Department of Education broke data laws, says report

Victor

Talk about half doing a job...

---

Department of Education broke data laws, says report
By Fiona McCann Last updated: 04-09-01, 15:04

The Department of Education breached data protection law when it used payroll data to withhold pay from teachers during industrial action last year, it emerged today.

According to the Annual Report by the Data Protection Commissioner, which was published today, the Department’s use of the teachers’ payroll database to identify individuals who were members of the trade union involved was against data protection law.

Full story : http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2001/0904/breaking48.htm

---

Kill, kill, kill the laser mice.

Trojan

They also broke the law by not paying them for the "work to rule" days when the schools had to shut down due to no supervision, but thats another argument...

I personally hope the dept gets what it deserves in terms of a major 12-kicking.

Al.

Victor

I thought that they only threatened not to pay - but in the end did pay them?

---

Kill, kill, kill the laser mice.

BKtje

Their pay was witheld before Christmas and was then given to them after Christman. Was told this by my teacher who's a member of the trade union involved. Thats what i heard any way not 100% of accuracy as i was falling asleep in class at the time

Hobbes

I thought the Dept of Education and Revenue Commissioners were the only two departments that didn't fall under the Data Protection Act?

Or it could of been special provisions relating to those departments.

Xterminator

They were dead right not to pay the teachers for those so called 'Work to Rule' days.

It was only union tactics; trying to strike, but still get payed! Their action meant they didnt work for the day, so they dont get payed.

Why dont you try not doing any work for a day in whatever job you're in, and see if your employers tolerate it!

Welcome to the real world!

nucular

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Xterminator:
They were dead right not to pay the teachers for those so called 'Work to Rule' days.

Their action meant they didnt work for the day, so they dont get payed.

Why dont you try not doing any work for a day in whatever job you're in, and see if your employers tolerate it!

Welcome to the real world! </font>

Have you ever heard of a job description . I am not saying anything about whether I agree with the Teachers tactics or not but a "Work to Rule" is a valid way to make a point if a grievance has been made and isn't being dealt with. The employess are doing what they are contractually obliged to by law. In simple terms they are doing the job they are paid to do. No more , No Less and therefore they should be paid.

Anyway perhaps this is wandering off topic.

BKtje

The teachers did no work?
i know for a fact that they did work cos they had no end of 'hand outs' to give us and extra homework to correct from our days off and they had them corrected pretty damn quick. Dont know what it was like in other schools but my teaches unfortunately still worked damn hard.

Trojan

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Xterminator:
They were dead right not to pay the teachers for those so called 'Work to Rule' days.
</font>

eh, lol? What a stupid thing to say.

"Work to rule" means you work. In accordance with the rules. Of course they should have been paid.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Xterminator:

It was only union tactics; trying to strike, but still get payed! Their action meant they didnt work for the day, so they dont get payed. </font>

Their action was to announce that they were going to work in accordance with their contracts. As most normal people do *everyday*.

Unfortunately for the DeptEd, it discovered that it is not possible to keep a school open unless the teachers do voluntary, unpaid work.

So the DeptEd closed the schools (they told the principals to close). Don't even think of blaming the teachers for that.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Xterminator:

Why dont you try not doing any work for a day in whatever job you're in, and see if your employers tolerate it!</font>

They wouldn't, rightly. Now if I worked in SpinSol it might be different...

Ok, here's an analogy... lets say that it is my job currently involves spending my coffee breaks making sure that none of my cow-orkers left their workstation screens unlocked. I roam around the place doing this, and it takes longer and longer as more people are hired. I decide that enough is enough, I'm not getting paid for this, I'm getting paid too little for my real job which is development, and totally unrelated, and I'm missing hours of breaks every month, so I decided not to do it any more. I tell my manager that I won't be doing it on certain days next month. If my manager (i.e. principal) then told me not to come to work because the company couldn't stay open unless I did my checks, well then, I wouldn't go to work ... I would not be on strike however...

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Xterminator:

Welcome to the real world! </font>

You obviously live in a different one to the rest of us...

Al.

p

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by B-K-DzR:
The teachers did no work?
i know for a fact that they did work cos they had no end of 'hand outs' to give us and extra homework to correct from our days off and they had them corrected pretty damn quick. Dont know what it was like in other schools but my teaches unfortunately still worked damn hard.</font>

Yea, but they still had a day off in which to get that done, whereas normally they'd only have the evenings.

I don't think most schools were as good as yours.


- Kevin

Victor

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Trojan:
Ok, here's an analogy... lets say that it is my job currently involves spending my coffee breaks making sure that none of my cow-orkers left their workstation screens unlocked. I roam around the place doing this, and it takes longer and longer as more people are hired. I decide that enough is enough, I'm not getting paid for this, I'm getting paid too little for my real job which is development, and totally unrelated, and I'm missing hours of breaks every month, so I decided not to do it any more. I tell my manager that I won't be doing it on certain days next month. If my manager (i.e. principal) then told me not to come to work because the company couldn't stay open unless I did my checks, well then, I wouldn't go to work ... I would not be on strike however...</font>

Very witty, not. What if you were scheduled to do that work, if you were paid for it, if you got your break at some other time?

Or if you had always done it (well, for years) and suddenly you didn't do it, and someone f***ed up someone else's machine. It's called legitimate expectation. Another example of legitimate expectation would be where if your boss always pays you at Friday lunchtime, so you can go to the bank - this has now become a condition of you employment, even if you haven't yet earned Friday afternoon's pay. If suddenly you don't get your cheque at Friday lunchtime, that will be a breach of your contract.

And anyway if anyone only works 5.75 hours a day (yes, I am making an assumption here, but it is the typical, teaching contact hours are about 22 hours per week), they would not be entitled to 1.25 hours in breaks under employment law.

They are muppets (ask anyone who has been to school) out to get more money, for no return.

---

Kill, kill, kill the laser mice.

Trojan

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Victor:
Very witty, not. What if you were scheduled to do that work, if you were paid for it, if you got your break at some other time?</font>

Great, that'd be wonderful. I didn't see that happening last year, did you? (and if you did, you obviously live in the same world as that other muppet up above).

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Victor:
And anyway if anyone only works 5.75 hours a day (yes, I am making an assumption here, but it is the typical, teaching contact hours are about 22 hours per week), they would not be entitled to 1.25 hours in breaks under employment law.
</font>

I think that they come under seperate agreements since there is a lot of "extra-curricular" work for teachers to do.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Victor:
They are muppets (ask anyone who has been to school) out to get more money, for no return.</font>

My dad has been a teacher for 20 years. He is extremely fit. I tell you this in order to make my next point hit you more clearly: he had a heart attack 2 years ago. Nothing to do with his general state of fitness or any of that sh!te. Pure and simply, there was one reason and one reason alone: stress.

Fair enough, some teachers genuinely don't give a damn, but there's a lot of them who do. Why is there a desperate shortage of teachers this year? Why didn't more qualify and go on to teach somewhere? Because it's neither a satisfying, pleasant or fulfilling job to do anymore. It's also not very well paid by todays standards, especially at the entry level.

No ex-student of any school is going to say that their teachers were non-muppets, be realistic, thats a stupid point.

You can do better than that, but I think I'll step away from this argument, don't want to get too stressed.

Al.

Victor

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Hobbes:
I thought the Dept of Education and Revenue Commissioners were the only two departments that didn't fall under the Data Protection Act?

Or it could of been special provisions relating to those departments. </font>

The word 'education' does not seem to appear in the act. See the Irish Statute Book

There are special provisions relating in particular to the Garda and Defence Forces. Certificates can be issued by senior officers, exempting information, but more specificly look at section 8 of the act.

There are further provisions in relation to the other organisations and generally.

For some reason there is a "PUBLIC AUTHORITIES AND OTHER BODIES AND PERSONS" list at the back of the act that doesn't seem to make much sense.

---

Kill, kill, kill the laser mice.

Victor

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Trojan:
I think that they come under seperate agreements since there is a lot of "extra-curricular" work for teachers to do.</font>

Like making new creche students?

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Trojan:
My dad has been a teacher for 20 years. He is extremely fit. I tell you this in order to make my next point hit you more clearly: he had a heart attack 2 years ago. Nothing to do with his general state of fitness or any of that sh!te. Pure and simply, there was one reason and one reason alone: stress. </font>

I'm sorry to hear this. But teachers don't have a monopoly on stress. Teachers are (at times) delighted when the muppetty students don't come to school. In construction, if one muppet doesn't come to work, days of work and thousands (if not tens of thousands) of pounds can be lost. Try doing a building for a few million pounds in a shorter timeframe than you are happy with, on a dangerous site, without adequate information, with a tight client who is slow with money and then they are "not quite happy with it".

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Fair enough, some teachers genuinely don't give a damn</font>

Too many don't give a damn.

---

Kill, kill, kill the laser mice.

nesf

I'm not sure if the strike days counted as "work to rule". They withdrew an essential sevice to the running of the school where they were the majority of the workforce. When they withdrew supervision, it wasn't feasible for classes to run, and thus for them to teach. Their job description would include them teaching would it not? So if they withdraw a sevice which then presents a situation where they can't fulfill their job, then why should they be paid??

All I'm saying is that the teachers who refused to supervise, knew the results of such an action. They were responsible for the schools not opening, and from that responsible for them being unable to fulfill their job specifications. This wasn't the only form of protest available to them. Closing down entire schools was not the responsible option. When it comes down to it, the education of the present schoolchildren is far more important then how much teachers should think they should get.

Also teachers directly compare their jobs with other industry areas, where an employee must put in more hours, and have no where near the same level of job security.

Also today tbh teaching is not an elite job capable of being performed by a small number of people, alot of Irish adults have the knowledge to teach classes, esp 1st and 2nd year groups, and from personal experience its alot tougher to teach primary school children than those in second level.

Should we have any sympathy for a workforce that did reduce the amount of education supplied this year? I'm not talking about honours student who can take a worksheet and puzzle it out at home, but what about all the kids who find school difficult without all these mid-week disruptions??