Teacher Strikes

[Mathew]

So it seems like the NUT and ATL are on strike next Thursday over pension reforms. About 300,000 teachers will be walking out and pretty much every state school closed, so that's around the 23,000 mark (plus fee-paying schools).

So the question is aimed at those who constantly preach about having the right to do what you like. I know Dan feels strongly about free speech, free actions and doing pretty much as you please because "nobody should be able to tell you what to do"... :rolleyes:

Do these people therefore agree that teachers should be allowed to walk out from their jobs, leave thousands of children without education, and cause even more parents to book extra nursery places or take a day's leave from work?
Just something I've been wondering for a few days because I find some people's opinion somewhat ambiguous.

[Jay.]

Yes we have a great cause to strike against and the only way to get through to the government is to disrupt all of this.

[Mathew]

..or it all just makes you look petty and greedy considering the already high wages. Do what you like for yourselves, but I think disrupting someone's education is just low.

[Jay.]

You do not disrupt education at all. All guidelines that we need to complete still need to be completed regardless of the day off, it's one day which doesn't damage that much of a child's education and my union isn't striking anyway. Wages are low for how much you have to do. Good cause, teachers even waited for SATs to finish.

[Inseriousity.]

Well it's not really about high wages. It's about what happens when you retire. Pensions differ greatly with some barely scraping by and others having enough to go on four holidays a year. Despite that, I do agree that I think unions in general (not just teaching ones) are getting it all wrong. If they want government to change their minds, they need public support and they won't get public support by disrupting services. As for the issue itself, while I think it's understandable to be angry about changes, I also think people should be taught from an early age that they can't rely on their State pension and they should try to put a small percentage of their wage away to save for that.

[Chippiewill]

leave thousands of children without education,

I'd just like to chip in here and point out that the end of the summer term is hardly the high point of education in the year. The only people who would really lose out from this are AS students moving onto A2.

[Jay.]

The younger children do miss out however.

[MizzBex]

I've just left school but I've heard that 2 year groups get the day off and everyone else has lessons as normal because of the strikes!

[dbgtz]

Get another job if they hate the pay/pension plan that much. I never agree to strikes as I think they're absolutely ridiculous and there are better ways to approach problems in the workspace.

Also, isn't it a little bit ironic disrupting the education of future tax payers? Just saying.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Sorry I missed this thread, but i'll be glad to answer the question posed.


So the question is aimed at those who constantly preach about having the right to do what you like. I know Dan feels strongly about free speech, free actions and doing pretty much as you please because "nobody should be able to tell you what to do"... :rolleyes:

Do these people therefore agree that teachers should be allowed to walk out from their jobs, leave thousands of children without education, and cause even more parents to book extra nursery places or take a day's leave from work?

Yes I do believe that, however - with all jobs, it should be up to the employer (along with having this right) that should people strike, they are eligable to be sacked for going upon strike. So for example, if ambulance staff were to go on strike and it was against the contract then the employer should have the right to fire staff without fear of being taken to court.

On one hand you have some conservatives who say that all striking should be banned by law to combat the unions, this however is quite wrong. On the other hand, you have socialists who state that staff should be allowed to strike and that the employer should not be allowed to sack staff whom strike, this is also wrong as it infringes on the rights of the employer. My view is very simple, allow the people to get on with it.

Should staff not choose to go into work thats entirely fine, but should the employer wish to dismiss staff for this that should be within his right.

[Mathew]

Interesting. I just thought I'd enquire because to me, strikes are highly disruptive, petty and sulky; so I just wondered whether you'd come down on one side rather than the other. :P

Thanks.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Interesting. I just thought I'd enquire because to me, strikes are highly disruptive, petty and sulky; so I just wondered whether you'd come down on one side rather than the other. :P

Thanks.

I'm by no means on the sides of the Unions, they are mostly comprised of communists and bullyboys.. I just don't believe government should be involved when it comes down to strikes but then of course thats what happens what you have nationalised industries (the NHS, education, transport) - its asking for it. :P I'm all for people having the freedom to do what they want, workers rights or employers rights... let them get on with it.

[Shar]

I don't see how its disrupting education. GCSE/AS and A2 students have finished their exams, some AS students who are carrying on with A2 will miss a couple of introductory lessons to A2 which won't be much really and I know that they're quite laid back. Students in lower years won't miss much, not because of just a day lol.

UCU, ATL and NUT are on strike to protect their pension, good on them.

[jam666]

UCU, ATL and NUT are on strike to protect their pension, good on them.

Protect their pension? Oh please, it's already gold-plated.

Its very Ironic when you compare pensions across the board. When Gordon brown raided pensions did the unions go up in arms about millions of peoples pensions been descimated? Nope of course they didn't!, the private sector had to take the hit which makes their decision to strike a pathetic attempt at militantism.

Most of the strikers are completely deluded as they sit and complain about their pensions which I must say is one of the more generous pensions in the country and therefore dont deserve any form of sympathy or respect as it is nothing but sheer greed. The heads of the unions are champagne socialists who live the life of luxury whilst they members strike... simply disgraceful.

As far as I'm concerned I would SACK the lot. If they don't like their gold-plated pensions then they can quite frankly open the door and walk out of it never to return, as I guarantee there is lots of people who would be more than willing to take their job WITHOUT a generous pension plan. Anyone who went on strike today should be deeply ashamed of themselves and as I said before sacked.

You could conter this argument that public sector workers generally get paid less than private sector workers but THEY DON'T!. It's a complete lie tuned by the unions to muster member support of which I must say these strikes were supported by a tiny MINORITY of the unions members.

There has also being calls by unions to raid bankers / pensions and impose a bank tax to pay for their (all public sector pension) which is ridiculous as we subcidise them already. However bankers pensions are private sector based and in the minority, whilst I do think they are excessive they are completely justified to have them and on the subject of MP's pensions, there is already reform happening to correct them. What most unions don't realise is that if their fantasy world of taxes on banks came to light the city of london would be decimated more than already is which is bad enough but would significantly weaken our economy due to in part that the financial sector plays a big part in the UK economy. It would also have our American and Asian friends licking their lips but also give plenty of headroom for the terrible twins france / germany.