1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice
  3. The Teacher Q&A will be closing soon.

    If you have any information that you would like to keep or refer to in the future please can you copy and paste the information to a format suitable for you to save or take screen shots of the questions and responses you are interested in.

    Don’t forget you can still use the rest of the forums on theTes Community to post questions and get the advice, help and support you require from your peers for all your teaching needs.

    Dismiss Notice

Did you vote "yes"?

Discussion in 'Scotland - education news' started by airy, May 27, 2011.

  1. And if the SG stops funding them?
  2. Dominie

    Dominie New commenter

    Sorry. My usual articulacy has disappeared. You're talking boll&&.
    The SG / COSLA pay deal has to be viewed in context. The context is the scenario whereby the SG signed a concordat which allowed local authorities to do what they wanted provided they met output agreements. Here's the relevant bit re education ...
    Improving the learning experience for children and young people by improving the fabric of schools and nurseries; developing and delivering A Curriculum for Excellence; and, as quickly as is possible, reducing class sizes in P1 to P3 to a maximum of 18 and improving early years provision with access to a teacher for every pre-school child. The provision of additional capital allocation and specific arrangements for local authorities
    to maintain teacher numbers in the face of falling school rolls will allow significant progress on this policy over the Spending Review period. Taking into account retirals, the capacity of the universities to train new teachers, changing demographic trends, and the different circumstances across authorities including accommodation pressures, it is recognised that the pace of implementation of class size reduction will vary across authorities depending on local circumstances and needs. Local government will be expected to show year on year progress toward delivery of the class size reduction policy.

    Having signed this on the dotted line, some authorities proceeded to totally ignore it. Not only that but these authorities were often extremely poorly managed in terms of their education function.
    The issue is not about the UK cuts. The pay freeze would have dealt with that. The issue is about requirement on the part of some LAs to make additional savings due to their own poor financial management. ( My own la for example is not implementing the reduction in probationer time. It has run a pretty tight ship over the last decade, has closed schools when justified demographically and educationally and has not spent a fortune on additional layers of management, endless reorganisations etc.) These la's also failed to employ the required number of teachers and implement class size reductions.
    The deal has now let these authorities off the hook. The teaching workforce will be reduced to 51 131 (from 57 500 when the SNP came into power). Some of that is due to smaller pupil numbers but most of it down to a conscious decision on the part of the SG to allow education to pay a higher price than other local authority services and to force teachers themselves to pay through the nose. Why?
    I imagine it's because they were aware that the leadership of the EIS could be persuaded by the same sleight of hand which appears to have convinced you.
    Oh and dinosaurs were pretty successful for a tens of millions of years and when the sh*t hit the fan, they survived in the form of birds. And in conclusion ...
  3. a few 'uncle toms' or eis apologists making their views known it seems. Daily mail teachers? ;) I am tired of people telling me that i should give up my t&c's because of the economic crisis. My heads not in sand - there are a parcel of rogues who should be suffering before teachers.
  4. I appreciate all your thoughts and comments. It's a great profession I've joined and I'm glad to have you as colleagues. By the way "dominie", are we related? [​IMG] And don't worry, I'm not about to start reading the "Daily Mail" - there must be more to education than that! Back to the TESS job pages to search for that job with my name on it.
  5. Publicly, on Facebook, myself and a few other EIS members suggested this to them and they ignored it. We pointed out that with 60,000 odd teachers in Scotland, if everyone took a £1000 pay cut for two years, 1000 x 60,000 x 2 = savings of £120Million. Didn't even have the decency to reply to the comments saying that it was an option or not, they certainly didn't say why it wouldn't be an option.
  6. davieee

    davieee Occasional commenter

    It is important to realise that even before the financial crisis / recession hit the SNP minority government pledged to (and delivered it has to be said) a freezing of the council tax. To help achieve this LAs had to cut departmental budgets and education departments generally took more than their fair share of this.
    CPD and recruitment are notable examples of this.
    Teachers or education as a whole has taken its share therefore to sacrifice salary or terms and conditions is a step too far. I honestly believe that we need to take a more robust approach in dealing with the government / COSLA and NOTHING should be ruled out. We should also be more creative in threatening strike action. i.e. If we do go on strike say for a week, we should ensure that "the striking week" straddles 2 salary months so that the loss of pay is spread over 2 wages and therefore easier to manage.
    Another avenue is to target individual LAs with the LAs that are still at work subsidising some of the lost pay. i.e. It was reported at the weekend that the SNP are targetting Glasgow in next years local government elections so if the Glasgow teachers went on strike with the financial support of other teachers and blamed the SNP government for the strike, there is a good chance we'd get some leverage.
    I recognise that there are many SNP supporters posting on here but I think we have to be a wee bit selfish in protecting not only education but our jobs and our T&Cs.
  7. JPM1967

    JPM1967 New commenter

    Deeply offensive. Is this the level of debate to be expected nowadays on the TES forum when someone offers an alternative viewpoint?
    I'll throw back another line from American literature...
    "The truth? You can't handle the truth?"
  8. Dominie

    Dominie New commenter

    A degree of vituperation is inevitable given the issues involved. Some supply teachers WILL take a >40% cut. Some Probationers in some authorities WILL struggle to pass the SFR with an increased pupil contact time. Some promoted teachers in secondary schools face the prospect of being "reduced to the ranks" within 5 years with very serious financial consequences. In the opinion of some, ALL teachers have been let down by the actions of a small number of people, NONE of whom will be affected directly by the decision they took.

    Of course, many teachers will be totally unaffected and will take a very unsympathetic or ill informed view of the plight of their colleagues. That's precisely what COSLA and the SG were counting on. It is hardly surprising if other teachers become vituperative as a result.
  9. kibosh

    kibosh Star commenter

    And I'm pretty sure that amongst the many teachers who did not vote due to 'apathy' or voted yes to both ballots, there will be a significant number who were so bogged down by the latest CfE puzzle and associated workload that their brains had crashed. Let's not forget for one instant the huge part that CfE has played in bringing the profession to it's current bewildered and beleaguered state.
  10. kibosh

    kibosh Star commenter

    and, if i can just add
    and many of which, are still struggling to find work, only to be rewarded with a substantial pay cut.
  11. You find it offensive? Are you in danger of losing a bulk of your wages?
    Please don't respond by quoting from a second rate movie.
    The eis regularly sends in its apologists on here to try to defend itself. If this does not apply to you why are you offended?
    I'm not sure if this site conforms to the oxford rules with regards to debating. If you are so easily offended try another forum?
  12. kibosh

    kibosh Star commenter

    Really enjoyed your post and agree with much of it. Imo you are not missing anything. Decisions were taken, it seems, based on their level of political sensitivity.
    I too was astonished that, by all accounts, very little effort was made to find 'alternative' solutions.
  13. JPM1967

    JPM1967 New commenter

    Yes. 'Uncle Tom' is a contemptuous phrase
    I've already clearly stated on page 1 of this thread that I am permanent teacher and the initial proposals do not significantly impact me. I also stated clearly that I voted 'No' both times because I disagreed with the unfair way the cuts were targeted at the most vulnerable of our colleagues - in particular, Supply Teachers. There but for the grace of God was I.
    However, the original poster started a very interesting thread...trying to understand why so many teachers (himself/herself included, even though they are a recently qualified supply teacher) voted 'Yes'. That is a question worth exploring. You don't seem to like people exploring that question and trying to put the issue in context.
    Several posters have highlighted the lack of alternatives to industrial action put forward at the time. Many of these posters were willing to take pay cuts to protect people in your position and you respond by calling them 'Uncle Tom' because they have the temerity to put forward alternative viewpoints. Shame on you.
  14. There wasn't much time. I think rejecting the proposals and then spending time negotiating and discussing alternatives would have been a perfectly reasonable approach. I'm not one to moan indiscriminately about evils bankers but I do object to the fact that bankers' bonuses are sacrosanct because they are part of a previously agreed contract but my contract seems up for negotiation at every opportunity.
  15. JPM1967

    JPM1967 New commenter

    I don't see many people being unsympathetic on this thread. They are simply putting the issue in a national context and pointing out that certain alternatives (e.g. an across the board wage cut) didn't gain enough attention or momentum.
    I have tried to inform the debate by looking at how our wages are ultimately funded and discussed the difficult choices LAs faced when weighing up the various services facing cuts. Education can't be immune from that, but if you read some contributions on the TES forum, that's exactly what some teachers want...status quo.
    And yes, I accept that this is a deeply sensitive area and tempers will rise, especially if someone has been shafted in the manner of supply teachers.
    P.S. Vituperative? I know I called you articulate in an earlier posting but...get you!
  16. If it does not apply to you then don't put on a show of mock offence. i am perfectly aware of the O.P's original assertion and enjoy how some posters have articulated their opinion, including yourself, I just don't appreciate the 'there was no alternative' attitude prevalent in some postings.
  17. Was that done publicly or behind the scenes...it's the first I've heard of it. Personally I'd have signed up to a temporary cut in salary to safeguard other T&Cs, provided there was a clear pathway to restore our salary levels to the correct post-McCrone rate (including intervening inflation) once the financial crisis had passed. However, I appreciate that many teachers would/could not accept this, with monthly income & expenditure finely balanced as it is.

    I'm sure they'll cope! At least they have a monthly income - good to hear that you'd be prepared to do this though

    Publicly, on Facebook, myself and a few other EIS members suggested this to them and they ignored it. We pointed out that with 60,000 odd teachers in Scotland, if everyone took a £1000 pay cut for two years, 1000 x 60,000 x 2 = savings of £120Million. Didn't even have the decency to reply to the comments saying that it was an option or not, they certainly didn't say why it wouldn't be an option.

    I think I may well have been one of the ones who supported you on this (and was also duly ignored). I kept on hearing about the 'lack of alternatives' but there are plenty out there who are prepared to offer them, just nobody willing to listen.
  18. I'm sure they'll cope - at least they have an income.
  19. I think I may well have been one of the ones who supported you on this (and was also duly ignored). I kept on hearing about the 'lack of alternatives' but there are plenty out there who are prepared to offer them, just nobody willing to listen.
  20. Sorry, my above two posts seem to have been 'merged' in the post above them. Being a relatively new poster (although I've been viewing for years) I apologise for my ineptitude! It won't happen again.

Share This Page