Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.
Don't forget to look at the how to guide.
Discussion in 'Personal' started by ROSIEGIRL, Nov 21, 2011.
I hope they do!
More to the point as NAS/UWT members and ATL members and NUT members have in years gone by, they will decide on an individual basis if they on the day are going to support their respective unions. NAHT members will wring their hands and think of their pensions. So weakens the action and so the employers rub their hands in glee at the ineffective action which will save them pots of money.
One teachers union is the only way forward to unity and then strength.
I agree Richie - one union would be so much better.
Just had an email to confirm strike action. It's on the local union website but not the national one yet.
I have been arguing the case for forty years Rosie all teachers agree. However the people who run the unions either employees who do not want to lose their jobs or Union executives who relish their meagre hold on power thwart any sensible attempt to bring together. Union leaderships fight harder for increased membership numbers than they do for their members rights because of this multiplicity of teacher unions.
Yep! Turkeys and Christmas ...
I'd disagree. Teachers' opinions are on a spectrum, just like opinion on anything. I dislike the NUT's "strike first, ask questions later" (you've got nowhere to go after) approach and equally the ATL having to be backed into a corner before taking decisive action.
The NASUWT's "reasonable" middle ground suits me, and as long as the unions can come together on big issues like pensions then it's all good.
It strikes me that the unions are far too cooperative with each other.
Surely, if NUT were on strike on Tuesday, NASUWT on Wednesday, UNISON on Thursday etc, we could effectively close schools for a week without anyone losing more than a day's pay.
The whole point of a strike is disruption. I think they're playing too nicely!
The whole point of a private sector strike is to cause financial loss to the employer.
The whole point of a public sector strike is to cause hardship to the public.
... by causing disruption to what normally happens.
The objective is only that when the strike causes no financial hardship to the employer. In such cases the hardship has to be caused to uninvolved parties.
NASUWT members in my school held an internal ballot to determine whether to strike or not. This was decided in order to avoid conflicts of inrterest and it was agreed we'd all stand by the decision.
The vote was not to strike.
None of us will strike. Even those who voted to do so.
Anyone else find this strange? Maybe it's just me.
It just gives example to my earlier point individual members will do as they please Indisciplined rabble laughed at by government and LA's.
I think it's strange. It goes against the decision already taken in the bigger ballot and will have put some members in a difficult position.
I'm glad that it's not just me!
I don't think it's unusual. several schools around me have decided the same - all stand together, whether it's strike or no strike. (Not many are striking, by the way.....)
So those who would have upheld the decision taken at national level and supported the strike would feel unable to do so. That's wrong.
This is ridiculous. It is a NATIONAL strike. The dispute is with the governement. I hope you never require the services of a regional rep in your school.
It's not just you. It cannot be an official ballot.