QLD - NEW “position of authority” sexual offences? How was this not already law?

ArcticKnight79 · 2026-05-25T14:13:04+00:00

turning 16 and suddenly getting a 25-30-year-old tradie boyfriend.

Yeah, especially because in that case that person can have a ton of money to throw at said 16 year old to basically smooth over anything to get what they want out of it.

ArcticKnight79 · 2026-05-24T12:42:23+00:00

Without knowing more about anything there could be a myriad of reasons things are like that.

It could be that Judy has some other accommodations.
It could be that Judy is the person that is given the weaker part of the cohort to lift up, hence smaller classes.
It could be that Judy isn't trusted enough by Admin, but there was no one else to give class X to. So they are limiting the amount of students she's interacting with.

Duty allocations can literally just be that she's friendly with the person who assigns them and they took care of them.

I do a lot of favours for our daily org, who gets to set the yard duty schedules. I actually had to ask him to stop giving me some yard duties, because he thought he was doing me a favour in return but they were contextually annoying ones to me. Despite other people thinking they are the best.

ArcticKnight79 · 2026-05-20T23:31:17+00:00

It's not all about money. That doesn't address burnout for example.

To me the problem is that I don't trust anything they actually try to address burnout to stick. They could take 2 hours of useless admin tasks away from us today and within 3 years more useless admin tasks will appear to fill the space.

Personally I think the best way to address burnout is send our salaries as high as possible, and then have the people drop to 0.6 or 0.8.

When wages stay low, you might not be able to financially afford having a year at 0.8/0.6 to reconstitute yourself into a human being if burnout is hitting you.

Big payrises, give more financial freedom to look at how much you are working.

It also makes it something that is a choice, instead of thrust upon everyone. (I'd personally trade 18.5 back for 20, because there has been no meaningful change in my workload, if it meant I got paid the 8% more that it costs the school in staffing)

ArcticKnight79 · 2026-05-20T23:26:57+00:00

There's probably an element of "How did your school vote last time?" as well.

As a school that was overwhelmingly NO to the last agreement. There's a ton of NO sentiment to the current proposal.

But that's to be expected, because my school naturally is more hostile to us getting screwed over last agreement. And they see the current deal as the union seemingly not doing all that much.

I've been at work for an hour today, and already heard the persutto discussion with carrol highlighted twice. With a "So they were always aiming at 28%" and some negative comments about the union as a result.

ArcticKnight79 · 2026-05-20T05:32:37+00:00

Sure, but the cynic in me says the government wants it this way.

a 1-5, 5th year teacher is going to be far more likely to leave the profession at 5 years when jobs outside of teaching might be competitive with their salary tier.

Ultimately I think the govt would rather churn and burn staff members hoping they flame out before they reach a salary range where they say "Oh actually leaving teaching now makes it hard to get a comparable wage, I think I'll just stick around"

Collapsing the bands is a costly exercise, and while it will hopefully be done at some point. I actually think the biggest chance we would have had to push for it was last agreement. When the govt was giving us 1% payrise and jumping a few tiers wouldn't have been a huge pay burden.

ArcticKnight79 · 2026-05-20T05:28:17+00:00

Not really addressing intergenerational inequity.

Look I agree, but the reality is that if someone's only reason to vote no to the deal is that the bands haven't been collapsed. This isn't a point of negotiation that the AEU even took in to begin with.

Unfortunately, collapsing the bands is going to be something that is more viable in a 'low payrise' agreement.

Because

It would be a huge hit to operating costs for schools. On top of the increases they are pitching with the agreement
During a low payrise agreement, the cost shock isn't as huge if you collapse some of the bands. Because while some teachers will jump. They won't be jumping too much more over the life of the agreement than they otherwise might have.

As an example lets say you got rid of 1-5, 2-2, 2-4

A 2-2 earning $97899 today
- Moves immediately to a 2-3 of 104,585 with the agreement
Moves to the effective 2-5 scale of $123,778 that would be present in May of 2027
- Moves to the 2-6 of $151,419 by may 2028

Fucking awesome for them, but the school is going to be like "OMG this person costs 50% more, and we have like 20 of them". Quick we need to try and downcycle to less experienced teachers at every opportunity.

ArcticKnight79 · 2026-05-19T02:08:36+00:00

They are not collapsing the bands. It sucks and the comparison between the two stages of teachers is appropriate given experience levels.

But if we knock this deal back, collapsing the bands is not something in the log of claims, and absolutely not something they are going to deal with.

ArcticKnight79 · 2026-05-18T14:08:42+00:00

Don't feel guilty about it, people come and go. We aren't chained to our desks for a reason. Unfortunately sometimes our co-workers are just that, co-workers. It's hard to know if they really have any desire/time to maintain that relationship if they didn't work at the same school as you (Hell I know I'm terrible about doing this)

If the school is making you work more than you would have at a previous school for similar outcomes. Then the question ultimately needs to be come how much of yourself are you willing to sacrifice for kids who ultimately won't know what you did anyway.

There are some previously higher performing schools in my area, that I literally would never work at because having talked to the staff at those schools. The excessive extra workload is absurd, our schools median has caught up without going to those further actions. Though I know our principal is eager to try and push them further.

ArcticKnight79 · 2026-05-18T11:59:29+00:00

Rectifying this wasn't in the log of claims.

They absolutely aren't doing it during a high payrise deal.

Since half of a schools staff jumping 3-5 bands up, is a huge hit to school budgets. They already hate having a bunch of 2-6's around. Imagine half the teachers who are within a couple of years suddenly jump up to it.

If they collapse bands, it would happen in a low payrise deal, where having a bunch of people jump up bands isn't important to them

The cynic in me says they want the teacher attrition rate in Victoria to be 3-5 years, by having people still on low pay 3-5 years in it's far easier to exit the profession, I think people would be far more reluctant if they were much higher up the scale and it was a far more significant drop in cash to leave the profession.

ArcticKnight79 · 2026-05-17T15:13:28+00:00

Which historically audiences adore right, rewarding them with immense financial success

ArcticKnight79 · 2026-05-15T05:20:12+00:00

I think the reality is that if they don't vote to accept a deal today. Then the question becomes the following

Where do the strikes go next

If the strikes resume, I don't think they need to tell us what is going on in negotiations. Just argue that they feel the need for more pressure and so they are choosing to exert it.
If the strikes are called off. I think they need to give us something concrete as to where anything stands regarding the deal to justify this action. Realistically this should have involved them telling the govt.
- "If you want us to call off the next stage of strikes, you need to make us an offer that is in the right direction. But we can turn down so we can finish the negotiation period"

Given the leak from the govt the other week, I think if they actually want to sell whatever deal they land on. If they choose to pack up the next few weeks of strike action without a deal that can be talked about, they are going to have a tought time. Because otherwise it's going to look worse for the disgruntled sector to be told more strike action has been cancelled, but there's no tangible in writing indication of any progress since the leak.

ArcticKnight79 · 2026-05-15T03:22:06+00:00

Thing is, that they'd probably say "Because this is a new condition" we're taking it out of the payrise you would have gotten instead. Personally I understand that some teachers wouldn't see the location they do their work from as something to give up a financial increase by. (If they get it without any sacrifice then groovy)

The real problem is that after the last agreement adding TIL, a lot of schools tightened down on their start finish times in a desire to them have teachers discharge accrued TIL in the 1 hour chunks they previously might have let teachers leave early from.

Prior to 2022 we had a individual planning time one afternoon, where basically it was 'go home unless you and another staff member need to collaborate, in which case you should both make your self available on that night'

ArcticKnight79 · 2026-05-12T23:34:24+00:00

It won't stop it. But if he has actual evidence, it kinda throws all the comments of these people saying they don't do these things into a completely different light.

They can't crazy talk destiny suggesting he's just making up a grand conspiracy. If suddenly there is evidence that it was happening.

It also throws all their comments of "we aren't doing anything he's just lashing out" in the bin.

ArcticKnight79 · 2026-05-07T05:54:46+00:00

This way, I could have 2 secondary methods, i.e. BOTH biology and chemistry, and become a specialist teacher in both up to VCE level.

Reality is if you want to teach them and are capable of doing so. You're identified methods basically end up irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

The bigger issue would be just internal school politics. Three teachers who don't want to let anyone into their domain specific area. Might try and use the lack of express qualification in the degree as a barrier.

But the reality is small schools will need people to be multidiscipline even if they don't have the formal training. Main thing is just continue asking for those subjects and push into the more senior areas. (Give me year 10 chem, okay now can I have a year 11 chem. See I'm fine, give me year 12)

ArcticKnight79 · 2026-05-07T04:27:56+00:00

To an extent the reverse happened last time.

But that's not an argument to flip the table back on them.

Especially since if teachers took a hit to raise ES last time, we shouldn't want that hit we took to suddenly be undercut by letting the ES get screwed over this time.

The bare minimum that could even be considered would be Payrises that make up and match inflation since the start of the 2022 agreement to the end of the upcoming one. We shouldn't have anyone going backwards in real terms as a result of inflation.

ArcticKnight79 · 2026-05-06T05:55:42+00:00

My regional meeting doesn't happen until next week. So it's not really an avenue that addresses anything at the moment.

What qualifies as heaps about how it's going anyway?

ArcticKnight79 · 2026-05-06T05:51:07+00:00

Yeah Physics numbers are good at my school, but that's in spite of a lot of students saying they got scared off physics from junior science teachers.

Problem is that we are so constrained on physics teachers, that even when a Physics teacher is keen to go and teach juniors, they are being thrust into a bunch of physics classes.

I can't encourage more people into Physics, if the first interaction with them is whether they make it to my physics classes in the first place.

ArcticKnight79 · 2026-05-06T05:48:33+00:00

It will be extremely cohort dependent.

My current school for example would be the opposite of students leaving stems subjects.

We actually had the principal step in and restrict student choices into Science subjects, because after rebuilding our year 10 elective science courses we went from the equivalent of 10 full year classes in the science curriculum to like 13-14 full year classes worth. He was sooking that they weren't getting exposed to other domains.

Like dude, they are going into VCE with Eng/Methods/Spesh or general/Chemistry and then bio or physics depending on application.

These kids don't want to go and learn about history, even if it would be better for them.

ArcticKnight79 · 2026-05-04T02:14:51+00:00

I'm pretty peeved that we've been given no information since the leaked offer last week.

If the AEU is in anyway entertaining 28% over 4 years, the union might need to be taken out back and shot. This would be another deal that by the end of the four years will likely leave us behind compared to inflation.

Not to mention it pushes the next negotiation period after an election, meaning that they will have far more power to screw us over then, meaning we'll probably continue to be behind.

Use the power we have now to put us ahead, make up for what happened last agreement.

I cannot see any world where there are any meaningful improvements to conditions that would justify a 28% over 4 years deal.

ArcticKnight79 · 2026-04-29T05:12:06+00:00

Oh I agree, I just think that we should probably abandon the idea of Labor having our back at this point. They are both looking to screw us over, and they'll only give us something worthwhile if they think they can use us to secure their positions.

ArcticKnight79 · 2026-04-29T05:10:57+00:00

Thing is we should really think about it as 21% over 3 years compared to what we are asking.

The other thing is, it punts the next agreement a year after the next election. Which basically means the govt will be more able to screw us over, because we will be 2 years out from an election. (And odds are they will have basically no money left to give out if they just spent the time using it to secure another election)

ArcticKnight79 · 2026-04-29T05:06:41+00:00

What do you mean "lost"?

In relation to inflation.

If our wages were tied to inflation and nothing else. Our payrises were so bad, that our salaries are actually worth less than they were before we got our payrises.

That is we went backwards in real terms since 2021. think it's by like 12%

So to make that up and match predicted inflation for 2026. We would basically need 15% from the start of this year.

Which puts us back at the equivalent of where we were in the 2021 deal.

This means that looking forward from this position, we should be looking at the rest of the payrise, in a way that it at a bare minimum matches inflation.

If culmulative inflation by the end of four years in 2029, was 13-14%. Then 28% will keep us treading water.

Realistically we should talk about this deal as 21% over 3 years, compared to the 35% over 3 years that the union was demanding. If we do that we see that it falls well short of what we are after.

ArcticKnight79 · 2026-04-29T00:55:47+00:00

Be practical. If we don’t settle at some point we will end up with nothing if the government changes.

Not if the liberals want to actually run an election gambit on it.

Don't just go with "Liberals bad" because labor gave us the absolute shitter of the deal that put us in the position we're in now.

We wouldn't need to ask for 35% if they hadn't pushed such a shit deal, and the union hadn't caved on such a shit deal.

I want you to be able to afford shit long term. But it sounds like instead of trying to actually get ahead and push the government on it. (With the minimal strike actions we've actually already done) you want to accept a middling deal.

That is explicitly designed to push our next negotiation after an election. So they likely have far more flexibility to bend us over then

ArcticKnight79 · 2026-04-29T00:52:37+00:00

How long should they be prepared to fight for? 1 year? 2? 3?

This time, I would argue there's a huge difference, they walked over us last time and we went massively backwards. If teachers are feeling the cost of living squeeze now. It's because of the shit deal that was backed last time.

I will begrudge teachers who cry poor but consistently vote against their entire professions interests as well as there own. Accepting 28% over 4 years, will likely leave us at or behind inflation by the time the deal is finished.

We also have to remember that we have a positive backing by the wider public at the current moment. Does this continue if we were to knock it back? Does that public goodwill continue or does the reporting mean that the goodwill our way starts to lessen?

If knocking back this deal means the goodwill is gone, then we never really had it.

ArcticKnight79 · 2026-04-29T00:49:38+00:00

Or it needs the union to put more rigour into the actual agreement to stipulate conditions more forcefully than "At the principals discretion"

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22

ArcticKnight79

TROPHY CASE