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

recent meeting of SNCT - EIS response

Discussion in 'Scotland - education news' started by braemar, Jan 19, 2011.

  1. catmother

    catmother Star commenter

    Me too. I'm sure that I remember this mentioned when it was first proposed and there were some other wording in the proposal which made it clear it was 40 days for the purpose of leave calculation (or something like this). We thought it was something to do with new legislation on accrued holidays when sick or maternity leave and would avoid councild having to pay up to 66 days for teachers. It's a bit worrying that it now seems to be about holidays (or is it?). Lack of straightforward info is annoying.
     
  2. JPM1967

    JPM1967 New commenter

    Just to (hopefully) clarify a few things...
    1) We definitely are paid for all our holidays at present, accrued at a rate of 0.338 for each of the 195 days worked. So, 195 x 0.338 = 66 days paid holiday. 195 + 66 + 104 (weekends) = calendar 365 days.
    2) My understanding is, as said by a few people above, that the proposed restriction to 40 days is only for the calculation of "parental leave". It is designed to stop people claiming additional holidays when they have been off on maternity leave. This was an unknown cost which only hit the LAs last year when the full implications of EU legislation hit home.
    If I am wrong on the second point then I will be the first one manning the picket line!
    So, hopefully this is merely a misunderstanding. I can't believe that anyone is proposing that we lose payment for 26 days of our holiday, i.e. effectively unpaid for the summer break. It ain't going to happen...end of.
     
  3. halfajack

    halfajack Occasional commenter

    Thanks, JPM, I hope you're right about the holidays.

    The EIS meeting I mentioned is wednesday 2nd February, 5pm at Adelaide's, Bath street, Glasgow.
     
  4. JPM, you and a few others are correct in point 2 but the problem they will face getting this through is the fact that the 69 days is an European law. So if they decide to restrict us to 40 days then they will face a fine off the European Union.
     
  5. halfajack

    halfajack Occasional commenter

    The only bad thing about JPM being right about the holiday issue is when I thought it was the other way (ie, essentially a pay cut) it seemed like the one issue which would affect all teachers and therefore motivate them to stand together on it. Looking at it this way, together with the other proposals, it's back to select groups, some of them fairly vulnerable, who others may not really be willing to stand up for. Back to divide and conquer!
     
  6. Booting SNP out may not be the answer. Labour was long enough in power. It's the councils where the problems lie. They are the ones who spend the education budget. Why create quality improvement officers, heads of Learning Communities? these require big salaries and we had managed without in the past. (after 3 years, in one council, 4 out of the 7 head of Learning Communities got a package for early retirement based on comfortable salaries!!!)
    do away with the segregation of schools and you would save a lot. send your kids to your local school. do away with school buses and get the kids to walk.
     
  7. Some of the kids at my school travel 10 miles by bus to get here and this is their local school. How do you propose they get here without a bus?!

    It's about time these councils were amalgamated. I don't understand why, for example, the Grampian region needs 3 authorities within it, ergo 3 directors of education on a whopping great wage that would probably pay 15 teachers' wages between the three of them. Nonsense. Jobs for the boys...
     
  8. Exactly. The obvious answer really - simple physics, top heavy structures tend to collapse. It's hard to believe that SG haven't thought of this.
    Wonder who we should ring [​IMG]
     
  9. catmother

    catmother Star commenter

    I assume segregation refer to faith schools? Not an issue in Aberdeenshire. However,as Mossop has said,a lot of pupils need transported to school as their local secondary school is miles away.
     
  10. I agree, catmum, but it's not going to happen. They will cut front-line staff and school budgets deep into the bone before they will touch an ounce of the lard at the top.
    To mix the metaphor further: turkeys don't vote for Christmas.
    As for the SG, what a joke they are. What the funk do they do anyway? Face it, they're nothing but a pretendy parliament, fiddling around with prescriptions, bus passes, and air guns, while the country's education system is ground into the dirt.
     
  11. ...should of course have read, I agree, mossop. Apologies, folks!
     
  12. I take your point about rural schools. I would not deny them transport. I see more the case of city schools and large towns where every district has 1, 2 or even 3 non denominational and children are transported to the other side of town (by parents) because they chose to.
     
  13. sorry, I was interrupted. The council provision for buses relates to the faith schools. If faiths schools were done away with, the council would save money on transport for all these pupils.
     
  14. halfajack

    halfajack Occasional commenter

    There are plenty of other ways to save money before denying Catholics the right to Catholic schools. See above for other, less offensive, suggestions!
     
  15. Yes that would be an Ecumenical matter (father ted). Ask Aber... [​IMG]
    The E.I.S statement was a little confusing. Was that deliberate? Losing 26 days pay a year would have curtailed my trips to Ascot and Henley. I might even have had to use margarine!
     
  16. ryeland

    ryeland New commenter

    Why did you invoke its name? That is this thread gone.

    Meanwhile I have just been expelled from another supply list, (because I have had a long term gig elsewhere). Just in time for the internal adverts - what a surprise. I am having to apply to stay on one of my last two lists and have been told that it is unlikely that many of us will succeed. If you are off the list, you are barred from applying for most jobs in some authorities.
    I am now very close to being actually prevented from seeking work. We are the lowest of the low and being treated badly right now, not in the future, but our careers are being terminated as I write. Yet not a squeak from the unions.



     
  17. JPM1967

    JPM1967 New commenter

    Possibly, although I believe the current problem is that our contracts of employment are silent on the calculation of holiday pay whilst off on parental leave. If the contracts are amended to specifically restrict parental leave to 40 days then it may be legal, and would save the LAs some money.
     
  18. JPM1967

    JPM1967 New commenter

    Halfajack - that was one of the reasons I was so confident that the initial posters had misinterpreted the proposal. Such a draconian measure would have galvanised every single teacher in Scotland and brought about the mother of all industrial action. You are correct that the SG/LAs will instead continue with their divide and conquer approach.
     

  19. I apologise if my flippancy caused you any offence and I hope things improve for you.
     
  20. Dominie

    Dominie New commenter

    Absolutely correct. COSLA plan to restrict teacher leave for exactly that reason. The remaining days will be treated as "school closures" apparently. That said, it is something of a hostage to fortune. A school closure could become a school opening for staff CPD / training for example.
     

Share This Page