ASTI ballot

evolving_doors wrote: »

I think there may be actually some logic in not recommending.
IF it's a no to PSSA it 'may' be viewed as a repudiation of haddington road, which would put ASTI outside of everything agreed within; been there and done that and lost members as a result. Would they want to risk everyone voting in accordance with No recommendation and then finding that the dept. start to play hardball. It wont be a case of switching sides from ASTI to TUI this time as most of the younger teachers now aren't even in the ASTI to start with.

I doubt the teachers will ever get equality, if that's what they want then it'll be given back piecemeal in return for pounds of flesh... this is how they got the Junior Cycle and changes to AP posts in.

How do people think the new AP post appointment process is going!!!
How do people think the roll out of the new Junior Cycle is going!!!!
When you dine with the devil you need a very long spoon.

The AP Process is going to cause division in staff rooms and it may suck goodwill out of schools. However, the previous system of special duties, determined largely by seniority, was completely antiquated. It had to go. You can't justify a situation whereby a person takes on a role that they are not suitable for and are not really accountable.

The Junior Cycle and its implementation is a complete and utter unmitigated disaster.

In general, I am totally bewildered that all unions are not going to be giving a recommendation to members.

I am not surprised that ASTI is doing similar to that of INTO and TUI. Imagine if the ASTI issued a No recommendation and both TUI and INTO accepted. It would be like 2016 all over again.

I am disappointed as an LPT, but not just at the ASTI, to all teacher unions. The truth is, there is no appetite for strike action and the ASTI does not want to be seen once again as the very militant union that is isolated, facing financial penalties and waiting longer for CIDs. The union is still trying to regain the approximate 1000 loss of members since 2016. I don't agree with today's decision at all, don't get me wrong, but the whole process and lack of an appetite for whole disruption between all unions is shocking. I hope it's a NO from all three at this stage, however INTO are pushing this deal big time even thought they have not given any recommendation to members.
I'll be voting No anyway once ASTI issue their ballot papers.

Will we ever be treated as first class teachers? Being a second class teacher sucks.

Reject it!!! It’s not equality - end of. The one word I would use to describe today was apathy. No fight, no desire. LPTs need to go to their branch AGM this month and get on CEC or we will coast out of PSSA in 2020 and into the next agreement. Some people are standing on that soap box serving their own needs and I am sick of it. Equality for all!

Benicetomonty wrote: »

No point in blaming the ASTI here. It was made abundantly clear to members in my school by the president herself that unless there was cross union cooperation, there would be nobody taking industrial action. After the TUI and (especially) the INTO chose to ballot without a recommendation, the writing was on the wall, as, historically, no recommendation is the same as recommending a Yes vote.

Whilst there is a strong lpt cohort that is active on social media, here and elsewhere, the ASTI's failed campaign last time around showed everyone that those members are in a minority, and probably a significant minority. Im aware that a number of senior members defied all sorts of basic tenets of trade unionism in 2016 but in my own place and from what Ive heard anecdotally, the majority of post 2011 recruits chose to take the crumbs on offer from the Lansdowne rd agreement and desert the ASTI for the TUI. Their ex colleagues spent a couple of days on the picket line and several months repudiating the agreement for nothing. Frozen increments have become, retrospectively, a particularly bitter pill to swallow, and, truth be told, even if there was a no recommendation, there would be zero guarantee that it would be carried.

Il be voting no obviously. Would never occur to me to vote otherwise. But I can certainly understand why many like me will vote to accept. Until the vast, vast majority of LPTs are ready to bombard politicians, the media and union leadership into addressing the issue, pay equality wont happen. And, as the last 2 years have proven, we're nowhere near that right now. As such, appealing to or criticising pre 2011 folk and the leadership is pointless.

We all spent a few days on the picket line, not just pre-2011 teachers. None of the LPTs in my school, including myself, switched unions, we were definitely in it for the long haul.

However a neighbouring dual union school that was predominately ASTI had most members move to TUI, LPTs and senior teachers included. As you probably are aware, it wasn't 1000 LPTs that left the ASTI but a combination of younger, middle and older teachers. That should have never happened and that's a difficult pill to swallow for those that were in it for the long haul.

To think that LPTs were going to get shafted twice in 2016 was unprecedented. Those that were due their CIDs, as well as most ASTI members, were probably unaware that the CID prolongement would happen. To think that the ward report was under the Lansdowne Road agreement never crossed my mind. I actually thought it was an entirely separated entity that would apply to all teachers from a certain date for Indefinite duration.

The government really got members there. And when the ASTI never resumed strike action after going into talks that was it. I don't blame anyone but the government. They made inequality more prevalent by attacking new teachers with waiting longer for their CIDs.

LPTs have had enough of being treated differently to the teacher next to them. It just simply isn't right.

I thank you for voting NO as I believe it's the right thing to do. Voting Yes will mean we are bound by PSSA and will be paying a permanent pension levy as well as continuing Croke Park Hours.
Pay Equality will never happen unless we have all three teacher unions out on strike.

Can I ask, I see this new ‘deal’ giving improved pay to LPT and a permanent pension levy ?? Not pay equality after all ??

I am bitterly disappointed by yesterday's decision and feel that my collegues on CEC made a big mistake by voting for the "no recommendation." I listened intently to all the speeches by those recommending that position, but not once did I feel swayed or conflicted and not once did I even consider anything other than a resounding No.Many of us did our best to persuade them that this was the wrong course but the vote wasn't even close. As another poster pointed out, there was no spirit,no fight in people,the atmosphere was completely flat.

I get that many or most feel burned by recent events where ASTI stuck their neck out and carried the fight,only to get betrayed by those they were fighting for. And I get the risk a "No" recommendation carries as in what do we do if our members follow our advice and if TUI and INTO vote to accept. And the risk of being battered on all sides yet again.

But you're either committed to something or you're not. There is no such thing as being partially committed while you sit on the fence with your arse in the air. Sometimes in life you have to be single minded,you have to go all out despite the risks and this is one such time.

What sucks the most for me is that this is one war we could win. We have right completely on our side and for once public opinion could not argue with the glaring inequality. I also feel that a "No" recommendation from ASTI could have swung the vote in the other unions. They would have taken courage from it.

At this point I honestly don't see us ever achieving equality and while I blame this rotten Government, I blame the unions more and by unions,I mean the members,all members. And the shocking cowardice from ASTI yesterday has me seriously considering my own involvement going forward.

But I still urge everybody to vote No and to campaign for a No. It's the only hope left.

acequion wrote: »

Just because a system is antiquated doesn't mean it isn't effective. The seniority system was no less effective than the current one,in fact it worked perfectly well for the most part and you had none of this toxic rivalry and back stabbing that is now an unfortunate feature of the modern staffroom. And such toxicity is a threat to the quality of education. After all, as a teacher, your priority is supposed to be your students, not what you have to do to get your promotion.And as for "accountability" this has also become a new obsession,again at the expense of education. All that matters is getting that box ticked. The whole thing is an absolute farce.

1. This system hasn't kicked in yet - not fully - so we can't realistically judge its effectiveness.

2. In contrast, let me explain my experience of the old one. I worked in one school where a person's A Post was 'Exam Coordinator'. Twice in the academic year they made the exam timetable and once a year they ordered mock papers.

This teacher was teaching twenty-five years.

Three other teachers had B posts and they were Year Heads.

Now, you can justify that as 'effective', but how in the name of God, on a thread about pay equality, can you justify that, by implication, as fair?

Would you be willing to accept the inherent unfairness in that system just because it is effective?

A system, in the context of pay inequality for LPT's, that rewards you with a post because you are getting older is inherently unfair and is a massive kick in the teeth to LPT's. Youth is no guarantee of innovation, but age is no guarantee of experience. If a younger teacher is better suited to a middle-management position than a more experienced teacher, so be it.

Studentblogger wrote: »

1. This system hasn't kicked in yet - not fully - so we can't realistically judge its effectiveness.

2. In contrast, let me explain my experience of the old one. I worked in one school where a person's A Post was 'Exam Coordinator'. Twice in the academic year they made the exam timetable and once a year they ordered mock papers.

This teacher was teaching twenty-five years.

Three other teachers had B posts and they were Year Heads.

Now, you can justify that as 'effective', but how in the name of God, on a thread about pay equality, can you justify that, by implication, as fair?

Would you be willing to accept the inherent unfairness in that system just because it is effective?

A system, in the context of pay inequality for LPT's, that rewards you with a post because you are getting older is inherently unfair and is a massive kick in the teeth to LPT's. Youth is no guarantee of innovation, but age is no guarantee of experience. If a younger teacher is better suited to a middle-management position than a more experienced teacher, so be it.

First off,you are the one equating the system of promotion with pay equality. Just because they are both being discussed under the one thread doesn't mean they have anything to do with one another. They are day and night in my opinion

Secondly, you cite the example of one school to back up your point. If we're going to base our arguments on our schools, then why not take my school where the enrolment hovers close to 1,200 students. In such a school being exam coordinator requires a hell of a lot more work than the same role in a much smaller school. Ditto for year head.

But that's not even the point. The point or the argument is about which system is more effective or fairer. And I have pointed out that the old system, like all systems,was far from perfect, but had an inherent fairness in that everybody got their turn if interested. This completely eliminated rivalry and enhanced collegiality.Everybody accepted it and waited their turn while getting on with their teaching. Based on what I'm witnessing currently, I'd have it back in a heartbeat.

As for fairness in terms of LPTs, there is no fairness there because of pay apartheid. And as long as that continues LPTs have no business getting worked up over anything else.

acequion wrote: »

First off,you are the one equating the system of promotion with pay equality. Just because they are both being discussed under the one thread doesn't mean they have anything to do with one another. They are day and night in my opinion.

Precisely. It's not just about pay equality; it's also about equality of opportunity.

Why in the name of God should a younger teacher have to 'wait' for a post? Why not compete for it and base the decision on merit?

acequion wrote: »

Secondly, you cite the example of one school to back up your point. If we're going to base our arguments on our schools, then why not take my school where the enrolment hovers close to 1,200 students. In such a school being exam coordinator requires a hell of a lot more work than the same role in a much smaller school. Ditto for year head.

That's absolutely fine. But are you really suggesting that, in a hypothetical situation in your school, an A post holder's role as the exam coordinator is commensurate with that level of pay, while a B post holder is a Year Head, in the context of a school that size?

acequion wrote: »

But that's not even the point. The point or the argument is about which system is more effective or fairer. And I have pointed out that the old system, like all systems,was far from perfect, but had an inherent fairness in that everybody got their turn if interested. This completely eliminated rivalry and enhanced collegiality.Everybody accepted it and waited their turn while getting on with their teaching. Based on what I'm witnessing currently, I'd have it back in a heartbeat.

Everyone may have got that turn, but what about people got a post just to get a post - because it was their turn.
What sort of nonsense is that? "Oh, it's your turn, so we'll give you a few grand. What's more, we'll find a role for you (because you actually haven't got the skill set to be a Year Head).

I'll give you my perspective of a previous school, the one I mentioned above: Dublin school, enrolment of 650. Exam coordinator was an A post, because, quite frankly, it was created for them. Next A post holder was 6th Year Head (fine, by the way, and they did an excellent job). Next A post holder was Health and Safety - they coordinated fire drills twice a year. Now, I'm all or workplace and student Health and Safety, but there is no way that is worth the level of pay of an A post. By the way, also created for them because they were 'next in line'.

Now, not all schools may have had that negative experience, but at least the new system has the potential to root that nonsense out.

acequion wrote: »

As for fairness in terms of LPTs, there is no fairness there because of pay apartheid. And as long as that continues LPTs have no business getting worked up over anything else.

I work with staff now who are LPT's. They are quite entitled to get worked up over this.

Studentblogger wrote: »

Precisely. It's not just about pay equality; it's also about equality of opportunity.

Why in the name of God should a younger teacher have to 'wait' for a post? Why not compete for it and base the decision on merit?



That's absolutely fine. But are you really suggesting that, in a hypothetical situation in your school, an A post holder's role as the exam coordinator is commensurate with that level of pay, while a B post holder is a Year Head, in the context of a school that size?



Everyone may have got that turn, but what about people got a post just to get a post - because it was their turn.
What sort of nonsense is that? "Oh, it's your turn, so we'll give you a few grand. What's more, we'll find a role for you (because you actually haven't got the skill set to be a Year Head).

I'll give you my perspective of a previous school, the one I mentioned above: Dublin school, enrolment of 650. Exam coordinator was an A post, because, quite frankly, it was created for them. Next A post holder was 6th Year Head (fine, by the way, and they did an excellent job). Next A post holder was Health and Safety - they coordinated fire drills twice a year. Now, I'm all or workplace and student Health and Safety, but there is no way that is worth the level of pay of an A post. By the way, also created for them because they were 'next in line'.

Now, not all schools may have had that negative experience, but at least the new system has the potential to root that nonsense out.



I work with staff now who are LPT's. They are quite entitled to get worked up over this.

I'm not going to get into an argument with you about different schools, different posts and whether you think they're fair or not fair. Personally I was never interested in a post, I have always only wanted to teach.

I don't think you should call the old system "nonsense." It worked and it worked for many decades and re the bit from your post which I've emboldened above, competition pits people against each other and competition breeds a win at all costs mentality. That might all be fine in other work places but not in education where the priority is or should be the students. In schools, collegiality is vital and the new system is seriously undermining that.

As for your last comment, I never said that LPTs are not entitled to get worked up about things. But in my opinion their main focus should be on the fight for pay equality because nothing is right or fair while there is a two tier pay scale.

Now can we put this argument to bed please and agree to disagree.