Quote from: Bud Wiser on February 08, 2009, 10:07:06 AMI think, Bud, it's not as clear-cut as that.
Does anyone read Gerry O'Carroll the retired Detective Sergeant who 'writes' a column in the Herald. I for one try not to but generally end up giving in.
Last Tuesday he was on about job creation and the fact that there were TD's in the dail and Ministers who were holding their jobs as school teachers. Maybe he has a point, but my understanding is that there are people paid to fill these positions and they (TD) do not get wages for while they are in the Dail. They are allowed protect their jobs for a certain period in case they loose their seats again shortly after being elected.
Gerry O'Carroll should know as a retired detective sergeant that half his mates, who are retired and getting state pensions that some of us may never see, are driving the same TD's and Ministers and members of the judiciary around in state cars while there are plenty of young people suddenly on the dole and faced with high mortgages who should be getting these jobs. Not happy with their state pensions they contribute nothing from their wages to taxes and prohibit people more deserving of the jobs from getting them so I think Gerry O'Carroll should keep his gob shut.
BTW, this topic was brought up on this board sometime before Christmas. It is a matter that turns up in the media from time to time and I can't recall what the reason was for it being resurrected this time around. I think it may have been that the move was starting to find ways of paring back on public expenditure.
Anyway, it did get a good airing here.
There are quite a few TDs who benefit from the operation of this scheme. Enda Kenny is one high-profile one and so are Pat Carey and Mary Hanafin. If it was just a case of holding a TDs teaching post open for a term or two, I'd imagine there would be considerably less controversy than is generated every time the subject is mentioned.
The teacher who gets elected holds on to his or her job plus any additional increments or perks that he/she could be expected to pick up in the normal course of events. Pension entitlements based on length of service will be added as time goes on whereas the substitute will always remain in the post in a temporary capacity. The sub gets paid a daily rate and never qualifies for a permanent post. The successful TD will be paid the appropriate salary for the job minus the amount deducted to pay the sub. Remember that this sub only gets paid for the days he/she works; so no holiday pay or long service increments are added to the wages.
Enda Kenny was elected to the Dail back in '76. Pat Carey started (I think) in 1967. Both would be on quite handsome paypackets by now if they had remained in teaching. Either or both may have picked up additional allowances, such as posts of responsibility along the way. In both cases, their pension is being adjusted to take account of their lengths of service and the posts or other entitlements they may have picked up.
Subs will get paid at the usual flat rate, with the successful TD pocketing the difference between what he/she would get and the sub's daily wage.
The sub in all cases could be out of employment if the TD lost his/her seat. There is no job security involved.
I am not too happy with the status quo to put it mildly and one of the main reasons for this is that teaching jobs are being willfully withheld from qualified teachers. Many who take up subbing know full well the risks involved and the vacancy will never attract fully qualified and able-bodied applicants, unless there is a shortage of teaching posts. Pupils can miss out also as there tends to be a high turnover of subs and many will lack academic qualifications.
BTW, I am not singling out Enda or Pat for criticism; I'd rate them both as sound skins, who are only using the system to best advantage. Neither are doing anything illegal but I do think the cosy arrangement is badly in need of radical overhaul.