[ad_1]
We published the text of the contract on distance education (integrated teaching) that was signed by Anief and Cisl Scuola, while Uil Scuola took a decidedly opposite position. Flc-Cgil, Gilda and Snals have decided to consult their national organizations, the decision will arrive in the next few hours.
The contract provides for the possibility of DDI in educational institutions “if the epidemiological trend configures new emergency situations at the national or local level, with suspension of the ordinary modality of face-to-face teaching.”
Article 1 establishes that “the DDI will also be carried out by the teacher in fiduciary quarantine or in fiduciary isolation, but not in certified illness, exclusively for their own classes, if they are also in fiduciary quarantine.”
However, if the classes carry out face-to-face activities, “the teacher in quarantine or fiduciary isolation, but not in certified illness, will carry out the DDI where it is possible to guarantee co-presence with other teachers not involved in the didactic activities provided for by the legal frameworks.”
The UIL clearly objects with a press release highlighting the unshared points that led to the lack of signature.
In the first place, those “in quarantine, who, although not infected, live in family and personal conditions that are psychologically heavy, are not considered at all”, which is why the UIL believes that they should be exempt from DAD.
Another fundamental point is “the precariousness for which no facilitation is provided for connection costs and the purchase of devices.” In addition, “school administrators who are given an increasingly explosive management, complicated by new problems and no solution.”
Furthermore, “the teaching staff for whom in distance learning the same schedule is kept identical to that of normal teaching activities without the breaks provided for workers working at the video terminal also has enormous consequences on health, so someone will have to answer; the use of numerous computer platforms is not even considered to expose them to the violation of privacy ”.
[ad_2]
