nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Recording not allowed in Welfare Offices

Brae100

I was an an Intreo Office yesterday (rebadged Social Welfare office). There were numerous signs stating that videoing or recording is not allowed. Is this legal?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

uck51js9zml2yt

bobbyss wrote: »

I think you may have misunderstood my post and my apologies for any lack of clarity on my part.

I have not been in a dole office for a long, long time and any time I have been in a Garda station I have never noticed any such rule posted. I didn't know such a rule existed.

Many posts above talk about the rules of the building etc. (One poster above says:'their building, their rules'. Their building? Just to be clear, I am not talking about private property, I am talking about the public's building ie our buildings).

But I am not talking about rules posted on noticeboards.

I am talking about laws and statutes.

What law prohibits me from recording in the manner described?

Apologies again for lack of clarity, but the above question is clear enough.

They are not "your" buildings.
They are state owned, Funded by the taxpayer but with the purpose of running the country.
They are people's places of work.
You dont own the people. You have no right to photograph them without their permission while they are doing their job.

ohnonotgmail

TomOnBoard wrote: »

This thread is now on the 8th page, and I havent seen anyone deal with the original question that you have reiterated a number of times. What is the legal basis for the prohibition?

are you responding to yourself or did you log in to the wrong account?

[Deleted User]

bobbyss wrote:

Many posts above talk about the rules of the building etc. (One poster above says:'their building, their rules'. Their building? Just to be clear, I am not talking about private property, I am talking about the public's building ie our buildings).

Their building yes. The manager is the boss of the building /office. The manager of the building acts on behalf of his/her boss. Public & private buildings alike. So even if it is the branch manager they have the right to make & post rules on behalf of their boss

It's really not that difficult to grasp.

Here we go

Would context effect people’s taughts on this ? In one case some one being aggressive and rude to staff trying to get a response . Case two a secret recording of staff bullying customer and telling them there payments would be stoped even if they had no reason to stop them ?

ohnonotgmail

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Their building yes. The manager is the boss of the building /office. The manager of the building acts on behalf of his/her boss. Public & private buildings alike. So even if it is the branch manager they have the right to make & post rules on behalf of their boss

It's really not that difficult to grasp.

It seems to be a lot more difficult than you would think going by some of the responses here.

TomOnBoard

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

A public building is not owned by the public.

What??

ohnonotgmail

TomOnBoard wrote: »

What??

the statement is clear. What is it you dont understand?

TomOnBoard

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

are you responding to yourself or did you log in to the wrong account?

Doh! My bad! Thanks. Post edited..

bobbyss

TomOnBoard wrote:

This thread is now on the 8th page, and I havent seen anyone deal with the original question that you have reiterated a number of times. What is the legal basis for the prohibition?

Yes indeed.
I can't put it any clearer I am afraid.

[Deleted User]

TomOnBoard wrote:

My posts clearly referred to audio recordings, and then solely for the purposes of keeping records of my own interaction(s) with officials. In such cases, their work is dealing with my service.

Your audio recorder can record my personal details and data for that matter (someone will bring up GDPR I'm sure). I might be talking about my children & their disabilities or needs. I might be talking about my wife or how my payment was late and we have no food.

There are very good reasons for this rule.

In the police station where they have the same rule. I could be totally innocent out on bail but having to sign on in the station each day. Whatever I want to talk to the Gardai about you should not be allowed to record.

Again. Same rule in court. It there an actual law proventing you recording in court? Or is it just another sensible rule?

[Deleted User]

ohnonotgmail wrote:

It seems to be a lot more difficult than you would think going by some of the responses here.

What can I say? Even the best teacher in the world can't teach a pupil not willing to learn

cobhguy28

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

bobbyss wrote: »

I think you may have misunderstood my post and my apologies for any lack of clarity on my part.

I have not been in a dole office for a long, long time and any time I have been in a Garda station I have never noticed any such rule posted. I didn't know such a rule existed.

Many posts above talk about the rules of the building etc. (One poster above says:'their building, their rules'. Their building? Just to be clear, I am not talking about private property, I am talking about the public's building ie our buildings).

But I am not talking about rules posted on noticeboards.

I am talking about laws and statutes.

What law prohibits me from recording in the manner described?

Apologies again for lack of clarity, but the above question is clear enough.

there does not need to be a law prohibiting it. A public building is not owned by the public. It is owned by whatever government department is using it or perhaps by the OPW.

"It is owned by whatever government department is using it or perhaps by the OPW They have as much right to set rules of entry and conduct as any other premises owner."

Yes the owner, So where has the OPW or the department made this rule. No one has shown this

TomOnBoard

You have an obligation to respect my privacy. That is my right. On the other hand, while you are engaged in the performance of your duties, you dont have any right to privacy in respect of what what you say or do while providing me with the service for which you are paid a salary by the State. So your need for privacy doesnt undermine my need to fully and completely record my interaction with you. As soon as you go into the area of your office that is reserved for staff, my rights to fair procedure remain in force, but your deliberative processes may not be accessible to me. And thats OK.

This should never arise! If it does, such an infringement will arise whether I am audio recording our interaction or not. The infringement is arising because your premises are not conducive to proper service provision on a confidential basis and you are failing to respect my privacy. More and more, the installation of glass screens with small holes or intercom systems mean we cant hear you and you cant hear us unless we shout. Thats down to you as the service provider to resolve.

Perhaps the fact that "they genuinely believe the f..g government is wreckin' me head" is because thet actually do believe that! That said, there's absolutely no excuse for anyone to abuse, intimidate, demean anybody in the performance of their duties. You have a right to be treated with the same respect and decency with which you treat your clients.

If such clients record your interaction, and you have treated them fairly, you've nothing to fear. If theyre being abusive, perhaps you need to have your own audio recording so that you can bring your own procedures for dealing with unruly clients to bear. If you havent treated them fairly, well thats on you.

Look, I get the horrible job many public facing staff have to contend with. Indeed, my heart goes out to ppl behind the front desk when I see/hear some of the massive sense of entitlement that underlies peoples' actions and attitudes. However, that an issue that needs to be dealt with anyway, and is not directly related to the recording issue.

cobhguy28

Sleeper12 wrote: »

bobbyss wrote:

Many posts above talk about the rules of the building etc. (One poster above says:'their building, their rules'. Their building? Just to be clear, I am not talking about private property, I am talking about the public's building ie our buildings).

Their building yes. The manager is the boss of the building /office. The manager of the building acts on behalf of his/her boss. Public & private buildings alike. So even if it is the branch manager they have the right to make & post rules on behalf of their boss

It's really not that difficult to grasp.

"The manager of the building acts on behalf of his/her boss" The Boss is an office not a person as such it can only act within the powers it is set. If it can delegate, it has to be set someone a right to do something. The interaction of public servants and the public is regulated by policy and law. A branch manager can not change that unless they is a written policy/law that allows him So for the umpteen time is there a rule that allows this or is it a bluff by putting up signs.

bobbyss

You certainly have rights to privacy.
But when you are in a public accessible place you have no expectation of privacy. Just like someone could take your photo if you were walking down the street.

[Deleted User]

cobhguy28 wrote:

"The manager of the building acts on behalf of his/her boss" The Boss is an office not a person as such it can only act within the powers it is set. If it can delegate, it has to be set someone a right to do something. The interaction of public servants and the public is regulated by policy and law. A branch manager can not change that unless they is a written policy/law that allows him So for the umpteen time is there a rule that allows this or is it a bluff by putting up signs.

The boss is an office? Are you on drugs? An office is a building. A building can't be a boss.

The ultimate boss of the dole office is the minister I'd imagine. He/she can't make every decision on every detail in every building.
They delegate. There is a chain of command from the minister right down to the front line staff.

Do you honestly think that the sign in the staff room saying that you must clean up after yourself came from the minister? They delegate right down to office managers. There doesn't have to be a law to cover these rules.

What law prohibites recording on court property even on the outside court grounds? Have you a link to this law? It's not a law but a rule. But break the rule & you will be arrested for contempt of court (comtempt of court rules)

TomOnBoard

Try and read what is being posted. I said:

"while you are engaged in the performance of your duties, you dont have any right to privacy in respect of what you say or do while providing me with the service for which you are paid a salary by the State."

When youre in work and doing your job in the circumstances outlined, you are acting as a servant/agent of your office. So when you speak, it is not Mary Smith the private citizen who speaks, but Ms Smith the Appeals Officer, for and on behalf of your employer. So anything you say to me pertains to my case and you can have no expectation of privacy in respect of my recording, noting or communicating your statement(s).

[Deleted User]

bobbyss wrote: »

You certainly have rights to privacy.
But when you are in a public accessible place you have no expectation of privacy. Just like someone could take your photo if you were walking down the street.

So you've no problem if I take your photo next time you're taking a leak in the gents in your local pub then?

TomOnBoard

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So you've no problem if I take your photo next time you're taking a leak in the gents in your local pub then?

I thought we were in the Legal Discussion forum, not After Hours!!

cobhguy28

Sleeper12 wrote: »

cobhguy28 wrote:

"The manager of the building acts on behalf of his/her boss" The Boss is an office not a person as such it can only act within the powers it is set. If it can delegate, it has to be set someone a right to do something. The interaction of public servants and the public is regulated by policy and law. A branch manager can not change that unless they is a written policy/law that allows him So for the umpteen time is there a rule that allows this or is it a bluff by putting up signs.

The boss is an office? Are you on drugs? An office is a building. A building can't be a boss.

The ultimate boss of the dole office is the minister I'd imagine. He/she can't make every decision on every detail in every building.
They delegate. There is a chain of command from the minister right down to the front line staff.

Do you honestly think that the sign in the staff room saying that you must clean up after yourself came from the minister? They delegate right down to office managers. There doesn't have to be a law to cover these rules.

What law prohibites recording on court property even on the outside court grounds? Have you a link to this law? It's not a law but a rule. But break the rule & you will be arrested for contempt of court (comtempt of court rules)

"The boss is an office? Are you on drugs? An office is a building. A building can't be a boss. "

Sorry maybe I should of simplified it for you, Office is a legal term. So Minsters hold office. Mayors hold office. When they act, they are not acting in their personal capacity, they are acting on behalf and exercising the powers of the office. So the person keeps changing but the office stays.

"Do you honestly think that the sign in the staff room saying that you must clean up after yourself came from the minister? They delegate right down to office managers."

Yes they delegate some so yes an office manager can assign staff tasks, look after the office, they do not set out how staff interact with clients, That is policy set by the department. follow?

"What law prohibites recording on court property even on the outside court grounds?"

"The matter appears to be one governed by the inherent jurisdiction of the court on the same general principles as those relating to sound recordings. It is, however, generally accepted that photographs may not be taken in court, nor may the proceedings be televised or video recorded without permission" http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/consultation papers/cpContempt.htm

TomOnBoard

Among many other things, my right to maintain a comprehensive record of all interactions with officials (which you classify as a 'sense of entitlement' ) comes from the unenumerated right to fair procedures in decision making in the Irish Constitution as defined by the Irish Courts...

bobbyss

AndrewJRenko wrote:

So you've no problem if I take your photo next time you're taking a leak in the gents in your local pub then?

We are talking about publically accessible parts of public buildings.

[Deleted User]

TomOnBoard wrote:

Among many other things, my right to maintain a comprehensive record of all interactions with officials (which you classify as a 'sense of entitlement' ) comes from the unenumerated right to fair procedures in decision making in the Irish Constitution as defined by the Irish Courts...

The management reserves the right to refuse admission. This covers public buildings too. So here's the deal. Try to record & you will be removed. Interview terminated. You have an issue with that then file a complaint explaining how you believe that the rule is not a real rule.

That's how the real world works

TomOnBoard

Sleeper12 wrote: »

The management reserves the right to refuse admission. This covers public buildings too. So here's the deal. Try to record & you will be removed. Interview terminated. You have an issue with that then file a complaint explaining how you believe that the rule is not a real rule.

That's how the real world works

Wow! I invoke a Constitutional right and you turf me out??? And "that's how the real world works"???

So basically the Public Services are there for the convenience of the staff employed, rather than for the people they were designed to serve???

Nope! Thankfully, the vast bulk of Public Servants would be horrified with that view. As a Public Servant who worked for 40 years, I know that I am...

bobbyss

TomOnBoard wrote:

Wow! I invoke a Constitutional right and you turf me out??? And "that's how the real world works"???

TomOnBoard wrote:

So basically the Public Services are there for the convenience of the staff employed, rather than for the people they were designed to serve???

TomOnBoard wrote:

Nope! Thankfully, the vast bulk of Public Servants would be horrified with that view. As a Public Servant who worked for 40 years, I know that I am...

Yes indeed.
How you would be 'removed' would be interesting. 'Removed' no less.
Sounds like a Nazi state going on.

[Deleted User]

TomOnBoard wrote:

So basically the Public Services are there for the convenience of the staff employed, rather than for the people they were designed to serve???

Nope you keep saying for the convenience of the staff employed. That wrong. The no recording rule is for the protection of the public queueing at the desk and shouting persona information through the glass panel. These people have a right to dignity. I believe dignity is now in the social welfare constitution. Your right isn't greater than someone's dignity.

I suppose you believe that the exact same rule in Garda stations isn't a real rule too? No recording or photos in Garda stations

[Deleted User]

bobbyss wrote:

Yes indeed. How you would be 'removed' would be interesting. 'Removed' no less. Sounds like a Nazi state going on.

The dole office has security. They remove people from time to time. Break a rule and you must leave. Light a cigarette and out you go. Shout at staff and they put you out. There's nothing unusual about that.

cobhguy28

Nine page wow. So did anyone do any research. I did.
https://www.welfare.ie/en/downloads/CodeofConductforOfficeInterviews.pdf
"5.13 As outlined on the “customer interview card,” it may be mentioned that it is Departmental policy not to allow a customer to record the interview with a mobile phone or other electronic equipment."
So It is a Department policy that does not allow you to record.

However it does seem strange considering this,
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/social-welfare-interviews-behind-closed-doors-not-standard-1.2735937

"Social welfare interviews behind closed doors ‘not standard’
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Lack of CCTV recording leaves both parties vulnerable to false accusations, says judge"[/font]

Riggie

When you enter an INTREO/Social Welfare office you are doing so as a member of the public seeking assistance.

You wait in a PUBLIC area with others who like you require assistance/information with whatever personal AND/OR private issues which you do not wish to have made public.

When you attend these offices you present at a public counter with a simple partition separating you and the customer beside you as you both speak with an officer about your personal issues.

So if I attended this office and started taping/recording my interactions there is no guarantee that it would not pick up another customers information as well.

This would be a serious breach data protection of the third party as they would not have wished to have their interactions enter into the public domain.

THIS is why you a prohibited from taking recordings in public offices.

TomOnBoard

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Nope you keep saying for the convenience of the staff employed. That wrong. The no recording rule is for the protection of the public queueing at the desk and shouting persona information through the glass panel. These people have a right to dignity. I believe dignity is now in the social welfare constitution. Your right isn't greater than someone's dignity.

So, its ok for the client to have to shout personal information through the glass panel?? Surely the person's right to dignity has already been denied by virtue of the very fact that theyre being forced to shout personal information in that way. That is a disgraceful manner in which to deliver a service. In those circumstances, that client's right to privacy has already been compromised also, as I, and others in the public area can overhear everything; my right to maintain a complete record of MY interaction with the service has done nothing that undermines the other client's privacy or dignity further than has already been undermined by Social Welfare themselves..

Furthermore, with all the verbal bedlam that you are describing taking place, it it even more crucial for MY ability to understand how MY case is being dealt with, that I can have an accurate record.

Otherwise, your point therefore is that because the Social Welfare office cannot provide the degree of privacy that clients are entitled to, I'm not entitled to fair procedure..

Give me a break!