A teacher writes…folksy and flawed… the Irish Times seeks controversy on the education cuts… November 2, 2008
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Education, Irish Politics.trackback
Reading the article in the Comment section of the Irish Times yesterday I couldn’t help but think this one is going to elicit bags of mail on Monday. For under the heading “Irish Teachers have had it good for years” Pat Courtney ” A retired Irish-born teacher whose career was in England” writes about the UK education system. Sort of.
He tells us that:
My last school had 1,700 pupils, boys and girls. Class sizes varied but it was not unusual to have 33 or more pupils in a class. Staff were on duty during morning break, lunch and after school. Staff meetings were held after school. There were at least seven parent evenings during the academic year, normally from 6.30 to 9.30pm.
Which is different to Irish schools in what sense? None I can think of, bar…
There was no “late start” on the day after these parent evenings. Absent staff were covered mostly by colleagues. There were very few “free periods”.
Now, I have yet to encounter this idea of a ‘late start’ on the day after a parent evening. As it happens I don’t have to go far in my immediate part of the world to trip across teachers both current in the VEC, recently retired from the voluntary secondary sector, or indeed formerly in the primary sector. Nor, am I without experience of teaching in second level, as recently as the turn of the decade when I inflicted ECDL upon students there. So… I have some slight experience of these things. It is possible that in some schools this ‘late start’ exists, but where? Courtney is peculiarly vague in the nature of his charges.
He continues:
I have been listening of late to the complaints of teachers here in Ireland. Let me describe what a typical teaching day was like for me in England. I left home for work around 6.45am. My lateness or otherwise depended on the M25 traffic. I needed to be in school by 7.30am. Not surprisingly, the staff car park was almost full when I got there.
One could ask again, in what particular is this different to an Irish experience. I know of teachers who commute from beyond the dormitory towns surrounding Dublin to work in inner city schools. His point being what? Car parks are full before the day starts.
There’s more.
The staffroom filled very quickly in anticipation of the “cover notice”. Although some agency teaching staff were employed, most of the cover was done by permanent colleagues in the school. I might be listed to cover history for a Year 2 class: my free period before lunch gone. Never mind, the system was fair, and I knew that the following week I would have a free.
By this time, all teachers, support staff and technicians were in the staffroom. There was a staff briefing which was very democratic. Problems were raised, guidance was given and all were prepared for the day ahead. The head wished us well and off we went to our respective posts.
Again, there is nothing here that will be unfamiliar to Irish teachers in primary and secondary. If he’s trying to suggest that this doesn’t happen this side of the Irish Sea, well with all due respect he’s mistaken. Or misinformed.
Those of us who work in education in whatever capacity will be unsurprised to learn that:
Monday was the most difficult day of all. I had a truculent Year 4 class for science. There were no desks in this school. There were tables that could be changed around in an instant to enable group work.
And then we’re away on a trip into folkish whimsy that seems to serve no purpose other than telling us how substantial was his command of his charges…
Many of my pupils came from troubled backgrounds, yet they had a wonderful sense of humour.
They so wanted to know me as a person, as I wanted to know them as individuals with their ideas, their feelings, their anxieties and their pain. They knew I was Irish, and so many were proud of their own Irish ancestry. “My auntie is from Galway,” they might say, not sure where Galway was but knowing they now had a link with their teacher.
The curriculum could wait for a few minutes as they badgered me for my views on Madonna, Chelsea’s late equaliser and how “Miss” treated them so badly in the last lesson. Eventually they settled down. They worked in groups, the strong helping the weak.
Yeah mate, mine too (although Madonna?). I worked part time in Crumlin for four years teaching to mixed groups. Again, what is he trying to say?
This school took on special needs in a serious way. Staffroom notices kept us informed of all special needs. In many of my classes, there were special needs pupils. I was never left alone. Liaison would take place between me and the special needs teacher before class. They did a marvellous job.
Which implies that Irish schools don’t. But… here’s the thing. Special needs requires special provision of experienced teaching staff. How precisely does that fold back onto some sort of broad ranging critique of teachers when it is clearly the responsibility of government through either VEC or Department of Education to provide same?
We learn that:
A hand went up.
“Sir, can I go to the toilet?”
From years of experience, I knew this was either genuine or an excuse to use their mobile phone.
My reply confused them. “I don’t know.”
The request was repeated over and over again. My reply was the same. In this moment of confusion, I realised that their gyrations or lack of were genuine or otherwise. It suddenly dawned on them that perhaps “May I go to the toilet?” may have been a better request.
Well, actually we don’t learn too much there. I’m uncertain as to the point of the story. Playing mind games with students is usually a pointless exercise. Clearly defined rules and structures are generally a better bet. Providing a bit of order in chaotic lives. But again, what would I know?
This school had regular staff and departmental meetings. These always took place from 4pm to 5.30pm. There were times when there was an on-the-spot meeting. They could last for two hours.
Over the academic year there were at least seven parent evenings. No one complained.
How is this significantly different to the Irish situation, and who exactly is complaining? We are not told. And then…
It was the time of year when teacher and parents could meet with the pupil to discuss their progress or otherwise. The pupil sat with the parent or guardian.
What can I say?
Lunch time was short and even shorter if you were called on by a knock at the staffroom door. There was no notice to say “stay away”. There was never a time when staff and pupils were separated. So many club activities took place during lunchtime.
Staff were everywhere during this time, checking potential bullying, harassment and any form of misbehaviour. With the exception of sixth formers, pupils were not allowed to leave the premises during lunch hour.
The key to this school’s success, albeit with many problems, was team spirit and a trust from administration. There was no dictatorship or oligarchy to say what should, or should not, be done.
Again, he describes the situation in a school. Any school. And then…
We worked as a team, and so many of us worked beyond the required hours. We cared for all our pupils.
Salaries were less than those of our counterparts in Ireland. Our summer holidays began in the last week of July. Before one could chill out, the new term was upon us.
Now, anyone with even a passing acquaintance with the UK system will be aware that teaching unions have been profoundly unhappy throughout the past number of decades at the way in which teaching has been politicised into a sort of testing ground for social theory linked to ideology. But what I find hard to credit is an attitude whereby ‘Shut up and accept any old slights, ’tis all we deserve in our vocation’ is writ large to become a worldview.
The only place where I would find his analysis has any merit is in the idea of somewhat shorter holidays at second and third level (and trust me, working in the latter I’m not doing myself any favours in suggesting same). But he is talking about structures in this country, or rather he’s not since his analysis seems grounded in very second hand notions, which have developed over the years due to their own dynamic and historical momentum. The longer holidays here are not a recent development but a legacy, one presumes, of a more agrarian society than that found in the UK. That unions here have been more successful than their counterparts in the UK in retaining them in no way reflects upon the whinging nature of Irish teachers or otherwise. And what of his parting shot?
Irish teachers have had it so good for years. Now that the pinch has come, will they put their pupils first or protect their own selfish interests?
Does he genuinely think that measures, such as the withdrawal of uncertified sick days/supervision cover dealt with here, are positive? That having sick teachers go into a school context is in health terms a good thing for students?
Or what is his position on decreasing class sizes, an issue which Fianna Fáil government after Fianna Fáil government placed front and centre in their manifesto’s only to resile when it came to implementation. He appears somewhat indifferent to it, if we are to judge his comment on class sizes to be indicative. Which is odd because best practice suggests smaller class sizes are more beneficial to students.
Indeed what exactly is he calling for? Irish teachers, who already comply with every element of what he describes above bar the shorter Summer term, to do more again? It’s hard to see the logic of that, not least because even were they to work through June that would have no impact on the day to day issues which are exercising teaching unions and interested groups in the education sector and might indeed actually add to the logistical problems (and let’s not forget that an employer has a duty to pay for work done and no group should be expected to work simply for the love of it). Even approaches which I wouldn’t be averse to, such as a wage freeze (incidentally, wasn’t that negotiated in part in the recent wage agreement?) have to be built into a more equitable distribution of such measures across the society including a genuine level of progressive taxation on higher income earners.
In the Sunday Business Post we learn from Pat Leahy that:
Still, the education sector is worth looking at as a microcosm, not just of the way the public finances are spent, but of how they are now being cut back.
Some 80 per cent of the education budget goes on salaries and pensions. Under current budget plans, every one of those public servants will receive a pay increase next year, costing some €300 million.
It’s hard to see how that could be changed substantially, unless there are less teachers. But, as it stands and as noticed previously we are already low on the list of OECD countries as regards expenditure on education. So perhaps that’s not the greatest idea.
Many will receive an increment – that is, their salary will be increased because they have been two, or five, or ten, or whatever number of years in the job, costing another €100 million, said Fine Gael, which called for a freeze on those salaries.
That’s awful. But wait, how is this different to wage increases in the private sector where length of service is also a factor? Moreover should Fine Gael have a problem with this they might consider the situation of party workers and administrative staff in the civil service who assist them and who also receive incremental increases for service.
Teachers’ state-funded pensions are worth an additional 20 or 30 per cent of salary – probably much more now, given the collapse of private pension funds. And they can’t – save in the most extraordinary circumstances – be sacked.
Well, now, that’s also true of public sector employees in general. And while it is true that the value of a state funded pension might seem on paper to be greater in a context where the government has bet the house of state on the solvency of the Irish financial sector, and vice versa, who is to say what the future may hold? But, let’s also point out that these are contributory – albeit compulsory – pensions. And if there has been no accompanying pressure on the private sector to implement pensions for their staff, what does that tell us about the reckless disregard of its societal responsibilities?
Teachers also receive a payment of €1,789 for supervision and substitution that they used to provide as part of their jobs. Many will also be promoted, not by competition, but based on how long they have been in their school, though the Department of Education says it wishes to end the practice of promotion by seniority.
Well, actually the TUI long accepted promotion by seniority wasn’t feasible and in the VEC it is only one part of the mix, and the ASTI as also noted here previously, has conceded this point. As regards payment for supervision… not entirely sure what the gripe is there. Out in the private sector there is this thing called overtime…
Although as admitted in the Sunday Business Post this weekend:
[while] some teachers did admit, off the record, to The Sunday Business Post, that a minority of teachers abused the system…it was also pointed out that teachers had among the lowest absenteeism rates in the public sector.
For me teaching or lecturing is one of the most rewarding aspects of my life. But it’s a job. Which means that I expect payment and good conditions for it. I’m not a priest, I’m not in a vocation however much I believe in the centrality of the students or pupils to the process. Otherwise I’d be doing it for free. Nor do I feel a mawkish whimsy about students or pupils. The point of it is to impart and to engender an interest, not to wax lyric over their funny little ways. Over the years I’ve seen colleagues good and bad. Management good and bad. Students good and bad. And having a foot in the commercial sector, that brings a certain approach on my part to it. Call it profound cynicism about the structures. But. Again, it’s a job.
So let’s be serious for a moment. What this is is an attempt by the Irish Times to whip up a bit of controversy. Their series during the week on the cuts has been rather good. This, perhaps, in their minds provides some sort of cosmetic balance to the issue.
I think it’s specious, not least because there are genuine areas where education reforms – which might indeed not be to the liking of teachers – could be raised in a coherent and relatively empirical fashion.
This isn’t it.
Just wait for tomorrow’s letter page.
5 myths about education in Ireland:
1. That it’s bad value. In fact we have very low expenditure on education, the highest pupil/teacher ratio in the EU and disgraceful buildings.
2. That teachers did well out of benchmarking. In reality we opposed the process, were disgusted with the outcome of the first round, got nothing at all from the second round.
3. That teachers have undeserved levels of pension provision. A lifetime of work, with a degree and a postgraduate professional qualification, mediocre pay and unavoidable PAYE taxation, leads to a contributory pension of a maximum 40/80ths of salary. If that looks good, it’s because of the scandalous way in which private sector pension provision has been allowed to slip.
4. That a longer school year is required. The educational systems with the best results in terms of literacy and numeracy have short terms and school days – but they’re very well resourced and class sizes are small.
5. That it’s a cushy number. There were over 90 applicants for my job, when I got it in the 80s. Now it’s not uncommon to have no applications at all. And, for the first time in my career, people are walking away from incremental, permanent positions to work in the private sector. To find out why, spend a day in a classroom.
Entirely agree.
As regards 3, the divergence between teaching and all public sector pension provision and that of the private sector is an indication of how remiss the private sector has been. I worked in the latter area on and off from 1990 to 2004. In my main employment during that time the only people who were offered pensions were higher management and members of the sales force. That’s not untypical in the general Irish working context. And even when PRSA’s were introduced, and what a joke they are for anyone who wasn’t paid enough to start a private pension early (aka me), there was no supplement by the group of companies. That’s also how it works out there.
And all the time we’re told the standards should be dragged down to private sector levels rather than up to public sector (which as you rightly say aren’t exactly handsome and are contributory).
Regarding school year, I’d argue for a standardisation across primary/secondary and third level (in a way modularisation is pushing in the third level towards something much much worse than that). I think over the Summer 2 to 2.5 months is reasonable rather than the 3 we have at 2nd level. I think the UK situation where school ends at the end of July and reopens at the beginning of September is simply too short. But it’s worth noting that people want this every way, in terms of taking children out of school on holidays, etc, etc…
One other small – almost trivial – point to add to number 5. Ask people what their greatest fear is. Answer: public speaking or dealing with large groups of people. Yet time and again teaching, which consists of both in varying measure is regarded as somehow ‘easy’ or as you say cushy. But linked to that is the very very real issue of teachers finding the pressure of giving what is by any serious measure a ‘performance’on a daily basis something that grinds them down.
WBS,
From your description Courtney’s article seems like an absurd diversion. Still though, I think your time at the top of the class room – like MrChips – has given very useful insights but has numbed your ability to cast a more critical eye.
First, I have no pent up axe to grind with teachers. And I have a couple of experiences which, apart from what I’ve read, give me some vision into what teaching was and is like. My time in school twenty years ago has left an indelible impression (I had many teachers but what stands out is how many of them, perhaps a fifth, were utterly inept, and how in two instances it proved impossible for parents to do anything about two desperately bad teachers who were literally destroying children’s futures. I am led to believe that it is still virtually impossible for grossly unable teachers to be removed)
My wife is training to be a teacher (second level) and from what she and a few colleagues say, there is no shortage of people applying for and doing the training. Her HDip classes are enormous and the word is that there are way more teachers than places in schools and that most positions are oversubscribed (this, before current budget which obviously alters the picture). So the comment from Mr Chips about lack of applicants strikes me as at odds with what I’m hearing elsewhere.
The other thing above was the implication that targeting teachers or their salaries is wrong because we invest so little in primary education. But there is no evidence that I’ve heard of that our teachers are under paid by international comparison. First, what does the OECD mean by investment in education. Is it infrastructure and support, or is it measuring teacher ratios only and teacher salaries. It would be meaningless unless it is a wide weighted measurement in which case it provides no defence against pay freezes until further explored.
True our class sizes are too big – but I have read in a couple of places (please don’t ask for a citation) that class size is not a critical factor in outcomes. It matters, but much less than other factors such as support for special needs, good facilities, and of course the key one – family background.
The comment about standing in front of a class and public speaking was also odd and to some extent cuts to the heart of my issue with teaching, which is this. Does our teaching programs still churn out teachers which enter the system who are not fit for the job? If you are not the kind who can, with some training, comfortably stand at the top of a class, may I suggest you are heading into the wrong job? Isn’t that a bit like saying the life of surgeon is difficult because, many people hate the sight of blood??
I firmly believe that our education sector – especially primary – needs more investment (though not necessarily higher teacher remuneration). And I believe teachers at all levels should be well rewarded. But looking at the long term I think there are still issues that need to be resolved in terms of preventing low quality teachers from being in the classroom, and that there has to be a way of dealing with underperformers, and a way of removing non-performers. Most of all, it seems to me that there has to be a way to reward good performance – and I think this would apply to most teachers. I also like the suggestion that our secondary school year should be a little longer. But these are all long term issues.
The question at had needs to be separated from these long term issues because if it is true that we are facing an abyss in terms of public finance, we need to suspend our long term desires in some areas. Given that education is one of the big three – with health and social welfare – I see no way of avoiding cut backs in it. It is only fair that workers in education, like those all across society, should take some of the pain. Without detailed figures, it is not possible for me to suggest how the cuts should be distributed between primary, secondary, or third level. My instinct would be to protect primary as much as possible. Still, I think if there are to be cuts and pain is to be shared, I find nothing wrong with the suggestion that teachers could make a contribution by agreeing to say an 18 month pay freeze. (In fact I think this would be real solidarity, not the pretend stuff that is self interest masquarading as solidarity).
What about the children? What about them? What about the children in homes which have lost one or both jobs – homes that are now often full to the brim with stress.
(This is not to say that on the tax side I think the burden was shared fairly – far from it, but that is another side of the equation).
In short – I have not heard a single plausable argument for not making cuts in education.
I’m sorry, Tomaltach, that you don’t see a connection between class size and quality of education.
I’m sorry that you appear to have bought into the newspaper pundits’ belief that the public service employees should ’share the pain’ for a situation that is not of their making.
I’m sorry that you had some teachers that weren’t up to the job – of course the budget ensures that there will be more of these in future because it has closed the early retirement strands which meant that teachers who could no longer cope in the classroom could be replaced.
I’m sorry, above all, that your wife is training to be a secondary teacher. Now that the pupil/teacher ratio has been raised, there will be a plethora of ex-quota teachers, not to mention a long queue of fully-qualified teachers currently filling temporary and part-time jobs in the distant hope of a permanent appointment. There won’t be many employment prospects for Madame Tomaltach and her fellow graduates.
Tomaltach, I’m genuinely unsure how you could come to your final conclusion, or indeed many of them. It’s a bit like you’re disagreeing with someone else’s words but not mine.
Let me reiterate. I’m not against a pay freeze. I think it would be a sensible way forward (incidentally I’d apply it across the public sector). But as part of a more equitable package. In order to retain teachers whose numbers may be cut it might be necessary for the unions to come up with some creative suggestions on just those lines. But, who knows?
Nor have I argued for increased remuneration for teachers in the current situation. I’m not sure though that saying teachers aren’t underpaid in international terms is a reason for either cutting numbers or cutting wages.
But. If we make cuts in education there is only place those cuts can credibly made, since all else is already so underfunded (and the stuff about cutting books while loathsome indicates how little meat there is on the bone, so to speak), and that’s in teaching (i.e. cutting numbers) and therefore that will have direct impacts upon pupils.
Firstly, I have direct experience of teaching large groups. All I can say is that the outcomes are much less good than smaller numbers.
Lack of applicants, depends on the subject.
I think I provided a link to the OECD figures and as you’ll see they do deal with a large number of factors including outcomes.
I take your point about public speaking, but I did note that it was near-trivial. My broader point remains. Teaching isn’t an easy thing to do day in day out, and although having a not dissimilar experience to you as regards good and bad teachers, I think it’s fair to say that the 20 and almost 30 years that now sit between us and our experience of schooling have seen considerable changes (although not absolute) in such matters.
As regards the children, the very issue of class sizes is the one that most resonates with me because that’s the one that is going to have the most immediate impacts, hence my concentration on it. The ASTI/TUI and INTO have given clear logical reasons why that will cause direct problems in the near future. Nor is this an issue (class sizes) which doesn’t have impacts on me and mine in the future. But once more I see this as of a piece with lousy policy and lousy implementation and a complete lack of an equitable solution to the financial crisis.
I think there is also a large amount of positioning by the government on this one, keen to take down the teachers unions if they can because some of them have on occasion presented a rather unlovable face to the world. Whatever ones feelings on that face, and I’m not fan of it, I think it crucial to distinguish between self-serving attacks by govt. and media on them and the reality of what is good for children.
Croc says “I’m sorry that you appear to have bought into the newspaper pundits’ belief that the public service employees should ’share the pain’ for a situation that is not of their making“.
Here is the grim reality Croc: most of the people who bear the brunt of this will not have been responsible for it. Young plumbers and plasterers or dare I say it, young estate agents, or retail workers. Right across the economy, in all walks, people who had no hand act or part in directing our economy are taking the pain. That is unavoidable. In that context, how on earth can public sector employees be spared simply because ‘it wasn’t their fault’.
WBS,
I admit, I failed to acknowledge your not being resistant to the notion of a pay freeze. And with your experience, you know more about the impact of class size than I do. I accept therefore that the increased ratio will impact students. Also, your point about the unlovable face of the union versus he self serving attacks of govt is well taken.
Still, the question remains. If we face a huge gap in public finance and deep cuts are necessary – it makes education as one of the big three unavoidable. And given that salaries are the main outlay, it means that either teacher numbers are cut, or the teachers take a freeze.
True, the teachers union have explicitly stated that they prefer to hit the children rather than take a freeze. So the classroom is affected.
But again : if deep cuts are necessary, perhaps we have to live temporarily with a lower standard.
My own preference would be a higher tax economy with a wider and fairer tax base and world class public services. But it would be impossible to switch to that model instantly and certainly, in the middle of a recession. Even if it were politically possible, the best course would be a smooth, well planned transition. But right now, when public finances need to be at the very least, stabilized, we have to take short term measures that will hurt.
I have still to hear cogent argument against this – apart from the fantasy that we can simply borrow our way out of this. We can’t.
the teachers union have explicitly stated that they prefer to hit the children rather than take a freeze
When you say “explicitly”, do you understand what that word means?
Ejh,
Perhaps I overshot. But one union leader was asked directly if he would be willing to back a pay freeze instead of hitting classroom cuts, and he said No. That is fairly explicit.
One other small – almost trivial – point to add to number 5. Ask people what their greatest fear is. Answer: public speaking or dealing with large groups of people.
On an equally trivial tangent – anyone who has taught, or sat in a class with American students, will know that they – almost without exception – are capable of speaking clearly and confidently in class, of delivering papers to a room rather than to their feet and of answering questions without blushing or stammering. Whatever the actual intellectual content of their contribution, it will be delivered a great deal better than that of their Irish or British counterpart. Why? because, all the way through high school they are expected to speak in class, deliver reports, generally contribute; it’s one of those things, like writing grammatically, that really should be a stated objective of education – instead we produce kids able to recycle what they’ve been taught in an exam, but completely unable to articulate such materially orally.
I am astonished to hear that people who are taught things perform them better than people who are taught other things instead.
The teachers unions are absolutely right not to just roll over to the “sack the incompetent teachers” demand. Teaching is bloody hard. I tried it way back and lasted about 3 months. But no matter what training a teacher gets, they probably won’t know whether (or how well) they can do it or not till they stand in front of a class. Then someone can be competent and capable and top knotch for 10 or 15 or 20 years but then life changes eg. death of a partner, or plain burnout can occur, rendering them not up to the mark as teachers. What to do then? Sack them and dump them onto the dole? Yeah, right.
So the unions should oppose a “sack the “incompetent”" line but should argue for some kind of support, retraining, new career options for teachers who can’t do it up to the standard any more.
But we do have the shortest school year in Western Europe. My sister in Scotland had a 6 week interlude to send her kids acroos to us during the Summer. We had 3 months to do our end. The Scholl year in the North is longer.
I could go on but do feel that Irish kids do not get the lenght of teaching that others get across Europe.
Surly burnt out teachers could be absorbed in the rest of the public service.
Class sizes
Could I suggest that rather than reduce class sizes it would be as good if not better to introduce Classroom assistents. It would make maintence of discipline easier for a start. It would allow a treacher to turn his/her back on an unruly class etc.
Oh did anyone see the article in the Irish Independent.
‘Surly burnt out teachers could be absorbed in the rest of the public service’.
This week’s Freudian typo award to Jim.
Does nobody else think it’s amazing that a huge, spontaneous reaction against harsh and indescriminate education cuts has been turned, as if by magic, into a discussion of how to punish the teaching profession? Not just in the right wing press, but even here?
A few remarks and I get this reaction.
What, are teachers the most oppressed section of the working class. Please address the legitimate issue of yearly contact time for kids compared to other countries. There is an argument for paying extra for this.
As well address the issue that maybe classroom assistents might have merit.
What is wrong with public servants transferring from job to job. Nurses might appreciate a less physical demanding job at a certain time in their lives.
I have not read the Irish Times article. I have been teaching in London for over thirty years and I always thought that it was widely accepted that teachers in Ireland had better conditions of service than in Britain.The point is,as WbS argues, what conclusions we draw from this.
There is a clear attempt by the likes of Harris and Hobbs to deflect the concerns with the present crisis away from the true culprits, the bankers and builders, and towards public sector spending.
The length of the school year, what to do about incompetent or “coasting” teachers, the content of the curriculum are really red herrings in this debate. Getting rid of an incompetent teacher does not save any money as, presumably, the teacher will be replaced. Longer school years might cost more not less etc.
While I would agree that progressives often fall into a trap of being uncritical about the public sector and proclaiming it above and beyond criticism, it is vital to be clear about the key issues in the current crisis – the lack of regulation of the financial sector and the related plunder of funds – sorry I mean excessive bonuses where the sums involved are of massive proportions.
Jim, there already are SNAs, or teaching asst’s in Ireland. Not sure how their existence assists or doesn’t the situation in teaching.
No, clearly teachers aren’t the most oppressed part of the working class, but they are part of the working class and therefore (sometimes dependent on circumstance) attacks on them are attacks on the working class.
To go further, the thought strikes me that Tomaltach indirectly, and others directly, is trying to counterpose two issues which aren’t even counterposed by the government. At no point has Batt O’Keefe or Brian Cowen said…’the cuts are being made because the wage bill is too large and the teachers won’t accept cuts in the latter’. If the government isn’t fighting on that ground why do you feel it incumbent on yourself to do so?
Now, I’m not ignoring what I suspect is the government putting messages out in the public domain and hoping that people will join the dots on their behalf, but again, why not wait until we have an explicit linkage between these issues before deciding that teachers obduracy and/or selfishness is the root cause of this problem.
But can you imagine any other context where you’d do this? Start blaming workers because of actions by the government? Or to put it another way, isn’t that what (generally) the right does – and often in a business context?
This isn’t to exculpate the teachers for a degree of responsibility in looking (or not looking) for solutions, but to decide immediately that they are the stumbling block seems a little premature.
NollaigO, what you say seems to me to sum it up completely.
I was taken aback to encounter that article in the IT. It’s just so silly that you have to wonder why they bothered publishing it. The writer was some guy who taught in Britain, and for some reason, he thought that made him an expert on the flaws of the Irish education system. Perhaps, had he worked in both systems he might have had an interesting perspective that’d be worth paying attention to, but he didn’t seem to have and many of things he seemed to believe happened or didn’t happen in the Irish setting were not true.
It was a silly, ill-informed piece by an irrelevant individual. I can only assume the writer was friends with somebody in the IT.
And Sonofstan, regarding American students, I’m not sure where you’ve encountered the American students you encountered, and I think there’s probably a degree of merit in your argument, but it’s worth considering that those Americans you encounter in a European classroom or lecture hall are probably atypical in many respects. An individual who has the confidence and inclination to leave their family and friends to travel to another country is unlikely to have the kind of confidence issues that lead to poor public speaking.
I’ll give it one more try, Jim.
Here’s a link to a story from the Observer:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/sep/25/schoolsworldwide.schools
It’s headed:
‘Inside the Best School in the World’ Shorter days in class, long holidays, respect for teachers: it’s the formula for excellence.’
As you might have guessed, there is no shortage of teachers in my family, and I interviewed my aunt whose remarks I paraphrase.
Teaching is a profession – though she takes wbs’s inclusion of her in the working class in the spirit in which it was intended. During the boom, the earnings of other professionals far outstripped those of teachers. This was at the centre of the 2000 strike. She resented benchmarking because she compared her standard of living to those of doctors, lawyers and accountants – and she was trying to pay a mortgage in South Dublin, which is where she works.
I’ll leave you to imagine therefore what she makes of your suggestion that teachers should be transferred elsewhere in the public service. The most printable line was: ‘I’m a professional who works in the public service, not a public servant whose job happens to be teaching.’
I’m never very clear on the distinction between ‘professional’ and non-professional. She’s a member, presumably, of a union. She works for the state. She might live in South Dublin, but she’ll have noticed her colleagues across the state. If we really really want to drag Marx into this we have a clearer sense of it, and as regards teachers being the equivalent of doctors/lawyers/accountants, well dream on… no disrespect to her… but a quick perusal of the ASTI points schema blows apart any serious level of comparison on wage scales.
Have to be honest crocodile, I have many family members involved and the idea that they’re professionals in that sense – or comparable in terms of lifestyle – would have them in fits…
She doesn’t think they’re comparable in terms of lifestyle – that’s the point. When she started teaching over 30 years ago she could live alongside her college classmates; her kids haven’t a hope of doing so if they go into teaching.
And there are doctors, lawyers and accountants who are state-employed and who don’t have to put up with constant nit-picking inspections, accusations of self-interest and suggestions that they sacrifice hard-won pay and conditions so that the banks and builders can be propped up.
Absolutely agreed on the second point.
As regards the first, Teachers were never quite as well paid as people supposed (although they would be more comfortable than most), and certainly never near as well paid as doctors/accountants and lawyers. Ever. She was fortunate if when she entered teaching she was able to live along side college class mates… I wonder was that a function of area, the changing demographics, etc?
That teachers had in some respects as good or even a better community status is a different thing. A lot of their self-perception was self-deceptive – something true of many many working in academic areas.
This “shortest school year in WQestern Europe” thing – might be true, buy I’d like to see it properly measured.
I partly ask because my fiancée teaches in a Spanish primary school: which closes for two months’ holiday in the summer. Less than three (if it’s three in Ireland) but then again, in both June and September it only opens half the day, because of the heat. On the other hand they don’t get half-terms. So actually making these calculations isn’t so straightforward: and what often happens is that people just say “oh, teachers, long summer holidays, hardly work at all” and as usual the argument comes from the saloon bar.
Now that’s not to say that there’s no strength in the argument that there are many inadequate teachers and than it may be harder than it should be to doc something about that. But the tropuble is, hwh oare you going to repalce them with? Because without precisely conflating quality of staff with level of salary, if you wanted to replace (say) a quarter of teaching staff with substantially better people, isn’t it actually stone cold certain that you couldn’t do this without offering substantially better salaries and conditions than those presently prevailing?
But people don’t want that part of the deal, nor (in the main) do they actually want to think about it, so what you get is a lot of largely ill-informed and ill-motivated public sector-bashing which neither informs the discussion nor improves the situation.
I have to say that I find the inflexibility of teachers an annoyance to say the least. It is mean to limit parent meetings to the miserable allowance. Teachers walk out of training at the end of the teaching day.
What is wrong with redeployment? Very few people, professionals or other will stay in the same job all their lives. I am talking about redeployment with training and no loss of pay. They are lucky if they have the same employer.
We are in a globalised world where our kids have to get jobs in competition with everyone else.
Class sizes. There is a problem with disruptive students. A classromm assistant would help here. The existing provision is hapharazed to say the least.
I agree with the remarks on priimay education, the education every kid gets. It should be the priority. Again this will annoy. We need an assessment system. We need to know which kid needs help. In secondary school 6 months can pass before this can be recognised.
I find it hard to understand the defence of the short school year. Why is the INTO not looking for parity for their Northern members if it makes no difference.I regard seeking longer year as the same as looking for full provision of medical services (eg emergency services)
-
Teachers walk out of training at the end of the teaching day.
What’s your point, Jim?
Since it is training surely they could stay until the end of the training day.
After all they claim that they work much more than the contact hours.
And when is the end of the training day? Sorry, it’s really unclear to me about whether you’re talking about some specific occurrence or some recognised practice, and in either case, precisely what.
Let me spell it out. The training day in question ended at 5-00 pm. The teachers stood up and departed at I think 4-00, which would be the end of their teacher contact day. They seemed to regard the hours they claim as devoted to correcting homework as not being available for training. I could add the so-called meeting which end very quickly but which cost a full day out of the school year.
On a footnote surely the teachers who teach the junior half of the primary school could be used for extra tuition in the afternoons.
Jim,
With respect, the problem with what you’re proposing (and, to a large extent, with the original IT article) is the concentration on the conditions of teachers rather than on the quality of the education received. It’s easy to complain about the length of school holidays, or to suggest that teachers whose classroom time finishes earlier than others should be deployed elsewhere to make up the hours (hey, if there are too many teachers for extra tuition, why not make them pick up litter in the schoolyard?). However, unless you can demonstrate some link between what you’re proposing and an improvement in the quality of education, then it comes across as simple (and simplistic) teacher-bashing, displaying a rather odd set of priorities.
I’m with WbS on the scepticism about the issues of teachers compared to other ‘professionals’, such as doctors and lawyers. I think the ASTI did themselves no favours and lost a huge amount of goodwill during the strike (around 7 or 8 years ago?). The impression given by leaders like Bernadine O’Sullivan at the time was of an odd, elitist contradiction: you can’t compare teachers to other public servants under benchmarking because their job is so unique, but at the same time teachers should be compared to lawyers, doctors, architects etc. as they are ‘professionals’ (i.e. a third-level qualification). Basically, unless you’re making 100K a year, teachers are better than you.
That said, I think the teaching unions are absolutely right to hold out against pay freezes. Indeed, given that the unions are tasked with protecting the interests of their members, they would be negligent not to do so. It’s not just a question, as some have suggested, that they shouldn’t take the hit for something that’s not their fault (as others have rightly commented, most of those affecting by spending cuts aren’t responsible for the current situation). However, it’s too simplistic to say that the massive budget deficit has been caused by banks and builders. It’s been caused by an administration which, for the past decade, has relied on a completely unsustainable revenue-generating model, funding current expenditure with indirect taxation (primarily stamp duty, but other forms of taxation as well). It’s one thing to say – as Tomaltach does – to talk about the need to stabilize public finances. However, in the absence of any serious proposals from to do so, which would necessitate a completely different approach to raising taxes, one which wouldn’t mean that the public sector collapses as soon as the property market sneezes, it’s very hard to argue to public sector workers that they should take a hit.
So let me see. Jim is complaining about one set of teachers who left one training day one hour before the scheduled finish. Right?
Smiffy,
I agree with a lot of what you say. And your point about the unsustainable structure of the tax base is right on.
But I cannot agree with your final sentiment “it’s hard to argue to public sector workers that they should take a hit”.
You acknowledged that the bulk of those who suffer will have had no part in constructing this implosion. Absolutely. There are about 400,000 public sector workers (in round numbers). Why should they be shielded from taken a hit. Especially when the ‘hit’ they are faced with is a day at the circus compared with what the rest of us have to deal with. Those on the left often make solidarity a plank of their argument, but here, when the shit hits the proverbial, the notion of solidarity dissolves and the real, core instict is laid bare – self interest. Exactly what you said about the unions. You say the Unions are there to look after the interests of their members. True. And there is no shame in that. But there is a fundamental dishonesty in talking about solidarity when what is reallly meant is “solidarity among our particular group”.
Still, after all, unless you buy in to the ‘borrow your way out of recession’ fantasy, there seems no way to avoid substantial cuts in education and health. As I said, the tax side of the equation needs substantial recalibration – indeed a multi-year phased in approach to a fairer, deeper, and more robust footing. But here, right now, what are the options to prevent a debt spiral?
Especially when the ‘hit’ they are faced with is a day at the circus compared with what the rest of us have to deal with
Really?
Got a thing about saloon bars don’t you ejh?
Ejh,
Really.
How exactly is losing your job easier on a teacher than on anybody else? Harder, I’d have thought, since the alternatives open to say, a Cathechetics teacher, would be fairly limited.
Tomaltach,
I take your point, but I’m a little uncertain by what you’re referring to when you talk about ‘taking a hit’. When it comes to the private sector, do you mean increased unemployment etc., or reduction in the provision of public services. If the latter, then the public sector suffers in precisely the same way as those employed privately, and are being asked to take a pay freeze on top of that.
If, however, you’re talking about the direct effects of the financial crisis on those in the private sector (reduction in wages, lost jobs etc.) then the suggestion that teachers and others in the public sector should also ‘take a hit’ suggests a rather odd notion of solidarity. Solidarity, in terms of the labour movement, involves supporting other workers in their demands that their rights be vindicated (either workers in the same union/industry or more globally). The reasoning is that you have a better chance of achieving your demands if you support the demands of others (who will, in turn, stand with you in support).
Apologies, that’s all very obvious and simplistic, and you already know it.
However, that’s very different to the notion of solidarity which suggests that if one person had it rough, everyone else should have it rough as well. That’s a notion which, as suggested earlier, simply has the effect of dragging everyone down, rather than lifting everyone up.
Sorry if I’m missing something in your argument. I take the point about pay freeze vs. class sizes, but for it to be convincing it would have to be quantified: if teachers accepted a pay freeze, how much could be saved and how would it translate into numbers in classrooms. My guess is probably not very much, which explains why it’s not being mooted by the government.
You’re right on the point about the immediate position in terms of public spending, and there are certainly no easy answers.
Ejh,
Really.
Could you specify how? I am particularly, though not exclusively, interested in the term “what the rest of us have to deal with”.
Ejh,
Are you joking? You don’t recognize a difference between how public sector and private sector workers will live an acute downturn?
Alright, let me spell it out for you. Tens of thousands of private sector workers have already lost their jobs. Without question, tens of thousands more will join them. Very very few public sector workers will lose their jobs.
True, some public service workers – though only a tiny fraction – will lose their jobs, but those who do will invariably leave with a much better cushion than their private sector counterparts. Many in the private sector will leave without any redundancy – those in the public sector will leave on generous terms.
The picture is clear enough – and round the family table the differences in how this downturn is lived will be stark.
Tomaltach, I have to disagree. I worked in the private sector from 1990. I am on contract now in two public sector employments. Chances are one or other of those contracts, albeit contracts of indefinite duration, will come under scrutiny in the near ish future. So I’m not saying this from a position of security.
My point is that those in the private sector made choices to work there, just as those in the public sector did. I could have gone into the civil service, or full time teaching (I almost did, as did someone else who comments here – you know who you are!), but in the end I didn’t.
That choice, which I made at the time was one I recognised would probably permanently keep me out of job security. And you know what? I’ve been made redundant twice in my life, once in the 1990s and once in 2004. Now what you’re saying is that in this context all should have to face lack of security in some sort of bizarre supposedly equitable approach. That’s the equity of the poll tax, the equity of the rich and wealthy.
I understand where you’re coming from, but you’re couching your langauge in a way that is unfortunate and making totally unwarranted assumptions.
I think that it’s unfair to propose that because the assessment you posit, that there is no way to borrow out of this recession etc requires swinging cuts in the public sector, is strongly contested by the unions (and indeed myself and others here) this represents a breakdown in ’solidarity’ and lack of willingness to share pain.
I’ve already had to point out to you that I – and I’d imagine most here – support pay freezes in the context of a broad approach, as do unions (explicitly in the context of the current wage agreement and that’s something that might have to be revisited). The point is that the measures have to be equitable. The current ones aren’t. It is that simple. The levy is wrong and impacts disproportionately on those on lower incomes. The cuts are wrong. Why should I or anyone else agree to assist, let alone further, this approach? It’s ludicrous.
Secondly, I think it’s important to disentangle a number of issues. Sharing pain doesn’t have to mean some sort of reductionist parity between public and private sectors as regards unemployment (where was this parity in the late 90s when private sector wages were running away from public sector wages to the point that there was a slippage of people to the private sector… that’s forgotten now but it existed – and hence the ASTI went on their bizarre quest to be benchmarked above the public sector because wages there were ‘too low’ – but they weren’t the only ones. And the private sector did well, with lowering taxes and increased wages. Not everyone, but broadly speaking standards of living went up). Nor does solidarity mean that workers have to line up in good little battalions because their ‘betters’ tell them they must for the sake of the country. Unemployment – so far – remains a much much lesser problem than it was in the 1980s or even the early to mid-1990s. Solidarity is also, as the unions have been active in promoting, about ensuring that when people lose their jobs there are clear paths back into the workplace through training and support, proper redundancy payments (just wait, they’ll start hitting those pretty soon after their largesse in 2003/4), proper benefit for those in that situation and for their families. That’s something the unions have been foursquare in favour of and has been implemented to no small degree. Hence in 2004 I walked away with a much better redundancy package than had I been made redundant two years earlier.
I think that unionised workers suggesting, rightly in my estimation, that shedding jobs is the absolute last thing that should be done is entirely reasonable. And to suggest that it’s ’self-interest’ to do so is unfair and unreasonable and seems to me to buy into an analysis that I’d disagree with entirely.
What you seem to want is a situation – as smiffy notes – where everyone is dragged down simply because unemployment is creeping upward. You may think that’s reasonable. There are many many – and I’d point out I’m not a teacher – who would disagree.
I could add that for the months I signed on most recently I didn’t feel when I saw the guys behind the counter in the dole office that I didn’t want him or her to not have a job to make up some sort of parity, I wanted to have their job… or a job beside them.
WBS,
You make a number of good points – first, you talk about the choice of entering the public or the private sector. Fair enough. And I would acknowledge the pay pause issue agreed by Unions. (and, in case you missed it, I acknowledged in comment 7 that you had said you were open to the idea of a pay freeze.)
On the subject of Unions. I am quite convinced of the necessity and value of unions. And I would acknowledge that many advances in workers’ rights generally (unionised and non-unionised) have flowed from gains made after union pressure on government and business. So I am certainly not here to run down the unions in general. But that does not mean I’m not critical of the unions on occasion – and that in some instances their self interest trumps general interest or the so called common good.
I want to be clear – I am not urging mass cuts in the public sector head count. In fact, I’m not advocating any cuts in public sector head count.
Nor do I desire the public sector to lose job security just because there are jobs being lost in the private sector.
What I am saying is that I haven’t seen a convincing case being made for how the public finances can be stabilised without cuts in spending. When you look at our borrowing requirement this year, and imagine how the downturn is still gathering pace going into next year, it seems to me that without pretty quick action to stabilise, we would be looking at a horrendous picture going into 2010 and beyond.
WBS, if you have seen a cogent argument, say by one of the unions, on how borrowing can be used safely to correct the current situation, please point me to it. (Michael Taft argues to borrow, borrow, borrow, but doesn’t seem to acknowledge the huge risk involved or how it can be controlled from getting out of hand).
I am working on the premise that borrowing will not suffice and that cuts will be necessary. By virtue of their size this would mean hitting health and education. In that context, I argue that teachers could take some of the pain by opting for pay freezes to help avoid increases in pupil teacher ratios. (I accept also that the mathematics might mean that no amount of pay freezing could do the job, but the head of the teacher union didn’t say that. He said that they weren’t willing to take the cuts full stop and while he said measures other than the propsoed cut backs should be made, he couldn’t or wouldn’t specify).
Finally you made the point The current {cuts} aren’t {equitable}. It is that simple. The levy is wrong and impacts disproportionately on those on lower incomes. The cuts are wrong. Why should I or anyone else agree to assist, let alone further, this approach? It’s ludicrous.
On the levy, I agree. And in general the approach on the tax side is not nearly fair in term s of how the wealthy were spared big hits. But your unwillingness to share the burden now amounts to, oh the cuts are unfair, I will resist any attempt to make me share the burden (thereby leaving it to those who cannot resist to carry all of the burden). And since the public sector, largely, are in a position to resist, this leaves the people in the private sector exposed. The attitude is akin to saying that if this means a debt spiral and further jobs losses (primarily in the private sector) so be it. This is where I see the breakdown in solidarity.
Jim Power of Friends First, always the enemy of the public sector, has just been on Primetime advocating severe cuts in public spending – but even he agreed that front line services should be protected and explicitly said that there should not be reductions in the numbers of teachers and nurses.
But if the government continues to predicate its cuts on the relative popularity of the various parts of the public sector, no such distinctions will be made. And if they can rely on workers arguing among themselves about whether they’re sharing the pain fairly, there’s little incentive to choose targets judiciously.
You keep saying *I* have an unwillingness to ’share the burden’. I’ve argued for pay freezes. I think that *is* sharing the burden. I’ve argued for proper progressive taxation. That too is sharing the burden.
And I’d note that at the weekend the former Chairman of the UK CBI was calling for UK govt. spending to assist through this period. This isn’t some nutty leftist thinking, it’s basic centrist economic management.
It’s certainly not a case of saying the private sector should sink. Were the increased redundancy/welfare payments lobbied for by the unions and essentially a provision for those in the private sector a sign that there is no solidarity? Quite the opposite, as was the minimum wage. Etc… etc.
What you seem to be calling for is an essentially punitive approach. And it is you who is logically arguing for a breakdown in solidarity by extending inequitable outcomes. You pile one inequity (arguing that the public sector must somehow absorb cuts) on top of another (the outcome of the budget). I’d argue that the latter was wrong and the former is unnecessary.
It is entirely logical that I can disagree with your fundamental proposition that borrowing/tax increases will not suffice and then argue against cuts.
And here’s the thing, you keep arguing this as if there are no *educational* reasons for not accepting cuts, but there are. And it would be equally wrong for people to accept them for the supposed greater good of our beloved government while sacrificing our children to the alter of financial expediency. As it would also in health.
Would you argue that teachers and health workers take freezes?
About the spending in the UK and centrist economics – absolutely; I have no issue with deficit spending; nor with the plausible idea that wise increases in govt spending can be counter-cyclical; But as far as I know the UK public finances are not as shockingly out of kilter (though the debt to GDP ratio is higher than ours); My fear in the Irish case is that our finances are so bad that there is a real risk of a nasty spiral out of control; This is probably the fundamental difference between our positions.
I’m afraid I don’t see the inequity in public service spending cuts – neither do you if you advocate pay freezes.
it would be equally wrong for people to accept cuts for the supposed greater good of our beloved government while sacrificing our children to the alter of financial expediency.
No; not for the benefit of our beloved govt; but precisely for those beloved children: that is to say to prevent meltdown in the finances which would hurt far more down the line. And the children now may have to do with less (an effect which could surely be reduced if teachers took pay freezes) simply because there is less.
If I could be persuaded that we don’t risk catastrophic financial problems from borrowing our way out of this then I’d change my position.
My point about inequity is that your argument seems rooted in people losing jobs… at least that’s how it started out, and your calls as regards solidarity also seem rooted in that concept.
If we are both arguing that pay freezes are a good idea, even in the current context of government ineptitude then I agree. But I think it unfair to cast the unions as lacking ’solidarity’ with a private sector when their record over the past decade indicates that they finally woke up to their responsibilities to it.
Are you joking? You don’t recognize a difference between how public sector and private sector workers will live an acute downturn?
Alright, let me spell it out for you. Tens of thousands of private sector workers have already lost their jobs. Without question, tens of thousands more will join them. Very very few public sector workers will lose their jobs.
No. I’m not joking. I”m opbjecting to your characterisation of the private sector workers as “the rest of us” as if there were going to be 100% unemployment outside the public sector or even as if everybody – or even most people – in the private sector were going to suffer, badly. “The rest of us”, indeed.
WbS puts it thus:
you’re couching your langauge in a way that is unfortunate and making totally unwarranted assumptions.
and I think that was a reasonable way to put it, if perhaps unnecessarily kind.
(Incidentally, I wonder if you’re aware that sometimes public sector workers actually live with private sector workers? Sometimes are even married to them? Or that some people actually work in both?)
Like me
as if there were going to be 100% unemployment outside the public sector or even as if everybody – or even most people – in the private sector were going to suffer, badly.
Is that the level of devastation – 100% out of work – you require in order to consider people being badly hit? Fair enough, it’s a subjective concept. For me, huge numbers unemployed with more taking pay cuts and freezes is sufficient.
For me it seems unquestionable that the public sector will be largely shielded from the worst effects.
Any of my friends who have a spouse in the public sector always consider it a blessing in terms of the financial security of the household. We can always pick out corners cases – I’m sure there’ll be some public sector workers who are the sole income and who don’t get their contract renewed and who may even have trouble holding onto their house. But when I talk of the public sector taking some of the pain, I’m hardly referring to those hanging on by short term contracts. You know fine well I mean the vast bulk of public sector employees who possess the most secure jobs in the country and the best pensions.
What galled me about the teachers is that they chose not to consider taking on some of the burden of a pay freeze – flatly refused to consider it – knowing that they could have shielded the classroom from at least some of the consequences.
I repeat, this is where I see the lack of solidarity.
I try not to work in either.
Is that the level of devastation – 100% out of work – you require in order to consider people being badly hit?
No, it’s the sort of situation that would have to exist before your “the rest of us” cobblers could cease to be cobblers. You chose to use the phrase: you chose to cast the debate in those terms. You chose to talk about “the rest of us”. You’ve been called out on it and you don’t like it.
the vast bulk of public sector employees who possess the most secure jobs in the country and the best pensions.
Tell me – do they also possess the best wages and the largest bonuses?
What galled me about the teachers is that they chose not to consider taking on some of the burden of a pay freeze – flatly refused to consider it – knowing that they could have shielded the classroom from at least some of the consequences.
Of course they could. Because it would never occur to the government to do both, would it?
One of the things that galls me most about this sort of horseshit is that it is considered entirely acceptable and appropriate for other people to put number #1 first. It’s perfectly OK. Until public sector workers say they don’t accept a pay freeze. They, by contrast, are selfish and to be condemned.
EJH,
About the phrase “the rest of us”. I used that as shorthand for the private sector, and that you have got in a twist about it upsets me not one iota.
It seems to me that some on the left are particularly sensitive so that when one draws attention to unpleasant truths such as how threadbare is the notion of solidarity, you automatically become a pariah. I’m glad, however, that you acknowledge that the public sector, in the current context, are, in your phrase “putting # 1 first”. So much for solidarity.
About the wages and large bonuses. Here again there is a tendency not to see the wood from the trees. If you read the likes of Michael Taft he does an excellent job in showing how Irish wages are NOT inflated, and more important, how many hundreds of thousands in Ireland — a large portion of the workforce by any measure — are on quite low incomes. Well guess what – the bulk of low wage people, especially those in the most vulnerable work, are in the private sector. So much for high wages and large bonuses.
Yes, the really high wages and the truly obnoxious bonus culture is at its most outrageous in the private sector. But that phenomenon applies to a minority in selected fields and positions. Regrettably the same culture has been leaking into the public sector – where senior managers have sought, and pretty much received, huge salaries akin to those in the private sector.
I am no apologist for the “obscene wage” culture – and I would back calls to use income, wealth, and property taxes to dampen the unfairness of it.
I used that as shorthand for the private sector
No, I was aware of that. It was not an honest usage, though, as the private sector as a whole is not going to be suffering – some of that sector will, much will not. To posit a suffering private sector and a selfish public sector was specious. As I say, you chose to do it, and you got called out on it. “The rest of us” is – to put it more nicely than I might – nonsense.
So spare us the grandstanding about being a pariah. It’s the absence of truth, not its presence, which is the issue here.
I’m glad, however, that you acknowledge that the public sector, in the current context, are, in your phrase “putting # 1 first”.
Of course, I didn’t actually say that, but then you have been having a problem with the meaning of words all the way through this comments thread, haven’t you?
No, I was aware of that. It was not an honest usage, though, as the private sector as a whole is not going to be suffering .
As a whole? How could that ever be the case? I noted there would be people in the public sector affected, and sections of the private sector unscathed or who could and should be targeted with tax cuts. There are always shades of grey around the edges, it cannot be, as your interpretation would frame it, black and white: the mark of a true ideologue.
None of this takes away from the big picture – public sector workers will, by and large be shielded in a way that private sector workers aren’t. (By private sector worker, am I concerned for the 3m a year barrister? The multi-million a year bankers? Hardly).
And I suspect from your language that it was in you, not me, that some nerve was touched; touched not by a falsehood, but by something far sharper.
it cannot be, as your interpretation would frame it
Not my interpretation: your language. You chose the all-encompassing terms, even after being invited to reconsider their use: then you do not like their consequences. That is your responsibility, I think.
And I suspect from your language that it was in you, not me, that some nerve was touched; touched not by a falsehood, but by something far sharper.
“Because I have made specious point and cannot admit it, I am going to claim on the basis of no evidence that you think something you have not said.”
I’m a public servant and I’m starting to get really pissed off with the right wing press commentators going on and on about the public service being the problem. I’m also pissed off by the lack of fight back by any of us and especially our unions. Where are the spokespeople defending us on the telly, on the radio, in print? And I don’t mean defending the indefensible – we are willing to engage in efforts to improve the services, indeed a lot of the time we are suggesting ways to improve it – we don’t condone people abusing the sick leave system especially when it leaves others to carry the can, but we will defend the right of people who are sick to stay home till they are better!
And yes I know that unions are only as good as their members and it’s up to me to get active and get the unions moving on defending us.
What really got me was Marian Finucane’s radio programme and the free rein given to right-wing economist Niamh Brennan to have a go – with no balance on the panel, no-one to put forward a pro-public service viewpoint.
How about a Public Services Campaign to defend public services and public servants and show people that public services can and do work and are worth it?
This has been a really interesting debate to read. Fair play to all who have contributed.
Question: Why do really poor teachers have to be carted off into the ‘early retirement scheme’ instead of simply being let go? It all seems like a saving-face mechanism to me.
As for the education budget, my instincts lie between tomaltach and wbs. I wholeheartedly disagree with the Jim Power analysis that solidarity means everyone gets screwed equally. That’s nonsensical.
However, a pay freeze is going to be required to plug the gap in the public finances because it is slightly more palatable than losing more teachers and special needs staff. Why? Because the government’s philosophy has been to starve the education sector of resources in most other aspects: school buildings, IT, facilities etc. I believe in public services, and sometimes that even comes at the expense of union’s interests.
Ian, then you me and Tomaltach all agree. However, three thoughts.
Firstly it is something that the govt should be bringing forward. Has it done so? No it hasn’t. It has framed this debate in budgetary terms, yet it hasn’t taken this road. Now why would that be. My interpretation is that it is waiting to push against the unions by depicting them as money-grubbing self-interested so and so’s.
Secondly, any union is entirely within its rights to fight for its members interests, and at the very least part of that is having preliminary and secondary negotiating positions. Nothing should be taken at face value in this. And additionally it is also reasonable that there might be some gestures, should this get into a negotiation, from the govt.
Thirdly, and this reiterates a point I made earlier. It is entirely logical to take a position that the overall approach by the govt. is wrong – something I largely adhere to – and therefore to hold out for change in order that the govt. does something right before conceding other points – such as a wage freeze. Pressure works both ways. People have principles. Etc. For example, I’m personally in favour of a wage freeze for a year and a half to be revisited then to see what the situation is. I’ve had worse in the private sector. But not without some movement on the levy and/or income tax in order to spread that particular tax take more equitably. And I see no reason to give something for nothing when others, beyond the public sector and ordinary people on low and middling incomes in the private sector, are asked to dig deep while those on higher incomes aren’t.
And I see no reason to give something for nothing when others, beyond the public sector and ordinary people on low and middling incomes in the private sector, are asked to dig deep while those on higher incomes aren’t.
Quite.
And I see no reason to give something for nothing when others, beyond the public sector and ordinary people on low and middling incomes in the private sector, are asked to dig deep while those on higher incomes aren’t.
That is certainly a fair point. But as far as I know this is not the thinking of say the teaching unions – who seem to be simply resisting any possibility of discussion of a wage freeze, regardless of what budgetary parameters get altered. Certainly, I’m not aware of them sending any signals to the effect that, say a comprehensive revision of how wealth and higher earners is taxed, would allow them to see what they could contribute.
I would also agree with WBS, and others on this thread, who fear that the government and business may turn this into an opportunity to weaken the unions and to stir up a negative sentiment towards the public sector in general.
But certainly the crisis has been exploited by the usual right wing commentariat to spout about ‘bloated public service’ and the need for ‘radical reform’.
I think it’s impossible to be sure what the position of the teaching unions is at this point. They’re working through cuts which affect staffing in certain key areas and will result in increased class sizes. I don’t think it’s unreasonable that they’d focus on that primarily. But beyond that why would they send a signal to you or me? (I’m a member of SIPTU as it happens, not a teaching union). Or to put it another way why would they attempt to give away what hand they have?
Sure, we could argue the patriotism issue, but it’s a bit thin isn’t it?
I should add that I’m not unquestioning about the teaching unions. In particular I’d be harshly critical of the ASTI stance in the early 2000s, that mentioned by smiffy. The paradoxes he raised about that stance were manifest, a contingent within the leadership seemed to see themselves as the next best thing to a labour elite. Thankfully others inside the ASTI took a different view and ultimately won the day and now we see a much more united and proactive approach from them in tandem with the TUI and INTO.