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. "to teach in school classrooms on the same basis"
    Did you miss the bit about 'school classrooms'?
    Problem is; I work in an FE college, not a school.
    Like I say; the IfL have failed to deliver anything of any benefit to me, and unless you plan to teach in a school they have failed to deliver anything of any benefit to anyone in FE.
     
  2. Yup! Me too!
    But you forgot all those reduced cost things, CPD, show tickets, all sorts of symposia, shows and conferences - dead useful if you live in London - I don't!
    Mind you they do seem to have disappeared this year!

    Computer software anyone?
     
  3. THE THING TO ALSO REMEMBER IS THAT THE WOLF REPORT WAS CONDUCTED VERY MUCH INDEPENDENTLY OF THE IFL. ALL THE IFL HAVE DONE IS PIGGY BACK ONTO IT SUGGESTIONS AND CELEBRATE ITS RESULT AS IF IT WHERE THEIR DOING!! THEY OFFER NOTHING, WHAT POLICIES AND PROCEEDURES DO THEY HAVE FOR ENSURING PROFESSIONALITY AMONGST ITS TEACHING MEMEBERS? PRETTY ODD FOR A ORGANISATION BASED AROUND PROFESSIONAL STATUS.
    IGNORE THEIR THREATS AND BULLY BOY TACTICS, THEY CAN NOT FIRE US ALL!
     
  4. Crikey - don't shout. I'm not quite deaf yet!
    I think we have already ascertained that the Wolf Report was not IfL driven.
    But some of us did contribute to it via IfL. So we did have a voice in it!
    As for policies and procedures... well we all love the PebblePad, don't we?
    And I haven't been threated or bullied by IfL..... I think you're being a bit reactionary, ajwan.
    That and shouty, which could read as rather rude, don't you know?

     
  5. I CONTRIBUTED TO IfL's WOLF SURVEY AND ....... (oops sorry) ..... and am proud to have done so. Regardless of what you think about IfL, they are the only FE body to have campaigned on this - it doesn't even get a mention on UCU's press release because it sticks in the union's throat to admit IfL succeeded where it failed - and no matter how much you shout you can't change that fact.
    I've never been threatened.
    I've never been bullied.
    I have been offered the chance to influence policy - I took it Ajwan, now I bask in the glory.

    Shame on you
     
  6. jilly_mc

    jilly_mc New commenter

    I've mixed feelings about the Wolf review. Yes, it seems positive that FE lecturers will be allowed to teach in schools, but is this true parity? For example:

    <ol>[*] Equality of pay between teachers and FE lecturers: will doing the same job now mean that we get paid the same wage? Not all lecturers can just hop across to schools; some deliver subjects not taught in schools.
    [*]Compulsory membership of quangos such as the IfL: to achieve QTLS, you need to be in the IfL. The schools' equivalent, the GTC, has been scrapped due to lack of funding (the same reason that the IfL is now charging us £68). If we were to teach in schools, does this not mean that we needn't be a member of a professional body because we work in a school?
    [*] Exposure to teaching of KS3 students: I only teach KS4/5 students, so would this put me at a disadvantage if I wanted to apply to work in a school (where I would presumably be given the 'least favourite' age ranges to teach)? Would I just be told that I don't have the necessary experience with this age range? </ol>


    I think there is still some way to go, and we will have to wait and see what the IfL does, what the unions do, and how schools react to this report.
     
  7. We have paid nothing so far and have received nothing... fair exchange methinks.... however in light of abolition of the statutory teachers equivalent GTC, I see no need to preserve this useless quango, you say they speak on the behalf of FE lecturers but have we ever been consulted or asked our opinions about the neccessity of this?? simply no... I notice the sudden burst of action and email from the IFL as they desperately try to prove they are active and doing something, I will not be conned by this.... I wholeheartedly agree with standardisation so we might eventually gain parity with 'real' teachers, I do not believe the ifl have helped this goal one bit

    the government(god bless them) were looking for savings, I reccommend the closure of the IFL....

    I have asked my colleagues how they think they would manage without the great work of the IFL and we all agree it will be hard, but we will simply have to face up to this and get on with it, I am sure our British wartime blitz spirit will pull us through the hard times ahead....
     
  8. The IfL is one of those self-serving bodies that overstate their significance and provide sinecures for people who should go out and get a proper job. Take a look at the staff pay scales at IfL. Link provided by Lee Davies. http://www.ifl.ac.uk/about-ifl/who-we-are/ifl-financial-information/additional-financial-information-regarding-the-financial-statements

    £400,000 - £450,000 per annum for five chiefs. Based on a compulsory membership regime, that is effectively a levy of £2+ per 'member' to pay these people. The closed shop is morally repugnant and the IfL is bereft of any merit.
     
  9. Myth busting:
    The GTC wasn't
    it was abolished because the Secretary of State wanted absolute control over who could or couldn't teach in schools without any intermediary body. School teachers rejoiced the departure of the GTC, now their unions want it back because they realise the consequences of their wishes coming true. Only 14 teachers lost their job through 'competence' related cases with the GTC, mark my words: there will be mant thousands now Gove has direct responsibility and the appeal process is removed now it is not an independant body judging cases.
    Myth busting:
    - you need QTS and to be a member of GTC (currently), GTC doesn't go until mid-2012. If (I'll believe it when I see it) school regulations are relaxed, I imagine QTLS will be the expectation. You can only have this if you are a member of IfL. Therefore, if you do not have QTS you will have to be a member of IfL and have gone through professional formation to teach in a school.

     
  10. I have done so. Only one member of staff earns over &pound;100k - I imagine the chief executive (would be an odd organisation if it were otherwise). This has, I suspect, taken the wind out of the sails of those who were shouting about &pound;300k (I kid you not, look on Facebook) salaries at the IfL. (idiots)
    Compare this to the likes of the AoC. Colleges pay tens of thousands of pounds to belong to the AoC - money intended for provision (teaching and learning). An individual college can pay anything up to &pound;80-100k to belong to AoC. This is the real repugnant nature of FE - yet I don't see one FE lecturer up in arms about it. The money a college pays to the AoC would fund its teaching staff to belong to IfL and have plenty left over.
    By the way Bob, earning over &pound;60k does not make you a 'chief', sadly nor does it make you a chef!!
     
  11. hmmmmm, methinks you are wrong on this one my old fruit cake - surely it is simply a case of if you don't pay you haven't renewed ...... why would IfL need a process to remove someone from membership who isn't in it?
     
  12. Jude Fawley

    Jude Fawley Star commenter

    I've still got two membership numbers and I haven't paid them a penny.
    I think they didn't like the fact I had an early number so they gave me another one as well and probably tried to give my very low number (it is in the tens) to one of their inner circle to pretend they were there at the outset.
    I was there at the outset because I was aware they were going into business and am always on the ball re anything in F E.
    I just applied and got the number and then a letter saying it was a temporary number and I was given another one.
    That's when I twigged they were totally incompetent.
    The rest is history.
     
  13. If anyone is wrong it is not me - it is UCU's legal advisors, and maybe they are wrong, but...
    I'm not so sure. I think the argument goes like this;
    If you want to receive a paper copy of TES each week then the only way you can qualify for this is to pay an annual subscription. If you do not renew your subscription then you no longer qualify for receipt of the benefit. Anyone who pays the fee can get the paper. And it doesn't matter what else I do, so long as I pay the subscription I will continue to get the paper.
    However in order to qualify for membership of the IfL you must work in the LLLS and have certain qualifications. You cannot buy membership of the IfL. It is not available to anyone. Therefore membership is not renewed each year. I do not need to re-apply or re-take my qualifications. The subscription does not represent the membership, it represents the cost of membership. If I do not pay the subscription, I still qualify and meet the conditions of membership. These are enduring until such time as the IfL remove me, for whatever reason, from membership. And to do this they must follow the general principles of common justice; there must be a defined process, they must give their reasons, and I must be given the opportunity to defend myself.
    I think this is what the UCU lawyers are getting at.
     
  14. I suspect they are 100% wrong if that is what they are saying. All membership bodies I belong to - my membership ceases if I do not pay, usually after a month or so. Payment is part of the contract, if I do not renew and pay I have no contract, I am not a member. Stretching your (quite mad analogy) try ringing the RAC and the AA if you break down but did not pay your membership when the subscription came through - you'll probably find you are not a member and that they didn't tell you other than giving up after sending you one or two reminders.
    Oh, so not true. Anyone can join if they have an interest in the sector, their membership is just restricted to a category that doesn't have any professional status. Again most professional membership organisations have this kind of affiliation.
    Yes it is - you don't need to be working in the sector to be a member. I know of at least two chefs who are involved in in-company training who are members. One a qualified teacher with MIfL and one an affiliate as not qualified.
    Yes it is, when you pay, the same as every other professional body on the planet.
    No you don't, one of the conditions is paying and you haven't.
    Try getting on a train without a ticket, using the excuse you bought one last time you travelled so you are still a passenger. I think you will find that by not paying youhave not renewed your membership and (and the risk of sounding like a scratched record) like every other membership body in the world, you have to pay to renew.
    Let's try: "you haven't paid and you have to". Seems cut and dried to me. The defence "I am a member I just haven't paid" really won't cut it. Isn't it just a little bit like shoplifting?

    I'm sorry Shirty, you usually come across balanced and knowledgable, but on this I think you are so wide of the mark as to be shooting at your own goal. But thanks for a great laugh when I read it.



     
  15. Is that training certificated?? If so then they will have an association with a provider - usually CfRB/Short Courses in an FE college - so they would get IfL membership etc!
    Our chocolatier has a similar arrangement and is shocked at the fee she is expected to pay for a job that pays her at best &pound;200 per year (she runs 2 workshops, Easter and Christmas).
    Our butcher runs training sessions for lots of small companies, butchers, restaurants etc. He does NOT certificate and so is not a member. But he will be certificating as of September and so WILL be a member even though his client base will not change!
     
  16. I'm so sorry to disappoint you. All the more embarassing since I teach, amongst other things, general and contract law for engineers at L5.
    However if I may say so perhaps you are placing too greater emphasis on there being a contractual relationship between ourselves and the IfL. There may be one to some extent, and to some extent the normal remedies for breach of contract might apply.
    However what I suggest you overlook is that we are members of the IfL which is, as I understand it, a completely different kind of law (i.e. corporate law). And whilst it might well be a condition of retaining membership that fees are paid each year, the non-payment is not, I would suggest, a breach of contract; it would be a breach of membership which is not the same thing at all.
    And this is where the difficulty for the IfL arises. They cannot simply cancel the service because that would still leave me as a member with a vote (not that there is any service to cancel). They must remove me from membership. That means the other members must agree to do this in some way. And that needs a process which they don't have at present.
    I always find it productive to maintain a light hearted ambience in my classroom, even when discussing such serious matters.
     
  17. Oh dear! Cheflecturer I wasn't trying to annoy you BUT you do make statements and take stances...
    I shall assume then that your chef friends have joined as part of the skill sector!
    Our chocolatier does indeed have to join as she earns over the tax threshold - it is not calculated on hours worked/money earned in education alone..
    " IfL focused on concessionary fees for members on a low income rather than number or percentage of hours. This is because some part-time teachers may be on a fairly substantial
    percentage contract, eg 80%, and some part-time teachers may be high
    earners elsewhere because they are dual professionals and might work as
    an engineer or a lawyer, teaching their subject or vocational area"
    As she runs her own profitable company she needs to pay - according to the regs.
    Yup. He is coming within CfRB as of September
    Mmmmmmmm! That is quite telling. May I assume that you fully endorse the capitalist belief in allowing market forces to rule and devil take the poorest???




     
  18. You haven't annoyed me, I don't do annoyed.
    No, they have joined as private trainers.
    For two sessions a year? Not so. Read the regulations. No one has to register to do two sessions a year.
    Sorry - never heard of CfRB, so can't comment.
    You can assume what you like, who am I to stop you making an **** of yourself???

     
  19. I quoted them in that last post!
     
  20. And that would be the skills sector!!

     

Share This Page