# Mary Hanafin on Barack Obama



## Dave Vanian (5 Nov 2008)

Two comments from this morning by Mary Hanafin. I heard one on the radio while driving so I'm paraphrasing, but the gist of it was "It's great that America will have its first black president. I don't agree with all his policies, but it's a historic occasion blah blah..."

Er...Mary...wouldn't you think that Mr. Obama's policies are possibly more important than the colour of his skin, a subject that he's been careful NOT to over-play in his campaign?

Then, from [broken link removed]..."Social Affairs Minister Mary Hanafin, meanwhile, said the Government wasn't too worried about Mr Obama's tax policies and the effects they could have on US companies operating in Ireland."

Well that's okay then.  Insightful analysis that will no doubt have thousands of Irish employees of US companies breathing a sigh of relief this morning.


----------



## ubiquitous (5 Nov 2008)

Dave Vanian said:


> Two comments from this morning by Mary Hanafin. I heard one on the radio while driving so I'm paraphrasing, but the gist of it was "It's great that America will have its first black president. I don't agree with all his policies, but it's a historic occasion blah blah..."
> 
> Er...Mary...wouldn't you think that Mr. Obama's policies are possibly more important than the colour of his skin, a subject that he's been careful NOT to over-play in his campaign?



My memory isn't great, remind me again, what did Mary call Leo Varadkar?


----------



## Dave Vanian (5 Nov 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> My memory isn't great, remind me again, what did Mary call Leo Varadkar?


 
Must have missed that...do tell...


----------



## Upstihaggity (5 Nov 2008)

I thought from the title of this thread there was going to be a picture!
The relief!


----------



## Dave Vanian (5 Nov 2008)

Upstihaggity said:


> I thought from the title of this thread there was going to be a picture!
> The relief!


 
Brilliant.


----------



## Superman (6 Nov 2008)

Dave Vanian said:


> Must have missed that...do tell...


Regarding Leo's proposal to give foreign nationals the option of taking a lump sum 6 months unemployment benefit to enable them to leave the country, she said: 
"Well he can't be talking about Europeans, so that means he can only be talking about Africans - and that means he's racist"

We are privileged to have such insightful politicians...


----------



## FredBloggs (6 Nov 2008)

Upstihaggity said:


> I thought from the title of this thread there was going to be a picture!
> The relief!


 
That gave me a much needed laugh this morning - top post!


----------



## Purple (6 Nov 2008)

Upstihaggity said:


> I thought from the title of this thread there was going to be a picture!
> The relief!



Post of the week! LOL


----------



## gillarosa (6 Nov 2008)

But what is even stranger is she said something along the lines of "well I was at the selection convention in Denver so I feel I have to continue to support him now..."  eh, you don't have a vote in either the Selection process or the actual election whats going on there omnipotent one?


----------



## gillarosa (6 Nov 2008)

lightswitch said:


> Why oh Why do Radio stations keep putting her on air. Why also does she continue to get elected. She has to be the most annoying person in politics, ( and there are more than a few)talks pure and utter shi*e. LS.


 
Imagine what it may have been like to have her as your School Teacher!!!


----------



## cork (6 Nov 2008)

Will Obama's future tax policies have a positive impact on US FDI in Ireland?

So Mary does not agree with all his policies.

Fair play to her being honest - more so than many other media outlets and politicians.


----------



## ontour (6 Nov 2008)

There is harldy an argument that the colour of your skin greatly impacted the opportunities open to many Americans.  She is absolutely right to compliment him and to be impressed that he has overcome stereotypes and cultural / racial divides.

Being impressed with that does not mean that you have to support his policies.  She made her position clear.  As a policitician it would harldy have been wise to say that she thinks that US MNCs will repatriate all their money and jobs.

I have found that she makes a genuine effort to explain things clearly to the general public when asked a question even when it is not good news.


----------



## Complainer (9 Nov 2008)

I wouldn't be Mary's biggest fan, but at least she ensured that Education got a fair slice of resources, unlike Batt O'Thief.


----------



## Superman (9 Nov 2008)

Complainer said:


> I wouldn't be Mary's biggest fan, but at least she ensured that Education got a fair slice of resources, unlike Batt O'Thief.


Indeed - how dare Batt stick to a budget and not add to our unsustainable deficit.


----------



## Purple (9 Nov 2008)

Complainer said:


> I wouldn't be Mary's biggest fan, but at least she ensured that Education got a fair slice of resources, unlike Batt O'Thief.



She's a lightweight, way out of her league.


----------



## ubiquitous (9 Nov 2008)

Calling someone a thief is a serious accusation. I think you should withdraw it.


----------



## Purple (9 Nov 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> Calling someone a thief is a serious accusation. I think you should withdraw it.



Who called her a thief?


----------



## ubiquitous (9 Nov 2008)

Complainer said:


> Batt O'Thief.


----------



## Purple (9 Nov 2008)

I'm slow this evening. 
I agree that Complainer should withdraw his comment.


----------



## Complainer (9 Nov 2008)

Purple said:


> I'm slow this evening.
> I agree that Complainer should withdraw his comment.





ubiquitous said:


> Calling someone a thief is a serious accusation. I think you should withdraw it.



Lighten up people - It's OK to make jokes are Mary doing the business with Barack but not to repeat a little pet name some of the teachers use for Batt???



Superman said:


> Indeed - how dare Batt stick to a budget and not add to our unsustainable deficit.



Don't fall for the spin. Batt has many other options open to him for saving money before hitting primary school kids. He could start with cutting the subsidy to private 3rd level colleges (i.e. tax relief on course fees) and the subsidy to private 2nd level schools (i.e. teachers salaries). We don't expect the state to pay the docs/nurses in Blackrock Clinic, so why do we pay the teachers in Blackrock College?


----------



## Purple (9 Nov 2008)

Complainer said:


> Don't fall for the spin. Batt has many other options open to him for saving money before hitting primary school kids. He could start with cutting the subsidy to private 3rd level colleges (i.e. tax relief on course fees) and the subsidy to private 2nd level schools (i.e. teachers salaries).


Indeed, he could have just not given the teachers pay rises this year or the government could have not given pay rises to public sector workers earning over €150'000... you're right; there were loads of choices.


----------



## ubiquitous (10 Nov 2008)

Complainer said:


> a little pet name some of the teachers use for Batt???



And teachers call themselves professionals  God help our children if this is the standard of people entrusted to teach them.


----------



## Purple (10 Nov 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> And teachers call themselves professionals  God help our children if this is the standard of people entrusted to teach them.



Once you know you can't be sacked you can say what you like.


----------



## Complainer (10 Nov 2008)

Purple said:


> Once you know you can't be sacked you can say what you like.


And there was silly old me thinking that free speech was a basic fundamental right!


----------



## Purple (11 Nov 2008)

Complainer said:


> And there was silly old me thinking that free speech was a basic fundamental right!



We have all sorts of laws that rightly curtail free speech; we cannot slander, we cannot defame, we cannot seek to inflame hatred, we cannot shout “Fire!” in a crowded building if we know there is none.


----------



## ubiquitous (11 Nov 2008)

Complainer said:


> And there was silly old me thinking that free speech was a basic fundamental right!



You can talk all you like about free speech and fundamental rights, but as a parent it worries me when teachers resort to silly and childish namecalling that they would presumably not tolerate from their own pupils.


----------



## Complainer (11 Nov 2008)

Purple said:


> We have all sorts of laws that rightly curtail free speech; we cannot slander, we cannot defame, we cannot seek to inflame hatred, we cannot shout “Fire!” in a crowded building if we know there is none.



If you feel that I've slandered or defamed or inflamed hatred or shouted Fire, click the red triangle and let the moderators (and not the wannabe mods) moderate.



ubiquitous said:


> You can talk all you like about free speech and fundamental rights, but as a parent it worries me when teachers resort to silly and childish namecalling that they would presumably not tolerate from their own pupils.


I can understand this concern. To me, it pales in significance against the concern of increased class sizes and reduced teaching resources for many of those who need it most, but maybe that's just me.


----------



## DavyJones (11 Nov 2008)

Complainer said:


> If you feel that I've slandered or defamed or inflamed hatred or shouted Fire, click the red triangle and let the moderators (and not the wannabe mods) moderate.
> 
> 
> I can understand this concern. To me, it pales in significance against the concern of increased class sizes and reduced teaching resources for many of those who need it most, but maybe that's just me.



I have to say I agree on both counts. 

I would be quite sure Minister O keeffe has been called worst things and what his or any other politicians nick names are, is clearly not the issue. It is how they represent us and use our money is all I am interested in.

 on a different note, This country is crying out for a Obama or Cameron type politician. Someone with panazz and entusiasm and fit enough to run our country. Why are most of our ministers over weight and unhealthly looking.


----------



## ubiquitous (12 Nov 2008)

DavyJones said:


> on a different note, This country is crying out for a Obama or Cameron type politician. Someone with panazz and entusiasm and fit enough to run our country. Why are most of our ministers over weight and unhealthly looking.



Cameron?


----------



## ubiquitous (12 Nov 2008)

Complainer said:


> I can understand this concern. To me, it pales in significance against the concern of increased class sizes and reduced teaching resources for many of those who need it most, but maybe that's just me.



Maybe if there were less incompetent and/or immature teachers (including those who like to call the Minister silly names), increased class sizes and reduced teaching resources mightn't matter as much?


----------



## ubiquitous (12 Nov 2008)

Complainer said:


> If you feel that I've slandered or defamed or inflamed hatred or shouted Fire, click the red triangle and let the moderators (and not the wannabe mods) moderate.


A bit pointless, a full four days after you made the comment, I would have thought?

Btw, so your right to free speech isn't a basic fundamental right after all


----------



## DavyJones (12 Nov 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> Cameron?



Yes a  Cameron type , Forget his policies.  youth and energy is what we need. Not old fat cats running my state.


----------



## Complainer (13 Nov 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> Maybe if there were less incompetent and/or immature teachers (including those who like to call the Minister silly names), increased class sizes and reduced teaching resources mightn't matter as much?





ubiquitous said:


> A bit pointless, a full four days after you made the comment, I would have thought?
> 
> Btw, so your right to free speech isn't a basic fundamental right after all


Coming to conclusions about a teacher's teaching ability based on their choice of slogans during a PR campaign is fairly pointless IMHO.

My right to free speech is an absolutely fundamental right. That does not mean that I expect to have unlimited rights on Askaboutmoney.com - that's a different question altogether.


----------



## Purple (13 Nov 2008)

Complainer said:


> My right to free speech is an absolutely fundamental right.


If free speech was a basic fundamental right in this country then we could not have incitement to hatred legislation in place... but I suspect you knew that.


----------



## Purple (13 Nov 2008)

DavyJones said:


> Not old fat cats running my state.



Yes; a rich stablishment Tory... just what we need


----------



## Purple (13 Nov 2008)

Complainer said:


> If you feel that I've slandered or defamed or inflamed hatred or shouted Fire, click the red triangle and let the moderators (and not the wannabe mods) moderate.


 I don't feel that you have slandered or defamed or inflamed hatred or shouted Fire. I was pointing out the flaw in your supposition that you had an unlimited entitlement to free speech. Try to read what’s written, then you won’t have to make childish swipes 

If I feel that your posts break the posting guidelines then I’ll flag it to the moderators... just like any other poster can do. 




Complainer said:


> I can understand this concern. To me, it pales in significance against the concern of increased class sizes and reduced teaching resources for many of those who need it most, but maybe that's just me.


  No, I agree as well but that's not what we're talking about... it's also not as important as the AIDS pandemic but we're not talking about that either.


----------



## Welfarite (13 Nov 2008)

ontour said:


> I have found that she makes a genuine effort to explain things clearly to the general public when asked a question even when it is not good news.


 

Really? She recently sadi, in relation to the payment of 200 million Xmas bonus being paid to SW recipeients that it will help those who have lost their jobs in recent times. Unfortunately, the bonus is only payable to thoise over 15 months 'signing on' so it will only help those who couldn't be bothered to get a job before the recession hit.


----------



## ubiquitous (13 Nov 2008)

Complainer said:


> Coming to conclusions about a teacher's teaching ability based on their choice of slogans during a PR campaign is fairly pointless IMHO.



You obviously have no idea why teachers as an occupational group have fallen so sharply in public esteem in recent years.


----------



## Purple (13 Nov 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> You obviously have no idea why teachers as an occupational group have fallen so sharply in public esteem in recent years.


Greed, ego and hypocrisy by their unions and representatives?


----------



## Purple (13 Nov 2008)

Welfarite said:


> Really? She recently sadi, in relation to the payment of 200 million Xmas bonus being paid to SW recipeients that it will help those who have lost their jobs in recent times. Unfortunately, the bonus is only payable to thoise over 15 months 'signing on' so it will only help those who couldn't be bothered to get a job before the recession hit.



Yes, good point.


----------



## FredBloggs (13 Nov 2008)

Welfarite said:


> Really? She recently sadi, in relation to the payment of 200 million Xmas bonus being paid to SW recipeients that it will help those who have lost their jobs in recent times. Unfortunately, the bonus is only payable to thoise over 15 months 'signing on' so it will only help those who couldn't be bothered to get a job before the recession hit.


 

Which leads me to wonder is Mary Hannifin the Irish Sarah Palin?


----------



## DavyJones (13 Nov 2008)

Purple said:


> Yes; a rich stablishment Tory... just what we need




Again, you are missing my point


----------



## Complainer (13 Nov 2008)

Purple said:


> I don't feel that you have slandered or defamed or inflamed hatred or shouted Fire. I was pointing out the flaw in your supposition that you had an unlimited entitlement to free speech. Try to read what’s written, then you won’t have to make childish swipes


Please don't lecture me about reading my posts while you exaggerate mine. I never supposed or stated that I had an unlimited entitlement to free speech. Try to read what’s written, then you won’t have to make childish swipes 


Purple said:


> No, I agree as well but that's not what we're talking about... it's also not as important as the AIDS pandemic but we're not talking about that either.


There's that wannabe thing again. What makes you think that you get to decide what we're talking about?


ubiquitous said:


> You obviously have no idea why teachers as an occupational group have fallen so sharply in public esteem in recent years.


I really don't think that they have fallen so sharply in public esteem. Is there any evidence of this fall?


----------



## Purple (14 Nov 2008)

Complainer said:


> Please don't lecture me about reading my posts while you exaggerate mine. I never supposed or stated that I had an unlimited entitlement to free speech. Try to read what’s written, then you won’t have to make childish swipes


I’ll ignore that one as neither of us will look good if we continue.



Complainer said:


> There's that wannabe thing again. What makes you think that you get to decide what we're talking about?


 I simply read back over the thread, that tells me what we are talking about... I have no idea what you are basing your insinuation on.  



Complainer said:


> I really don't think that they have fallen so sharply in public esteem. Is there any evidence of this fall?


 I’ll leave that one for Ubi; he’s well able to answer for himself and I don’t want to upset you and have you accuse me of anything else


----------



## Simeon (14 Nov 2008)

Purple said:


> We have all sorts of laws that rightly curtail free speech; we cannot slander, we cannot defame, we cannot seek to inflame hatred, we cannot shout “Fire!” in a crowded building if we know there is none.


If, apart from what you say, there is 'free speech', why do lawyers hit the clock button as soon as you're sitting down?


----------



## Purple (14 Nov 2008)

They charge to listen and to be listened to... the speaking part is free


----------



## ubiquitous (14 Nov 2008)

Complainer said:


> I really don't think that they have fallen so sharply in public esteem. Is there any evidence of this fall?



Dunno what you mean by "evidence" (this is a discussion forum, not a court of law) but I would personally take the following two articles as evidence of a growing public dissatisfaction with Irish teachers as an occupational group. Its also worth noting that neither article provoked any discernable degree of public outrage or controversy. 

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/a...ity-of-our-teachers-not-quantity-1514577.html


> Class size may be a factor when pupils are very young, but it becomes increasingly insignificant for older students. Those who made the Celtic Tiger happen were educated at a time when class sizes were significantly larger than they are now ... or will be next year.
> 
> The outlandish statements on the damage caused by increasing class size are not justified by the evidence.
> 
> The McKinsey study highlights the important of securing high public standing for teaching to attract the right people into it. *If real damage is being done to the school system at present, it is being caused by the belligerent antics of teacher union leadership who have failed to rise to the occasion and recognise that the country is facing a major crisis. Teachers should be among the first to recognise this and provide appropriate public leadership.*



http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/teachers--be-honest-about-your-intentions-1517317.html



> Actually, it's possible to postulate that the teachers have orchestrated their protests in order to distract attention from the fact that there is to be a three per cent increase in the education budget over the next year. Because if the public do their sums, they will realise that the increase, when most other departments have suffered a decrease, is being entirely swallowed up by a monumental increase in teachers' salaries.
> 
> That is due to a benchmarking process entered into during the "good years," for which there was supposed to be a quid pro quo. *But teachers do not work longer or more intensive hours since benchmarking, and they certainly are not delivering the goods: one in five adults functionally illiterate.*
> 
> ...


----------



## cole (14 Nov 2008)

I read this thread looking for comments Mary Hanafin had made about B Obama. Guess what? It's a good old fashioned teacher bashing thread. Again. It's getting very tedious and repetitive.


----------



## Welfarite (14 Nov 2008)

cole said:


> I read this thread looking for comments Mary Hanafin had made about B Obama. Guess what? It's a good old fashioned teacher bashing thread. Again. It's getting very tedious and repetitive.


 
Maybe the teacher-bashing posters are Mary Hanafin and Barack Obama? And Mary is on top?


----------



## Simeon (14 Nov 2008)

Purple said:


> They charge to listen and to be listened to... the speaking part is free


A kind of altruistic Samaritan then? I didn't realise that they hit the 'off' button as soon as their lips move. I think I need some tea and Jaffa cakes.


----------



## Complainer (14 Nov 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> Dunno what you mean by "evidence" (this is a discussion forum, not a court of law) but I would personally take the following two articles as evidence of a growing public dissatisfaction with Irish teachers as an occupational group. Its also worth noting that neither article provoked any discernable degree of public outrage or controversy.
> 
> http://www.independent.ie/opinion/a...ity-of-our-teachers-not-quantity-1514577.html
> 
> ...



I'm not sure that I'd take Ed Walsh and Emer O'Kelly as being representative of general public opinion. I mean, it's Emer O'Kelly, writing in the Sunday Indo! - shurley shome misthake

Why doesn't Ed Walsh take the 10% cut himself as a first step, and then push through a 10% cut in UL before he comes to hit primary school kids? The absence of 'any discernable degree of public outrage or controversy' is meaningless. There wasn't 'any discernable degree of public outrage or controversy' about [broken link removed] either, but I wouldn't draw too many conclusions from that.

And in relation to the other article, it's Emer O'Kelly. 'nuff said.

I got this list of the 32 education cutbacks by email today, which may be of interest to some;

1. Reduce school building program
2. 200 fewer primary school teachers
3. 200 fewer secondary school teachers
4. Reduction in English language support teachers
5. Reduction in staffing levels for previous non DEIS schools
6. Abolition of sub teachers from Jan '09
7. Early retirement scheme for teachers to be suspended
8. Cookery grant abolished
9. Equipment grant for resource teachers abolished
10. Reduction in Traveller education budget
11. Grants for school choirs and orchestras abolished
12. Grants for home economics abolished
13. Grants for physics and chemistry abolished
14. reductions in Leaving Cert Applied, LCVP and transition year funding
15. Capital reduction for travelers and withdrawal of certain capital for schools that are not in DEIS programme
16. Saving of 7.5 million for school books in DEIS schools
17. Reduction in funding for local libraries who support school  libraries
18. Subvention for summer courses conducted in Irish colleges in Gaeltacht areas withdrawn
19. Funding for Centre for Talented Youth withdrawn
20. College Registration Fees hiked to €1,500 from €900
21. Abolition of Early Childcare Centre
22. No increase in Student Maintenance Grants for '09
23. Reduction in provision of 500 places on BTEA initiative
24. Youth services grant reduced by 8%
25. Reduce teacher secondments to in-service training
26. Radical increase in school transport costs to €300
27. Increase State Examination costs
28. Reduction in Department's Regional Office Service
29. Non-implementation of Education of Persons of Special Education Needs Act
30. Deferral of planned increase in medical education places
31. Restrictions in awards made to research councils
32. Failure to spend NDP commitment on ICT funding in schools


----------



## Purple (14 Nov 2008)

Complainer said:


> I'm not sure that I'd take Ed Walsh and Emer O'Kelly as being representative of general public opinion. I mean, it's Emer O'Kelly, writing in the Sunday Indo! - shurley shome misthake


 That’s right, if you don’t like the opinion people express then taking the pee out of the way they speak is a valid counter arguement... 



Complainer said:


> Why doesn't Ed Walsh take the 10% cut himself as a first step, and then push through a 10% cut in UL before he comes to hit primary school kids?


 Now there’s an emotive misrepresentation if ever I saw one! 



Complainer said:


> And in relation to the other article, it's Emer O'Kelly. 'nuff said.


 eh?



Complainer said:


> I got this list of the 32 education cutbacks by email today, which may be of interest to some;
> 
> 1. Reduce school building program
> 2. 200 fewer primary school teachers
> ...


 The one that stands out for me is “Abolition of sub teachers from Jan '09”. This was something that teachers did as part of their general duties (custom and practice) for about 80 years ‘till their union decided that they should get paid for it and our government bent over for them again.
...anyway the main point remains that if teachers just didn’t take their pay increases this year none of these cuts would be necessary.


----------



## Complainer (15 Nov 2008)

Purple said:


> Now there’s an emotive misrepresentation if ever I saw one!


Emotive, yes - misrepresentation, No. Nothing wrong with a bit of emotion from time to time. My five-year-old gets just one chance at junior infants. She deserves the best opportunity to make the most of her education.



Purple said:


> The one that stands out for me is “Abolition of sub teachers from Jan '09”. This was something that teachers did as part of their general duties (custom and practice) for about 80 years ‘till their union decided that they should get paid for it and our government bent over for them again.


Your spin is taking this issue completely out of context of course. This was one of many issues that was negotiated between teachers and the Dept Ed. But I take then you've no concerns about the other 31 cuts?



Purple said:


> ...anyway the main point remains that if teachers just didn’t take their pay increases this year none of these cuts would be necessary.


They're not a vocation. They are professionals who deserve decent rewards for their work. I'd suggest that, as a society, we should put a greater value on the work of teachers than (e.g.) the work of bankers, or the work of property developers.


----------



## rmelly (15 Nov 2008)

Complainer said:


> ...
> 7. Early retirement scheme for teachers to be suspended


 
How many teachers normally take advantage of this in a year? 200? 400?


----------



## Purple (15 Nov 2008)

Complainer said:


> Emotive, yes - misrepresentation, No. Nothing wrong with a bit of emotion from time to time. My five-year-old gets just one chance at junior infants. She deserves the best opportunity to make the most of her education.


 My 5 year old also only gets one chance at junior infants but empty headed emotiveness informed by an ill-thought out ideological bias does nothing to advance a discussion about how we deliver the best education we can for our children. 



Complainer said:


> Your spin is taking this issue completely out of context of course. This was one of many issues that was negotiated between teachers and the Dept Ed. But I take then you've no concerns about the other 31 cuts?


 My spin!? Your posts could be used as a case study in spin. Teachers did supervision as part of their duties for about 80 years and then a few years ago their greedy unions screwed even more money out of a weak and incompetent government. Now that the penny has dropped and the government realise that they can’t afford the wish list that they granted to the unions during the bubble the mess has hit the fan and the unions, in typical fashion, bleat about the children and continue to serve their own interests. 



Complainer said:


> They're not a vocation. They are professionals who deserve decent rewards for their work. I'd suggest that, as a society, we should put a greater value on the work of teachers than (e.g.) the work of bankers, or the work of property developers.


 I suggest that you should try to take reality into account when you formulate your posts and desist from the workers party style emotive (and meaningless) sound bites or are you really suggesting that the people doing the day to day work in banks get better than the pay, terms and conditions or holidays that teachers get? Maybe you were comparing teachers and people on the boards of banks... no, that would be just too stupid.  

 Bottom line; as the private sector take pay cuts and pay freezes across the board all the teachers have to do in order to not let cuts impact on you and my children it to only take PART of their pay increase.


----------



## Complainer (15 Nov 2008)

rmelly said:


> How many teachers normally take advantage of this in a year? 200? 400?


No idea, but the particular unfairness of this cut was that a new scheme was announced as applying for 2008/2009, so those who planned to avail of the scheme in 2009 suddenly find the rug pulled out from under there feet. They could easily have gone in 2008 if they were aware that the scheme was going to be limited. The net result is that people won't trust dates promised for future schemes.



Purple said:


> My 5 year old also only gets one chance at junior infants but empty headed emotiveness informed by an ill-thought out ideological bias does nothing to advance a discussion about how we deliver the best education we can for our children.


This is offensive. I've no problem with robust debate, but referring to my views as empty-headed and ill-thought, simply because you disagree with them is not acceptable. You don't have a monopoly on thinking. You might like to edit your post on mature reflection.




Purple said:


> My spin!? Your posts could be used as a case study in spin. Teachers did supervision as part of their duties for about 80 years and then a few years ago their greedy unions screwed even more money out of a weak and incompetent government. Now that the penny has dropped and the government realise that they can’t afford the wish list that they granted to the unions during the bubble the mess has hit the fan and the unions, in typical fashion, bleat about the children and continue to serve their own interests.


We may actually agree on something. I think it is a big mistake for those concerned about these fundamental attacks on the public education system to let the teachers' unions lead the response, as there is an obvious conflict of interest. In the early days, the Boards of Management associations and the parents associations were leading from the front, and I'd prefer to see them back in front. 



Purple said:


> I suggest that you should try to take reality into account when you formulate your posts and desist from the workers party style emotive (and meaningless) sound bites


I've no problem with taking reality into account. How about the reality of services for students with visual impairments being cut. How about the reality of services for students with poor English being cut. How about the reality of cancelling the roll-out of the EPSEN Act (Education for people with Special Educational Needs), which was just starting to give students with disablities a fair chance. How about the cancellation of the personal advocacy service for people with disabilities and the 'death by a thousand cuts' to the Equality Authority which ensure that the Govt does get a hard time for discriminating against those who need the most support. That is the reality for many schools and students.




Purple said:


> are you really suggesting that the people doing the day to day work in banks get better than the pay, terms and conditions or holidays that teachers get? Maybe you were comparing teachers and people on the boards of banks... no, that would be just too stupid.


Try comparing the salary of the average school principal with the average bank manager. I don't get phone calls from my bank manager at 9.30 pm at night, but I have got calls from the principal at that time.


Purple said:


> Bottom line; as the private sector take pay cuts and pay freezes across the board all the teachers have to do in order to not let cuts impact on you and my children it to only take PART of their pay increase.


Do have a source for this 'pay cuts and pay freezes across the board' claim. I'm not suggesting that some organisations are having severe financial difficulities, but I really don't believe the IBEC 'shock doctrine' spin that the world is collapsing. Maybe those who caused the current economic crisis should pay the price for recovering, and not the public servants who work hard with poor supports and resources to provide a fair service to all.


----------



## ashambles (15 Nov 2008)

> I'm not suggesting that some organisations are having severe financial difficulities, but I really don't believe the IBEC 'shock doctrine' spin that the world is collapsing.


This'll look mighty perceptive in the months to come. 

Maybe the 50% extra unemployed over the last year should be informed of it already - everything's hunky dory lads, your world didn't collapse, twas just IBEC propaganda, phew..


----------



## Marion (15 Nov 2008)

Purple said:
			
		

> Teachers did supervision as part of their duties for about 80 years and then a few years ago their greedy unions screwed even more money out of a weak and incompetent government.



Points of information:

Supervision/Substitution by teachers was always *voluntary*. It was never a duty. So, for about 80 years (the figure given) teachers provided this service gratis.

Many teachers have not opted for the scheme that provides payment for supervision/substitution.

Marion


----------



## ashambles (15 Nov 2008)

In my opinion there's a difference between a professional and somebody working in a menial job. 

It's not too surprising when you hear untrained and unskilled people complaining that doing x and y isn't their job. On the other hand a professional whose forging a career has some pride in his or her work does whatever is needed to complete the job - be it training, standing in for someone, emptying the bins, whatever it takes. 

Some teachers seem to think their profession is second only to being a full time saint and deserve extra for doing tasks that we all saw our teachers doing when we were growing up. 

It's about the only profession most of us had good knowledge of by the age of 17, how could any new teacher be surprised that supervising lunch breaks, or sitting in looking bored and depressed for absent teachers wasn't part of job.

Just because some lilly livered government concession eventually describes a routine part of a job as being extra - doesn't really make it so.

What next? Walking from class to class is hardly spelled out in the job spec, it's voluntary, should we hire throne bearers to lump them around?


----------



## Complainer (16 Nov 2008)

ashambles said:


> In my opinion there's a difference between a professional and somebody working in a menial job.
> 
> It's not too surprising when you hear untrained and unskilled people complaining that doing x and y isn't their job. On the other hand a professional whose forging a career has some pride in his or her work does whatever is needed to complete the job - be it training, standing in for someone, emptying the bins, whatever it takes.
> 
> ...


Any competent professional will ensure that they get fair remuneration for the job in hand. It is unprofessional and unsustainable to rollover to every request for additional services for no extra fee.


----------



## Purple (16 Nov 2008)

Marion said:


> Points of information:
> 
> Supervision/Substitution by teachers was always *voluntary*. It was never a duty. So, for about 80 years (the figure given) teachers provided this service gratis.
> 
> ...



Custom and practice cuts both ways. 
If a private sector company gave 4 uncertified sick days for 80 years but suddenly stopped giving them with the excuse that it was not in the contract would the unions be OK with that?


----------



## Purple (16 Nov 2008)

Complainer said:


> No idea, but the particular unfairness of this cut was that a new scheme was announced as applying for 2008/2009, so those who planned to avail of the scheme in 2009 suddenly find the rug pulled out from under there feet. They could easily have gone in 2008 if they were aware that the scheme was going to be limited. The net result is that people won't trust dates promised for future schemes.


 Fair point; it should have been flagged in advance.




Complainer said:


> This is offensive. I've no problem with robust debate, but referring to my views as empty-headed and ill-thought, simply because you disagree with them is not acceptable. You don't have a monopoly on thinking. You might like to edit your post on mature reflection.


 I have three children, one with special needs. I find your tactic of introducing emotive sound bites that do nothing to support your arguments (since their root cause can be attributed to either side of the debate) deeply offensive as they imply that those who do not support the “bottomless pit” model of state funding are somehow heartless and not concerned for the children of the nation. 





Complainer said:


> We may actually agree on something. I think it is a big mistake for those concerned about these fundamental attacks on the public education system to let the teachers' unions lead the response, as there is an obvious conflict of interest. In the early days, the Boards of Management associations and the parents associations were leading from the front, and I'd prefer to see them back in front.


 Agreed.




Complainer said:


> I've no problem with taking reality into account. How about the reality of services for students with visual impairments being cut. How about the reality of services for students with poor English being cut. How about the reality of cancelling the roll-out of the EPSEN Act (Education for people with Special Educational Needs), which was just starting to give students with disablities a fair chance. How about the cancellation of the personal advocacy service for people with disabilities and the 'death by a thousand cuts' to the Equality Authority which ensure that the Govt does get a hard time for discriminating against those who need the most support. That is the reality for many schools and students.


 There you go again. We both agree that services are being cut, that’s not the issue. I am of the opinion that in a shrinking economy facing what is possible the biggest downturn in its history it is not reasonable or logical to expect big spending increases in public services. I therefore find it reasonable and logical to ask state employees (and those paid by the state) to forego some of their pay increases rather than cut services.
I know that if faced with the option of sacking 10% of a workforce and giving the remainder a 10% pay increase or keeping everyone and leaving their pay the same the employees of most private sector SME’s would opt for the latter. Why is this not the case with the public service?    





Complainer said:


> Try comparing the salary of the average school principal with the average bank manager. I don't get phone calls from my bank manager at 9.30 pm at night, but I have got calls from the principal at that time.


 My bank manager has called me on Saturday and Sunday. He’s at his desk ‘till at least 6.00 every evening and starts at 8.00am. That’s not to say that I think school principals are overpaid; it always struck me that they have all of the downside of being a teacher with few of the up-sides (and they are in charge of a group of highly unionised subordinates over which they have almost no sanction).



Complainer said:


> Do have a source for this 'pay cuts and pay freezes across the board' claim. I'm not suggesting that some organisations are having severe financial difficulities, but I really don't believe the IBEC 'shock doctrine' spin that the world is collapsing. Maybe those who caused the current economic crisis should pay the price for recovering, and not the public servants who work hard with poor supports and resources to provide a fair service to all.


 I have no source other than my own observations and contacts with other SME’s on a day-to-day basis, the massive increase in CV’s that we get and the customers, competitors and suppliers who have gone out of business.
Are you suggesting that the tens of billions in public sector pay increases have not (at the very least) contributed to our current problems?


----------



## Purple (16 Nov 2008)

Complainer said:


> Any competent professional will ensure that they get fair remuneration for the job in hand. It is unprofessional and unsustainable to rollover to every request for additional services for no extra fee.



They were not asked for any additional service; they demanded extra pay for something that they provided as part of their job for 80 years. I really don’t know how anyone could defend such a cynical and selfish tactic. We all know it was a BS claim to get a pay increase that was even higher than the benchmarking increases.


----------



## Complainer (16 Nov 2008)

Purple said:


> I have three children, one with special needs. I find your tactic of introducing emotive sound bites that do nothing to support your arguments (since their root cause can be attributed to either side of the debate) deeply offensive as they imply that those who do not support the “bottomless pit” model of state funding are somehow heartless and not concerned for the children of the nation.


I don't do 'implications'. You are attacking me for views that you have 'implied' from my posts, rather than anything I have actually said. This is unacceptable to me, and I would suggest once more that you review your use of 'empty-headed' and 'ill-thought out' in last night's post.


----------



## Purple (16 Nov 2008)

Complainer said:


> I don't do 'implications'.


Yes you do, your posts are full of them. Otherwise what was the point of your comment that your 5 year old deserves the best junior infants she can get?


----------



## Complainer (16 Nov 2008)

Purple said:


> Yes you do, your posts are full of them.


I've just added you to my ignore list. I don't take that kind of personal abuse from anyone. I won't see any of your future posts. Bye now.


----------



## Purple (16 Nov 2008)

Complainer said:


> I've just added you to my ignore list. Bye now.



Tragic. I don’t take comments made by anonymous strangers in the context of a topical debate on the internet that seriously... but maybe that’s just me.


----------

