# Are you busy? - There's a recession, you know.



## ali (19 Apr 2013)

Yesterday, I realised I haven't had a day off in 3 weeks. No sign of one coming anytime soon. I'm still watching the pennies and operating in recession mode but I have not been busier for years. 4 seperate businesses / individuals who provided services for me this week had to push back deadlines due to being "flat out". Is this a sign? Or are we just going to work harder for less forever? 

Is this replicated generally with other AAM members?

A.


----------



## Marion (19 Apr 2013)

I'm really Busy myself.

I haven't left work any evening this week before 7 pm.

I Will be at work tomorrow morning - Saturday. No choice. Too much Administrative work to complete.

It's been two steps forward, ten steps backwards for this entire academic year.

I'm not a greedy,  grasping, bad teacher. - despite the generic rubbish that one has to read on AAM.

Nor am I inefficient: I take no pleasure in working an unreasonably long day and working weekends.



Marion


----------



## markpb (20 Apr 2013)

Our technical architect/business analyist left six months ago and I was promoted from senior developer to TA but my original position wasn't filled so I'm currently doing both. Now our development manager has handed in his notice and won't be replaced so I'm going to be sharing his work with another manager. It means I'll have three roles for the foreseeable future. It's lucky I like my job


----------



## AgathaC (20 Apr 2013)

Same here, workload increasing all the time, staff cuts, salary frozen and then cut. Good to have a job, but wonder at times, like OP, is this how it's going to be, working harder than ever for less and less.


----------



## mandelbrot (21 Apr 2013)

I work in the civil service, in a "front line" role (hate that term).
Started the year with a team of 7, which will fall to 5 by mid-May and obviously no chance of replacements.
Business plan and output targets are not being modified to reflect 30% less staff resource for 2/3 of the year; 

we'll just have to work harder/faster/cleverer, and like those in private industry it'll be for less when the fallout of CP2 settles, one way or another.


----------



## Joe_90 (21 Apr 2013)

Think that there are less people picking up the slack in a lot of businesses.  Not much choice but to keep it going.


----------



## PaddyW (22 Apr 2013)

Same as most in my job, everyone is working harder, although pay has only been going down and there's a chance it'll go down even further. Just need to take it on the chin and soldier on. Like so many others do.


----------



## celebtastic (3 May 2013)

PaddyW said:


> ...although pay has only been going down and there's a chance it'll go down even further. Just need to take it on the chin and soldier on. Like so many others do.



Not unless you're in the public sector, when others will subsidise your generous pay increments.


----------



## celebtastic (3 May 2013)

Marion said:


> I'm really Busy myself.
> 
> I haven't left work any evening this week before 7 pm.
> 
> I Will be at work tomorrow morning - Saturday. No choice. Too much Administrative work to complete.



This is fairly normal for a professional role in the private sector - recession or not.

Difference is that we don't get two or three months holidays a year, plus guaranteed pensions and the rest.


----------



## Purple (3 May 2013)

celebtastic said:


> Not unless you're in the public sector, when others will subsidise your generous pay increments.





celebtastic said:


> This is fairly normal for a professional role in the private sector - recession or not.
> 
> Difference is that we don't get two or three months holidays a year, plus guaranteed pensions and the rest.



Give it a rest will you?
People take a job with certain pay and conditions. What's happening now is that whose pay and conditions are being reduced while work loads are increasing. Anyone in that situation is entitled to feel annoyed. The fact that pay increases were given that the country couldnt afford isn't the fault of the people who got them and while the cuts etc are necessary it doesn't really make it easier to take.


----------



## Marion (3 May 2013)

Purple said:
			
		

> The fact that pay increases were given that the country couldn't afford isn't the fault of the people who got then



That is correct. I didn't vote for Benchmarking - nor did my fellow teachers in ASTI or TUI. The salary increase was imposed on us. Indeed, the media was imploring teachers at the time to join "The Only Game in Town". Funny that!

Of course we took the salary increase (it wasn't received without changes to our conditions) in the same way that people who, for example, have children and take the allowance that is given despite the fact that they would prefer to see its demise. I believe only 3 families in the country decline to take the latter allowance. Or indeed, there were quite a number of people who thought that the SSIAs were a waste of government finances but at the end of the day people signed up  and took the money because it was available and they didn't wish to be foolish by not accepting what was being offered. (I was in the Yes camp for Sissies - a word coined by our own Liam D Ferguson at the time )

Marion


----------



## DrMoriarty (4 May 2013)

I teach at third level, haven't had an increment in 10 years, got a 3% increase under benchmarking and am currently taking home 25% less than I was a few years ago. Am contractually prevented from giving grinds or taking on other paid work.

I'm also leaving work late every evening and have been working through the last four or five weekends in a row. This is my coffee break.

So, like Purple says, give it a rest, will you?


----------



## ashambles (9 May 2013)

Do I note a bit of disingenuity - apologies in advance if I hurt some feelings or open old wounds.


> currently taking home 25% less than I was a few years ago


You're neglecting to mention that around half of that is due to increased tax.
Everyone's pay is down due to increased taxes, and one of the reasons taxes have risen is because Bertie went nuts with government salaries. My taxes have risen despite me not having Bertie thrusting money at me against my wishes via "partnership" or "benchmarking". 

Now the following sounds great - but there's some really important context misssing.


> That is correct. I didn't vote for Benchmarking - nor did my fellow teachers in ASTI or TUI. The salary increase was imposed on us. Indeed, the media was imploring teachers at the time to join "The Only Game in Town". Funny that!


Yes - funny indeed but here's the context if my memory is accurate. ASTI instead of supporting benchmarking took industrial action to demand a 30% payrise as they were worried Bertie's benchmarking wouldn't get them the rises they deserved. Since you seem to be implying benchmarking paying you 9% or whatever was imprudent what did you make of ASTI's 30% demand?????


----------



## Marion (9 May 2013)

Ashambles said:
			
		

> ... as they were worried Bertie's benchmarking wouldn't get them the rises they deserved. ... what did you make of ASTI's 30% demand?????



I think that I might have thought that it was a prudent opening gambit - given what Bertie and his cronies achieved under Buckley.

In general, we acknowledge that the first offer/bid in any negotiation is never accepted.

Marion

PS: Also,  let's not forget - now that our memories are still extant -  that the Buckley Report ran in tandem with Benchmarking for politicians  and senior civil servants. They got a double increase - Buckley  (30%) + Benchmarking. 

All the B's -  Bertie, Buckley and Benchmarking. Funny that!


----------



## ashambles (9 May 2013)

I think that 1999-2002 period is fascinating from a political and economic standpoint, so it's good to be reminded of the those crazy reports by AIB and Anglo staff telling Bertie he needed to be paid more.

It seems that it was report no. 38 published in Sept 2000 that gave the senior public servants and TDs 30% rises. 

However the teachers were looking for 30% at least as early as April 2000 http://www.rte.ie/news/2000/0425/6676-teachers/, I'd say it had been bubbling up before that, possibly since the year before.  

However that's kind of by the way, my point was you were applauding ASTI for voting against benchmarking and you claimed the salary increase was "imposed" on you, but it's clear the only reason ASTI voted against benchmarking was because they wanted a larger increase. You also agreed with Purple that "pay increases were given that the country couldn't afford", so imagine my perplexity that you think ASTI were doing a good thing by demanding a 30% pay hike. It had gone well beyond a prudent opening gambit because didn't they actually close the schools via not supervising lunch breaks?


----------



## Marion (9 May 2013)

Of course, you are entitled to your opinion.

The detail that I gave regarding Buckley is correct - 30 % for politicians and senior civil servants in addition to Benchmarking.

I wasn't applauding anybody. I just gave the facts.

Second-level teachers were never responsible for supervision of lunch breaks or substitution. They did these  tasks voluntarily. In the absence of teachers' generosity of their time, Health and Safety legislation may well have been the reason for the closure of schools - given that management could not guarantee a safe place for students on school property.

Perhaps this might help to explain. A very large percentage of second-level teachers (40% - give or take) did not sign up for an additional payment for supervision and substitution under the Benchmarking agreement  as Supervision and substitution were not part of their Original contract of employment and they therefore had the choice to opt in to the scheme.

Marion


----------



## ashambles (10 May 2013)

Marion said:


> Purple said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The opinion that members looking for a 30% increase and subsequently took a smaller benchmarking increase was comparable to people reluctantly taking child allowance payments is an interesting take. It would be truer to say it was comparable to people who were taking child allowance but wished the payment was higher.

The problem arises when the fact that ASTI were demanding a 30% increase is taken into account. The union did not vote against benchmarking because it didn't want salary increases, in fact it stayed out because it didn't think benchmarking would get the increases ASTI wanted.

ASTI went past the LRC and closed the schools to try to win the 30% increase, to me that's more middle game than opening gambit but that's only an opinion. 

This topic isn't suitable for this forum so I'm reluctant to go further, however the idea that ASTI were blameless champions of prudence needed a counter argument.


----------



## Purple (10 May 2013)

ashambles said:


> the idea that ASTI were blameless champions of prudence needed a counter argument.


I agree. The teaching unions were the epitome of Celtic Tiger greed and self interest and over that period did lasting damage to the reputation of teachers in this country; through their actions they created the (false) impression that teachers were greedy, callous and had a chip on their shoulder. 
My point still stands though that individuals are not responsible for the collective and it's a brave person that crosses their trade union.


----------



## ali (11 May 2013)

Just completed a 73 hour week following a 72 hour one. Very excited to be off today and tomorrow but just cancelled the hairdressers and a dinner date to stay in my pyjamas for the day.Too tired to go out. A hot bath and clean sheets are now the height of my ambitions.


----------



## Purple (13 May 2013)

ali said:


> Just completed a 73 hour week following a 72 hour one. Very excited to be off today and tomorrow but just cancelled the hairdressers and a dinner date to stay in my pyjamas for the day.Too tired to go out. A hot bath and clean sheets are now the height of my ambitions.



Are you busy doing well or busy surviving?


----------



## ali (13 May 2013)

Purple said:


> Are you busy doing well or busy surviving?



Hi Purple,

It's very hit and miss. Averaging out at good but really for a ferocious amount of work. I have a big mortgage for a v nice house in SCD and sometimes I wonder whether it's worth it. A lot of time, stress and worry to stay above water . Should I keep working so hard at the expense of living or take it easier for more of what I want to do - leisure etc. It would be a big wrench to change tack and give up the things we've been working so hard for.

Not on my own in this scenario, I'd guess.

A.


----------



## ali (25 Jun 2013)

*Busy Busy*

Back on this thread and work has slightly eased. Down to 55 hour weeks.... However, I've recruited 4 people in the last month and a half to full and part time positions only for them to move onto better offers (I acknowledge they're better). Positions with me on 10 /11 /12 euro per hour very average rate but it seems that choice is returning to the job market for job seekers. 

I'm not cross about people moving on and trying to better themselves though it's a pain training and retraining people but more making an observation on how busy things are and how difficult it is to get/keep staff.

A.


----------



## Purple (25 Jun 2013)

ali said:


> Hi Purple,
> 
> It's very hit and miss. Averaging out at good but really for a ferocious amount of work. I have a big mortgage for a v nice house in SCD and sometimes I wonder whether it's worth it. A lot of time, stress and worry to stay above water . Should I keep working so hard at the expense of living or take it easier for more of what I want to do - leisure etc. It would be a big wrench to change tack and give up the things we've been working so hard for.
> 
> ...


I don’t think it’s about money or status or material goods, it’s not for me anyway. Most of us want to succeed at what we do and that’s the driver, not the money. If I was to start again I’d make sure I’d more leasure time and fewer debts (I’d make sure my ex didn’t talk me into buying a house I didn’t want with the accompanying massive mortgage). 



ali said:


> Back on this thread and work has slightly eased. Down to 55 hour weeks.... However, I've recruited 4 people in the last month and a half to full and part time positions only for them to move onto better offers (I acknowledge they're better). Positions with me on 10 /11 /12 euro per hour very average rate but it seems that choice is returning to the job market for job seekers.
> 
> I'm not cross about people moving on and trying to better themselves though it's a pain training and retraining people but more making an observation on how busy things are and how difficult it is to get/keep staff.
> 
> A.


We’ve the same problem; lack of skilled labour but people around here are probably sick of hearing me say that.


----------



## Boyd (27 Jun 2013)

ali said:


> Back on this thread and work has slightly eased. Down to 55 hour weeks.... However, I've recruited 4 people in the last month and a half to full and part time positions only for them to move onto better offers (I acknowledge they're better). Positions with me on 10 /11 /12 euro per hour very average rate but it seems that choice is returning to the job market for job seekers.
> 
> I'm not cross about people moving on and trying to better themselves though it's a pain training and retraining people but more making an observation on how busy things are and how difficult it is to get/keep staff.
> 
> A.



Jaysus! Thats definitely not sustainable, even if it is down from 72 or 73 (which is just insane BTW). You eventually reach the point of diminishing returns whereby you're no longer productive and are just better off going home due to tiredness etc. Doing anything like 55 IMO will very quickly hit that point.

If you are working more than 5 days a week for those hours then your enthusiasm on a Monday must surely be way down as youve had no time to relax over weekend.


----------



## Purple (27 Jun 2013)

username123 said:


> Jaysus! Thats definitely not sustainable, even if it is down from 72 or 73 (which is just insane BTW). You eventually reach the point of diminishing returns whereby you're no longer productive and are just better off going home due to tiredness etc. Doing anything like 55 IMO will very quickly hit that point.
> 
> If you are working more than 5 days a week for those hours then your enthusiasm on a Monday must surely be way down as youve had no time to relax over weekend.



10 hours a day, 4 days a week plus one short day and Saturday morning and you're up to over 50 hours a week. I don't think that's in any way excessive.


----------



## Boyd (27 Jun 2013)

You don't think 10 hours a day is excessive, without getting shift allowance (im assuming Ali doesn't here)?

If you come in at 9AM, take 1 hour lunch, and a 15min break at say 3PM, that means you'd be at work from 9AM until 8.15PM  

I certainly think thats excessive, even one day a week of that would be too much IMO


----------



## Purple (27 Jun 2013)

username123 said:


> You don't think 10 hours a day is excessive, without getting shift allowance (im assuming Ali doesn't here)?
> 
> If you come in at 9AM, take 1 hour lunch, and a 15min break at say 3PM, that means you'd be at work from 9AM until 8.15PM
> 
> I certainly think thats excessive, even one day a week of that would be too much IMO



I start at 7.30 and finish at 6.30. It's no hardship.


----------



## Boyd (27 Jun 2013)

Fair enough, each to their own, depends on industry and "the norm" in company I guess


----------



## TarfHead (27 Jun 2013)

Purple said:


> I start at 7.30 and finish at 6.30. It's no hardship.


 
5 days a week, every week ?

IMHO, those working hours are not sustainable.


----------



## Purple (27 Jun 2013)

TarfHead said:


> 5 days a week, every week ?
> 
> IMHO, those working hours are not sustainable.



I've sustained it for the last 15 years. So have most of the rest of the people here and so have lots of other people I know in other businesses.

4 days a week. I finish at 3.30 on Friday. I might be a bit later than 6.30 one or two evenings a week or earlier the odd day but it averages out at 6.30.

Years back I worked all day Saturday and a half day Sunday, and later during the week. That was a bit mad alright. I did it for years though.


----------



## Boyd (27 Jun 2013)

Are you self-employed? Doing those hours for someone else's net gains crazy to me. 

Our office is 9 to 5.30 Monday to Friday, ghost town at 5.45PM, and the exit locks at 6PM, after which you have to leave via the car park. I think in five years here i've been in two Saturdays.

Its amazing the difference in hours and in people's mentality about what is acceptable and "normal"


----------



## Deiseblue (27 Jun 2013)

Purple said:


> I start at 7.30 and finish at 6.30. It's no hardship.



Jeez Purple they're vicous hours - reminds me of the old adage obout the phrase that never appears on a gravestone " I should have spent more time at the  office "


----------



## Purple (27 Jun 2013)

username123 said:


> Are you self-employed? Doing those hours for someone else's net gains crazy to me.
> 
> Our office is 9 to 5.30 Monday to Friday, ghost town at 5.45PM, and the exit locks at 6PM, after which you have to leave via the car park. I think in five years here i've been in two Saturdays.
> 
> Its amazing the difference in hours and in people's mentality about what is acceptable and "normal"



I hope you don't complain about people who earn high wages by working longer and possibly harder than others.
When I come in over the weekend, which is not often anymore, it's the merc's and Jag's and BMW's that are parked outside the other buildings. It is generally the case that people who earn more work longer and harder than people who earn less.   
BTW, I get paid extra if I work longer, just like everyone else here.


----------



## Purple (27 Jun 2013)

Deiseblue said:


> Jeez Purple they're vicous hours - reminds me of the old adage obout the phrase that never appears on a gravestone " I should have spent more time at the  office "



Tis the nature of the job. If I could find more people with the right skills then there'd be less pressure and probably fewer hours. 
I do find it laughable that people who spend 36 hours or less a week in an office complain about their hours and/or being worn out. I can understand why someone like a teacher would be drained but not someone in an office job.


----------



## Deiseblue (27 Jun 2013)

Definitely Purple , one of the great perks of working in a Bank were the great hours - I started at 8.30 & finished at 4.30 with an hour for lunch & two 15 minute breaks a day , a 32.5 hour week ! - much appreciated as my previous jobs in a brewery , furniture factory , fruit growers & flour milling were physically demanding .

I was steeped though , I was on an IBOA negotiated contract & thus avoided the stress levels associated with pay for performance contracts - the level of stress & burn out not to mention appalling risk taking that ran hand in hand with such contacts was mind boggling.


----------



## Marion (27 Jun 2013)

Last academic year (it's over) I can honestly say that I worked a minimum 60 hour week.  I found myself working into the early hours of the morning to try and research work to teach that day. Two of my new subjects had no course books available. I had to produce the material from my own research. I worked through my lunch practically every single day.

I was handed 3 new courses to teach at Level 5 about which I knew absolutely nothing, (on top of my existing 4 updated courses) two days before term began. 

I found it totally stressful. I couldn't afford to take time out because I would have had to make up for the time lost and it would have meant working even longer hours.

My students did well.

It will never be repeated. I objected strongly during the year and for the first time ever in my long career as a teacher I have been given the subjects that I will be teaching in September. I have one new subject that will need to be researched but, at least, it is in my area of expertise.


Marion


----------



## BillK (27 Jun 2013)

I worked very long hours prior to retiring as I was based in Trinidad. In order to get reasonably good direct contact with HQ in England I would often be in the office at 06.00 local time. This did not mean that I could slide off early to compensate as there was the normal day's work to get through as well.

The upside was the climate for half the year (the rainy season was quite something) and the ability to spend time on the beach at the weekends.
I do like to tell people about the time we went to Barbados for the weekend, without telling them where we were based of course.

The major advantage of course is that I was able to retire at 55 rather than slogging on to 65!


----------



## DrMoriarty (27 Jun 2013)

Marion said:


> Last academic year (it's over) I can honestly say that I worked a minimum 60 hour week.


Here's a lecturer just about to down tools and go home at 9pm. Like last night, and the night before, and the night before that. 
I've spent >130 hours in the last fortnight,

organising a major conference for next October
editing a 350-page volume of essays for a publisher deadline of 15 July (and it ain't half done yet)
answering endless student queries about results, work placements, repeat exams, etc.
writing references for graduating students
proofing postgrad research proposals
reading/helping revise draft chapters from a PhD student supposed to hand in their thesis by mid-July
preparing a research funding application for the College
I don't get one red cent for this. No overtime, no shift allowance (HA!), no time off in lieu. I do it because I love my work and/or because I take pride in the service I provide to my students.

But the next nine-to-five neighbour who says to me "sure aren't you lot all on holidays now?" is liable to get a punch in the face.
I'm sure Marion knows the feeling.

Thank God Brendan pays us such handsome commissions and bonuses...


----------



## Marion (27 Jun 2013)

DrMoriarty said:


> But the next nine-to-five neighbour who says to me "sure aren't you lot all on holidays now?" is liable to get a punch in the face.
> 
> I'm sure Marion knows the feeling.
> 
> Thank God Brendan pays us such handsome commissions and bonuses...



Yes. I know that feeling. I reply that it's a first-world problem.


And don't forget the weekends Brendan provides for the Mods in New York. #megga.

Marion


----------



## TarfHead (28 Jun 2013)

DrMoriarty said:


> But the next nine-to-five neighbour who says to me "sure aren't you lot all on holidays now?" is liable to get a punch in the face.


 
I have had two recent incidents of this. Not the punch, but I'm sure I was at risk both times.

First was with a neighbour who is in UCD. Even though the students are gone, he is still setting off for work before 7:30 and home after 6:30.

The second was with a secondary school principal who has just had his teacher allocation for September confirmed. Suffice is to say it is materially different to what he had already planned for, and now he has to start again, 2 days before the world assumes he's off for the Summer.


----------



## Latrade (28 Jun 2013)

Purple said:


> I do find it laughable that people who spend 36 hours or less a week in an office complain about their hours and/or being worn out. I can understand why someone like a teacher would be drained but not someone in an office job.


 
Not that laughable as it depends on the work people are doing in an office. Even sticking to my core hours, it can be an intense and draining day and all of it in an office. Location and hours of work are not a benchmark of whether or not someone can be worn out from work. 

I know your circumstances are different, but I think in places I've worked, the in early out late culture is a bad measure of an employee's suitability or effectiveness. I generally stick to my hours because I want to get home to my family. Every year my objectives are met, budgets gained, clients happy. Every year I get a comment on how it's noticed I don't stay late. Every year they get the same response about them engaging in auto-copulation. 

A colleague continually misses deadlines, sometimes by wholly unacceptable amounts, but at least they're here until 7 each day, that's all that counts. Apart from the cost of electricity and everything for all those who aren't that efficient or engage in the charade of being here late.

As I said, I know your circumstances are different, but you can be drained from office work, it depends on the work. Even the simplest work can be draining if it is never ending and you can never meet unrealistic goals. And you happened to have opened up a very sore point for me throughout my career


----------



## Boyd (28 Jun 2013)

Purple said:


> I hope you don't complain about people who earn high wages by working longer and possibly harder than others.
> When I come in over the weekend, which is not often anymore, it's the merc's and Jag's and BMW's that are parked outside the other buildings. It is generally the case that people who earn more work longer and harder than people who earn less.
> BTW, I get paid extra if I work longer, just like everyone else here.



Nope, never. If you work long hours youre more than entitled to be paid well for same. However the higher up the employment food chain you move, the less work you actually do i.e. the more skilled the job, the less you need to do of it to get the same amount of money. Hence its not always neccessary to work long long hours for high wages. I also think there is alot of "martyr-ism" at times with people claiming they work 70 hours a week.

{EDIT}
Actually, I just remembered I went for an interview recently and they asked if I had any issue working outside core hours and sometimes at weekends, since due to the name of their industry this happened fairly often. It was an immediate negative on the company from my perspective. Got offered the job in the end but didnt take it, partly due to the above.
{EDIT}


----------

