Should teachers be banned from striking?

Disrupting students education.
Disrupting working lives of parents.

Striking purely for nuisance in my experience. If you don't like the pay of being a teacher, don't enter that line of work. It is that simple. Why should my education suffer because teachers are greedy?

Reply 2

username33685

11

In general I don't think workers should be allowed to strike if their organisation is a government run monopoly provider of a service. By all means strike as much as you dare in the private sector, as ultimately you have to weigh up pissing off all your customers and putting your employer out of business and yourself out of a job in favour of getting better conditions. In the public sector there are practically no consequences for going on strike. After tax a day's pay is meaningless in the grand scheme of things. At the very least they should offer compensation to all the parents they are ****ing over and have to make alternative arrangements.

Reply 3

Original post by TSA

Disrupting students education.
Disrupting working lives of parents.

Striking purely for nuisance in my experience. If you don't like the pay of being a teacher, don't enter that line of work. It is that simple. Why should my education suffer because teachers are greedy?

I don't think it's an issue of greed at all. Plus, I highly doubt anyone's education suffers as a result. You can easily make up on any lost time individually if you're that worried.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 4

Original post by Changing Skies

I don't think it's an issue of greed at all. Plus, I highly doubt anyone's education suffers as a result. You can easily make up on any lost time individually if you're that worried.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Of course it's an issue of greed. If you are being paid more than minimum wage it's more than enough money to buy the necessities and live.

Where do you draw the line one day of strikes okay? Two? One week? One month? There is no need to cause unnecessary disruption due to greed.

Reply 5

Jammy Duel

21

Original post by Changing Skies

I don't think it's an issue of greed at all. Plus, I highly doubt anyone's education suffers as a result. You can easily make up on any lost time individually if you're that worried.

Posted from TSR Mobile

On the matter of being able to catch up with such ease, is that not itself a problem? If they have several weeks throughout the year to do non-constructive things should they not be made to do proper work, I.e., teaching during that time?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 6

simplylldxo

14

I agree with TSA, these strikes are messing up the children of today's future education - why is that even a thing? Also it's affecting the parents as they have to either a) find a last minute childcare provider or b) take the day off work which either way means they are losing money. I don't get why these teachers are striking in the first place, the job pays well so they are comfortable in terms of money and if they don't like the career, don't train to be one - I think with teaching, you need to be passionate about wanting to improve children's future not just interested in the money.

If anyone should be striking then it should be my mum - she's a NHS receptionist and comes out with a measly £12000 a year. She's been physically and verbal attacked when patients don't get their own way, she's moaned at for going in late to see a doctor or if their prescription isn't ready for collection. Yet instead of protesting, she still puts on her work uniform goes in and gets on with it as its her job.

Reply 7

Jophesxi

13

Absolutely not, banning their right to strike would be unfair. I think people dramatize teachers striking far too much, and exaggerate the apparent detrimental effects striking has. They don't strike very often, nor do they strike for a long period of time, so I see no problem with it.

Reply 8

Original post by simplylldxo

I agree with TSA, these strikes are messing up the children of today's future education - why is that even a thing? Also it's affecting the parents as they have to either a) find a last minute childcare provider or b) take the day off work which either way means they are losing money. I don't get why these teachers are striking in the first place, the job pays well so they are comfortable in terms of money and if they don't like the career, don't train to be one - I think with teaching, you need to be passionate about wanting to improve children's future not just interested in the money.

If anyone should be striking then it should be my mum - she's a NHS receptionist and comes out with a measly £12000 a year. She's been physically and verbal attacked when patients don't get their own way, she's moaned at for going in late to see a doctor or if their prescription isn't ready for collection. Yet instead of protesting, she still puts on her work uniform goes in and gets on with it as its her job.

I cannot agree with the bit in bold more. I had a teacher who had a first class honours degree from Oxford in Economics and offers to work at some very prestigious investment firms which he turned down to teach. He's probably the most influential teacher I've ever had and that was because he loved his subject and had a desire to improve the education of his students, he didn't take the job because of its pay, hours or holidays which it feels like some teachers do.

Reply 9

A Mysterious Lord

20

Original post by Jophesxi

I think people dramatize teachers striking far too much, and exaggerate the apparent detrimental effects striking has.

I think it's got more to do with the fact that teachers can seemingly strike regardless of the effects on a child's education, but woe betide any parents taking their children out of school for a day or two. Horrendous double standards.

Reply 10

Farseer

14

The average child will miss more days from being unwell than lost through strike action, the idea that missing a day or two per year ruins their education is a fallacy.

Reply 11

Original post by TSA

Of course it's an issue of greed. If you are being paid more than minimum wage it's more than enough money to buy the necessities and live.

Where do you draw the line one day of strikes okay? Two? One week? One month? There is no need to cause unnecessary disruption due to greed.

Even if you have children? I'm one of five and my dad earns more than the minimum wage yet we sometimes struggle. Of course, having 5 children isn't necessarily the 'norm', but I know plenty of teachers with a few kids. I believe teachers deserve a lot more than they get; most work ridiculously hard.

But teachers really don't strike that often, and never throughout my school years has it ever reached a month or week.

Original post by Jammy Duel

On the matter of being able to catch up with such ease, is that not itself a problem? If they have several weeks throughout the year to do non-constructive things should they not be made to do proper work, I.e., teaching during that time?

Posted from TSR Mobile

But as above, I reckon I missed about one or two teaching days a year, if that, due to strikes. It's not like it's a monthly occurance and it's not affected my education, nor has it affected the education of anyone else I know. Its effects are being exaggerated.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 12

Drewski

19

Original post by Numberwang

the police and the army aren't allowed to strike

They're not just not allowed to strike, they're not allowed Unions either (the Police Federation functions like a union, but is distinct from one).

Strikers are just crybabies, imo. No sympathy whatsoever.

Reply 13

Chicken.M.

20

A lot of the good teachers tend to ignore the strikes and carry on working. My Alevel maths teacher made a big fuss about us not telling anyone she was in school. Probably because the other teachers would be pissed off at her lol.

Reply 14

Original post by Changing Skies

Even if you have children? I'm one of five and my dad earns more than the minimum wage yet we sometimes struggle. Of course, having 5 children isn't necessarily the 'norm', but I know plenty of teachers with a few kids. I believe teachers deserve a lot more than they get; most work ridiculously hard.

But teachers really don't strike that often, and never throughout my school years has it ever reached a month or week.

Posted from TSR Mobile

If you make the decision to have children, be a responsible adult and make sure you can afford to bring them up and that means planning ahead thinking "what if my income changes, could I still afford to put food on the table".

So your reasoning for teachers deserving more money is because you believe they work ridiculously hard. Doesn't seem like that strong of a reason.

The days and time adds up throughout the year.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 15

simplylldxo

14

Original post by Farseer

The average child will miss more days from being unwell than lost through strike action, the idea that missing a day or two per year ruins their education is a fallacy.

Not ruining their education, it affects their education. There's a difference. Because you've missed a day, that means the lessons missed rolls over to the next lesson and so on... well that's I meant anyway.

Reply 16

Original post by TSA

If you make the decision to have children, be a responsible adult and make sure you can afford to bring them up and that means planning ahead thinking "what if my income changes, could I still afford to put food on the table".

So your reasoning for teachers deserving more money is because you believe they work ridiculously hard. Doesn't seem like that strong of a reason.

Well of course, I can't really argue with that.

Firstly, I don't see why that's a poor reason. If you work hard, your pay should reflect that, in my opinion. Moreover, the role of a teacher is vital, without them we wouldn't have the next generation of doctors, engineers, dentists etc. They play such an important part in society and they should be rewarded for that. But then again, some teachers are awful so it's a bit of an issue.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 17

Original post by Changing Skies

Well of course, I can't really argue with that.

Firstly, I don't see why that's a poor reason. If you work hard, your pay should reflect that, in my opinion. Moreover, the role of a teacher is vital, without them we wouldn't have the next generation of doctors, engineers, dentists etc. They play such an important part in society and they should be rewarded for that. But then again, some teachers are awful so it's a bit of an issue.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Because your reasoning is literally because you believe you do something therefore you deserve something.
It's like saying I think I work very hard maintaining good grades and a job, I think I deserve more money. Well yes that's my view of course it's going to bias.

If a teacher really cared about making sure their student got the best education so they could train to be the next generation of doctors, engineers, dentists whatever, they wouldn't be wasting their time and their students time by striking for unnecessary higher wages.

They play such an integral part to society that is why their protesting can have such an impact upon a students education and that is exactly why they shouldn't be allowed to.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 18

Jammy Duel

21

Original post by Changing Skies

But as above, I reckon I missed about one or two teaching days a year, if that, due to strikes. It's not like it's a monthly occurrence and it's not affected my education, nor has it affected the education of anyone else I know. Its effects are being exaggerated.

Posted from TSR Mobile

But since the point I'm raising is that they spend plenty of time not actually teaching but doing pointless rubbish I would be incredibly surprised if anybody was actually affected anybody's education.

Reply 19