Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Can someone explain this story
Options
-
22-04-2019 7:40pm#1Hi all,
I saw this story in independent.ie:
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/education/i-would-be-30000-better-off-if-id-qualified-a-year-earlier-its-a-bitter-pill-to-swallow-38037434.html
I was somewhat aware that the starting points changed (although I thought that was in 2010 as I had a friend that entered into the HSE literally a few days after the changeover and that would have been around Jan 2010).
I was wondering about claims she would have had 30k more now had she qualified a year earlier.
Because she also talks about only only working part time (at least initially), and then obviously you would have to take tax into account. So to have 30k now she must have had to have actual income of, say, 50k or more compared to what she actually had. Was there really a gap of 10k+ a year between nominal salaries of new graduates and those that started a year earlier? What would that work out as? like 12-15 Euro an hour per contact hour or something like that (just very rough back-of-envelope.....and I don't know how many contact hours is a full week. guess low 20's for maybe ~36 weeks or something.)
I'm not saying X doesn't deserve Y. Not saying one way or the other. Just wondering if the nominal discrepancy was in fact that big.0
Comments
-
33,041+1,236+4,918=39,195
Assuming Honours degree.
Source:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120108035446/http://www.asti.ie/pay-and-conditions/pay/salary-scale/salary-scale-for-teachers-appointed-prior-to-january-2011/
vs
€30,702
https://www.education.ie/en/Circulars-and-Forms/Active-Circulars/cl0008_2013.pdf
Starting difference of €8,493, gross.
Edit: Since she had a masters, that's actually +578, so €9,071 of a difference.0 -
33,041+1,236+4,918=39,195
Assuming Honours degree.
Source:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120108035446/http://www.asti.ie/pay-and-conditions/pay/salary-scale/salary-scale-for-teachers-appointed-prior-to-january-2011/
vs
€30,702
https://www.education.ie/en/Circulars-and-Forms/Active-Circulars/cl0008_2013.pdf
Starting difference of €8,493, gross.
Edit: Since she had a masters, that's actually +578, so €9,071 of a difference.
Thanks. I was confused as same article mentioned a 10% decrease so my guess is that either the article is wrong on that or there were additional allowances which were removed (and not included in the 10%). I will read through your links again!0 -
Sorry for one additional very basic question.
Would it be correct that those allowances were not cumulative? I see from your post that you added only 578 for the MSc on top of the primary degree. But it looks like you added 1,236 for a HDip. It doesn't say in the article that she had one. If someone had an Masters and a PhD for example, could they have gotten two allowances, or if you had two Masters.
(I see that an M.Sc. by thesis would be the same as only having a primary honours degree. That would be a pain in the arse.)
Still the article also quotes 27k which is listed in your link as the unqualified rate. So I would think that she does not have a HDip. That brings you back down to roughly 7800 difference.
She might be close enough to the 30k if her period of working 8 hours a week was only very brief, but even then, I think she might be exaggerating a bit!0 -
You can have one of Degree, Masters or PhD.
Degree is worth just short of €5k, Masters €5.5k, PhD €6k.
One supercedes the other so you you get the one with the highest number associated with it.0 -
Inspector Coptoor wrote: »You can have one of Degree, Masters or PhD.
Degree is worth just short of €5k, Masters €5.5k, PhD €6k.
One supercedes the other so you you get the one with the highest number associated with it.
But crappy though for a research Masters not to give you anything above a primary degree.....given that other things do. Well the HDip does at least.
I would imagine that the average person who started pre-2010 had an undergraduate degree and a HDip. And if the bottom of the scale at the time was the now point 3 that would mean they were starting on over 39k for a job with nice long holidays. Good enough deal when you compare it to the likes of engineers who would be coming out and starting on a fair bit less than that for a longer week and a lot more weeks on the job.
One last question. What is "unqualified"? Does it mean someone with no degree at all?0 -
Advertisement
-
It's a bit unclear, but I'm assuming she graduated from the Hdip pre 2012 cut off (PDE, BEd or whatever it was called) but as she hadn't started earning from the dept. (Cos of masters) she was kicked into post 2012 payscale.0
-
evolving_doors wrote: »It's a bit unclear, but I'm assuming she graduated from the Hdip pre 2012 cut off (PDE, BEd or whatever it was called) but as she hadn't started earning from the dept. (Cos of masters) she was kicked into post 2012 payscale.
It could just be a badly written article. I was trying to figure it out when I read it but it didn't appear consistent. Not blaming her - I'd say it's the journalist.0 -
Donald Trump wrote: »But crappy though for a research Masters not to give you anything above a primary degree.....given that other things do. Well the HDip does at least.
I would imagine that the average person who started pre-2010 had an undergraduate degree and a HDip. And if the bottom of the scale at the time was the now point 3 that would mean they were starting on over 39k for a job with nice long holidays. Good enough deal when you compare it to the likes of engineers who would be coming out and starting on a fair bit less than that for a longer week and a lot more weeks on the job.
One last question. What is "unqualified"? Does it mean someone with no degree at all?
Shur look at this hairdresser guy getting paid buckets to do Kim's hair, I think us Teachers and Engineers missed a trick there..... and the fella had no college at all.
https://www.her.ie/celeb/turns-hairdresser-styles-kardashians-hair-irish-3883280 -
But what is the "unqualified" rate for? Is it a legacy thing from when people might not have needed to have any qualifications to be a teacher? Or does it just mean an non-education-specific qualification?0
-
Donald Trump wrote: »But what is the "unqualified" rate for? Is it a legacy thing from when people might not have needed to have any qualifications to be a teacher? Or does it just mean an non-education-specific qualification?
Well the ETBs make full use of the unqualified rate if you're subbing or get part time hours which you are not registered to teach e.g. I have a contract as an English teacher but there are three maths classes that have no teacher, if I were deemed suitable enough to teach these classes, I would be paid unqualified for that.
With regards the department, you would get the unqualified rate if you were subbing but that is a PME/someone on TP. Also if you register for further education and work in post primary, you are unqualified.
It's a strange article but the one positive thing that it says, she only had 8 hours in her first contract and although it did quote her full pay it says she would only get a fraction of that. It's time people actually knew how long and how difficult it is to find work/survive on a teacher's 'big' salary.0 -
Advertisement
-
mtoutlemonde wrote: »Well the ETBs make full use of the unqualified rate if you're subbing or get part time hours which you are not registered to teach e.g. I have a contract as an English teacher but there are three maths classes that have no teacher, if I were deemed suitable enough to teach these classes, I would be paid unqualified for that.
With regards the department, you would get the unqualified rate if you were subbing but that is a PME/someone on TP. Also if you register for further education and work in post primary, you are unqualified.
I had to google your acronyms. Not a teacher so didn't have a clue.
So you register as a teacher of subject X. Then if you teach subject Y you are "unqualified"? Or at least if you are subbing or temporary? Is that right? In your own case, what stops you from registering as a maths teacher as well?mtoutlemonde wrote: »It's a strange article but the one positive thing that it says, she only had 8 hours in her first contract and although it did quote her full pay it says she would only get a fraction of that. It's time people actually knew how long and how difficult it is to find work/survive on a teacher's 'big' salary.
Well on the other hand some people would look at it (as I did) and think "Pat qualified before the changes. Mary qualified after the changes. Both work for 8 hours a week. Pat takes home 5k a year more than May because she is on a better contract" and conclude that Pat is onto a good thing!
Because my initial thing was, if she was only working one third of a full teachers week (am I about right with that?), then imagine the difference had she been working a full quota. You'd have been talking an extra 90k into the pocket.....0 -
Donald Trump wrote: »I had to google your acronyms. Not a teacher so didn't have a clue.
Apologies. Education and Training Boards formerly VEC ... they ran the local 'tech'sDonald Trump wrote:So you register as a teacher of subject X. Then if you teach subject Y you are "unqualified"? Or at least if you are subbing or temporary? Is that right? In your own case, what stops you from registering as a maths teacher as well?
That's how it works with ETBs or it used to - it was/is money saving. This doesn't happen with the Department unless you're a student teacher.
Registration of subjects is decided upon by the Teaching Council who set the requirements to teach a subject. It used to be 54 ECTS (now 60 I believe) and depending on your subject, other criteria e.g. if a language teacher, you must spend x amount of time in the country and study x,y and a literature etc.
Now taking the example above, the Teaching Council only ensures that teachers have met the requirements and leave it up to each school individually to decide who teaches what. In that example, the English teacher may have studied maths in their first/second year of their degree so would be well able for a first/second year maths class. A school may slot them in there temporarily but would probably still advertise the job. Also that teacher would not be interviewed for those hours.Donald Trump wrote: »Well on the other hand some people would look at it (as I did) and think "Pat qualified before the changes. Mary qualified after the changes. Both work for 8 hours a week. Pat takes home 5k a year more than May because she is on a better contract" and conclude that Pat is onto a good thing!
Yes for sure. That is what the ASTI have been fighting for 'Equal pay for equal work'.
[ QUOTE=Donald Trump;109999634]
Because my initial thing was, if she was only working one third of a full teachers week (am I about right with that?), then imagine the difference had she been working a full quota. You'd have been talking an extra 90k into the pocket.....[/QUOTE]
Yes again as above. I hold my allowances and sometimes look at my payslip and wonder how the teachers who came after me survive. This would be one of the reasons why I would discourage anyone from going into teaching. Now saying that if I were to start again I would still choose teaching as I love the job even with all the changes that have occurred in the past ten years.
I hope that makes sense.0 -
Thanks very much for the post. Very informative. One thing I'd just like to ask about as I might have a misconception on this:mtoutlemonde wrote: »Yes for sure. That is what the ASTI have been fighting for 'Equal pay for equal work'.
It was my understanding that at the time cuts were imposed on the public sector, that the Unions didn't really care about the people coming in and were happy to see them shafted as long as the people already there were mainly protected.
I was not in the public sector, but that was what I had gathered.
And if that is true, I would imagine that as ~10 years have now passed and a lot of older teachers have retired, and that the "new entrants" who were given proper contracts in those 10 years would now constitute a sizeable portion of their (potential) membership.
Is it also true that some public sector workers got some things back but that some did not because their unions refused to accept them? Is that what the girl in the article is alluding to towards the end. I think she mentions there being a differential there somewhere. But was that the reason or am I wrong on that
Oh, and on the "equal pay for equal work", I'm not trying to drag things off on a tangent but you can happily have two teachers teaching identical subjects and identical hours etc. for a year and get different pay because one has been employed for say 10 years longer.....even though both do the same work!0 -
Donald Trump wrote: »Thanks very much for the post. Very informative. One thing I'd just like to ask about as I might have a misconception on this:
It was my understanding that at the time cuts were imposed on the public sector, that the Unions didn't really care about the people coming in and were happy to see them shafted as long as the people already there were mainly protected.
I was not in the public sector, but that was what I had gathered.
And if that is true, I would imagine that as ~10 years have now passed and a lot of older teachers have retired, and that the "new entrants" who were given proper contracts in those 10 years would now constitute a sizeable portion of their (potential) membership.
Is it also true that some public sector workers got some things back but that some did not because their unions refused to accept them? Is that what the girl in the article is alluding to towards the end. I think she mentions there being a differential there somewhere. But was that the reason or am I wrong on that
Oh, and on the "equal pay for equal work", I'm not trying to drag things off on a tangent but you can happily have two teachers teaching identical subjects and identical hours etc. for a year and get different pay because one has been employed for say 10 years longer.....even though both do the same work!
The ASTI had strike days two years ago and it was under the equal pay for equal work umbrella. The ASTI have been forefront in the above for a long time now. We would still be fighting it but a certain individual and cronies called an EGM with support from the members to accept what was on the table.
When we were out on strike, the other two unions were happily accepting everything that came their way. As a result, the INTO balloted for industrial action but have yet to do anything. ASTI have also voted on industrial action but are waiting for the other union to jump first as we did two years ago and are down an increment as a result. TUI accept everything going so u won't even go there. So your inference about the old members shafting the new is false.
Teachers have always been paid differently that is a fact of life. Teachers are paid on an incremental basis so two teachers side by side teaching the same subject and hours will be different and could be considerably so e.g. teacher on top of scale vs teacher point 3 but that point 3 teacher will reach 25 aswell someday.0 -
Donald Trump wrote: »Thanks very much for the post. Very informative. One thing I'd just like to ask about as I might have a misconception on this:
It was my understanding that at the time cuts were imposed on the public sector, that the Unions didn't really care about the people coming in and were happy to see them shafted as long as the people already there were mainly protected.
I was not in the public sector, but that was what I had gathered.
And if that is true, I would imagine that as ~10 years have now passed and a lot of older teachers have retired, and that the "new entrants" who were given proper contracts in those 10 years would now constitute a sizeable portion of their (potential) membership.
Is it also true that some public sector workers got some things back but that some did not because their unions refused to accept them? Is that what the girl in the article is alluding to towards the end. I think she mentions there being a differential there somewhere. But was that the reason or am I wrong on that
Oh, and on the "equal pay for equal work", I'm not trying to drag things off on a tangent but you can happily have two teachers teaching identical subjects and identical hours etc. for a year and get different pay because one has been employed for say 10 years longer.....even though both do the same work!
The old chestnut of 'senior teachers shafting younger members'. It's good you're asking these questions... so sit down there now and I'll tell you a true story Don.
During recession all teachers signed up to an agreement which forbade industrial action... Fair enough... but then on the floor of the Dáil the new entrants bill was introduced without any union consultation or vote... but you might be pleasantly surprised to hear that the ASTI took action (and suffered further paycuts) in defence of these teachers and in protest at certain aspects of the new junior cycle reform.
On the equal pay for equal work thing you have to take the cumulative effect. So over the lifetime of 2 teachers one year apart (pre and post 2012) the loss runs into tens of thousands. It might seem relatively small by year 1 when you'll take any hours going and won't complain.... but by year 6 you can really feel the divergence, as is the example of that teacher.
And don't forget that's coupled with a new 'career average' pension which if you've just been working part time hours for years (as many do at the start), then that average significantly reduces your pension. So the days of the 'so called' gold plated pension are gone.
And triple that with.... that the inability to get a mortgage in certain areas of the country, you won't have a mortgage paid off when you retire or when kids hit college.
I know it's probably the same issue with other professions in Dublin etc. but if you want your kids to have a teacher then taking up the mantra of 'find another job somewhere else' is obviously just biting off your nose to spite your face.
People need to look at the cohort of teachers who are complaining at the situation. It doesn't impact on me that much if my school can't get an Irish or home ec. teacher but for the greater good ill moan and complain. It's nothing got to do with increasing my pay as I'm pre 2012 (But still had cuts too).0 -
evolving_doors wrote: »The old chestnut of 'senior teachers shafting younger members'. It's good you're asking these questions... so sit down there now and I'll tell you a true story Don.
During recession all teachers signed up to an agreement which forbade industrial action... Fair enough... but then on the floor of the Dáil the new entrants bill was introduced without any union consultation or vote... but you might be pleasantly surprised to hear that the ASTI took action (and suffered further paycuts) in defence of these teachers and in protest at certain aspects of the new junior cycle reform.
Is this the action you refer to? https://www.asti.ie/news/campaigns/junior-cycle-campaign/ . Says Sept 2015.
This link says they went on strike in 2016
https://www.asti.ie/news/campaigns/post-2010-entrants-pay/
Did they protest in 2009/2010? Genuine question0 -
Donald Trump wrote: »Is this the action you refer to? https://www.asti.ie/news/campaigns/junior-cycle-campaign/ . Says Sept 2015.
This link says they went on strike in 2016
https://www.asti.ie/news/campaigns/post-2010-entrants-pay/
Did they protest in 2009/2010? Genuine question
If anything it was the younger teachers joining TUI in their droves. Now there was a reason, if applying for a CID (Contract of Indefinite Duration), TUI could get it in two years as opposed to four with ASTI. Just to add, I wonder did any ASTI teachers get their CIDs after two years? I don't think I heard of any legal action.0 -
Donald Trump wrote: »Is this the action you refer to? https://www.asti.ie/news/campaigns/junior-cycle-campaign/ . Says Sept 2015.
This link says they went on strike in 2016
https://www.asti.ie/news/campaigns/post-2010-entrants-pay/
Did they protest in 2009/2010? Genuine question
Genuine answer... there's been so much industrial action I can't recall everything...
But to start you off on your genuine quest, have a look at this boards thread 10 years ago for first bout of protests in 2009..
https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2055506464/1
Pay close attention to post no.2
I thought teachers were supposed to be intelligent. They will have zero support for this. What's the point in striking with the way things are at the moment? Patethic choice IMO.
If you want to go through each year you can input the year here and away ya go... https://www.asti.ie/news/media-centre/press-releases/0 -
evolving_doors wrote: »Genuine answer... there's been so much industrial action I can't recall everything...
But to start you off on your genuine quest, have a look at this boards thread 10 years ago for first bout of protests in 2009..
https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2055506464/1
Pay close attention to post no.2
If you want to go through each year you can input the year here and away ya go... https://www.asti.ie/news/media-centre/press-releases/
But those protests in 2009 were about cuts that then current teachers were potentially facing.
They limited their own exposure to cuts and lumped it all down on new entrants. Pulling up the ladder so to speak. That's my interpretation.
I suppose that now that there has been 10 years of them (lets say 30% of teachers) it's a bit difficult now to ask for raises for the better paid class when they abandoned the low 30%. Unions know that the 30% now have to be lifted up before the rest of the can get another decent lift.
If I was a new entrant, I wouldn't be giving any of those unions my fees if I could help it. There were definitely strikes in 2008, at least in the primary sector. I had a friend who had a temporary job doing some kind of support/subbing. She wasn't a qualified teacher so was on a very low rate. But I remember her saying that union fees were taken out of her wages....but then when they went on strike, she didn't get paid because she wasn't full time staff.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 25633
I never got paid when on strike. I don't know of anyone who did.
If we give up on the unions we may throw our collective hats at it.0 -
Advertisement
-
I never got paid when on strike. I don't know of anyone who did.
If we give up on the unions we may throw our collective hats at it.
Union called the strike. Teachers went on strike.
Full time teachers were paid. Perhaps by the government or maybe as back pay eventually as part of a deal. That was what I understood. My friend lost out but was certain the full-timers didn't. But she was only doing it for a year or so. She's not a teacher. So I could have it wrong.
You've always lost out a day's pay when you went on strike and never got it back? Is that true?0 -
Donald Trump wrote: »Union called the strike. Teachers went on strike.
Full time teachers were paid. Perhaps by the government or maybe as back pay eventually as part of a deal. That was what I understood. My friend lost out but was certain the full-timers didn't. But she was only doing it for a year or so. She's not a teacher. So I could have it wrong.
You've always lost out a day's pay when you went on strike and never got it back? Is that true?
Yes
That’s how striking works0 -
-
Donald Trump wrote: »Fake news I suppose then
Teachers who went on strike & picketed weren’t paid.
Those that weren’t in a union and didn’t picket got paid.
86% didn’t get paid.
It’s not that hard to follow.
Fake Tan getting to your brain?0 -
Inspector Coptoor wrote: »Teachers who went on strike & picketed weren’t paid.
Those that weren’t in a union and didn’t picket got paid.
86% didn’t get paid.
It’s not that hard to follow.
Fake Tan getting to your brain?
Sure go on strike all you want. You do still get paid at least partially when you go on strike. I think that it should be pro-rated properly. I'd say that would soften a lot of coughs. Strike for a day and lose 1/167 of your annual salary, not 1/360 . That fair. On a 40k wage drop 240 a day rather than 110 which would be currently done. (From the links/info I have looked at, if a teacher went on strike every working day for a full academic year, they would still receive 53.6% of their annual salary...despite not working at all)
Teachers were well able to strike and threaten to strike when there was danger of more money being taken out of their own pockets. When they were able to put the burden of those cuts on those who hadn't managed to get onto the ladder before it was pulled up, the number of &$%^s given was zero. "I'm alright Jack"
I used to do a bit of lecturing part time. I wasn't doing it strictly for the money but was getting the going rate and I thought it was decent enough. Looking at the hourly rate a 23 year old with a HDip would have been getting at the time, the rate per contact hour was about the same (The teacher would have been getting a fraction more!). Bit mad that they'd have been whinging about it.0 -
Donald Trump wrote: »Sure go on strike all you want. You do still get paid at least partially when you go on strike. I think that it should be pro-rated properly. I'd say that would soften a lot of coughs. Strike for a day and lose 1/167 of your annual salary, not 1/360 . That fair. On a 40k wage drop 240 a day rather than 110 which would be currently done. (From the links/info I have looked at, if a teacher went on strike every working day for a full academic year, they would still receive 53.6% of their annual salary...despite not working at all)
Teachers were well able to strike and threaten to strike when there was danger of more money being taken out of their own pockets. When they were able to put the burden of those cuts on those who hadn't managed to get onto the ladder before it was pulled up, the number of &$%^s given was zero. "I'm alright Jack"
I used to do a bit of lecturing part time. I wasn't doing it strictly for the money but was getting the going rate and I thought it was decent enough. Looking at the hourly rate a 23 year old with a HDip would have been getting at the time, the rate per contact hour was about the same (The teacher would have been getting a fraction more!). Bit mad that they'd have been whinging about it.
You’re showing you’re true colors now.
Cherry picking the bits you like and don’t like to make a “point”.
I’m now finished engaging with you.0 -
Inspector Coptoor wrote: »You’re showing you’re true colors now.
Cherry picking the bits you like and don’t like to make a “point”.
I’m now finished engaging with you.
Hard to deal with facts I suppose.
Actually, to modify my story above, a 22 year old with just an undergraduate degree would have been getting a better per-contact-hour rate than we would have been getting for lecturing. And I thought we we getting decent enough money. Mad when you think about it.
I still don't think it's fair that the new entrants get relatively less. But I blame the Unions and existing old teachers for going along with that. I gather from what I read that two lower starting increments were introduced and the allowances were removed. Maybe they could have agreed for only one lower increment to be introduced and for all teachers to be shifted down one increment and the allowances to remain. I'm sure that would have saved even more. So maybe they new increment would only have had to be a small decrease for the new starters.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 25633
Donald Trump wrote: »
You've always lost out a day's pay when you went on strike and never got it back? Is that true?
Yes and every single day (and half day) was taken into account for my pension.0 -
Yes and every single day (and half day) was taken into account for my pension.
Ok. That's fair enough. I was wrong on that. My friend had told me years ago that she was getting fecked over because she was forced to go on strike and she got nothing but the rest of them did.
So maybe she told me wrong or I took her up wrong. I never went on strike so I don't know. I had thought that it was common enough that if an agreement was reached, that pay would be given retrospectively for the days missed as part of the deal.0 -
Advertisement
-
After the new entrants pay was cut and the IMF were running the country, there was little noise from the unions as compared to now.
Once the economy picked up and the number of new entrants grows, the higher up the agenda it becomes.
Exact same thing is happening today with the new pension scheme. It is terrible value to those post 2013. But because it is not impacting anyone now, there is little action taken on it.
That will be kept quiet for now to allow pushes for more general pay increases. Down the line, once more of the post 2013 recruits retire will it become a big issue just like lower starting salaries are now.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement