Should teachers be banned from striking?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by emsa86
No I don't think that teachers should strike. My son has got tomorrow off school even though his school is open as his teacher is one of only two in the school that has decided to strike. As a parent it's frustrating knowing that my son is one of the very few in the school who can not attend tomorrow, as school's cannot use supply teachers to cover industrial action. It's even more annoying as this comes just over a week before his teacher has a six weeks paid holiday at the tax payer's expense.
What a depressingly short-sighted piece of thought. The Tories love working people like you. It's because of a lack of solidarity amongst the working class that your son's going to grow up in a world where anyone but the very top are treated with utter contempt.
'At the tax payer's expense'
Perhaps you'd prefer education to be privatised? I hope you have hundreds of thousands stashed away to give your son a basic education in this neverending neoliberal nightmare.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by *Interrobang*
Yes teachers should definitely be allowed to strike. Unless you've done it, you cannot understand the sheer amount of work.
Work out an NQT salary (~£21800/year) at 60hrs per week (conservative estimate, especially with the work in the holidays), for 45 weeks a year (taking off weeks for holiday, but adding extra for holiday pay and bank holidays), I estimate that an NQT gets paid £8.07/hr (before deductions). And that is in a graduate/post graduate qualified job. Not to mention the constant changes being implemented by the government that are ill-thought out, such as performance related pay, the new curriculum and the increased pension contributions.
Work out an NQT salary (~£21800/year) at 60hrs per week (conservative estimate, especially with the work in the holidays), for 45 weeks a year (taking off weeks for holiday, but adding extra for holiday pay and bank holidays), I estimate that an NQT gets paid £8.07/hr (before deductions). And that is in a graduate/post graduate qualified job. Not to mention the constant changes being implemented by the government that are ill-thought out, such as performance related pay, the new curriculum and the increased pension contributions.
NQT salary is to reflect that you are still learning! NQTs have more work to do in lesson preparation during the early stages of their career. Please mention the massive increases in pay you will get each year as you move up the Pay Scales. In 5 or so years from now you could be earning double.
I suggest you join the NASWUT who are NOT on strike and have seen the good sense to negotiate there demands rather than use bully boy tactics against children and parents.
Most people in my area of the country probably earn 1/2 what an NQT does if they even have a job at all. Who gets the benefit of the increased pension contributions? They have got one of the best pensions of any industry. There is a recession you know, so don't expect much sympathy for teachers on this Forum.
Original post by Heinz59
NQT salary is to reflect that you are still learning! NQTs have more work to do in lesson preparation during the early stages of their career. Please mention the massive increases in pay you will get each year as you move up the Pay Scales. In 5 or so years from now you could be earning double.
I suggest you join the NASWUT who are NOT on strike and have seen the good sense to negotiate there demands rather than use bully boy tactics against children and parents.
Most people in my area of the country probably earn 1/2 what an NQT does if they even have a job at all. Who gets the benefit of the increased pension contributions? They have got one of the best pensions of any industry. There is a recession you know, so don't expect much sympathy for teachers on this Forum.
I suggest you join the NASWUT who are NOT on strike and have seen the good sense to negotiate there demands rather than use bully boy tactics against children and parents.
Most people in my area of the country probably earn 1/2 what an NQT does if they even have a job at all. Who gets the benefit of the increased pension contributions? They have got one of the best pensions of any industry. There is a recession you know, so don't expect much sympathy for teachers on this Forum.
There isnt a recession...
Where on earth are you where more than half of people in work are on £11k - and hence working under the minimum wage?!?
Original post by Quady
There isnt a recession...
Where on earth are you where more than half of people in work are on £11k - and hence working under the minimum wage?!?
Where on earth are you where more than half of people in work are on £11k - and hence working under the minimum wage?!?
I work in one of the poorest areas of not just the UK but the whole of Europe in Grimsby. In some parts there is 50% unemployment and many people only have part time jobs. The recession has hit hard with losses to the construction and food industries.
http://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/Feature-Unemployment-Grimsby-s-East-Marsh/story-19170106-detail/story.html
The only growth industries seem to be TV companies wanting to make entertainment shows such as "Skint" and "Benefit Street". Teachers should really question their conscience when contemplating striking and the consequences it will have on an already severely deprived area's youngsters. I don't think you will find teachers asking for money for their strike fund! Most would probably say that teachers should be paying more taxes when they have to give up a days pay to stay home and look after their kids, assuming that they have a job that is.
Teachers need to get a grip on reality if they think they will win strike support.
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?
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?
Because your education is suffering much more thanks to teachers' low pay, poor conditions, long working hours and government interference.
I know it's hard for you individualistic reactionaries, but please try to look long-term and outside your own little bubble.
And if the companies employing the parents were subject to proper workers' rights laws, like in an actual civilised society, the parents wouldn't have to fear taking a day off.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by ChelseaYvonne
Teacher's don't get payed for the summer holidays. Their pay for the year is simply divided equally so any pay they receive is for work they have already done that year.
We really are splitting hairs here. Teachers get paid a Pay Scale salary and they get about 13 weeks time off. Yes, 5.6 weeks of it are paid leave as this is a minimum legal requirement, and the rest is unpaid leave, if you want to look at it that way. You could say that the pay is for only 44.6 weeks of work including paid leave (39+5.6), so the rate of pay is actually much higher than would be the case in another industry.
Original post by ChelseaYvonne
The teachers involved have actually tried other mediums of expressing their concern before it escalated to striking. The government are simply not open to discussions about the decisions they are making that affect the jobs and lives of these teachers (and other public sector workers who are being effected). They are left with no option but striking because it is the only way they can make their voices heard.
Have you considered that they have heard their voice and decided that their complaints are unreasonable and so not worth listening to? Everything I've seen the unions complain about basically amounts to them wanting to be shielded from the economic realities the rest of us are facing and to be treated better than everyone else, at OUR expense.
Original post by Heinz59
We really are splitting hairs here. Teachers get paid a Pay Scale salary and they get about 13 weeks time off. Yes, 5.6 weeks of it are paid leave as this is a minimum legal requirement, and the rest is unpaid leave, if you want to look at it that way. You could say that the pay is for only 44.6 weeks of work including paid leave (39+5.6), so the rate of pay is actually much higher than would be the case in another industry.
Fair enough on Grimsby.
That is one way to look at it, but you need to calibrate everyone else's leave like that.
ie when I was working for Kraft Foods I had 27 days leave plus 9 bank holidays, so 7.2 weeks leave.
You could say 50.4 weeks of work including paid leave. So teachers are up by 12% - assuming they do the same 38hrs a week I did during my working week and don't work during their unpaid leave.
Original post by MouseyBrown
I think that, very simply, if police and the armed forces are not allowed to strike, then if we value education as much as we do national defence and policing (which we should, on the balance of things), teachers should not be allowed to strike.
I have another way of looking at it. If the establishment valued education as much as it does our civilian and military defence institutions, it wouldn't treat teachers like dirt on the soles of our shoes.
Those with little sympathy for industrial action, including Thatcher in her time, conveniently forget the flip side to their argument. 'Come on you lazy, whining ****s, I work hard and if I were to strike, I'd land out of the office on my arse.' Yes, those that have made an effort to unionise are called 'lazy' over those that haven't. Better still, the very fabric of Thatcher's ideology was 'you can make it if you aspire and work hard, don't worry about anyone else'. Yet one of the most prominent anti-communist figures championed a 'I haven't got it, why should he have it?' line of thought in regard to unions. Utter hypocrisy.
So if you're not happy with your pay or conditions, you are absolutely not entitled to get the hump with unions that strike just because it inconveniences you. You're supposed to, you know, sort your own out and have just a tiny bit of empathy.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by rich2606
Have you considered that they have heard their voice and decided that their complaints are unreasonable and so not worth listening to? Everything I've seen the unions complain about basically amounts to them wanting to be shielded from the economic realities the rest of us are facing and to be treated better than everyone else, at OUR expense.
Sorry, who here is looking to be shielded from economic realities?
All teachers are asking for is pay that increases with inflation so that they don't end up earning less each year.
They are also striking over the significant cuts being made to the education system as it hinders them from doing their jobs properly and it is their pupils who are suffering.
I don't think that's unreasonable.
If the government son't start listening to teachers and continue to treat them with such disdain, less and less high caliber graduates are going to want to teach and current teachers will end up looking for other employment. In the long run, that is going to have a significantly greater detrimental effect on society as whole compared to the inconveniences caused by the odd strike day.
Original post by ChelseaYvonne
Sorry, who here is looking to be shielded from economic realities?
All teachers are asking for is pay that increases with inflation so that they don't end up earning less each year.
They are also striking over the significant cuts being made to the education system as it hinders them from doing their jobs properly and it is their pupils who are suffering.
I don't think that's unreasonable.
If the government son't start listening to teachers and continue to treat them with such disdain, less and less high caliber graduates are going to want to teach and current teachers will end up looking for other employment. In the long run, that is going to have a significantly greater detrimental effect on society as whole compared to the inconveniences caused by the odd strike day.
Sorry, who here is looking to be shielded from economic realities?
All teachers are asking for is pay that increases with inflation so that they don't end up earning less each year.
They are also striking over the significant cuts being made to the education system as it hinders them from doing their jobs properly and it is their pupils who are suffering.
I don't think that's unreasonable.
If the government son't start listening to teachers and continue to treat them with such disdain, less and less high caliber graduates are going to want to teach and current teachers will end up looking for other employment. In the long run, that is going to have a significantly greater detrimental effect on society as whole compared to the inconveniences caused by the odd strike day.
Banker and Director Pay went down massively in the financial crisis (if they weren't fired) and so these numbers represent a return to more regular levels after actual cuts in pay. Besides, they work for private companies, if the company has since returned to profit then it's up to them to decide whether they can afford to pay their staff more.
We are, however, still running a £100bn a year deficit in the public sector because of Labour profligacy in the run up to the financial crisis. There is no money to pay public sector workers more, unless you want to raise taxes for the rest of us or find some other services to cut, or sack a whole load of them.
Original post by Numberwang
The National Union of Teachers are among many public sector workers going out on strike this week.
On Question Time on Thursday, the Tory MP on the panel mused about the possibility of teachers being banned from strike action, like the police and the army.
Which begs the question, if the police and the army aren't allowed to strike, then why are teachers allowed to - given the huge disruption working parents face when a school is closed.
If the Tories win in 2015, you're likely to see tougher rules on ballots, but I wouldn't rule them out going a step further.
I don't believe strike action is a particularly effective form of protest in the 21st century, anyway. With the internet, there are plenty of ways to affect the decision-making of the establishment without hurting and disaffecting the very people you're meant to care about... the students.
What do we all think?
On Question Time on Thursday, the Tory MP on the panel mused about the possibility of teachers being banned from strike action, like the police and the army.
Which begs the question, if the police and the army aren't allowed to strike, then why are teachers allowed to - given the huge disruption working parents face when a school is closed.
If the Tories win in 2015, you're likely to see tougher rules on ballots, but I wouldn't rule them out going a step further.
I don't believe strike action is a particularly effective form of protest in the 21st century, anyway. With the internet, there are plenty of ways to affect the decision-making of the establishment without hurting and disaffecting the very people you're meant to care about... the students.
What do we all think?
Rather than banning striking I believe that legal protections should be removed so that if an employee strikes, the employer can choose to submit to their demands or sack them.
I will say two things however..
1) I do support the existence of unions, individuals should be free to collectively bargain if they wish just as I am free not to join a union.
2) While the pay restraint is tough, they are simply being greedy over pension reform. Average salary pensions in the private sector are the norm over final salary pensions.
Original post by rich2606
Banker and Director Pay went down massively in the financial crisis (if they weren't fired) and so these numbers represent a return to more regular levels after actual cuts in pay. Besides, they work for private companies, if the company has since returned to profit then it's up to them to decide whether they can afford to pay their staff more.
We are, however, still running a £100bn a year deficit in the public sector because of Labour profligacy in the run up to the financial crisis. There is no money to pay public sector workers more, unless you want to raise taxes for the rest of us or find some other services to cut, or sack a whole load of them.
We are, however, still running a £100bn a year deficit in the public sector because of Labour profligacy in the run up to the financial crisis. There is no money to pay public sector workers more, unless you want to raise taxes for the rest of us or find some other services to cut, or sack a whole load of them.
I was hinting more towards the MP's 11% pay rise. They can certainly find the money to make themselves better off and yet the public sector who they're supposed to serve seems to get the short end of the stick time and time again.
I appreciate that the government need to save money where they can, but banning teachers from striking would just encourage them to make more and more cuts to a profession that is already underpaid because they know that there's nothing teachers would be able to do.
All this will encourage is nobody wanting to teach. Investing in our education system and our children is important.
Original post by ChelseaYvonne
Sorry, who here is looking to be shielded from economic realities?
Sorry, who here is looking to be shielded from economic realities?
That chart is horsecrap.
The bankers are directors ones I don't know enough about so lets say they are right.
The MPs one, is the pay rise between 2013 and 2014 was 1.1%, from Apr 2013:£66,300 to Apr 2014: £67,060.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salaries_of_Members_of_the_United_Kingdom_Parliament
Unless they are the top of their band, Nurses/teachers still get their progression pay rise. 1% is the amount the bands and spine points are increasing by. People still move up the spine. The average change in someone's pay is more than 1%.
Or are you suggesting someone who started teaching as an NQT in Sept 2010 is now on a salary 5% above what they started on?
Likewise for the police, they move up the spine, the average change in salary is more than 0%.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by ChelseaYvonne
I was hinting more towards the MP's 11% pay rise. They can certainly find the money to make themselves better off and yet the public sector who they're supposed to serve seems to get the short end of the stick time and time again.
Its hardly like the front benchers want the rise, but unlike the other pay review bodies they can hardly over rule their own. Otherwise you just go back to some dodgy system. IPSA are eliminating several of the current allowancesso I think its broadly cost neutral.
Not saying its right, just pointing out its not MPs that have decided this.
Original post by Quady
Unless they are the top of their band, Nurses/teachers still get their progression pay rise. 1% is the amount the bands and spine points are increasing by. People still move up the spine. The average change in someone's pay is more than 1%.
Unless they are the top of their band, Nurses/teachers still get their progression pay rise. 1% is the amount the bands and spine points are increasing by. People still move up the spine. The average change in someone's pay is more than 1%.
Still not read the link you provided me i see.
If they are at the top of their band they will get 1% as normal. The bands spine points are not increasing.
Original post by n00
Still not read the link you provided me i see.
If they are at the top of their band they will get 1% as normal. The bands spine points are not increasing.
If they are at the top of their band they will get 1% as normal. The bands spine points are not increasing.
If they are at the top of the band then sure.
I'm not, I got a 4.2% rise last year.
If people are at the top of their band then there is promotion. Personally I'm on 63% more than at the start of the parliament.
I know, but couldn't explain the 1% put against nurses in that chart any other way, depends what time period its looking at and the chart didn't say.
Original post by Numberwang
The National Union of Teachers are among many public sector workers going out on strike this week.
On Question Time on Thursday, the Tory MP on the panel mused about the possibility of teachers being banned from strike action, like the police and the army.
Which begs the question, if the police and the army aren't allowed to strike, then why are teachers allowed to - given the huge disruption working parents face when a school is closed.
If the Tories win in 2015, you're likely to see tougher rules on ballots, but I wouldn't rule them out going a step further.
I don't believe strike action is a particularly effective form of protest in the 21st century, anyway. With the internet, there are plenty of ways to affect the decision-making of the establishment without hurting and disaffecting the very people you're meant to care about... the students.
What do we all think?
On Question Time on Thursday, the Tory MP on the panel mused about the possibility of teachers being banned from strike action, like the police and the army.
Which begs the question, if the police and the army aren't allowed to strike, then why are teachers allowed to - given the huge disruption working parents face when a school is closed.
If the Tories win in 2015, you're likely to see tougher rules on ballots, but I wouldn't rule them out going a step further.
I don't believe strike action is a particularly effective form of protest in the 21st century, anyway. With the internet, there are plenty of ways to affect the decision-making of the establishment without hurting and disaffecting the very people you're meant to care about... the students.
What do we all think?
Out of interest, are your views just your personal ones, or does this post represent the 'TSR view'? If the latter, it certainly explains a lot, as I've repeatedly detected a right wing bias to TSR.
It's utter nonsense that workers can advance their cause significantly via social media. The reality is that only one weapon belonging to working people really counts - their right to withdraw their labour.
It's ironic that during the partial and slow recovery from a huge strike of capitalists, the one thing Tories keep banging on is denying working people the right to strike. This is one important reason why our rights need to be protected by the EU from the narrow, sectarian government we have, which is only interested in the wealthy.
Original post by Quady
I'm not, I got a 4.2% rise last year.
If people are at the top of their band then there is promotion. Personally I'm on 63% more than at the start of the parliament.
I'm not, I got a 4.2% rise last year.
If people are at the top of their band then there is promotion. Personally I'm on 63% more than at the start of the parliament.
Congratulations, thats really very impressive for someone that struggles with reading comprehension and making a cohesive argument. I didn't know you were a nurse.
No they should not be banned and I support them.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Teachers in the NEU in Wales and England set to go on strike once again
- Ombudsman... what is the worst thing that could happen?
- Mobile phones should be banned from the classroom?
- gcse combined science 2022 papers
- How do I secure my degree?
- Can someone help me improve my History Essay? (AQA History)
- Should mobile phone use be banned in schools?
- Ideas for presentation on current issues in education
- So will we be banned from driving petrol cars in 2030
- I'm going on uniform strike
- Can I be a teacher with tattoos
- Is Newvic a good college?
- Is the Casio classpad II CP400 allowed in an aqa exam?
- Debate Help!!!
- Student keeps chasing me and staring at me (even when I look under the table)
- How do u think it will work out?!
- Ensure fair grading for GCSE and A Level students in 2023 (Government Petition)
- English language speaking
- Are these rules for my school necessary?
- Extremist social media apps should be banned in schools, colleges and universities.
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
