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 education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

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

    Dismiss Notice

IFL Payment - what are the unions' position on this?

Discussion in 'Further Education' started by marshal, Feb 10, 2011.

  1. Right now the unions are pretty taken up with cuts and pensions issues, but I wondered if anyone has hear from their union about opposing this charge?
  2. jacob

    jacob Lead commenter

    The unions actually supported the setting up of the IfL, but there is a very strong body of feeling against it. particulary as the teacher equivalent - the GTC has been abolished by Gove.
  3. http://www.ucu.org.uk/index.cfm?articleid=5273
    They seem to be thinking about it - haven't decided which side of the fence to jump to yet though...
  4. Just to say thanks for these links - given us something to chew on :O)
  5. cariadwch

    cariadwch Established commenter

    From ATL website
    "ATL has protested at the level of the fee. Registration is required for employment as a lecturer or assistant lecturer so failure to do so may put the members' job at risk.
    Payment does not need to be made until 1 April 2011 and ATL suggests that members delay paying until closer to this date. In the meantime, ATL is talking to the IfL and other unions about this issue."

    Don't know about ACM but apparently the AoC (obviously not a union) is canvassing Senior Leadership Teams on what college staff opinion is of the IfL.
  6. This potentially could be very significant. The AoC may take the view that its members do not want to find themselves in the middle of an unproductive dispute between their employers, possibly the UCU, and the IfL. They have nothing to gain from this whatever the result, (unlike say a dispute on pay), not least because the IfL has delivered nothing of value to emloyers and employees alike.
    But UCU's position of opposing the IfL's decision is gesture politics. The IfL has no choice other than to levy the fee.
    I'm one of the few who believes in the principle of the IfL. But it has failed to deliver. So now we find ourselves opposing something that has failed but whose existence and membership is guaranteed by statute.
    So the question is - how do you oppose a statutory quango?
    The only possible way I can see is that the UCU demand that the AoC members pay the fees of their employees. When the AoC refuse then there is the grounds for a legitimate and legal trade dispute between employers and employees. Employees are therefore potentially indeminified against a breach of contract.
    However UCU does not seem to be going down this road. Rather it is opposing the decision of a statutory body and this will bring into conflict with government. I'm pretty sure who will win this conflict, and who will be paying for the loss in the years to come.

  7. I warned at least one major union about the IfL in the beginning, but the unions bent over backwards to kiss the IfL - expect nothing from them they are defunct.
  8. A thoughtful and interesting posting, shirtandtie. You pose the important question in this storm. The UCU petition avoids it.
    I am sure that the discussions amongst AoC members will be crucial.
  9. <font size="2">I might be in the minority of 1 although it doesn&rsquo;t mean I am wrong!!!!! Why is there such a hula boo against the IfL what is the alternative. </font><font size="2">1. The FE sector has no one to speak on their behalf </font><font size="2">2. How can we seek parity with our peers in primary, secondary and HE if we have no one to speak on our behalf?</font><font size="2">These are just two points I am sure there are more don't get me wrong the IfL can be and should be better. But its worth fighting for it to stay and &pound;68.00 for 18 months is quite a good deal and lets be frank we have not paid anything if you have been in a LSC funded college for the last three years.</font>
  10. Out of interest S&T, failed to do what?
  11. Deliver anything of any benefit to me.
  12. Unfortunately you are not in a minority of 1. If there was more solidarity on the issue of ignoring the IFL requirements and teachers voted with their wallets well and truly closed then the whole idea of FE tutors having to 'enjoy' the proffessional status that the IFL provides would be dead and buried.
  13. IfL > &pound;68 > now parity with school teacher
    UCU > &pound;170+ > never achieved same

    Bit of a no-brainer going on here - I suspect UCU needs to talk to IfL pretty quickly.........
  14. Like?
  15. Parity of pay with school teachers and HE lecturers.
  16. Like Gove announced today?
  17. <u>UCU comment on Wolf Review</u>
    Interesting. No mention that IfL have achieved parity. Wonder why that is then? It's an express aim of UCU to achieve parity of status. It has been achieved. No mention of it in their response. Shame on you Sally Hunt!!
  18. Sadly he has announced no such thing. Try and and take it easy on the sherry.
  19. hic!!
    "Mr Gove said Prof Wolf's report was "brilliant and ground-breaking". He immediately accepted four recommendations:
    • To allow qualified further education lecturers to teach in school classrooms on the same basis as qualified school teachers.
    • To clarify the rules on allowing industry professionals to teach in schools.
    • To allow any vocational qualification offered by a regulated awarding body to be taken by 14 to 19 year olds.
    • To allow established high-quality vocational qualifications that have not been accredited to be offered in schools and colleges in September 2011."
    On the same basis.......


Share This Page