Teachers may go on strike. Chaos for parents. Discuss!

ourmaminhavana · Post by **ourmaminhavana** » Fri Apr 29, 2011 12:18 pm

Another no vote here.

marked · Post by **marked** » Tue May 10, 2011 12:17 am

If they went of strike, I would be rather annoyed. Working parents would have to find childcare, which doesn't come cheap. Parents are been squeezed in every direction. Don't mention petrol prices. I don't think teachers would receive much sympathy. Some children may look down on teachers (although some would be happy). Let the strike in the summer holidays! Let's hope things are resolved.

youngmum · Post by **youngmum** » Tue May 10, 2011 9:31 am

Everyone should have a right to strike or protest peacefully.

As most people mentioned, most teachers go beyond thier call of duty and let's not forget they are parents just like ourselves.

They have a right to decent wages as we all do. If they all decided to walk out and find other jobs, who will be left teaching our kids?

Our current economy also means there are not a lot of jobs out there. I know several professional people that have been out of work since last summer. Even the independent schools are feeling it, a school local to mine closed at the beginning of April without giving the parents or teachers any notice. With all those teachers out of work and lots more schools closing, where are the jobs they will walk out too?

Striking will be inconvenient for parents but it will also send out a message to the govt when most parents have to stay home with their kids and the economy looses billions during the strike.

marked · Post by **marked** » Sun May 15, 2011 8:13 pm

[quote="youngmum"]Everyone should have a right to strike or protest peacefully.

If a person has a job, decides to go on strike, it implies that person is not happy with terms and conditions. So why doesn't he/she just leave? Why go on strike? If a worker doesn't want to work, and goes on strike, the employer should have the right to sack the person and replace the person with someone who is willing to work. The worker cannot dictate terms. They accept the terms of a job and if they don't like it, they should leave. If they cannot find another job, they may think twice about striking or leaving.

ourmaminhavana · Post by **ourmaminhavana** » Sun May 15, 2011 8:47 pm

So terms and conditions are irrelevant as long as some poor sap is willing to work for them? Think 19th C factory workers, o/s sweat shops etc etc The word 'exploitation' springs to mind....

doodles · Post by **doodles** » Sun May 15, 2011 10:12 pm

[quote="markedIf a person has a job, decides to go on strike, it implies that person is not happy with terms and conditions. So why doesn't he/she just leave? Why go on strike? If a worker doesn't want to work, and goes on strike, the employer should have the right to sack the person and replace the person with someone who is willing to work. The worker cannot dictate terms. They accept the terms of a job and if they don't like it, they should leave. If they cannot find another job, they may think twice about striking or leaving.[/quote]

A very naive view in my opinion. If you are of a certain age or in a niche area other jobs may be few and far between. Sometimes the nature or terms of the job changes at the employer's instigation. What are you suggesting just get on with it?

Taking away the right to strike ( and note I said the "rightt" to strike) is returning employment law to the dark ages. What next lower salaries for women.....heaven forbid.

sp · Post by sp » Mon May 16, 2011 9:46 am

The trouble is at the moment, some companies are having to find ways to cut costs etc and this may have to involve a change in conditions. I feel that changes should be made after consulting the staff and/or union if appropriate. A friend of ours had his salary cut for a limited time on the promise (written) that monies owing would be paid as and when it was possible. All the staff agreed that this was better than the company going down the pan completely. They are back to normal now and it gave the staff great incentive to work flat out.

marked · Post by **marked** » Mon May 16, 2011 12:54 pm

doodles wrote: A very naive view in my opinion. If you are of a certain age or in a niche area other jobs may be few and far between. Sometimes the nature or terms of the job changes at the employer's instigation. What are you suggesting just get on with it?

Yes that is exactly what I am saying. If you don't like it, just leave. No strikes allowed. Nobody is forcing the person to work. If the employee thinks he can get a better job, then he should go and get one. "Put up or shut up."

If the employer has broken the law, litigate, by all means. If a person wants to strike, the employer should have the right to sack and replace them without compensation. After all, it is the employee who doesn't want to work, by going on strike.

Should a BA pilot ever get a pay increase when they are paid 20% more than other pilots? I say no. But they will go on strike for more pay. Is there a shortage? No. So will the BA pilot leave? No. But they will strike. Sorry, no pay increase until BA have a problem in recruiting staff. It's called market forces.

An employer offers a job and the employee decides whether to accept or decline. Employers are protected by minimum salary and health and safety, as specified in the post, which was not the case in the dark ages. To think otherwise, is a very naive point of view, in my opinion. There is no exploitation, unless you believe market forces = exploitation.

I say the same for the teachers who want to strike. They simply should not be allowed to strike. If they don't like the job and terms on offer, they should leave. Sorry, it's harsh, but the world has moved on since the dark ages.

mike1880 · Post by **mike1880** » Mon May 16, 2011 5:14 pm

marked wrote:Sorry, it's harsh, but the world has moved on since the dark ages.

It has, thankfully, but only because it was recognised that attitudes like that were outdated. If we applied your approach we'd still be there. We can always go back to the dark ages - after all, much of the world has not succeeded in leaving them - but personally I have no wish to join them there.

Mike

sp · Post by sp » Mon May 16, 2011 5:34 pm

I certainly agree that if you accept a job offer then you also accept the conditions and you sign a contract to this end. However, I do not agree that if conditions are changed that you should "put up or shut up". That's why we have unions, staff associations etc, to discuss and negotiate with employers. Times are tough and we all have to accept that things will change for many of us, but those changes should be sensible and do-able. British Airways staff are renowned for their militancy and the unions need to be flexible, but so do companies when introducing new working procedures. Bit like getting married, give and take on both sides, hopefully arriving at a mutually beneficial conclusion!