teacher's strike

Janepig

msb5262 wrote: »

As it happens, I'm joining colleagues from my union and the other unions striking at my school in a big local rally - but since when does anyone get to say what workers on strike should be doing?

A strike involves withdrawing our labour, not being in a specified place because that's where we (apparently) ought to be; many workers on strike will struggle to attend pickets or rallies because they will have childcare responsibilities...they are still exercising their democratic right to strike!

I can be silent no longer! The vast majority of union members will not be picketting or attending rallies, not because of childcare, but because they didn't vote, ie, were apathetic as to whether the strike went ahead or not. Unison for instance have called a strike based on a 28% turn out. My union (NAPO) have called a strike (which I voted no for) based on a 48% turn out so at least that's a bit better, but not a ringing endorsement, and the teachers unions didn't have a particularly big turnout either as I recall. Certainly the government have spotted this.

Obviously, being part of a union I have to accept that I will be on strike next Wednesday, but tbh I'm fuming about it. Me and DH both losing a day's pay for something that'll get us absolutely nowhere. The government aren't going to change their minds on this and more than anything it's just the unions kicking against the Condems. Political pawns is what we are.

DH and his department went on strike for 8 weeks afew years ago and achieved the sum total of naff all, even with manning the picket lines, marching and rallying, etc.... Used by the union for political point scoring, nothing less. Didn't realise it at the time though.

I have been made to put our work that we would be doing next Wednesday off to the following week and I'm fuming about it. What the hell is the point of me being on strike if there'd be no work for me to do anyway if I went in. I have to try not to think about it or I'd completely lose my rag.

Jx

claire16c

FATBALLZ wrote: »

People with public sector pensions are not 'struggling' relative to the rest of the workforce, public sector pensioners are the 1%. That £4000 figure is rubbish, it's obviously brought down by part time workers, people who had short public sector careers and the like.

I do wonder if anybody in the public sector ever passed GCSE maths, a £4000 index linked pension costs £130,000 or so, which only a minority of private sector workers could ever hope to save. And that's if you retire at 65, retiring earlier would cost a lot more, and it also assumes no lump sum is taken, which again increases the cost. And to re-iterate somebody who has worked in the public sector their whole life generally gets a lot more than £4k.

Here's an example, a bog standard teacher who works for just 7 years and finished on a salary of £31k (top of the pay scale for a bog standard teacher outside london) will get a pension of more than £4k pa. They will have earned approx £190,000 gross in those 7 years, and get a pension worth £137k. Good luck saving 72% of your salary if you're in a private sector job.

If thats true thats an insane amount to get.

Googlewhacker

Debbie_A wrote: »

Keep the children off and have a lovely day together!

I am a teacher and I will be on strike myself next Wednesday. I am planning a lovely day with my own children. This is a really tiring half term and a day off will do me and them a world of good, and help them keep going until the end of term.

If the school complains, tell them that you are concerned about their pensions and you are supporting the national action.

Debbie

Hardly what the strike if for is it!

JC9297

Janepig wrote: »

I can be silent no longer! The vast majority of union members will not be picketting or attending rallies, not because of childcare, but because they didn't vote, ie, were apathetic as to whether the strike went ahead or not. Unison for instance have called a strike based on a 28% turn out. My union (NAPO) have called a strike (which I voted no for) based on a 48% turn out so at least that's a bit better, but not a ringing endorsement, and the teachers unions didn't have a particularly big turnout either as I recall. Certainly the government have spotted this.

Obviously, being part of a union I have to accept that I will be on strike next Wednesday, but tbh I'm fuming about it. Me and DH both losing a day's pay for something that'll get us absolutely nowhere. The government aren't going to change their minds on this and more than anything it's just the unions kicking against the Condems. Political pawns is what we are.

DH and his department went on strike for 8 weeks afew years ago and achieved the sum total of naff all, even with manning the picket lines, marching and rallying, etc.... Used by the union for political point scoring, nothing less. Didn't realise it at the time though.

I have been made to put our work that we would be doing next Wednesday off to the following week and I'm fuming about it. What the hell is the point of me being on strike if there'd be no work for me to do anyway if I went in. I have to try not to think about it or I'd completely lose my rag.

Jx

But you don't have to strike even if your union has voted to strike, each individual can choose whether to or not. That's why despite most teachers being in unions many schools are not shutting completely, because many teachers are choosing not to strike.

jellyhead

As with the other strike and all the snowy days I have eldest at home from secondary school while primary school remains open.

I do have plans to take him somewhere nice for lunch, but I will be doing the same with my youngest in 2 weeks when he has an INSET day. It's nice for the child to get some time alone with a parent anyhow, without younger sibling .... he can choose where to have lunch without having to take youngest's picky eating into account. When it's youngest's day off we can go to the cinema and see a film that eldest wouldn't be interested in. Kids don't HAVE to do everything together, and there are plenty of school holidays for having a nice day out as a family.

I will be asking for more details though, because the letter sent home says that staff will not be marking, planning, running clubs or babysitting before and after school in the playground. I'm not sure what the lack of planning or marking will be - if there will be teaching then I want my son there. If there will be lots of fun and films then that's fun too. As long as they will be with their usual teacher. If it were just a case of random staff will childmind whoever turns up then that might not be so much fun.

Janepig

JC9297 wrote: »

But you don't have to strike even if your union has voted to strike, each individual can choose whether to or not. That's why despite most teachers being in unions many schools are not shutting completely, because many teachers are choosing not to strike.

Then the union are going to have to rethink my membership aren't they? Why would I be a member of the union, and accept the benefits that entails (should I have a griveance, be sacked, etc...) but then not play ball when some of them decide to strike. Imo, that's not how it works. And although these days there's stricter rules on how strike breakers should be treated, trust me, colleagues aren't going to you get away with it.

It's not as easy as just going against the vote and going into work, not at all. I'm told that alot of unison members working for DH's local authority will be going into work (I don't know if that's true) but with a 28% turn out then it wouldn't surprise me. What makes me mad is that if everyone had voted then either there would be no strike (as I suspect) or at least the government would be more inclined to sit up and listen.

I don't personally know any union members who are not striking, teachers or otherwise - I think most, if not all, the schools and colleges around here are shut. I don't know that there's going to be much in the way of pickets or demos either. I'm definitely not picketing, neither is DH. We're spending the day blitzing the house ready for Christmas, so at least it will be productive.

Jx

JC9297

Oh I totally agree if you are happy to take the benefits of being in a union you should support it's actions, just saying there are a lot of people who don't see it that way.
I work in a primary school (not a teacher) and about 40% of the teachers will be working on Wednesday, of which about 80% belong to one of the striking unions.

Nara

Well if you have 1 child like me then you never have to worry about these sort of problems!

emweaver

JC9297 wrote: »

For what reason?

As I said because Im a bad mummy lol I dont need to give a complete stranger a reason

milliebear00001

FATBALLZ wrote: »

People with public sector pensions are not 'struggling' relative to the rest of the workforce, public sector pensioners are the 1%. That £4000 figure is rubbish, it's obviously brought down by part time workers, people who had short public sector careers and the like.

I do wonder if anybody in the public sector ever passed GCSE maths, a £4000 index linked pension costs £130,000 or so, which only a minority of private sector workers could ever hope to save. And that's if you retire at 65, retiring earlier would cost a lot more, and it also assumes no lump sum is taken, which again increases the cost. And to re-iterate somebody who has worked in the public sector their whole life generally gets a lot more than £4k.

Here's an example, a bog standard teacher who works for just 7 years and finished on a salary of £31k (top of the pay scale for a bog standard teacher outside london) will get a pension of more than £4k pa. They will have earned approx £190,000 gross in those 7 years, and get a pension worth £137k. Good luck saving 72% of your salary if you're in a private sector job.

You appear to be trotting out the same old argument that because most private sector workers don't have a decent pension, public sector workers shouldn't expect to have one either.

Well, I'm sorry that private sector workers have been sold down the river, but this isn't a 'race to the bottom', or some sort of bizarre competition about 'who has the worst working rights'. Private sector workers, working in middle/upper management level roles, for medium/larger companies, always had decent pensions. They allowed themselves to be fleeced by their employers who bleated on about not being able to afford the pension. These companies are making enormous profits and paying huge bonuses to top level management. Private sector workers (and I used to be one) rolled over and allowed that to happen to them, and are now bitter when they see public sector workers refusing to do that.

If you have a crappy pension, while working for Tesco or Barclays - you should ask yourself why, and then give yourself a good kicking for not being unionised, and not standing up for yourself when you had the chance.