We are all in this together, well not if you are in a union.

Really2

tomterm8 wrote: »

If they are working for the money, why shouldn't they use every means at their disposal to get as much of it as possible? Including strikes, and at the ballot box.

If they do I hope they get sacked if they do. A pay freeze is not a worthy reason to strike in the current situation. (and arguing it is a cut in "real" terms)
Public sector debt is too high, so public sector has to do it's bit or suffer the same consequences the private sector does.
If they do not it will effect the education of the next generation, not really fair IMHO as a whole they are here because of us and have not been a cause.

tomterm8

The things it, really2, you are entitled to your opinion, but the law is that it is legal in this country to strike to improve your pay and conditions , especially in the scenario that your employer is unilaterally changing the terms and conditions of your contract. It is illegal to fire someone for taking part in a legal strike.

In any case, you can't fire entire teaching unions without bringing the country to a halt.

lostinrates

dopester wrote: »

Same here. As a younger man I once worked at Rothschilds but couldn't stand it or the work. Went into something completely different, for less money, but which gives personal satisfaction. However I didn't realise Labour would sit back and allow a massive credit expansion.

How fascinating. I never would have imagined you in that sort of thing. Anyway, life is about the unexpected I think. If we knew what was happening we could all make a great life plan, I know I had one! but there would still be people who had fewer opportunities/abilities.

Really2

lostinrates wrote: »

ROFL. Its a debate forum though, the point of debate is to run out both sides of an argument.

I do, both are wrong
I just find the place so inconsistent, but I enjoy a good debate, I just find the idea of this strike very wrong IMHO.

Really2

tomterm8 wrote: »

The things it, really2, you are entitled to your opinion, but the law is that it is legal in this country to strike to improve your pay and conditions , especially in the scenario that your employer is unilaterally changing the terms and conditions of your contract. It is illegal to fire someone for taking part in a legal strike.

In any case, you can't fire entire teaching unions without bringing the country to a halt.

Goes back to my old point of blackmail and unions. (lets hope some are judge illegal then, what are the contractual pay rights of teachers and public sector?)

I hope the torys come in and break them I really do. Stuff like this will destroy the country anyway.

What example is this showing a kid who has parents unemployed and his teachers are striking for more money for the sacrifice of his/her parents getting a job. Possibly damaging their education and for sure mounting debt on to their future life.
Some in the public sector are blind to the situation of the country, perhaps their comfort zones will be tested over the next few years.

tomterm8

I'd have more sympathy for the argument that the strike is wrong, if the people who actually caused the problems - the bankers, the government, and etc had actually had any consequences for their actions. It seems a little harsh to explain that a cleaner on £12k a year in the south east should be the person paying for the deficit, when a banker has a salary in excess of £1million that is practically untaxed for what is, basically, betting with government money.

If the people who caused the problems were part of the solution, then maybe the argument "we are all in this together" would hold water. But it seems to me that we are not all in this together. The rich continue to be rich, the MPs go away with massive failure payouts, and the teachers pay for their failings.

dopester

lostinrates wrote: »

How fascinating. I never would have imagined you in that sort of thing. Anyway, life is about the unexpected I think. If we knew what was happening we could all make a great life plan, I know I had one! but there would still be people who had fewer opportunities/abilities.

I was only very junior lir. Being honest I only got the position from knowing a partner, and being directly employed by him, as an assistant. Taking a job through connections didn't make me feel comfortable. It definitely could have led on to much better things but it was not a life for me. Anyway, back to topic.

Really2

tomterm8 wrote: »

I'd have more sympathy for the argument that the strike is wrong, if the people who actually caused the problems - the bankers, the government, and etc had actually had any consequences for their actions. It seems a little harsh to explain that a cleaner on £12k a year in the south east should be the person paying for the deficit, when a banker has a salary in excess of £1million that is practically untaxed for what is, basically, betting with government money.

If the people who caused the problems were part of the solution, then maybe the argument "we are all in this together" would hold water. But it seems to me that we are not all in this together. The rich continue to be rich, the MPs go away with massive failure payouts, and the teachers pay for their failings.

So you punish every child/ parent for what a few did. (why not just affect the education of those few then?)

So your argument is the public sector should have the same morals of a few fat cat bankers. You don't agree with it so threaten to strike to get the same.:T

Can you not see the irony? (PS many in the banking sector will have paid by losing jobs, pay rises etc, etc. Was their not a levy on bonuses that were contractual? Do you think that should not of happened then?)

tomterm8

Really2 wrote: »

So you punish every child/ parent for what a few did. (why not just affect the education of those few then?)

So your argument is the public sector should have the same morals of a few fat cat bankers. You don't agree with it so threaten to strike to get the same.:T

Can you not see the irony? (PS many in the banking sector will have paid by losing jobs, pay rises etc, etc.)

No one in the banking sector who is to blame has actually suffered at all in this. A few minor people who aren't actually the cause of the problem have suffered.

Here's the thing: what these teachers are doing is not morally wrong. They are under no moral obligation to teach your children. It is a contract. They have every right to try to get the best deal they can. Given that the government is going back on long standing promises, they are entirely morally justified in going on strike. If you can't afford something, you can't have it. If the government genuinly can't afford to pay a decent wage for teachers, then it can't have schools.

It's funny how right wing people seem to have one standard for teachers, and another for everyone else.

Really2

tomterm8 wrote: »

Here's the thing: what these teachers are doing is not morally wrong. They are under no moral obligation to teach your children. It is a contract. They have every right to try to get the best deal they can. Given that the government is going back on long standing promises, they are entirely morally justified in going on strike. If you can't afford something, you can't have it. If the government genuinly can't afford to pay a decent wage for teachers, then it can't have schools.

It's funny how right wing people seem to have one standard for teachers, and another for everyone else.

What are you on about most have seen pay freezes or job losses??? I see it we should all do our bit, it is you agreeing with bankers bonus's because you believe you are entitled to what they have!!!!!!!

I suppose the only good thing to come from a strike is that they wont get paid.
Hopefully they will lose the strike and lose pay at the same time.
Even if they win they will be most probably out of pocket for the year.

But let's face it Unite are losing against BA, NUT could be next.
Strikes need public support, you wont get any so this is doomed from the start.
Give it 2 or 3 rounds and they will be coming back to work. Luckily there is to much household debt to last to long without pay.