Teachers strike on Thursday

Spendless

gregg1 wrote: »

YOU HAVE TO BE KIDDING!!!!!

Here we have yet another person who seems to know all there is to know about a job they have never done !!!!!

Just like assumptions made by people who haven't worked in the private sector?

milliebear00001 wrote: »

Yep, those teachers are always mooning aren't they!?

Do you mean the 'real world' where all the employees rolled over, didn't strike and allowed their employers to shaft them over pensions...

...and are now so bitter about it that they hate anybody with a bit of backbone who stands up for theirs?

There's not always unions in an industry connected to the private sector. DH has worked in same industry for almost 30 years, there's never been a union. He's had his pension contributions reduced for the past 3 years and took a pay cut 2 years ago.

I've had various different jobs since leaving school in the mid 1980s, there's been a union at a place I worked once.

Yes, it totally sucks having to work till 68. When I started my working life, the retirement age was 60, but aren't we all going to have to accept this? I don't completely agree with the public sector earn less either, this may be true for some areas of the country, but not all. Public sector workers where I live are higher paid than most private sector ones, where the huge majority of job are at NMW or just above.

milliebear00001

Spendless wrote: »

Just like assumptions made by people who haven't worked in the private sector?
There's not always unions in an industry connected to the private sector. DH has worked in same industry for almost 30 years, there's never been a union. He's had his pension contributions reduced for the past 3 years and took a pay cut 2 years ago.

I've had various different jobs since leaving school in the mid 1980s, there's been a union at a place I worked once.

Yes, it totally sucks having to work till 68. When I started my working life, the retirement age was 60, but aren't we all going to have to accept this? I don't completely agree with the public sector earn less either, this may be true for some areas of the country, but not all. Public sector workers where I live are higher paid than most private sector ones, where the huge majority of job are at NMW or just above.

Who do you think starts unions? There are loads of general workers unions you could join, they don't all have to be related to a particular place of work. If there isn't one, look at starting one, rather than just accepting you have nobody to help in a dispute.

The teachers' pension scheme has already been changed (in 2008) to make it sustainable in the long term. It was agreed then that any future changes would depend on the scheme being revalued and found not to be sustainable. The present Government is refusing to revalue the scheme - I wonder why!?

Teachers are a profession. When compared with other professions, we earn less.

seven-day-weekend

My husband and I are both retired now.

However, had this happened when my son was small, I was then a lollipop lady so he could maybe have come with me.... or stayed at home with his dad who would have been a striking teacher.

I personally have symapthy for the teachers' strike. However, I think working to rule would be far more effective. I know the amount of extra-curricular work my husband used to do and everybody wanted him to do would be sadly missed.

FATBALLZ

milliebear00001 wrote: »

The whole point of this strike is to act collectively to show how needed we are - that is the point of any strike.

How will a strike show teachers are needed? The only immediate effect is that millions of parents will have a problem with childcare, which isn't really the core purpose that teaching is there for anyway. It won't be for many years after lengthy strikes that the necessity would become apparent, when future generations fail to find employment due to being badly educated (although some would say we already have that situation!).

milliebear00001 wrote: »

A one day strike, as somebody already mentioned, is exactly equivalent to the teaching hours lost to the royal wedding...I doubt children will unduly suffer, and the Government obviously agree.

The effect of one day would be negligible I agree, but I assumed that if it doesn't have the desired effect we'll see more and longer strikes. A one day strike is pretty easy to ignore.

liney

gregg1 wrote: »

YOU HAVE TO BE KIDDING!!!!!

Here we have yet another person who seems to know all there is to know about a job they have never done !!!!!

You may have noticed my post started with 'I think' followed by my reasoning.

If you would to tell me why my reasoning is wrong, then do go ahead without being rude.

milliebear00001

FATBALLZ wrote: »

How will a strike show teachers are needed? The only immediate effect is that millions of parents will have a problem with childcare, which isn't really the core purpose that teaching is there for anyway. It won't be for many years after lengthy strikes that the necessity would become apparent, when future generations fail to find employment due to being badly educated (although some would say we already have that situation!).



The effect of one day would be negligible I agree, but I assumed that if it doesn't have the desired effect we'll see more and longer strikes. A one day strike is pretty easy to ignore.

But because the country is so dependent on the childcare indirectly provided by teachers, we are able to have a massive impact on the private sector as well. Already, there is huge disruption to parents. It's not desirable that we inconvenience parents, but it is much more likely the Government will listen to us if we start having an impact on productivity because parents can't go to work.

FATBALLZ

milliebear00001 wrote: »

But because the country is so dependent on the childcare indirectly provided by teachers, we are able to have a massive impact on the private sector as well. Already, there is huge disruption to parents. It's not desirable that we inconvenience parents, but it is much more likely the Government will listen to us if we start having an impact on productivity because parents can't go to work.

When you said the strike was in order to show how 'needed' teachers are, I have to say I had thought you meant the teaching function they performed, but at least we're clear now that the strike really is a case of out and out blackmail.

This is really what is quite sad about the situation, teachers aren't trying to win the argument based on the merits of their performance or what they do, but on the basis of "were going to !!!! up your lives until we get what we want". That sort of attitude is why they'll get no public support, and why they'll lose the argument anyway - the government can't give in to their demands or they'll anger the much larger number of parents who would find it unpalatable for teachers to get what they want on the back of using peoples children against them.

Janepig

milliebear00001 wrote: »

The whole point of this strike is to act collectively to show how needed we are - that is the point of any strike.

I'm happy to be corrected, but haven't the NUT called this strike even though less than 40% of their members voted in the ballot? Not less than 40% voting for the strike, but less than 40% voting either way! Hardly what you'd call a ringing endorsement for strike action. And before you ask, that snippet wasn't gleaned from the Daily Mail .

Jxx

Janepig

jellyhead wrote: »

Secondary has its own challenges, I'm sure!

As mother to a hormonal year ten I certainly wouldn't want to have a class of 30 of them to deal with.

Primary is very physical but also, the teacher has the kids all day for every subject and I'd rather my little ones had a teacher who was under 60 - no offence to any older teachers who are still sprightly.

I remember some teachers from my school days who were retiring that year, and a few of my eldest son's teachers who were also retiring after teaching his class and they are less patient and more tired than younger teachers. They are still mentally capable of teaching, but the more challenging children are a struggle to deal with, in my opinion.

It's a bit of a mixed bag in DS/DD's school, but DD had the youngest (I think) teacher in the school last year in year 2 and she was as miserable as sin and not all that pleasant - and boy could she shout!! DD was not impressed. Contrast that to DS's teacher in nursery last year who is nudging retirement and is the loveliest, warmest person ever, with bags of energy and obviously adores the kids. However, he's had a shocker this year with his teacher in reception who isn't much younger than his nursery teacher, but is constantly on at him and very strict! Bit of a wake-up call. Lol. The other "young" teacher in the school is excellent though, he's very sporty, very energetic, contributes an awful lot (including climbing on the school roof to retrieve shoes ).

I suppose my point is that in my experience there are good and bad of all ages. And not that I'd want to teach, but I guess I'd prefer primary (as long as I could avoid DS's class who are a nightmare already and they're only 5!!:D).

Jxx

mrcow

Janepig wrote: »

I'm happy to be corrected, but haven't the NUT called this strike even though less than 40% of their members voted in the ballot? Not less than 40% voting for the strike, but less than 40% voting either way! Hardly what you'd call a ringing endorsement for strike action. And before you ask, that snippet wasn't gleaned from the Daily Mail .

Jxx

If you want too see if NUT members are endorsing it or not, I suggest you hold on to your opinion until Thursday and see how many members turn up for work.

Then you'll see how many actually do endorse the action.