Garda, nurses, teachers and doctor's pay

selectamatic · 30-03-2016 11:53AM

100% pay restoration for newly qualified/post 2011 teachers has to be to the forefront of any matters regarding teachers pay. If a pay rise is sought initially by pre 2011 permenant teachers then there's no hope of any ground being covered in pay talks as it just smacks of greed in the eyes of the public.
Teaching is an intense job I know many of my friends just simply wouldn't be cut out for it many people just don't have the patience, also the work invariably follows you home in many other jobs this isn't the case. Sure there are great holidays but that has always been the case it can't suddenly be decided upon that children have to go to school every month of the year.
The demanding in the spotlight nature of the job is something only teachers fully understand and with 30 little faces looking up at you there's certainly no room for slacking off, it's intense.
Also teachers from day one of our qualification have instant and total responsibility for our class we are doing the same job as a teacher who has been at it for 20 years the same cannot be said of junior doctors so perhaps teachers starting off on more than junior doctors isn't so far fetched. No one is disputing that as the doctor progresses throughout their career their pay should easily surpass that of a teachers and rightly so it's a tougher even more specialised job with even tougher training however initially the pay gap is much less for a reason, responsibility grows with the job for doctors this isn't the case for teachers we're in at the deep end of our profession from the get go.

maudgonner · 30-03-2016 11:56AM

medicine12345 wrote: »

Half the medical students currently training are postgrads with engineering, law, pharmacy degrees etc.

I would actually love to see the breakdown of what a teacher gets paid per hour compared to a doctor. When you think about how many less hours per year they work, they must get 2 or 3 times what the doctor gets per hour worked.

I'm guessing most of those are doing it through GEMS too? Which costs ~60k in fees and there's no funding for it (or only a very few students qualify for funding under hardship rules), if I remember rightly.

maudgonner · 30-03-2016 12:00PM

selectamatic wrote: »

Also teachers from day one of our qualification have instant and total responsibility for our class we are doing the same job as a teacher who has been at it for 20 years the same cannot be said of junior doctors so perhaps teachers starting off on more than junior doctors isn't so far fetched. No one is disputing that as the doctor progresses throughout their career their pay should easily surpass that of a teachers and rightly so it's a tougher even more specialised job with even tougher training however initially the pay gap is much less for a reason, responsibility grows with the job for doctors this isn't the case for teachers we're in at the deep end of our profession from the get go.

Then how do you justify that your pay will rise to 60k after 25 years of service, for doing the exact same job?

Squall Leonhart · 30-03-2016 12:03PM

maudgonner wrote: »

Then how do you justify that your pay will rise to 60k after 25 years of service, for doing the exact same job?

I like you Maud

Sounding a classic case of wanting your cake and eating it really isn't it.

maudgonner · 30-03-2016 12:09PM

Squall Leonhart wrote: »

I like you Maud
Sounding a classic case of wanting your cake and eating it really isn't it.

I'm just waiting for one of the docs on here to come on and post their reaction to the fact that they seemingly have much less responsibility and a far easier time of it than a teacher.

Should be fun.

selectamatic · 30-03-2016 12:10PM

maudgonner wrote: »

Then how do you justify that your pay will rise to 60k after 25 years of service, for doing the exact same job?

You become better at said job.
Also that's how pay scales work the longer you're in the job the more you get. The jump to becoming principal makes the job inherently more difficult in the case of "teaching principals". I have said all I wanted to say regarding my profession but if you think pay scales shouldn't exist or upskilling isn't required then you need communism in your life.
My point was to do with responsibility staying the same for all class teachers. Professionals fighting over who has the tougher job will achieve nothing for anyone, every job has it's highly important place in life but you sadly seem to feel differently.

maudgonner · 30-03-2016 12:13PM

selectamatic wrote: »

You become better at said job.
Also that's how pay scales work the longer you're in the job the more you get. The jump to becoming principal makes the job inherently more difficult in the case of "teaching principals". I have said all I wanted to say regarding my profession but if you think pay scales shouldn't exist or upskilling isn't required then you need communism in your life.
My point was to do with responsibility staying the same for all class teachers. Professionals fighting over who has the tougher job will achieve nothing for anyone, every job has it's highly important place in life but you sadly seem to feel differently.

I think teachers have a very important job. But I also think you're deluded if you think you're poorly paid, or don't have very favourable working conditions. I can't see why you think you're worth so much more than graduates in other fields.

And your argument for why a new grad teacher should be paid more than a junior doctor is frankly ridiculous. You can't have it both ways.

selectamatic · 30-03-2016 12:28PM

maudgonner wrote: »

I think teachers have a very important job. But I also think you're deluded if you think you're poorly paid, or don't have very favourable working conditions. I can't see why you think you're worth so much more than graduates in other fields.

And your argument for why a new grad teacher should be paid more than a junior doctor is frankly ridiculous. You can't have it both ways.

All I want is to be paid the same as people who were newly grads pre 2011.
My point regarding junior doctors was that in their first year in particular they are heavily mentored this isn't the case for teachers.
It also doesn't take long for junior doctors to surpass teachers in earnings and as I have already said rightly so as they're responsibilities grow. Doctors as a whole should be paid more I've never argued that they shouldn't. I was merely shedding light on why the pay gap is much narrower at grad level.

Icaras · 30-03-2016 12:35PM

selectamatic wrote: »

All I want is to be paid the same as people who were newly grads pre 2011.

Do you think people who were newly grads per 2011 are currently on a reasonable and/or fair pay rate? (I honestly have no idea what that figure is)

maudgonner · 30-03-2016 12:42PM

selectamatic wrote: »

All I want is to be paid the same as people who were newly grads pre 2011.
My point regarding junior doctors was that in their first year in particular they are heavily mentored this isn't the case for teachers.
It also doesn't take long for junior doctors to surpass teachers in earnings and as I have already said rightly so as they're responsibilities grow. Doctors as a whole should be paid more I've never argued that they shouldn't. I was merely shedding light on why the pay gap is much narrower at grad level.

I really think you need to do some research into what junior doctors go through in the first years of their career and see if you still feel that new teachers have a much harder job, to the tune of 8k in salary for a much shorter working year.

I don't think anyone is arguing that you should be paid the same as pre-2011 grads. The point is whether the level for pre-2011 grads should be 38k. (And with increments up the pay scale accordingly).

If teachers are so concerned about the pay levels of new entrants, why not undo the decision that led to the discrepancy in the first place, that kept the pay levels high for those who had already got their foot in the door? Instead of asking the tax payers to foot the bill for increasing the wages of new entrants.

I'm not naive enough to think it will happen, but that's the argument that I'm making. 31k seems like a fair wage for a new grad teacher, as many here have commented. But I'd have absolutely no problem if that went up, as long as the taxpayer didn't have to pay for it.

maudgonner · 30-03-2016 12:44PM

Icaras wrote: »

Do you think people who were newly grads per 2011 are currently on a reasonable and/or fair pay rate? (I honestly have no idea what that figure is)

From the figures quoted earlier in this thread, pre-2011 new entrants were on 38k. Post-2011, roughly 31k.

doireannod · 30-03-2016 01:04PM

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Teaching takes at least 5 years now. Indeed it takes some people 6.
In terms of responsibility obviously life and death are more important but learning how to read and write are also pretty vital skills which make a huge difference to someone's life.
Full qualified teachers were and are not paid for their training like trainee doctors either.

Everybody likes to put a cost on education but it is clear very few know the value of a good teacher.

Can you please clarify what allowances you believe doctors get to the tune of 10k per annum?

doireannod · 30-03-2016 01:11PM

maudgonner wrote: »

I'm guessing most of those are doing it through GEMS too? Which costs ~60k in fees and there's no funding for it (or only a very few students qualify for funding under hardship rules), if I remember rightly.

This is correct. But I think the point is almost moot in the context of this conversation. It's an individual's prerogative to pursue adult education and incur hundreds of thousands of euro worth of debt. If a solicitor studied law for 3 years, then decided to pursue teaching, they could say they studied for up to 8 years to become a teacher. Same for GEMS who study for 9 or 10 years to become a doctor.

Inspector Coptoor · 30-03-2016 03:18PM

maudgonner wrote: »

I'm sorry Inspector, but that list of cuts isn't going to gain you much sympathy from the private sector.
USC is not only paid by teachers - at least that's what my tax returns tell me.
Pension levy - do you have any idea how lucky you are do have a public sector pension? And like Sergio said, I'd like to see how you're paying more into it than you will ever get out? It seems a strange statement.
Extra hours - seriously? Do you want to argue that your hours are onerous? It would take a huge addition of hours to bring you up to the standard working hours/weeks per year that most of us do. It's never going to come close.
Increment freezes - not at all unusual in the private sector. Many people suffered paycuts or lost their jobs entirely.

None of those in any way justify the 38k starting salary you think should be standard, IMO.

The thing is - I'm not looking for sympathy.
Don't want it from anyone.
I'm simply highlighting why "take 5% off pre 2011 teachers and spread it around" won't work as an idea.
Of course I'm aware everyone pays USC - still affects the net pay we get.

justufy according to who?
You?
How are you qualified to make that claim?

maudgonner · 30-03-2016 03:27PM

Inspector Coptoor wrote: »

The thing is - I'm not looking for sympathy.
Don't want it from anyone.
I'm simply highlighting why "take 5% off pre 2011 teachers and spread it around" won't work as an idea.
Of course I'm aware everyone pays USC - still affects the net pay we get.

justufy according to who?
You?
How are you qualified to make that claim?

You'll notice that I said IMO - in my opinion. I have no qualification to make the claim, I have no influence over the process. I'm just giving my opinion on a discussion board, same as everyone else.

Mardy Bum · 30-03-2016 03:41PM

maudgonner wrote: »

You'll notice that I said IMO - in my opinion. I have no qualification to make the claim, I have no influence over the process. I'm just giving my opinion on a discussion board, same as everyone else.

Maud how do you attract very skilled candidates into a field that has little chance of promotion, takes upwards of 5 years to qualify, is basically a part time job for the first 3 years after you qualify where you are lucky to earn 18k and then it takes another 3 years to become permanent?

Now you say you value teaching but 31k is too much?

FYI I don't know anyone who actually earned a full salary in their first year of teaching. Most have at least 3 years experience before they earn 31k.

legocrazy505 · 30-03-2016 03:43PM

maudgonner wrote: »

Inspector Coptoor wrote: »

If you knew how much our pay & conditions have been eroded over the last 6 years you wouldn't be saying "sure if everyone took a 5% cut wouldn't it be grand.

USC - 7% cut reduced now to 5.5%
Pension levy - 7.5% now meaning teachers will pay way more into their pension then they will ever get out
2% cut with removal of S&S payments & imposition of 47 hours Supervidiin & substitution for nothing
33 croke park hours which constitutes 1.5 weeks extra work per year which can be equated to a 3.9% cut.
Increment freezes.
The list goes on.

I'm sorry Inspector, but that list of cuts isn't going to gain you much sympathy from the private sector.
USC is not only paid by teachers - at least that's what my tax returns tell me.
Pension levy - do you have any idea how lucky you are do have a public sector pension? And like Sergio said, I'd like to see how you're paying more into it than you will ever get out? It seems a strange statement.
Extra hours - seriously? Do you want to argue that your hours are onerous? It would take a huge addition of hours to bring you up to the standard working hours/weeks per year that most of us do. It's never going to come close.
Increment freezes - not at all unusual in the private sector. Many people suffered paycuts or lost their jobs entirely.

None of those in any way justify the 38k starting salary you think should be standard, IMO.

Wow, I actually hope if you have kids the teacher refuses to teach them, I hope A&E turn you round too. You act as if public sector are protected by the government when they took huge cuts and scarifies, people were made redundant and facilities closed. You should really start treating them like fellow taxpayers rather than giving the impression you think they are some elite group living the dream life.

maudgonner · 30-03-2016 03:46PM

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Maud how do you attract very skilled candidates into a field that has little chance of promotion, takes upwards of 5 years to qualify, is basically a part time job for the first 3 years after you qualify where you are lucky to earn 18k and then it takes another 3 years to become permanent?

Now you say you value teaching but 31k is too much?

FYI I don't know anyone who actually earned a full salary in their first year of teaching. Most have at least 3 years experience before they earn 31k.

I've already said multiple times on this thread that I believe 31k is a fair starting salary. And that I would rather resources were put into making sure that newly qualified teachers had a good chance of getting a permanent job and achieving that salary.

30-03-2016 03:59PM

New to this issue and have a naive question - so please don't go mad if this has already been asked/answered

Re. teachers' pay: purely from memory, was it not the case that the teaching unions - under pressure to agree to some kind of cut in the wage bill - opted to protect existing teachers at the expense of new entrants post-2011?

30-03-2016 04:49PM

legocrazy505 wrote: »

Wow, I actually hope if you have kids the teacher refuses to teach them, I hope A&E turn you round too.

Lovely.

You act as if public sector are protected by the government when they took huge cuts and scarifies, people were made redundant and facilities closed.

Cuts were necessary because pay levels were set against an extraordinarily high tax income based around an economy of us selling houses to each other at higher and higher prices. Do you get that?

If you needed a tradesman to come out and do some work in your house and he turned around and added 25% onto the bill because "that's what he was paid in 2007", you would obviously pay it no questions asked, right?

You should really start treating them like fellow taxpayers rather than giving the impression you think they are some elite group living the dream life.

The 50% of workers in this country who earn less than €28,500 are also taxpayers, why do you deserve their money ahead of it being used, for example, to hire more teachers or to improve facilities?

You'll always hear teachers talk about the kids...well I have a question for you - how do you think the teaching profession would react if the government turned around and pumped an extra few billion into teaching, but all of it was going on increasing the number of teaching positions and improving facilities, with nothing going towards salary increases? What do you think the chances would be of teachers supporting it?

Inspector Coptoor · 30-03-2016 04:59PM

Sergio Georgini wrote: »

Lovely.

Cuts were necessary because pay levels were set against an extraordinarily high tax income based around an economy of us selling houses to each other at higher and higher prices. Do you get that?

If you needed a tradesman to come out and do some work in your house and he turned around and added 25% onto the bill because "that's what he was paid in 2007", you would obviously pay it no questions asked, right?

The 50% of workers in this country who earn less than €28,500 are also taxpayers, why do you deserve their money ahead of it being used, for example, to hire more teachers or to improve facilities?

You'll always hear teachers talk about the kids...well I have a question for you - how do you think the teaching profession would react if the government turned around and pumped an extra few billion into teaching, but all of it was going on increasing the number of teaching positions and improving facilities, with nothing going towards salary increases? What do you think the chances would be of teachers supporting it?

I would support this.
I don't want any more money.
I'm perfectly content with my lot.

The union position currently is that we are against the Lansdowne Road pay agreement and are willing to forego €2000 in the next 18 months to stand up for better conditions for ourselves, our schools and our students.

It's not just about money.

thomasdylan · 30-03-2016 06:31PM

Mardy Bum wrote: »

A doctor's base salary is 30000, in reality the vast majority earn more than 40000 when allowances are added on.

What reality is that? You're misinformed or making stuff up to try and justify your position. Or I've missing out on 10 grand a year.

KatW4 · 30-03-2016 07:49PM

Sergio Georgini wrote:

You'll always hear teachers talk about the kids...well I have a question for you - how do you think the teaching profession would react if the government turned around and pumped an extra few billion into teaching, but all of it was going on increasing the number of teaching positions and improving facilities, with nothing going towards salary increases? What do you think the chances would be of teachers supporting it?

I would love if this happened and any teacher I know would support it also. A selfish reason, I'd get a job. But then the main reason would be that I could have proper resources in my classroom for things like art. We can't do everything I'd love to do with them because the school can't afford the resources and I can't afford to keep paying for them either.

doireannod · 30-03-2016 07:52PM

thomasdylan wrote: »

What reality is that? You're misinformed or making stuff up to try and justify your position. Or I've missing out on 10 grand a year.

Can't wait to retrospectively claim back the tens of thousands in allowances I'm due.

Paulzx · 30-03-2016 08:38PM

Sergio Georgini wrote: »

You'll always hear teachers talk about the kids...well I have a question for you - how do you think the teaching profession would react if the government turned around and pumped an extra few billion into teaching, but all of it was going on increasing the number of teaching positions and improving facilities, with nothing going towards salary increases? What do you think the chances would be of teachers supporting it?

I'd say they'd jump all over it if the teaching positions were proper, permanent jobs.

I've never understood how the teaching unions have stood over basically the temporisation of their profession. Any union worth it's salt prioritises full time, permanent positions where the staff have the full rights of permanent workers.

Instead, we have a situation where our kids are being educated by a transient cohort of teachers who are forced to move around schools multiple times per year.

The sheer number of temporary teachers is now causing it to be a major issue but it has always been a problem

KatW4 · 30-03-2016 09:23PM

Paulzx wrote:

Instead, we have a situation where our kids are being educated by a transient cohort of teachers who are forced to move around schools multiple times per year.

That's what I hate about it. The children need stability but in some cases, they could have up to 4 teachers in one year. It isn't fair on them.

Mardy Bum · 30-03-2016 09:25PM

thomasdylan wrote: »

What reality is that? You're misinformed or making stuff up to try and justify your position. Or I've missing out on 10 grand a year.

Trainees are on 30000 qualified doctors are not.

doireannod · 30-03-2016 09:32PM

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Trainees are on 30000 qualified doctors are not.

Doctors in training are qualified doctors.

So when you say that most doctors earn over 30,000e in "allowances" do you mean that more experienced, senior doctors are remunerated more than their junior counterparts due to more expertise? Because being more skilled and getting paid for it is not an ALLOWANCE.

You haven't the foggiest notion what you're talking about. Stick to what you know. It's embarrassing.

liam7831 · 30-03-2016 09:34PM

I never believe people when they say teaching is a vocation not a job. What a load of crap, people are attracted to the long holidays and never working weekends, not teaching little Johnny to count to five.

Anita Blow · 30-03-2016 09:39PM

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Trainees are on 30000 qualified doctors are not.

A qualified doctor is a trainee. You're a trainee until you become consultant

Garda, nurses, teachers and doctor's pay

Comments