SU Welfare officer

cambridge

Hi guys,

Just doing some research on the current SU officer Tara Feeney.

How do you think she has kept her promises to the student body based on her manifesto?

• Fresh Approach to Welfare
• Compassion for others
• A person you can always trust
• Hardworking(sic) and Dedicated

She promised to remove the FF stench DD left when he was welfare officer? I think she achieve this.

Compassion for others. Sound like something that's easy to say and impossible to prove. Undetermined.

She promised to be trust worthy? Do we feel she did her job properly? Was that a betrayal of trust?

Hard working? Dedicated? I don't think anyone would be under the impression that Tara is particularly hard working, certainly not compared to KOB

• Working for you
• Making Welfare more Accessible
• Re-instate an Open Door Policy
• Late Drop in Hours for Students
• Free Condoms
• Real Support for Health Science Students

did she make welfare more accessible? Was it a open door policy. I personally wouldn't even consider going to talk to some 22 year old girl with no training in counselling or guidance about anything relating to welfare. Maybe 22 year old girls or younger would find her less useless.

Late drop in ours? What time is late?

Free condoms. I think there are free condoms in the su, did tara get them organised?

"real support for health science students". Who ever health science students are? Nurses and midwives? Did she do anything in the nursing students pay dispute? No she did nothing at all.

Reinstate Free Condoms:
I believe there are better ways to raise money for charity than jeopardising your sexual health. If you elect me I will reinstate completely free contraception and make it less intimidating to get access to it.

Frankly the woman can't distinguish between contraception and prophylactic STI prevention. Free contraception? How many people got the mirena coil off the welfare officer. This is one of these things about the welfare officer, you have this person who doesn't know anything about sex or contraception or STIs trying to give guidance and advice on it. Basically she could be replaced with a phone number for thinkcontraction, rape crisis centre and positive options.

The aim is get people having safer and more enjoyable sex

really? Shag week? What was it? a couple of stands with some leaflets from the already mentioned organisations. ...let's just say no.

Body image awareness? mental health awareness?

What does everyone else week? I'd kindly ask personal friends of Tara who have no anecdotal or real opinion to officer to refrain from shilling her up.

cambridge

Let this serve as a warning to anyone who writes fiction on their election manifesto, I will not tolerate any lies, deceit, fantasy etc.

harrythehat

I know very little about the girl, but you seem to have something against her that goes beyond your feelings on her performance as welfare officer.

cambridge

nothing personal, never met her, seen her around college. Heard she's a lovely person. I also heard KOB is a lovely person, I also heard Paddy Rockett is a great lad to go on the piss, and I also heard once you get a few pints into DD he's a lot less wooden.

I am not talking about tara feeney the girl next door, your friend. I am talking about tara feeney the welfare officer, the person that got paid 28,000 to overview the welfare of thousands of students. The person who has degree in psychology, who has never had a career or any professional experience other than that work experience thing.

There is nothing personal about this post, don't worry, all the candidates will get this treatment as will all su officers.

People seem to forget these su officers are ELECTED based on PROMISES and are paid SALARIES and nobody goes looking for ACCOUNTABILITY.

I don't give a flying **** if Tara feeney is the nicest person in the world, the daughter of mother theresa and a descendent of gandi, all i want to know is did she do her job. If not why not.

cambridge

nothing personal, never met her, seen her around college. Heard she's a lovely person. I also heard KOB is a lovely person, I also heard Paddy Rockett is a great lad to go on the piss, and I also heard once you get a few pints into DD he's a lot less wooden.

I am not talking about tara feeney the girl next door, your friend. I am talking about tara feeney the welfare officer, the person that got paid 28,000 to overview the welfare of thousands of students. The person who has degree in psychology, who has never had a career or any professional experience other than that work experience thing.

There is nothing personal about this post, don't worry, all the candidates will get this treatment as will all su officers.

People seem to forget these su officers are ELECTED based on PROMISES and are paid SALARIES and nobody goes looking for ACCOUNTABILITY.

I don't give a flying **** if Tara feeney is the nicest person in the world, the daughter of mother theresa and a descendent of gandi, all i want to know is did she do her job. If not why not.

freyners

you really dont know anything about the welfare position do you.

harrythehat

cambridge wrote: »

I am not talking about tara feeney the girl next door, your friend. I am talking about tara feeney the welfare officer, the person that got paid 28,000 to overview the welfare of thousands of students. The person who has degree in psychology, who has never had a career or any professional experience other than that work experience thing.

No sabbat who has taken the position has had any amount of experience. It's not their fault. As you have to be a current student to run, only mature students would be able to run if they needed to have experience. Whatever about the rest of your post, that point makes no sense.

I don't know how well Tara has done her job. The most importance things the WO does are done behind closed doors; helping minority students and those who need financial aid.

For all you know, she may have carried out these functions perfectly.

cambridge

harrythehat wrote: »

No sabbat who has taken the position has had any amount of experience. It's not their fault. As you have to be a current student to run, only mature students would be able to run if they needed to have experience. Whatever about the rest of your post, that point makes no sense.

that's essentially it. no accountability, can't be sacked. students are never qualified enough to do the jobs they're paid to do so we should stop paying them.

I don't know how well Tara has done her job. The most importance things the WO does are done behind closed doors; helping minority students and those who need financial aid.

For all you know, she may have carried out these functions perfectly.

for all i know she carried out these functinos abysmally. where are all the anecdotal stories saying " i had an issue and tara was brill"

cambridge

freyners wrote: »

you really dont know anything about the welfare position do you.

i do.

J_E

I've had personal and financial problems in the past and Tara was brilliant in dealing with it. Understanding, caring, and very helpful.

cambridge

sure you did.

more like you were stuck for a drink in the lodge and she bought you a shot.

Jester252

I wonder if the mods would allow an offical bitch about the SU thread?

cambridge

why wouldn't they?

J_E

cambridge wrote: »

sure you did.

more like you were stuck for a drink in the lodge and she bought you a shot.

I really did. I can't speak for all people, only from the 2-3 times I've needed something sorted. She seemed polite and willing to help me, rang the people she needed to, gave me some good advice. She's one of the only sabbats who hasn't really been involved in some sort of feud or problem. That's just me though.
(just for reference, don't really drink and most certainly not shots in the Lodge!!!)

I do think it's good that you are challenging the sabbats though, even if it's a little more aggressive than necessary. I've only been in the college half a year like yourself though so I can't really compare the current officers to anything but surely if she didn't do her job she would have been shown up by now?

deise go deo

cambridge wrote: »

that's essentially it. no accountability, can't be sacked. students are never qualified enough to do the jobs they're paid to do so we should stop paying them.



for all i know she carried out these functinos abysmally. where are all the anecdotal stories saying " i had an issue and tara was brill"

This is being changed.


Have you come accross any anecdotal stories saying ''I had an issue and Tara was sh1t''?

freyners

cambridge wrote: »

i do.

i really doubt that

if your comparing the most visible sabbat in terms of wok in public with the welfare officer you demonstrate your ignorance

The large volume of any welfare officers work is behind the scenes, with people who have very sensitive issues that they need to discuss. So forgive them if they cannot go on here and refute baseless claims because some of them might not want it known they had a problem in the first place

and as for this

for all i know she carried out these functinos abysmally. where are all the anecdotal stories saying " i had an issue and tara was brill

if she was **** you would hear about it, people are always quick to give criticism, slow to praise, as you have demonstrated so many times on here

canned_ulkc

cambridge wrote: »

I am not talking about tara feeney the girl next door, your friend. I am talking about tara feeney the welfare officer, the person that got paid 28,000 to overview the welfare of thousands of students.

Officers are not paid 28K.
The cost to the union for each officer is more in the region of 27.5K
What they get PAID is significantly less. The 27.5K cost to the union includes employers PRSI contributions. The net pay to the officer ends up at around 22-23K.

Last night the question was asked from one of the officers about "how many hours do you work?". It was interesting that the question wasn't "how many hours do you get paid for?".

The answer was 100 hours per week.

And people still have the gall to suggest that sabbats should be paid a fiver a day because it's a "calling".

22-23K for people who make that kind of effort - bargain....

reunion

canned_ulkc wrote: »

Officers are not paid 28K.
The cost to the union for each officer is more in the region of 27.5K
What they get PAID is significantly less. The 27.5K cost to the union includes employers PRSI contributions. The net pay to the officer ends up at around 22-23K.

Last night the question was asked from one of the officers about "how many hours do you work?". It was interesting that the question wasn't "how many hours do you get paid for?".

The answer was 100 hours per week.

And people still have the gall to suggest that sabbats should be paid a fiver a day because it's a "calling".

22-23K for people who make that kind of effort - bargain....

While I agree that if they do put in 100 hours every week that 22-23k is a bargain, however, I would take that number with a pinch of salt. No way is anyone working 20 hours a day (5 day work week). If they are, they are taking an extremely relaxed attitude towards the position or are stressing about nothing.

They are paid for a 40 or 44 (can't remember which) hour work week and are paid the minimum wage + €1 per hour. They are the highest paid sabbats in the country.

Derek has said that nobody does it for the money so the wage should be reduced to the minimum wage or the same pay as a PhD student (~€1300 per month). If the sabbats were on €1300 a month, that would save ~€15k a year. With that saving a communications officer could be brought back in or the SU could save €15k a year (Their wage bill is 54k higher than their guaranteed income).

The wage shouldn't be completely abolished as that would affect the standard of work AND the people running for the positions.

canned_ulkc

I get that in fairness. I've heard the thing about highest paid in the country too...
I wouldn't object to a change to wages for sabbats and while 100 hours per sabbat may not be true for everyone they certainly go beyond the 44 hours.

I think the point I wanted to make more than anything is that it's much more important to look at value rather than wage v paid hours.

cambridge

as i said before the salary needs to be slashed.

needs to go down to 36 hour week
needs to go to minimum wage per hour
then they need to take 5k off them and give them all rooms in cappavilla.
this is how you save money.

Bored Accountant

cambridge wrote: »

give them all rooms in cappavilla.

Ah cappavilla might be a bit lush. Sure throw them into plassey or kilmurray!!

cambridge

they can sleep in the bike sheds

Bored Accountant

cambridge wrote: »

they can sleep in the bike sheds

Put all the sabatts together in one house, just so they can't get away from each other and have to get along!

cambridge

TBH they went mad in their big brother bubble this year, they'd actually kill each other if they shared the same apartment.

deise go deo

How about including accomodation for sabatts in the proposed new students center, with a corresponding drop in wage when it becomes available.

cambridge

that's what i said, doesn't matter where you put them. in fairness it wouldn't be fair to put them in the same building that holds their office, their not prisoners!

cambridge

Tara has been very quiet on this subject. She obviously isn't checking boards.ie every minute, we wouldn't want her to miss a moment of countdown or other day time tv. But you have to wonder why she wouldn't want to put the record straight?

is her conscience so guilty she couldn't bear to come on and lie to our faces again defending herself?
does she genuinely not give a hoot what the students think because her job is guaranteed and she's just chilling til next September?
or is she genuinely innocent of the charges of being lazy, unorganised and incompetent?

who knows?

Delta Kilo

cambridge wrote: »

then they need to take 5k off them and give them all rooms in cappavilla.
this is how you save money.

Who is going to pay Plassey Campus Centre?

You are just robbing from peter to pay paul doing that, still going to cost you the same/similar.

cambridge

they might waive it? at least it keeps the money within ul to a certain extent.

bazkennedy

cambridge wrote: »

they might waive it? at least it keeps the money within ul to a certain extent.

good luck with that. UL doesn't work like that

cambridge

why not? it's a non-profit organisation. perhaps the su officer could perform some small jobs like sweep out the bike shed or break parties up or hold the girls hair back when they're puking every where?

ninty9er

This thread has gotten way off topic. I have had, to my memory, 2 individuals email to say they were waiting on responses from Tara. These were sorted as soon as possible.

I've missed emails. When you arrive back after a sick day or 2-3 day's leave there can be upwards of 150 emails (excluding all the university message listings). I've probably had to be reminded of 20/30 emails over the course of 2 and a half years.

I take criticism and measure it against what I'm doing, I don't go about telling everyone about every little thing I do, therefore a lot of people's complaints can relate to the lack of something being done, which is being done.

I'm here for the purpose of getting things done. I've got 12 months and I'm not going to be using time I could otherwise use actually getting things done going looking for individuals who want to know the content of my stomach of the colour of the President's office (can't remember anyway, but the chairs are cream)

reunion

Ok, I have a question, what sabbat doesn't claim to work 90 hours or more? At this stage it's truely ridiculous and unbelievable to hear 90 hours being floated around. You realise that's 13 hours a day for 7 days or 18 hours monday to friday. The SU isn't open that long per week!

Tara, while you may do your job sufficiently, your personal confrontation of an individual who wanted to remain anonymous (and naming on their first name on this forum) is highly inappropraite (and unprofessional), particularly for a welfare officer. I certainly hope you realise data protection laws and allow individuals to remain anonymous when they visit you in your office.

While I agree, Sid_justice is quite annoying on these forums, mods haven't stepped in to ban him and his fake accounts. Where you spend 90 hours in an office, Sid spends posting on boards.

To the mods, this isn't the first case of mods disclosing information about users to individuals on this forum (that I have heard of), can I remind you of the boards charter AND the Data protection act? http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2003/en/act/pub/0006/index.html

canned_ulkc

Tara hasn't said anything that identifies the person other than that they appear to be postgrad & medicine. I think cambridge had previously mentioned these details.

Also of note is that she stated that she frequently works 90 hour weeks. That's not claiming that she always DOES 90 hour weeks.

Personally I am very impressed with the restraint shown by many on these topics. In terms of the mud being thrown at people so often on here lately I actually think that both Tara and Aoife's posts deserve a round of applause.

Anonymity is one thing; cowardice another.

sceptre

I've deleted posts from and sitebanned two user accounts purporting to be the current SU welfare officer and current SU education officer, respectively, having been contacted to inform me that neither account is being used by the people they directly claim to be. In other words, someone with nothing better to do set up two separate accounts to pretend to be two current SU officers and post in this thread.

Given the idiotic nature of the bulk of this thread, with the addition of the above, I don't see an advantage to anyone (especially UL students) of keeping the thread open. Hence I'm locking it.

/mod