Strike next week, is your school closing?

pollypenny

Takeaway_Addict wrote: »

Deary me.

If you choose to join a union you do it knowing what you do will affect others.

If you choose not to you are not obliged to do anything with regards the union activity but you are obliged to do your job, even if this means covering a union members work. As such, are you seriously expecting someone to refuse and risk their job for another person who has protection?

People like you, who use terminology such as 'scab' are why unions get a bad rep.

Teachers are not known for striking for minor reasons. We are professionals and it really hurts to miss classes. However, it's a careful balance of short- term loss for long-term benefits: these are for both staff and the pupils they teach.

Anyone who is so short-sighted, or cowardly, that they cannot see that some things are worth fighting for, then undermines the efforts of those who do fight, is no better than a scab, horrid term as it is.

No one should be asked to do the job of someone on a legal strike.

jedsonack2

Completely agree with Polly. You can't ask somebody to work on a legal strike.

pollypenny wrote: »

Teachers are not known for striking for minor reasons. We are professionals and it really hurts to miss classes. However, it's a careful balance of short- term loss for long-term benefits: these are for both staff and the pupils they teach.

Anyone who is so short-sighted, or cowardly, that they cannot see that some things are worth fighting for, then undermines the efforts of those who do fight, is no better than a scab, horrid term as it is.

No one should be asked to do the job of someone on a legal strike.

maman

jedsonack2 wrote: »

Completely agree with Polly. You can't ask somebody to work on a legal strike.

Totally agree. The strike is within the parameters of government Trades Union legislation so all rules are being obeyed.

I'm curious where these 'spare ' teachers are coming from. If schools really have spare teachers then they could be used every day and keep class sizes down to Eton proportions for pupils and cut the workload which is one of the reasons for the strike.

I'm sure there are teachers who genuinely can't afford to lose a day's pay or are too scared to stand up for their rights for fear of being victimised. I understand this but colluding to keep schools open with 'scab' labour is a step too far IMO.

Takeaway_Addict

jedsonack2 wrote: »

Completely agree with Polly. You can't ask somebody to work on a legal strike.

You can ask a non union member to, as they are not part of the union and it is up to them as it will be a reasonable request of their employment and as such refusing could lead to them being disciplined if not dismissed.

So, my question remains: Do you expect a non union member (as is their right to be) to risk their job for someone else who has protection from dismissal?

Takeaway_Addict

pollypenny wrote: »

Teachers are not known for striking for minor reasons. We are professionals and it really hurts to miss classes. However, it's a careful balance of short- term loss for long-term benefits: these are for both staff and the pupils they teach.

Anyone who is so short-sighted, or cowardly, that they cannot see that some things are worth fighting for, then undermines the efforts of those who do fight, is no better than a scab, horrid term as it is.

No one should be asked to do the job of someone on a legal strike.

So again, you expect a non union member to risk their job for your job?

Get real.

Person_one

barbarawright wrote: »

Benefits which are paid out of membership fees. And which have been fought for by union members over the years. I have no patience with people who choose not to join a union and then play the martyr when they don't get decent representation at a tribunal or when someone, points out the plain fact that strike-breaking is scabbing.

I'm obviously not suggesting non members should have the same support as members, but it isn't strike breaking if you're not in the union, and joining can't be compulsory.

lazer

pollypenny wrote: »

Of course not.

However, they wear the halo of 'non-strikers, but still benefit from the efforts of others.

Anyone who covers for a colleague who does strike is no better than a scab.

I know a teacher who refuses to join a union on the basis that they joined teaching to educate children, it wasn't for the money or the pension - yes the money helps but the sole reason the wanted to to teach was to make a difference.

He won't join a union because he does not agree with Teacher's striking as that is not putting the child first - and this is against his ethos.

He works extra hours tuturing children who need it for free, and goes out of his way to help children and various other things that I realise other teachers may to as well.

Now if you think this person is a scab becasue he has in the past covered a striking teachers GCSE or A-Level course to ensure the class are taught the full sylabus or that their coursework is completed on time because to hime the change in conditions isn't worth risking the students future for, then so be it, but I am proud of him.

(FWIW - he would support other schemes that don't disrupt the children's education - work to rule, not completing paperwork etc, basically anything except a disruption to actual teaching time)

Jojo_the_Tightfisted

I understand the teachers' position - however, as I've been in the situation of losing a considerable proportion of a minimum wage job pay packet, had to use my food budget to pay for additional childcare and been threatened with the sack as a result of previous teachers' industrial action - I can't be aggressively in favour of this, as it hurts the children from the poorest working families far more than it hurts the government.


So I respect their legal right to withdraw their labour - but I do not respect the anger and the insults that are directed at people who are not fervent supporters of action.

Person_one

lazer wrote: »

I know a teacher who refuses to join a union on the basis that they joined teaching to educate children, it wasn't for the money or the pension - yes the money helps but the sole reason the wanted to to teach was to make a difference.

Does he not see any connection between teacher's working conditions and how much they are able to help the children in their classes?

Seems a bit short sighted, I hope he doesn't teach social sciences! I'm guessing maths...

Jojo_the_Tightfisted

Person_one wrote: »

Does he not see any connection between teacher's working conditions and how much they are able to help the children in their classes?

Seems a bit short sighted, I hope he doesn't teach social sciences! I'm guessing maths...

Why? Does the ability to teach children an essential life skill automatically mean they are incapable of understanding anything else?