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

Strike deduction .... is this fair?

Discussion in 'Pay and conditions' started by jubilee, Feb 29, 2012.

  1. jubilee

    jubilee Star commenter

    Some part-timers fell lucky because the strike day was on a day when they don't work. You were unlucky with it falling on a work day. You may not have lost a day's pay but you're worse off than a 0.6 teacher who supported the strike but didn't lose any pay.
    You're lucky that they use the 1/365 calculation. I believe some LA /schools use the 1/195 calculation meaning that the day's pay + the pro-rata holiday pay is forfeit.
     
  2. langteacher - as a part timer - I can assure you that the 'slightly' generous way of calculating strike pay for part timers is THE ONLY thing which could remotely be seen as a benefit to teaching part-time.
    Do you really feel strongly about trying to worsen the pay of your part-time colleagues, who are earning much less than full timers to start with, and often suffering from far worse conditions and workload issues into the bargain?
    On the bank holiday issue - why do some part-timers think they should not benefit from bank holidays? They should - we don't work a random amount of days for a p/t salary - we work a fixed and easy to calculate amount of days - JUST LIKE our distant but richer relatives in full time jobs. I recommend you all go and calculate them and then let your HT know which days you would like to take off.
    If you want to work any extra for free you are plain mad. You can be sure that our full time colleagues would never dream of putting in an extra weeks worth of teaching for nothing.
     
  3. langteacher

    langteacher Occasional commenter

    is that whole post aimed at me?
    All I said was that the pts who went on strike should be deducted a full day if that was their normal full day and they went on strike, if that was their half day they should be deducted half a day's pay. If you work PT on that day you should not be deducted full money.
    Sorry if you misunderstood me
     
  4. langteacher - no the whole post is not aimed at you - it's just a post for all to read and comment.
    The first section relates directly to your post, which didn't make any sense in the context.
    There is no problem with a full day/percentage/ no day being deducted - that does happen now and always has. You've posted twice now to say that it should happen - but it already does happen.
    The issue arises in the way that the full day is calculated to start with.
    Once the 'full days pay' has been calculated - you are deducted a full day if you worked a full day, nothing if it was a day you didn't work or some other percentage if you worked a part day.
    I think I did understand what you said - both times you said it.
     
  5. erm

    erm

    OK

    Your post seems to imply that it is unfair that full timers earn more for doing more hours. I'm not sure I follow. Part timers actually take home more per hour than their comparable full time colleagues due to the way tax is calculated.

    Whilst I have sympathy with the logistical difficulties suffered by part time colleagues, I find the tone of your post disingenuous. Full-timers also suffer logistical difficulties... often caused by colleagues being part time. There needs to be more understanding, give and take on both sides.

    My DH has a hell-ish timetable at the moment (including being over time-tabled) due to the demands of the part-timers in his department. As a full-timer it appears he has less weight to throw because SMT daren't cross the part timers. He doesn't complain at work (and is happy to work as a team) because part timers have every right to be so, but he does come home and seethe because the part-timers he is accommodating are still complaining that they are hard done by. There is no recognition of the extra mile he is going because of them and they still have the audacity to complain.
     
  6. I think it's accepted by everybody that if you work 0.6 you should do 0.6 work and get paid 0.6 etc. The fact that ft staff are pointing out that there is a tiny fraction of tax benefit or a tiny fraction of strike pay benefit - is ... well.....quite extraordinary. The tiny fractions are so insignificant to the £15Kish less pay you get, and all the other hundreds of disadvantages to working part time. Believe me - we wouldn't do it unless we had good reasons.
    In terms of managing part timers - that is what managers are supposed to do. Your colleague seems to be struggling with a management position. A lot of so-called managers in education have no training to do any managing and therefore struggle very badly with the competing demands of staff. Managing these demands is what managing is. The clue is in the job title. Unfortunately they then blame the staff they manage and not themselves. Part timers simply require a decent manager who knows their contracted terms and hours and does not try to solve their own resource problems by getting them to over-work, which is what your colleague seems to have tried to do. Almost all part timers are amenable to working extra if they are offered pay for doing the extra work.
    You seem to believe that managing your staff so that they all work the correct contracted hours is 'bending over backwards' or 'going the extra mile'. Rather than a managerial duty which is often done very badly.
    The resulting 'complaints' are more than fair - if his teaching was as bad as his managing - surely he would be gone a long time ago - or perhaps he would blame the children for having the audacity to complain about the bad teaching.

     
  7. langteacher

    langteacher Occasional commenter

    I have made no comment as to how the day's pay is decided whether it's 1/365 or 1/ 195 or whatever, I simply stated that if the strike day was one of your full days you should be deducted that amount and if the strike day was a part day you should be deducted part of the amount. I have not said how much the amount was
     
  8. langteacher - I give up - you win. I agree with you. They should do this - I don't know why they don't do it already. It's just common sense isn't it. Lets start a campaign to get it done.

    Oh - hang on - they do it already!
    Doh - How stupid am I. I forgot !
    I can stop posting saying it should be done now. Now that I fully understand that this is how they do it already. I'm glad I properly read those previous posts. It's a blessing that I fully understood them.
    [​IMG]

     
  9. jubilee

    jubilee Star commenter

    iT'S A MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE SITUATION FOR PART-TIMERS WHO DON'T WORK ON mONDAYS TO THINK THAT THEY MISS OUT ON bank Holidays and work more than their counterparts who have Monday as a work day.
    Contracted teachers work based on a 195 day school year, and a 1265 Directed Hours on those 195 days for full timers.
    A part-timer would work their contracted fraction of the 1265 DT hours. No-one should be demanding timetable days off 'in lieu' in weeks when Bank Holidays fall.
    Some term weeks end early in the week, but Monday worker wouldn't be bale to insist on the day off becasue a colleague does not have to work their usual Friday. Each teacher is safeguarded by their contracted DT hours maximum over specified days (some f/t and others part days)
     
  10. erm

    erm

    Nope, that's not what I said. I'm not blaming the managers. If you read my post, in DH's school it's the full-timers who are working over their contracted hours (with the HOD doing most of all) but the part-timers who are making the most noise that they aren't getting what they want. Go figure! At the end of the day, everyone is in this together. I just think it's a shame that there seems to be this 'us' and 'them' attitude and it goes both ways. I guess each school is different and in some it will be more prevalent than others.

    I only mentioned the tax thing because you were saying that full-timers got paid more but they don't (per hour, obviously). I think it's extraordinary that you even brought up the notion that somehow part-timers have grounds for complaining about their pay cheque compared to full-timers. But since you mention it, it's not actually a 'tiny fraction'. Do the maths and as a part-timer, I hope you are pleasantly surprised. :) (Of course you have to compare like with like... eg 2/5 of the take home pay of a full-timer with the take home pay of someone on .4)

    I suspect many full-timers wouldn't work full time if they didn't have to either! There are good reasons (and advantages and disadvantages) to both, surely, and everyone has to weigh up what their needs are. Feeling bitter about what you perceive others' advantages to be seems pointless.
     
  11. I'm pointing out that if a part timer loses £100 of £15K and a full timer loses £100 from £30K then it will have a far larger impact on their finances - even though many people think this is 'fair'. It is a much bigger burden to someone on a p/t salary.
    Therefore - the current calculation means that a part timer only loses £50 for a strike day if they earn 15K and a full timer would lose £100. Some people think this is 'fair'. And it is afterall a part of our terms and conditions that this happens
    Some f/t staff seem to be almost apopleptic about this 'unfairness', and want to change our terms so that p/t staff lose the whole lot. I think it is very much in the interests of the teaching profession NOT to try and make it difficult for part timers to join in any industrial action which is to protect ALL of our working conditions whatever we work.
     
  12. jubilee

    jubilee Star commenter

    I'm a supply teacher and lose a day's pay + the holiday pay element (annual salary divided by 195) whether I support the strike or not.
    Then again, I lose that amount on most school days anyway as schools want Cover Supervisors instead of qualified teachers nowadays.
    Strike days are arbitrarily chosen and a part-timer working the other end of the week is unaffected pay-wise. I think some LAs take this into account when deciding the financial penalty for a part-timer missing a strike day at work.
     
  13. Jubilee - as I understand it - it is not up for 'deciding'. It is part of the standard terms and conditions and therefore completely NOT up for anyone to decide or not. It says that all teachers on contract will lose 1/195 of their annual salary for a strike day. I found it and read it some time ago, I have no info that says it has changed and it is what has happened to me in more than one LEA.
    As I said - if it didn't break the contract - I'm sure the LA would take more.
    On supply - well - sadly - I admit that I worked a strike day when on supply as I was too skint to give up the money - I promised not to cover and my colleagues were OK with it.
     
  14. Actually, the requirement is that 1/365th shall be deducted for strike pay and it is the Burgundy Book that defines this as a national agreement. It refers to 1/365th of "annual salary" which for part-time staff is their ACTUAL salary rather than their full-time equivalent salary. It should in fact be their full-time equivalent salary but it does not say this. It is actually the wording of the document that needs sorting out. In my view, teachers on the same pay grade, whether part-time or full-time should lose the same amount. There is essentially a daily rate for teachers for the purposes of strike deducation and this should be applied to all teachers whether they are part-time or full-time. I wonder if part-time staff would be so happy if any overtime payments were calculating as 1/365th of their actual rather than full-time equivalent salary.
    For school teachers, the Burgundy Book national agreement (Paragraph 3.2
    of Section 3) provides that a day’s pay for the purposes of deduction is 1/365th
    of annual salary:
    “.... where
    .......unauthorised absence (e.g. strike action) occurs, deductions of salary
    shall be calculated at a daily or part daily rate based on the day’s salary
    being 1/365th of a year for each day of the period of absence.”



    School teachers can be directed
    by their employers to work for up to 195 days and 1265 hours per year but are
    also required to work as many additional hours as are necessary to discharge
    their responsibilities. This additional
    working time obligation is not limited to the above 195 days. They do not have any contractual holiday
    entitlements or overall limits on working hours. The provision for
    deduction at 1/365th per day is not an additional contractually
    agreed benefit but is based upon the working time requirements provided in the
    STPCD.
     
  15. Absolutely agree it is 365 - I had always thought it was 195 - dating back to the extended industrial action in the 80s when it was first realised that you could strike for a whole year and still get paid.
    Unfortunately I take issue with just about everything else you say.
    No it should NOT say full-time equivalent. Why should it say that? It's not any fairer than what is actually there. Why assume that such a long and hard worked document has an oversight in it, which you alone have so cleverly found? Perhaps this is, in fact, a concession to enable pt staff to more easily join in industrial action and was put in there by request of the unions during negotiation.
    In your view perhaps. But NOT in the view of the Unions and Govt ministers who drew up the document. I know we all think we could make improvements to it - but what you want to do is actually make pt staff terms WORSE. Now WHEN did anys pt staff actually campaign to worsen the conditions of FT staff? That's a disgraceful position to take.
    No there isn't....you would like to have it that way.
    The result would be very simple - pt staff would not do any paid overtime - end of. AND overtime is paid at 195 of FTE salary not 365. So it would make no sense at all. How would you like it if FT staff were paid 1/365 for each of the 195 days that they work??? That would give you a pay cut of about 40% - in fact I think I'll start a campaign.
    So - why are you so enraged at this very small benefit that pt staff get? You too can work pt and get this benefit if you want. All you need to do is take a 50% cut in your anual salary and then have one of your work days coincide with a strike day. You stand to gain about £40 before tax - it'll be well worth it.
    The ONLY outcome from drawing attention to this issue is that the rules will be changed so that FT staff lose 1/195 and PT staff will lose 1/97.5 etc. This would be the only way to satisfy your thirst for revenge. AND you would be cutting off your nose to spite your face because all FT staff would also lose out.
    Now - you tell me - why you are so annoyed that a few pt staff lose £40 instead of £80, to the extent that you would see everyone lose £150 just to make it fair?


     
  16. Hi, My school does not accept collective agreements or burgundy book as an academy and charges staff 1/195 for going on strike, this represents an extra £140 per teacher, gross for U3. It cost me gross £240 for going on strike - how can this be right??
    The school argument is It's in the school's 1994 contracts for teachers and to employ a part-timer for supply costs 1/195 is there any way of challenging this? the Union is struggelng to resolve the issue.

    Beware:
    The local union initially agreed to pay the difference and has now withdrawn that suggesting only half could be paid out more if less people want to join the hardship fund. I have not yet given up with that fight.
     
  17. coppull

    coppull New commenter

    We assume you will not be giving any good will or any of your free time to school in the future.[​IMG]
     

Share This Page