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

[ali]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[PaddyW]

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]

...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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

... 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]

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]

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]

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...

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]

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]

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]

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?