16 teachers suspended for cooperating with Jobbridge

rightofwayed · 25-02-2015 10:54am #1

Article for front page of todays Examiner:

A teachers’ union has suspended 16 members for up to five months over the last two years for breaking a ban on co-operation with the JobBridge internship scheme.

The Irish National Teachers’ Organisation (INTO) said 31 teachers, mostly principals, were the subject of 63 complaints in 2013 and 2014 when teaching jobs were advertised through the internship scheme. It has not taken action against any teachers who took up positions filled by primary schools through JobBridge in breach of the policy.

The union introduced a directive prohibiting its 35,000 members from participating in any work for the scheme in December 2011. It says qualified teachers should be allowed to gain experience through fully-paid work, instead of the weekly €50 paid in addition to social welfare that JobBridge participants receive.

Many complaints were resolved locally after INTO officers raised the issue with school management, usually resulting in the ad being withdrawn. However, complaints against 24 members went to hearings of an arbitration committee, with the findings in seven of those cases being referred to an appeal.

As a result, suspensions were imposed by the central executive committee on 16 members, ranging from one to five months.

“The overwhelming majority of INTO members continue to support the union’s directive on the JobBridge scheme and try to ensure newly-qualified teachers are able to build a path to permanent employment through temporary and substitute work,” said a spokesperson.

Fine Gael TD and former primary principal Jim Daly said the policy prevents newly-qualified teachers from getting experience. However, a recently-qualified West Cork teacher told the Irish Examiner in 2013, despite the experience it could provide, the inability to count time on a JobBridge internship towards access to teaching-job panels would discourage him from applying.

Niall Carmody, president of the student union at Mary Immaculate College in Limerick — one of the two biggest training institutions for primary teachers — said it has not been brought to his attention as a major concern for students, but only 30 will graduate with teaching qualifications this year.

“It could come up as a much bigger issue next year, when there will be 460 students graduating,” he said. “They are more worried this year about issues like accommodation and the here and now.”

The INTO figures emerge as the National Youth Council of Ireland called yesterday on the Department of Social Protection to review whether real jobs are being displaced by JobBridge internships.

super_furry · 25-02-2015 10:55am

Misleading headline there. Suspended from their Union, not teaching.

rightofwayed · 25-02-2015 10:59am

super_furry wrote: »

Misleading headline there. Suspended from their Union, not teaching.

It is, but it's not my headline!

peckerhead · 25-02-2015 11:03am

Pity the papers don't name some of the "quality" schools availing of this. Perfectly legally, of course.

Pity too that student teachers seem only to be exercised by issues that directly affect them, here and now. IMHO much of the deterioration in teacher's conditions over the last few years is due at least in part to the kind of "I'm alright, Jack" mentality that tends to set in once people become permanent & pensionable; it's a pity to see it reflected in those who are only just about to enter the profession.

Any working teachers I've asked about these dubious uses of JobBridge have responded with the verbal equivalent of a broad wink — "grand job, that's me finished at 10 on a Friday" kind of stuff. Maybe the ones I know are more cynical than most.

CosmicSmash · 25-02-2015 11:05am

rightofwayed wrote: »

It is, but it's not my headline!

But it's your thread title.

kidneyfan · 25-02-2015 11:05am

peckerhead wrote: »

Pity the papers don't name some of the "quality" schools availing of this. Perfectly legally, of course.

This is my biggest bugbear about news reporting in Ireland. WHO are the principals? WHICH schools?
Otherwise who cares?

rightofwayed · 25-02-2015 11:07am

Monkeykube wrote: »

But it's your thread title.

The thread title is the article headline, I'm sorry if you have a problem with this.

jank · 25-02-2015 1:54pm

If the graduate teachers entered the job bridge scheme out of their own free will, knowing what it entailed then why should a Union act in this autocratic manner?

evolving_doors · 25-02-2015 4:40pm

jank wrote: »

If the graduate teachers entered the job bridge scheme out of their own free will, knowing what it entailed then why should a Union act in this autocratic manner?

believe me jank, you'd get NQT teachers desperate enough to sell their granny to get into a school. Its the action of the unions against the principal's thats the issue.

A principal is putting a fully trained professional to work full hours for free. While a colleague next door (who could have graduated the same day) gets full pay/holidays/pension/increments. That to my mind is exploitation, pure and simple.

Schools saying they are doing teachers a favour are being economical with the truth. I've yet to see a jobbridge add for teachers that hasn't breeched the rules of jobbridge.

Pay the man for the work.

katydid · 25-02-2015 5:20pm

jank wrote: »

If the graduate teachers entered the job bridge scheme out of their own free will, knowing what it entailed then why should a Union act in this autocratic manner?

Because it's union policy not to undermine their members, and principals are union members. If you're a union member, you go along with union directives.

katydid · 25-02-2015 5:21pm

rightofwayed wrote: »

The thread title is the article headline, I'm sorry if you have a problem with this.

But you could have made a more accurate heading for the thread. That's all.

rightofwayed · 25-02-2015 5:31pm

katydid wrote: »

But you could have made a more accurate heading for the thread. That's all.

You could let it go.

Tails142 · 25-02-2015 5:35pm

What actual ramifications does being suspended from a union have? If you got to stop paying the union dues it actually sounds like a boon.

evolving_doors · 25-02-2015 7:35pm

Tails142 wrote: »

What actual ramifications does being suspended from a union have? If you got to stop paying the union dues it actually sounds like a boon.

In this case its principal's suspended... totally different animal to teachers.

They's always a question of why are principal's in the regular teachers union and why dont they form their own etc.... basically its less hassle for a teachers union to be going between management/principals and govt during negotiations so the way I see it, its an attempt to keep 'former teachers' included with their fellow colleagues. Makes sense to me.

But will the suspended principals care about the suspension? We shall await a response.

Don't get me wrong, I know every principal is in a bind with exploding class sizes. But not every one is following suit abusing jobbridge.

Edit: Apologies, I was referring to secondary principals as 'former teachers' (and yes some of them do still teach too!)

katydid · 25-02-2015 8:33pm

Armelodie wrote: »

In this case its principal's suspended... totally different animal to teachers.

They's always a question of why are principal's in the regular teachers union and why dont they form their own etc.... basically its less hassle for a teachers union to be going between management/principals and govt during negotiations so the way I see it, its an attempt to keep 'former teachers' included with their fellow colleagues. Makes sense to me.

But will the suspended principals care about the suspension? We shall await a response.

Don't get me wrong, I know every principal is in a bind with exploding class sizes. But not every one is following suit abusing jobbridge.

Well, they are Principal Teachers - the myth, at least, of collegiality, persists.

It is difficult for them to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds, and it is tempting to suggest they go of and form their own union. But, as a union colleague pointed out to me, in the long run maybe it's better to have them where you can have some kind of influence over them. I know people who are principles and very strong and committed union members. Few and far between, but they exist.

katydid · 25-02-2015 8:35pm

Tails142 wrote: »

What actual ramifications does being suspended from a union have? If you got to stop paying the union dues it actually sounds like a boon.

Well, no one forces you to join the union in the first place, but many workers actually think it's important to be in solidarity with their colleagues and, of course, to have recourse to union advice and financial support should they need it.

joebloggs32 · 25-02-2015 10:36pm

Tails142 wrote: »

What actual ramifications does being suspended from a union have? If you got to stop paying the union dues it actually sounds like a boon.

Most people think they don't need a union until the day comes when they really do need a union

peckerhead · 25-02-2015 10:57pm

Ireland has (or had, I'm too lazy to post a reference) an unusually high rate of union membership among teachers generally, from primary to third level. Warts and all, the INTO and ASTI in particular probably wield more clout than their equivalents in other EU states, relative to their size. I'll probably draw flak for saying this, but in the twenty years I've been working in Ireland they seem to have succeeded in protecting their members' pay and working conditions far better than have their counterparts at third-level, especially IFUT (this is not to criticise IFUT; the threat of college lecturers going on strike — cue the jokes about "how will we tell the difference?" — is never going to compare with the leverage of a far larger union whose strike days leave hundreds of thousands of parents having to find childminders or miss work).

If I was employed in the primary or secondary school system I would be keen to retain my union membership.

killbillvol2 · 25-02-2015 11:01pm

Armelodie wrote: »

In this case its principal's suspended... totally different animal to teachers.

They's always a question of why are principal's in the regular teachers union and why dont they form their own etc.... basically its less hassle for a teachers union to be going between management/principals and govt during negotiations so the way I see it, its an attempt to keep 'former teachers' included with their fellow colleagues. Makes sense to me.

But will the suspended principals care about the suspension? We shall await a response.

Don't get me wrong, I know every principal is in a bind with exploding class sizes. But not every one is following suit abusing jobbridge.

katydid wrote: »

Well, they are Principal Teachers - the myth, at least, of collegiality, persists.

It is difficult for them to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds, and it is tempting to suggest they go of and form their own union. But, as a union colleague pointed out to me, in the long run maybe it's better to have them where you can have some kind of influence over them. I know people who are principles and very strong and committed union members. Few and far between, but they exist.

More than half of primary school principals are classroom teachers.

katydid · 25-02-2015 11:06pm

peckerhead wrote: »

Ireland has (or had, I'm too lazy to post a reference) an unusually high rate of union membership among teachers generally, from primary to third level. Warts and all, the INTO and ASTI in particular probably wield more clout than their equivalents in other EU states, relative to their size. I'll probably draw flak for saying this, but in the twenty years I've been working in Ireland they seem to have succeeded in protecting their members' pay and working conditions far better than have their counterparts at third-level, especially IFUT (this is not to criticise IFUT; the threat of college lecturers going on strike — cue the jokes about "how will we tell the difference?" — is never going to compare with the leverage of a far larger union whose strike days leave hundreds of thousands of parents having to find childminders or miss work).

If I was employed in the primary or secondary school system I would be keen to retain my union membership.

The power of the unions is much less than it used to be

evolving_doors · 25-02-2015 11:45pm

killbillvol2 wrote: »

More than half of primary school principals are classroom teachers.

Apologies Killbillvol2, I was referring to secondary and even then I forgot that there are a few secondary principals who teach also.

evolving_doors · 25-02-2015 11:52pm

Voiceforteachers blog has a name and shame HERE . Normally I'd be hesitant about naming a school based on hearsay but the fact that they advertised publicly on Jobbridge negates that.

happywithlife · 26-02-2015 12:25am

I'm post primary but I know one of the schools involved. I know for fact they tried and were denied an extra teacher for an unusually large intake of junior infants. I think they will qualify next year for the extra teacher anyway but they couldn't get one this year. Appeal was also denied. As far as I know (and am open to correction) they have several children with sen who won't access proper supports until psychological tests are carried out and snas won't be appointed till late in the year when these results are processed. Anyway point is I suppose I presume jobs bridge is a last resort when the government of the day yet again fail our children by refusing to adequately staff / resource classrooms.
From reading the list Armelodie provided a lot of those jobs are for classroom assistants and snas. Would I right in saying these would be fill a gap / need in the school that isn't being provided by the dept due to increases in the PTR and cuts in snas etc.
I'm not for a moment condoning what was done but think questions need to be asked WHY were these principals advertising these positions in the first instance. I hope the spotlight is put back on the dept to account for the devasting effects of recent cutbacks.

katydid · 26-02-2015 12:30am

happywithlife wrote: »

I'm post primary but I know one of the schools involved. I know for fact they tried and were denied an extra teacher for an unusually large intake of junior infants. I think they will qualify next year for the extra teacher anyway but they couldn't get one this year. Appeal was also denied. As far as I know (and am open to correction) they have several children with sen who won't access proper supports until psychological tests are carried out and snas won't be appointed till late in the year when these results are processed. Anyway point is I suppose I presume jobs bridge is a last resort when the government of the day yet again fail our children by refusing to adequately staff / resource classrooms.
From reading the list Armelodie provided a lot of those jobs are for classroom assistants and snas. Would I right in saying these would be fill a gap / need in the school that isn't being provided by the dept due to increases in the PTR and cuts in snas etc.
I'm not for a moment condoning what was done but think questions need to be asked WHY were these principals advertising these positions in the first instance. I hope the spotlight is put back on the dept to account for the devasting effects of recent cutbacks.

It doesn't matter what the excuse was. There's a union directive and it's there for a reason. Union members should not breach it, and if they do they have to suffer the consequences.

Teachers deal with teachers. Other positions such as classroom assistants, caretakers, etc. are not in a teachers union and the teachers' unions are not in a position to refuse to deal with them.

Sure, the principals should not have been put in the position they were in, but undermining their own profession and their colleagues is not the answer.

happywithlife · 26-02-2015 7:52am

katydid wrote: »

It doesn't matter what the excuse was. There's a union directive and it's there for a reason. Union members should not breach it, and if they do they have to suffer the consequences.

Teachers deal with teachers. Other positions such as classroom assistants, caretakers, etc. are not in a teachers union and the teachers' unions are not in a position to refuse to deal with them.

Sure, the principals should not have been put in the position they were in, but undermining their own profession and their colleagues is not the answer.

I agree with you. But instead of just teacher bashing with their "principals suspended" headline I'd rather they turn the focus to the WHY's in this case and realise the recent cutbacks have made many schools in-operable and little more than a babysitting service. Wishful thinking I know

robindch · 26-02-2015 1:25pm

katydid wrote: »

Because it's union policy not to undermine their members, and principals are union members. If you're a union member, you go along with union directives.

Funny, I always understood that unions said that they were there to service their members rather than the other way around.

byhookorbycrook · 26-02-2015 3:52pm

Jobsbridge jobs are meant to prepare you for a particular role. There are no classroom assistants at primary level, so therefore no jobs that could be filled. The SNA thing will backfire badly, it may well be said that Child X didn't have an SNA in Junior Infants , so doesn't need one down the line. Allowing the DES to further erode any support for children with SEN is not a good thing, believe me.

The proposed new model for SEN provision is , indeed, a scary thing. No more resource hours , no extra SEN teachers, though the primary population continues to increase. I can't understand why parents are not more up in arms about large class size, lack of support for all children and the ever decreasing SEN provision. As teachers, when we raise this , it as seen as either a) whining teachers or b) if they are so concerned, let them take even MORE pay cuts and we can employ more teachers. The DES and the media will listen to parent, but not us.

evolving_doors · 26-02-2015 5:30pm

robindch wrote: »

Funny, I always understood that unions said that they were there to service their members rather than the other way around.

On this occasion they did serve their members. Doing nothing would have negated any directive.

katydid · 26-02-2015 7:41pm

robindch wrote: »

Funny, I always understood that unions said that they were there to service their members rather than the other way around.

Those who defy union directives are going against decisions made by elected members of the union on behalf of all members.

killbillvol2 · 26-02-2015 9:27pm

robindch wrote: »

Funny, I always understood that unions said that they were there to service their members rather than the other way around.

Armelodie wrote: »

On this occasion they did serve their members. Doing nothing would have negated any directive.

katydid wrote: »

Those who defy union directives are going against decisions made by elected members of the union on behalf of all members.

Not to mention the fact that opposition to Jobbridge came from the grassroots within the INTO and the directive stemmed from a motion from the members.

But don't let facts get in the way a snide (ill-informed) dig.

jank · 27-02-2015 5:32am

Armelodie wrote: »

believe me jank, you'd get NQT teachers desperate enough to sell their granny to get into a school. Its the action of the unions against the principal's thats the issue.

A principal is putting a fully trained professional to work full hours for free. While a colleague next door (who could have graduated the same day) gets full pay/holidays/pension/increments. That to my mind is exploitation, pure and simple.

Schools saying they are doing teachers a favour are being economical with the truth. I've yet to see a jobbridge add for teachers that hasn't breeched the rules of jobbridge.

Pay the man for the work.

That really doesn't answer the question. The job bridge scheme is entirely voluntary. I believe that grown up mature adults are better at making decisions that affect their lives rather then you/me/ a union or anyone else for that matter. If the position was offered via job bridge to get experience working in a class, rather then sitting at home I imagine that some teachers due to their love for the vocation would rather work, even it is for the extra 50 euro a week on top of the 188. It will also of course make them stand out and be above the pecking order to get a full time position.

Many people benefit. The school, the teacher and most of all the children who now have an extra person teaching them giving them more core teacher attention and hours. The people that don't benefit are the Unions who see this as a losing of their power to dictate employment conditions to the government, hence this action.

Personally I think it should be up to the board of management to dictate if Job bridge should be used in a school.

16 teachers suspended for cooperating with Jobbridge

Comments