Have unions damaged the standing of teachers?

Einhard

I started the hDip last month, and I have to say I was astonished at the dedication and work ethic of the teachers in my school. That might seem like an odd thing to say, and I was always aware of teachers who did trojan work in schools, but unfortunately negative experiences tend to stick in the mind over positive ones, and I had some awful teachers during my time in secondary school.

By awful, I'm not talking about teachers who approached the job professionally but whose style I may not have appreciated, but teachers who had no teachign style whatsoever- those who didn't give a sh!t about the job, their students, or the school. I went to a school where there were two such teachers. Even now, ten years after I finished, one only has to mention the name of the school, and the same two teachers are always brought up. And it was the same for other schools in the town.

Everyone knew about these teachers. Parents with kids in their classes made sure to book grinds. Other teachers were exasperated by them (I know this from speaking to teachers since I left). And the students were just left hanging. Many students failed to achieve their potential in the LC as a direct consequence of the poor standards of these type of teachers.

And yet, despite the near universal acknowledgement of their hoplessness, nothing was done about them. They were untouchable. No parent ever made a fuss, because nobody could see the point. And, despite the generally positive impression I had of teachers, I came away with an unduly negative view of the profession. And many people have the same unfair impression.

Now that I'm witness every day to the professionalism and dedication of my colleagues, it rankles with me that this should be the case. And I blame the unions to a great extent. There was either no mechanism to move such teachers on, or it was kept hushed up. Indeed, if memory serves me correctly, when moves were made to introduce/strengthen such mechanisms a few years ago, the unions kicked up a fuss.

The unions sought to protect every single member from scrutiny-regardless of whether they merited such scrutiny, and in doing so they comprimised the integrity and reputation of the entire profession.

Does anyone else share these views? Or am I entirely wrong?

spurious

I blame dosser teachers for being dosser teachers.

Not everything the unions have done has been great, but a huge number of people would not have jobs (even if only on contract) without them.

The DES/VECs should grow a pair and tackle the dossers. You wouldn't find me or many of my colleagues taking industrial action to protect people who make everyone else's job harder.

mrboswell

I've been working in a school where a couple of weeks ago there was between 25 and 30% of the staff out. Most of it was certified for a couple of weeks but I'd they they could teach the HSE a thing or 2 about sick days.

Its a VEC and I don't know if it is indicative of all VEC's but I have never encountered this type of thing in a DES/non VEC school.

The unions only really look out for the well established members as that is category that most of the members are in. As a younger, relatively recently established teacher I used to complain about the unions but this year I will try to attend as many meeting as as possible and voice my opinion as I feel necessary.

If you, like I did, feel that the unions does not represent you adequately then you have to attend the meetings to make yourself heard. Then if you feel that your issues are resolved then you can change union or whatever you think is best.

But certainly going to meetings is a must if even to find out what is going on at them. In short unions represent their members so if anything it is a majority of members (teachers) that have damaged their own standing.

gaeilgebeo

mrboswell wrote: »

I've been working in a school where a couple of weeks ago there was between 25 and 30% of the staff out. Most of it was certified for a couple of weeks but I'd they they could teach the HSE a thing or 2 about sick days.

Its a VEC and I don't know if it is indicative of all VEC's but I have never encountered this type of thing in a DES/non VEC school.

The unions only really look out for the well established members as that is category that most of the members are in. As a younger, relatively recently established teacher I used to complain about the unions but this year I will try to attend as many meeting as as possible and voice my opinion as I feel necessary.

If you, like I did, feel that the unions does not represent you adequately then you have to attend the meetings to make yourself heard. Then if you feel that your issues are resolved then you can change union or whatever you think is best.

But certainly going to meetings is a must if even to find out what is going on at them. In short unions represent their members so if anything it is a majority of members (teachers) that have damaged their own standing.

What exactly is your point on the teachers who are out sick?
What exactly do you mean by "this type of thing"?

Rosita

Having read the posts here I am at a loss as to what the unions have got to do with anything that has been raised. It is not the function of a union to provide a mechanism to 'move on' under-performing teachers. That is the role of the Dept. of Ed & Science surely?

If people are out of work on certified sick leave what on earth are the unions supposed to do about them? Surely that's a matter for their employer and the relevant legislation governing their situation?

Unions represent the interests of their members. To expect them to do otherwise is like expecting a cat to bark. And to accuse them of "compromising the integrity and reputation of the entire profession" is a difficult charge to make stick I would suggest because to do so involves speculating as to what life for the teaching profession without unions would be like. That scenario might just come under the 'be careful what you wish for' banner.

Einhard

Rosita wrote: »

Having read the posts here I am at a loss as to what the unions have got to do with anything that has been raised. It is not the function of a union to provide a mechanism to 'move on' under-performing teachers. That is the role of the Dept. of Ed & Science surely?

Unions represent the interests of their members. To expect them to do otherwise is like expecting a cat to bark.

The function of any union is to protect the interests of its members, and I'd argue that protecting and enhancing the good name of that profession would come under that remit. Too often, unions limit their role to protecting the terms and conditions of members, without concern for how the profession as a whole is perceive, and this often hurts the interests of the members on an individual level.


In relation to your second point, it may not be the unions role, but neither should they obstruct and resist such mechanism, which, from what I understand, they have been wont to do. Indeed, I'd go so far as to suggest that a responsible union, with an eye on the long-term interests of its members, should actively seek such mechanisms,a nd make them as effective and fair as possible.


When a profession loses the respect of the public then it becoms far harder to protect terms and conditions. I'm not stating that we've come so far as losing respect, but the negative perception of the teaching profession is entirely at odds with the reality on the ground. This cannot but be a bad thing for all of us.

And to accuse them of "compromising the integrity and reputation of the entire profession" is a difficult charge to make stick I would suggest because to do so involves speculating as to what life for the teaching profession without unions would be like. That scenario might just come under the 'be careful what you wish for' banner.

A cursory glance at the history books demonstrates the importance of unions, but their historical importance does not exempt them from valid criticism. And I haven't wished anything, so I'm not sure what I should be careful of.

mrboswell

gaeilgebeo wrote: »

What exactly is your point on the teachers who are out sick?
What exactly do you mean by "this type of thing"?

My point is that it is a phenomenally high percentage of teachers to be out at any given time, considering there is no particular reason that is affecting staff in general. There is still a high percentage out on extended sick leave and it is certified. However it is commonly agreed by staff that days after certain public holidays have a very poor attendance by teachers.

I can't say that it is indicative of all VEC's. It could be this school only but from speaking to friends who work in VEC's schools I gather that it is not unusual. My experience of non-VEC schools is that it is unusual for so many to be out at any given time or have a high percentage of staff out the day after public holidays.

I probably should have expanded on my first post but I wonder if the unions have added to this culture of sick days if it does exist. I know a number of teachers in various schools who have used sick days for the purpose of a day off, not due to sickness.
I think there were originally 21 days allowed per year without certification, that has now been reduced to 7 days. No doubt the department didn't offer 21 days to teachers, so I'll assume that it was the unions that pushed for it and I think it may have resulted in a culture of taking days off sick when they were not required at all.

I'm not having a go unnecessarily gaeilgebeo. In fact we seem to agree in everything else that comes up in this forum. I am only calling it as I see it and questioning if it has come about because of a specific reason.

byhookorbycrook

MrBoswell, I can't speak for secondary, but I promise you in my school (primary) that there are no teachers pulling duvet days. This holds for most of my friends' schools too. It's easier sometimes to be in sick than to stay at home.

Unions have nothing to do with sick leave, if a dr thinks a teacher is too ill to work, it's not the fault of the union.

E.T.

I'm definitely with byhookorbycrook on this one at primary level. Nobody I know takes uncertified sick days because you know your class are going to be split and sent into other rooms. More stress for the other teachers, and not great for the kids either.

Rosita

Einhard wrote: »

The function of any union is to protect the interests of its members, and I'd argue that protecting and enhancing the good name of that profession would come under that remit. Too often, unions limit their role to protecting the terms and conditions of members, without concern for how the profession as a whole is perceive, and this often hurts the interests of the members on an individual level.

But how does this work in practice? The unions could, for example, argue for much longer hours, shorter holidays, and far less pay. That would be a way to make the profession a lot more popular. But would also hurt the interests of the members at an individual level. Can you give some examples of things you have in mind that the unions could do to promote positive perceptions of the profession while benefitting their members?

In relation to your second point, it may not be the unions role, but neither should they obstruct and resist such mechanism, which, from what I understand, they have been wont to do.

So unions should not obstruct and resist even measures that could negatively impact on their members? It's an unusual take on a union's role, I'll say that for it.

When a profession loses the respect of the public then it becoms far harder to protect terms and conditions. I'm not stating that we've come so far as losing respect, but the negative perception of the teaching profession is entirely at odds with the reality on the ground. This cannot but be a bad thing for all of us.

What negative perception? You said that you "came away with an unduly negative view of the profession" on the basis of two teachers in your school. And now you are trying to conflate this with the idea of a generally bad reputation for the profession? Do you have more evidence than your teenage opinions for this negative perception?

A cursory glance at the history books demonstrates the importance of unions, but their historical importance does not exempt them from valid criticism.

I have to say I missed the bit where I said they should be exempt from valid or indeed invalid criticism. Your trip to to history shelves was a waste of time.

And I haven't wished anything, so I'm not sure what I should be careful of.

Fair enough so. I thought you wished that the unions would do something to enhance the "integrity and reputation of teaching". But clearly I misread the signals.

mrboswell

The unions have nothing to do with certified sick leave as it is the same for everyone.

The unions surely had something to do with the initial quota for uncertified days (over 20 I think, correct me if I'm wrong) but now they have less impact due to the economic climate and the number has been reduced to 7 days.

Of course it goes on in every industry and like any system it is open to abuse.

As I said above it may be this school in particular. I hope that is the case anyway.

CIARAN_BOYLE

Einhard wrote: »

I started the hDip last month, and I have to say I was astonished at the dedication and work ethic of the teachers in my school. That might seem like an odd thing to say, and I was always aware of teachers who did trojan work in schools, but unfortunately negative experiences tend to stick in the mind over positive ones, and I had some awful teachers during my time in secondary school.

By awful, I'm not talking about teachers who approached the job professionally but whose style I may not have appreciated, but teachers who had no teachign style whatsoever- those who didn't give a sh!t about the job, their students, or the school. I went to a school where there were two such teachers. Even now, ten years after I finished, one only has to mention the name of the school, and the same two teachers are always brought up. And it was the same for other schools in the town.

Everyone knew about these teachers. Parents with kids in their classes made sure to book grinds. Other teachers were exasperated by them (I know this from speaking to teachers since I left). And the students were just left hanging. Many students failed to achieve their potential in the LC as a direct consequence of the poor standards of these type of teachers.

And yet, despite the near universal acknowledgement of their hoplessness, nothing was done about them. They were untouchable. No parent ever made a fuss, because nobody could see the point. And, despite the generally positive impression I had of teachers, I came away with an unduly negative view of the profession. And many people have the same unfair impression.

Now that I'm witness every day to the professionalism and dedication of my colleagues, it rankles with me that this should be the case. And I blame the unions to a great extent. There was either no mechanism to move such teachers on, or it was kept hushed up. Indeed, if memory serves me correctly, when moves were made to introduce/strengthen such mechanisms a few years ago, the unions kicked up a fuss.

The unions sought to protect every single member from scrutiny-regardless of whether they merited such scrutiny, and in doing so they comprimised the integrity and reputation of the entire profession.

Does anyone else share these views? Or am I entirely wrong?

I completly agree with you. I remember when I was in school there was teachers that if you made enquiries with a grinds teacher and mentioned what school you were in the grind teacher would mention Oh you have Mr X. No question about it if you did English and struggled you had Mr X if you did Maths and struggled you had MrY. It was known to everyone in the area and to grinds teachers throughout half the city.

hairytuna

I think the original point that the OP made has a lot of validity. There definitely are teachers who shouldnt be teaching. They make everybody's elses job harder by their lack of motivation, preparation and sometimes poor attendance. (uncertified sick leave) Whilst I strongly think that unions are extremely important and will become even more important with further cuts in education looming, it does appear that they sometimes provide protection to members in situations where members are in the wrong. It is nearly impossible to fire an underperforming teacher.
I know unions are there to promote the best interests of their members but it sometimes feels like they are protecting jobs for teachers who shouldnt be protected whilst not doing enough for part time teachers. It has been my experience that unions are focused mainly on preserving rights for permanent teachers whilst facilitating the taking advantage of NQT's and part time teachers that is happening by second level schools around the country.
The role of the teaching council was supposed to help with improving and maintaining teaching standards across the country. To date this has not happened and it is logical to suggest it is partly due to the protection of underperforming employees from unions. I accept that in protecting the majority of teachers there will be a small minority who benefit wrongly. I just think it is an area that needs to be improved so that teaching remains a valid profession rather than the dumping ground for people who love the holidays but not the work.

laoch na mona

the only thing i have against the unions is they make it impossible to fire a sh*t teacher

rainbowtrout

mrboswell wrote: »

My point is that it is a phenomenally high percentage of teachers to be out at any given time, considering there is no particular reason that is affecting staff in general. There is still a high percentage out on extended sick leave and it is certified. However it is commonly agreed by staff that days after certain public holidays have a very poor attendance by teachers.

I can't say that it is indicative of all VEC's. It could be this school only but from speaking to friends who work in VEC's schools I gather that it is not unusual. My experience of non-VEC schools is that it is unusual for so many to be out at any given time or have a high percentage of staff out the day after public holidays.

I probably should have expanded on my first post but I wonder if the unions have added to this culture of sick days if it does exist. I know a number of teachers in various schools who have used sick days for the purpose of a day off, not due to sickness.
I think there were originally 21 days allowed per year without certification, that has now been reduced to 7 days. No doubt the department didn't offer 21 days to teachers, so I'll assume that it was the unions that pushed for it and I think it may have resulted in a culture of taking days off sick when they were not required at all.

I'm not having a go unnecessarily gaeilgebeo. In fact we seem to agree in everything else that comes up in this forum. I am only calling it as I see it and questioning if it has come about because of a specific reason.

I get the point you are making about the perception that teachers in this school are taking sick days when they don't appear to you to be sick. But you said yourself that most of the absence was certified, now you're saying there was no particular reason. What exactly are you saying there? That all of these people went to the doctor and asked for a cert to take time off for a few weeks?

I'm assuming you're subbing there or just recently started there. Do you know the background to all these people and their illnesses? Because if you went into my staffroom in the last two weeks you'd probably think the same. Who knows maybe it was my staffroom you were referring to. There are three science teachers out at the moment, one put her back out a couple of weeks ago, the second has ongoing health issues that she had last year and still has this year, and the third had a dose of tonsilitis and laryngitis. One of the days two weeks ago on top of all that one of the other science teachers was away at inservice and I was the only science teacher of our regular staff in that day. The rest were subs. Does that mean that all the science department in my school are skiving. Of course it doesn't. But it would appear like that to someone in subbing.

Einhard

Rosita wrote: »

But how does this work in practice? The unions could, for example, argue for much longer hours, shorter holidays, and far less pay. That would be a way to make the profession a lot more popular. But would also hurt the interests of the members at an individual level. Can you give some examples of things you have in mind that the unions could do to promote positive perceptions of the profession while benefitting their members?

I already have. The unions opposed mechanisms to weed out under-performing teachers. By doing so, they protected the tiny minority of members who were doing a bad job, at the expense of the large majority who are dedicated and hardworking.

So unions should not obstruct and resist even measures that could negatively impact on their members? It's an unusual take on a union's role, I'll say that for it.

Such a mechanism would have negatively impacted on a tiny minority of members. By opposing such measures, unions did a disservive to the rest- the vast majority. So, we have a rump of couldn't care less dinosaurs protected at the expense of everyone else. Now that's an unusual take on a union's role!

What negative perception? You said that you "came away with an unduly negative view of the profession" on the basis of two teachers in your school. And now you are trying to conflate this with the idea of a generally bad reputation for the profession? Do you have more evidence than your teenage opinions for this negative perception?

Yes I do. Firstly, my teenage impressions informed my adult impressions. Secondly, there have been several people on this thread (teachers I presume) who agree with me. And thirdly, I don't live under a rock. I was s'poosed to go out last night but had to cancel as I had so much work to do. The response from my non-teacher friends when I told them of this, was invariably along the lines of ye do in your arse- you're a teacher! If you haven't picked up on the unduly negative perception of teachers among the wider public, then you must lead a sheltered life.

Note though, I'm not saying that the perception is totally negative, or even generally so, but that it is unduly so. In my opinion.

I have to say I missed the bit where I said they should be exempt from valid or indeed invalid criticism. Your trip to to history shelves was a waste of time.

Is it possible to have a discussion without getting snippy? That would be helpful. You suggested that my criticism necessarily involves imagining a world without teaching unions. It does nothing of the sort, and your suggestion seemed to imply that I desired, at the least, the emasculation of unions. If that's not what you mean- fair enough. Bit why even bring it up?

Fair enough so. I thought you wished that the unions would do something to enhance the "integrity and reputation of teaching". But clearly I misread the signals.

This is becoming tiresome. If you're in a union, please say so, and we can have an honest discussion. If you're not, can you stop playing around?

This is your response to my criticisms:

...I would suggest because to do so involves speculating as to what life for the teaching profession without unions would be like. That scenario might just come under the 'be careful what you wish for' banner.

Criticism of a union in no way implies or necessitates a debate on what life sans unions would be like. How does the one follow from the other?

Nowhere have I expressed a desire for a unionless teaching profession. And yet, you seek to imply such a stance. It seems to me that you are attempting to paint my criticisms as something they are not (ie general anti-unionism), so that you can dismiss them without regard to their merits or demerits. It's a nice strawman but a strawman nonetheless. I have no problem debating the points I raised, but I don't intend to respond to dishonest interpretations of those points.

Rosita

Einhard wrote: »

Nowhere have I expressed a desire for a unionless teaching profession.

I never said you "expressed a desire for a unionless teaching profession" - funny you should talk about dishonest interpretation. What I said was that if you are asking the question "have unions damaged the standing of teachers?" then it is at best disingenuous not to consider a teaching profession without unions as part of reaching a conclusion. How can the impact of unions be measured in the round without considering the alternative?

But of course you appear not to want to actually consider that because it seems you already have the conclusion and are now forming an argument to back up the conclusion. Life without unions certainly would not be part of that I imagine.

Trotting out platitudinous nonsense about "majority of good teachers" and "minority of bad teachers" as if you had some scientific information on this cuts as little ice as telling me that some people on the thread agree with you.

You need to understand the job unions do. They protect the working conditions of their members. Not liking it does not make it otherwise. It is not their role to assess the work of their members or decide who is or isn't pulling their weight. You are confusing the role of the teaching unions with the Teaching Council and the Department of Education and Science. You can certainly argue - and it's a very old argument with which few would quibble in principle at least - that 'bad teachers' should be identified and rooted out. But suggesting that unions facilitate it shows a remarkable failure to grasp the role of unions.

As a matter of interest, since you have not expressed a desire for a unionless teaching business what role do you see for the unions if protecting the working conditions of members is clearly not one of them?

Einhard

Rosita wrote: »

I never said you "expressed a desire for a unionless teaching profession" - funny you should talk about dishonest interpretation. What I said was that if you are asking the question "have unions damaged the standing of teachers?" then it is at best disingenuous not to consider a teaching profession without unions as part of reaching a conclusion. How can the impact of unions be measured in the round without considering the alternative?

What a ridiculous argument. When people criticise aspects of the Garda, is your immediate reaction to raise the idea of society without the police? When lenient sentences are discussed critically, do you demand that we consider a society without a judiciary?

The alternative to the practises of which I am critical, is not to banish unions- how ever did you jump to that conclusion? It's to examine those practises, and to consdier whether they should indeed be abolished, or reformed. Note- abolish the practises, not the unions themselves. Surely you're aware that organisations (shock horror- unions too) change the way they operate all the time? That change and abolition and extinction are not mutually inclusive?

Everyone else seems to grasp my point quite readily, and you seem intelligent, so I can't fathom how you managed to so spectacularily miss the point.

But of course you appear not to want to actually consider that because it seems you already have the conclusion and are now forming an argument to back up the conclusion. Life without unions certainly would not be part of that I imagine.

Of course I have a conclusion. It's called an opinion. And you have yours. And I respect yours. The reason I posted here was to hear the opinions of others. You, on the other hand, seem to consider contrary opinions as heresies which are to be combatted, through misrepresentation if necessary.

As for "now forming an argument to back up the conclusion"- are you for real? I made my argument in my opening post. How I can be accused of making an argument up on the hoof 24 hours into a thread that I started is beyond me.

Trotting out platitudinous nonsense about "majority of good teachers" and "minority of bad teachers" as if you had some scientific information on this cuts as little ice as telling me that some people on the thread agree with you.

I suggest you look up the meaning of platitudinous. My comments viz the majority and the minority are my opinions, based on what I and others experienced in school over 6 years. Nothing platitudinous about it at all.

You need to understand the job unions do. They protect the working conditions of their members. Not liking it does not make it otherwise. It is not their role to assess the work of their members or decide who is or isn't pulling their weight. You are confusing the role of the teaching unions with the Teaching Council and the Department of Education and Science. You can certainly argue - and it's a very old argument with which few would quibble in principle at least - that 'bad teachers' should be identified and rooted out. But suggesting that unions facilitate it shows a remarkable failure to grasp the role of unions.

And you need to understand my point. Everyone else seems to have little difficulty in doing so, whether they agree with me or not. I agree that unions have to protect their members, The point is, that by protecting the interests of a minority of bad teachers (platitude alert!), they do the majority of good teachers a disservice. It's quite a simple point.
As a matter of interest, since you have not expressed a desire for a unionless teaching business what role do you see for the unions if protecting the working conditions of members is clearly not one of them?

BTW, do you find that such a hostile approach to those who hold contrary opinions generally gets results?

Rosita

Einhard wrote: »

As a matter of interest, since you have not expressed a desire for a unionless teaching business what role do you see for the unions if protecting the working conditions of members is clearly not one of them?

You are taking this way too personally. It doesn't matter how many people agree with you and how much I might be in the minority. It really is not that important to 'win the argument'. Nor to speculate about my intelligence. Nor to ask about the effectiveness of "my hostile approach" when you yourself are practically screaming off the PC screen. Nor to continually ask if I am in a union. Can you not have a discussion in the abstract? Does it always have to be personal?

I couldn't care less what your situation with a union is, nor do I see its relevance. Like I said you seem to want to make this personal. You need to take a step back on that and just have the courage of your convictions and stop claing that everyone agrees with you as well as speculating/asking about my personal circumstances. So please leave that out.

But you are not grasping some of the points I am raising - or perhaps you are and don't want to deal with them. For example, I never suggested that you wanted to "banish" unions. Yet, in two posts you have defended yourself against something of which you have not been accused.

I merely suggested that if the question of whether "unions have damaged the standing of teachers" is to be considered then a teaching profession without unions (quite why you cannot seem to envisage this is beyond me) needs to be considered as part of the debate - that is assuming the debate is to be balanced and consider what good (if any) unions might have done to the standing of teaching. But clearly this point will not be dealt with on this forum.

And what on earth is analagous about life without the Gardaí and the judiciary is baffling. It is strange if you see teacher unions as having equal importance/standing to society as policing and judiciary. I'd have thought that the Garda union would be more obviously comparable with the teacher unions than the Gardaí themselves. Many workers operate in a unionless environment. To consider this possibility in the area of teaching is quite reasonable despite your ludicrous reponse. When I suggest banning teaching then you can draw an analogy with banning the Gardaí etc.

But whatever else you might not want to answer or fail to grasp it would be good if you would answer the one question I asked in my last post. Perhaps you deliberately avoided it or maybe didn't notice it in your rush to be seen to reply to every other syllable I wrote but I'll ask it again anyway.

"As a matter of interest, since you have not expressed a desire for a unionless teaching business what role do you see for the unions if protecting the working conditions of members is clearly not one of them?"

Powerhouse

Einhard wrote: »

Indeed, if memory serves me correctly, when moves were made to introduce/strengthen such mechanisms a few years ago, the unions kicked up a fuss.

Can you elaborate?

mrboswell

rainbowtrout wrote: »

I get the point you are making about the perception that teachers in this school are taking sick days when they don't appear to you to be sick. But you said yourself that most of the absence was certified, now you're saying there was no particular reason. What exactly are you saying there? That all of these people went to the doctor and asked for a cert to take time off for a few weeks?

I'm assuming you're subbing there or just recently started there. Do you know the background to all these people and their illnesses? Because if you went into my staffroom in the last two weeks you'd probably think the same. Who knows maybe it was my staffroom you were referring to. There are three science teachers out at the moment, one put her back out a couple of weeks ago, the second has ongoing health issues that she had last year and still has this year, and the third had a dose of tonsilitis and laryngitis. One of the days two weeks ago on top of all that one of the other science teachers was away at inservice and I was the only science teacher of our regular staff in that day. The rest were subs. Does that mean that all the science department in my school are skiving. Of course it doesn't. But it would appear like that to someone in subbing.

I started in the school this year (I don;t think its your school). I don't know the full details, but I am going on what other staff members tell me and they appear to see it as an abuse in some case of some staff.

I also believe that it is not unheard of that doctors will issue sick certs when they are not actually needed. Apparently from the HSE in the West where all the controversy is, they can trace a high number of the sick certs to a particular doctor. I'm not saying that it is the case in schools but obviously where there is a system to abuse, then systemic behavior will form.

I know people will disagree but I think it is only right to question whether bad systemic behavior exists in schools and similarly promote good behavior. Sick leave is only one aspect that I thought of when relating to the unions.

ILikeBananas

It's fascinating reading the responses from one particular poster in this thread. The way they flip between being obtuse and perceptive as it suits their needs is truly impressive. With skills like this they should consider a career with Sinn Fein.

Toto Wolfcastle

ILikeBananas wrote: »

It's fascinating reading the responses from one particular poster in this thread. The way they flip between being obtuse and perceptive as it suits their needs is truly impressive. With skills like this they should consider a career with Sinn Fein.

If you have a problem with a post then please report it rather than commenting on thread. Thank you.

rainbowtrout

mrboswell wrote: »

I started in the school this year (I don;t think its your school). I don't know the full details, but I am going on what other staff members tell me and they appear to see it as an abuse in some case of some staff.

I also believe that it is not unheard of that doctors will issue sick certs when they are not actually needed. Apparently from the HSE in the West where all the controversy is, they can trace a high number of the sick certs to a particular doctor. I'm not saying that it is the case in schools but obviously where there is a system to abuse, then systemic behavior will form.

I know people will disagree but I think it is only right to question whether bad systemic behavior exists in schools and similarly promote good behavior. Sick leave is only one aspect that I thought of when relating to the unions.

They might well be right, but they also might not be. Rather than listen to the Chinese whispers in the corner of the staffroom, make up your own mind about what is going on. I had a run in with my principal 2 years ago which resulted in me having a panic attack in the school - I had never had one before and didn't know what was happening me at the time - it was a horrible experience. I've never had once since either, thankfully. A teacher friend on staff brought me to the doctor who ordered me to take a few days off to rest - certified. When I came back to school I heard back from a couple of people that it had been put around by a certain circle of people on staff that I had mental health problems. I had/have no such thing, but if you listened to certain people, you would believe I was off my rocker.

On the cert thing, that is open to abuse by anyone not just teachers and is an issue within the health service if doctors are giving out certs willy nilly.

mrboswell

rainbowtrout wrote: »

They might well be right, but they also might not be. Rather than listen to the Chinese whispers in the corner of the staffroom, make up your own mind about what is going on. I had a run in with my principal 2 years ago which resulted in me having a panic attack in the school - I had never had one before and didn't know what was happening me at the time - it was a horrible experience. I've never had once since either, thankfully. A teacher friend on staff brought me to the doctor who ordered me to take a few days off to rest - certified. When I came back to school I heard back from a couple of people that it had been put around by a certain circle of people on staff that I had mental health problems. I had/have no such thing, but if you listened to certain people, you would believe I was off my rocker.

On the cert thing, that is open to abuse by anyone not just teachers and is an issue within the health service if doctors are giving out certs willy nilly.

Thats a very fair point well taken.

Certified leave is certified by a doc and it is another issue.

Wispers aside though, I have worked in 3 different schools where a number of people have at least taken one sick day per year when they were not sick and told me so.

rainbowtrout

mrboswell wrote: »

Thats a very fair point well taken.

Certified leave is certified by a doc and it is another issue.

Wispers aside though, I have worked in 3 different schools where a number of people have at least taken one sick day per year when they were not sick and told me so.

Oh I've seen it in my own school too, but I don't believe it's just confined to teaching, but I do accept that it's possibly easier to get away with in the public service rather than in the private sector where people might not get paid for sick leave, lose their bonus for days missed etc.

jonseyblub

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Oh I've seen it in my own school too, but I don't believe it's just confined to teaching, but I do accept that it's possibly easier to get away with in the public service rather than in the private sector where people might not get paid for sick leave, lose their bonus for days missed etc.

The problem is that there is a perception out there that there is systematic abuse of the system in relation to sick days in teaching (and in the public service in general). The people who work in the system i.e us know thats not true for the majority of the workforce but there is a very very small percentage of skivers in every profession and ours is no different. I personally would love a system put in place that would pull these people up on their dishonesty. How that system would work is a different matter altogether because if it had to be set up by the geniuses who came up with the idea of the 33hrs no doubt it would be a disaster.:(

implausible

spurious wrote: »

I blame dosser teachers for being dosser teachers.

Not everything the unions have done has been great, but a huge number of people would not have jobs (even if only on contract) without them.

The DES/VECs should grow a pair and tackle the dossers. You wouldn't find me or many of my colleagues taking industrial action to protect people who make everyone else's job harder.

This. It is the dossers who "have damaged the standing of teachers". The unions protect their members. If every union member had to prove that s/he was not a dosser, no-one would approach the union for help. If you are a member, you are protected (I'm not even going to get into the part-time/permanent whinge, because it simply isn't true.)

The problem with mechanisms to weed out bad teachers is that they affect every teacher. I think that the original hope for WSE and subject inspections was to assess every teacher's performance and in doing so, spot the dossers. The result? We ALL have a tonne of (largely time-wasting and unproductive) paperwork to do and the dossers get it done, covering their asses with...paper!

This 33 hours is to get us ALL to do more (again, time-wasting and unproductive) work. The result? The dossers are in school a few more hours, but do the kids or the school benefit? Not a bit....:rolleyes

Properly documented complaints, over a series of time, from various sources should be investigated properly by school management and passed up the line if found to be with merit. We need a system that is fair, that does not negatively impact on other teachers and that deals with teachers who are struggling professionally and those who are negligent separately.

#15

Einhard wrote: »

I already have. The unions opposed mechanisms to weed out under-performing teachers.

Out of interest, what were the measures?

It really depends on the means of evaluation - the unions would be absolutely correct to oppose US style evaluations, based on test scores and other highly unreliable metrics.

How rigorous and how reliable were the measures proposed?

I'm not a fan of Irish teacher unions btw but I think your criticism, in this instance, appears baseless.

golden virginia

I got injured in school. I had to have surgery as a direct consequence of it. My predecessor in my job also got injured about 15 years before i did, and was was in traction in hospital for weeks.

What is the problem with a teacher having access to a sick cert?