want a fair crack at being able to prove ourselves. As hard as that is, at least it's possible right now. With the HR agreement, it's really not.

SpaceTime · 25-09-2013 11:42AM

I wish people would realise that the public sector wages increased during a bubble during which the state had a revenue stream coming from a false property boom.

Wage increases post 2002/3 were coming from borrowed money not real economic activity.

The money was borrowed by speculators and through mortgages on houses that are now largely in default.

The state is now left with the wage inflation legacy in the public sector AND the cost of the property collapse.

All that is being borrowed for from the IMF and ECB

It just can't go on.

Get a bit realistic ffs! There is no money to pay these demands.

Perhaps we should turf a few cancer patients out of hospital to reduce costs instead?

Gaillimh1976 · 25-09-2013 11:44AM

20Cent wrote: »

Irish teachers spend more time, net, teaching (735h) than the OECD or EU average ( 686h, 650h) .

Gerry T wrote: »

33.5k starting is fair

€ 45.58 per hour !!!!!

Plus guaranteed job for life, pension etc etc etc

And these people think they are entitled to sympathy ???

:mad::mad::mad::mad:

Gerry T · 25-09-2013 11:49AM

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

I've talked about this before but I'll do so again; the "starting salary" for a teacher takes about 7-10 years post-graduating to actually reach. No teacher, especially nowadays, walks out of Uni into a full time job.

So if a graduate was lucky enough to walk into a full time post they would get the 33.5k ?
Thousands of engineering graduates follow the same faith, they end up going abroad or working in restaurant's or what they can get - unfortunately its the climate at the moment, Job's are thin on the ground. Part time work does suck but the teacher situation has been like this for a long time, why go into teacher training when you know there are no jobs at the end of it ? If you can't get work in the area your trained in you need to consider changing career, harsh but true.

Rookster · 25-09-2013 11:50AM

Gaillimh1976 wrote: »

€ 45.58 per hour !!!!!

Plus guaranteed job for life, pension etc etc etc

And these people think they are entitled to sympathy ???

:mad::mad::mad::mad:

You forgot the 4 months holidays each year. People have been choosing this profession for all the wrong reasons over the last 30 years. It is not a vocation. Greedy lazy bastards!

Bannasidhe · 25-09-2013 11:52AM

johnr1 wrote: »

And where did I suggest that we do away with teachers????

Every second recently qualified teacher is whinging about there being no jobs fir them.

Stupid post is stupid.

Good come back - well considered rebuttal.

We actually do need teachers - our education system is on the verge of collapse from primary through to university. Class sizes are increasing, resources are being cut.

We need people to enter the profession or when the current crop retire...guess what - no teachers!

HR does not address these issues - it protects those currently in post and their packages while denying the next generation of teachers a foot in the door.

Stupid policy is stupid.

Bannasidhe · 25-09-2013 11:56AM

Gaillimh1976 wrote: »

€ 45.58 per hour !!!!!

Plus guaranteed job for life, pension etc etc etc

And these people think they are entitled to sympathy ???

:mad::mad::mad::mad:

Yet these are the very people HR protects, or do you not get that part?

That is why the ASTI refused to agree to it. HR protects the inflated packages of those in the secure life-time jobs while ensuring that when those people retire with their lovely pensions there will be no experienced young teachers ready to step in.

chopper6 · 25-09-2013 11:56AM

ThePieintheSky wrote: »

So is the public sector suppose to generate wealth? Please tell us how you go about this.

The public sector runs the country...it keeps the hopsitals,the schools,the council offices and the police service working.

Dont even get me started on free third level education and the over-generous social welfare system(all administered by public servants).

You cant run a country like a business...this obsession with generating "wealth" blinds people to the fact that the social protection,education and health systems that make countries comfortable to live in are being staffed by thousands of people on mediocre wages upon which you depend.

christ on a bike! · 25-09-2013 11:58AM

Gerry T wrote: »

So if a graduate was lucky enough to walk into a full time post they would get the 33.5k ?
Thousands of engineering graduates follow the same faith, they end up going abroad or working in restaurant's or what they can get - unfortunately its the climate at the moment, Job's are thin on the ground. Part time work does suck but the teacher situation has been like this for a long time, why go into teacher training when you know there are no jobs at the end of it ? If you can't get work in the area your trained in you need to consider changing career, harsh but true.

No graduate can "walk" into that salary, takes years and all will work the part time you speak of before then.

What do you think they should get, 25k? See what kinda teachers you would get then.....

SpaceTime · 25-09-2013 11:58AM

All of these deals are political fixes to complicated problems and they'll be ultimately very unfair as they'll always protect the nosiest, most politically influential group who can put pressure on politicians.

Haddington is no different. Sort of a political least-worst option.

Gerry T · 25-09-2013 11:59AM

christ on a bike! wrote: »

Maybe you want little, or live in a cheap area, but 55k after 15 years work and 62k max for a career is pretty damn limited to me.

Also doesn't take into account that a teacher now needs to work part time at a single school for 5 years before being made permanent.
If they change school they are back to square one.

Look, if it were that great we'd all be doing it.

One common theme I have heard however, is that teachers are genuinely pissed off that lazy useless teachers make the same as everyone else and will not be fired...

Neither unfortunately, nice area and want loads

during the good times I earned all most twice what I earn now, I have a choice - change jobs or make ends meet. For me I'm making ends meet for now, but looking to change.
For those that kept their salaries in the past 6 yrs their the lucky one's and I don't begrudge them. The salary levels have been reset for those following. So a job that paid 70k to 80k will now only pay 50k to 60k, a hugh percentage of the private sector got shifted from the higher/older wages to the new/lower wage scale, through necessity, that or job disappears. I think the school wage scales today are far too generous, way above what the job deserves.

Your second point about being made permanent, no-one in the private sector is permanent, its a myth, if your not contributing your gone, no matter how many years your working.

The reality is the public sector will have to see an adjustment in wages. The private sector just cant pay the bill

SpaceTime · 25-09-2013 12:00PM

chopper6 wrote: »

The public sector runs the country...it keeps the hopsitals,the schools,the council offices and the police service working.

Dont even get me started on free third level education and the over-generous social welfare system(all administered by public servants).

You cant run a country like a business...this obsession with generating "wealth" blinds people to the fact that the social protection,education and health systems that make countries comfortable to live in are being staffed by thousands of people on mediocre wages upon which you depend.

Where do you think the money that those salaries are paid by comes from?!
Companies exporting goods and services are what brings the money in.
The aspects of the public sector you've described above are basically essential overheads in a functioning society. They're not generating wealth, at least not directly anyway.

They are supporting the private sector to generate wealth which in turn pays for them.

Without the private sector generating actual income, those jobs would simply not be payable for.

There is no public vs private sector argument really. Without the private sector the would simply be no public sector unless you're talking about moving towards some kind of a Soviet style command economy with everything nationalised.

johnr1 · 25-09-2013 12:01PM

I might now add some personal knowlege:

In 2007 my now ex wife earned about 55k gross. I know this as we were married.

In 2012 she earned over 72k when bonuses for being a LCA co-ordinator, B post and supervision as well as "increments" ie pay rises were taken into account.

This I know as a result of divorce proceedings.

She has not been promoted in that time, she is not a principal or vice principal.

All this while the we were being told that teachers had taken "3 wage cuts"

Utter Horsesh1t.

We can't afford to keep you in the fashion to which you have become accustomed.

Deal with it.

christ on a bike! · 25-09-2013 12:02PM

Also, these pensions, I'm not sure how cushy they were for the older generation but a huge chunk of teachers wages go towards these.
All the teachers I know are 5 years + in there jobs and have recently been made permanent. I'm earning as much as they are after 2 years in my job si it's not all rosy

CruelCoin · 25-09-2013 12:02PM

Frank Black wrote: »

Teachers feel they have taken enough cuts already, so for me the solution is obvious.
We should be increasing taxes on those working or alternatively increasing our borrowing requirement to ensure that teachers pay and conditions are maintained.
I know some might say they work in a profession where the chances of being made redundant are zero, where gold plated pensions are guaranteed, where you get 3 months off in the summer, where you are amongst the best paid members of your profession in Europe in a country which needs to borrow a billion a month just to stay solvent.
But that’s not important – the teachers feel they have taken enough cuts, and it’s incumbent on the rest of us to listen and give into their demands.

Those in the private sector have taken much deeper cuts than the teachers. If the teachers have had enough cuts, then so have we.

Also, never mind the facts you listed, the teachers have hurt feelings, aww widdums, lets give in. Is that it?

Gerry T · 25-09-2013 12:04PM

christ on a bike! wrote: »

No graduate can "walk" into that salary, takes years and all will work the part time you speak of before then.

What do you think they should get, 25k? See what kinda teachers you would get then.....

Honestly I think you would get the same type of teacher, it takes a certain type of person to do that job, I couldn't. But those that do chose it I feel want to help and teach.
Maybe somewhere along the line some loose interest or get disillusioned and stop teaching & "working" at their trade. They get the others a bad name.
25k for 3 months off in the summer, 2 weeks at Christmas, 2 weeks ate Easter, bank holidays and the much needed planning days and training days !! yes I would think 25k as a starting salary is fair. Working up to 40k for 15 yrs -- provided they get a good annual appraisal and 45k top salary. You would get great teachers at those rates.

joela · 25-09-2013 12:05PM

christ on a bike! wrote: »

No graduate can "walk" into that salary, takes years and all will work the part time you speak of before then.

What do you think they should get, 25k? See what kinda teachers you would get then.....

Maybe we would get more enthusiastic and truly committed teachers if they did have to start on 25k. Starting out on 25k is not all that unusual actually particularly since the downturn. A science graduate I know personally, well qualified, started on just that in an engineering consultancy in 2011. She needed the experience and negotiated a pay increase at her annual review, that is how the real world works. Wake up teachers!

SpaceTime · 25-09-2013 12:05PM

You realise many people in the private sector have taken enormous pay cuts, many have lost their pensions entirely and on top of that they face huge tax increases and various other things that have had a very big impact on their income.

I know plenty of people who have seen their wages fall by >50% in the last few years and who are facing into working much longer hours and no longer have any assurance that their companies will even survive. The dole queue is always just 1 pay cheque away.

Many people are now faced with situation where they're working on contracts, have no job stability etc etc.

Whatever about the people bashing the private sector, if the public sector starts bashing the private sector workers who are actually really hard done by in a very genuine sense, the result will be a political disaster!

Bashing people who are working their butts off in the private sector will just create serious bitterness towards the public sector. It's a stupid thing to do to put it mildly.

Also, throwing every private sector worker into the same category as insane banker-specualtors is totally unfair and insulting. It's like accusing all teachers of being like corrupt county councillors or something.

We should be trying to work together on these issues not trying some nutty "us" vs "them" thing. It's all the same pot of money in the end!

Teachers set to be disciplined for obnoxious and greedy behaviour

Comments