I am being very U, aren't I, to be pissed off with DP for striking

[PollyCazaletWannabe]

DP and I are both teachers. DP had been at the same school for 11 years but resigned in December after basically being pushed into it by unpleasant bullying HT. Since then she has had some supply work but this has not been regular- she only recently got a long term supply job but this finishes at May half term; she is also not paid for the Easter holidays. Although we can manage on my salary, we have had to cut back; we can't really afford to go out more than once a month and have had to cancel a break we were planning at Easter. (BTW I realise we are much, much better off than many, but we are a lot worse off than before).

We are both NUT members but DP is much more involved than me. When this Wednesday's strike was announced, I told DP that I wouldn't be striking as the money I would lose was equivalent to a whole week's budget for food, travel and the Friday night takeaway which is now our only treat. She wasn't working at the time but agreed.

Now she is working she has said she is going to strike, and is also banging on at me about the political reasons for doing so, making me feel guilty for not striking. AIBU to feel aggrieved? I have basically been supporting us since Dec and am going against my principles and not striking for money reasons. DP seems to be ignoring our day to day situation in favour of her principles. I'm cross- AIBU?

But this is really nothing to do with the politics of striking, and everything to do with your financial arrangements, isn't it, OP? It sounds to me like you have been forced to make a sudden switch from being equal breadwinners to you taking on the greater financial burden, and in circumstances beyond your control (compared to, for example, starting a family and planning for one of you to be at home). It sounds like maybe your DP has not changed her spending habits in line with her new income (I'm sorry if I'm wrong, I'm just reading between the lines) and you feel like she is spending your money as if she were still contributing equally.

If I'm right then you need to have a frank discussion about income and spending, and agree what is and isn't reasonable from your shared pot before this simmering resentment builds any further.

You feel that you will be making a sacrifice by not striking but nobody else will see it that way - not your DP, and certainly not your colleagues. You will be left feeling even more resentful that nobody recognises your martyrdom and that your DP isn't more grateful for your money. Strike together, and agree together where you will jointly take the hit on both salaries.

Ok. You've pointed out that you don't care for my opinion given on the basis of the facts you gave at the time. I've pointed out that I stand by what I said on the basis of the information you gave I suspect we're not going to get much further on this one as I've already said that if you'd made it clear you'd resigned your membership I wouldn't have made the post

Winkle - well yes, you can. That is why you pay your subs. And unions have been sued in the past for not supporting their members.

I do not disagree with your post however, but it does need to be clear why people join unions - for legal protection or for personal belief. The majority of teachers join for the former.

Ilovesooty - I absolutely respect your opinion. I agree with it to an extent as is evidenced by my own actions. But I also believe that the issue is not as clear-cut as some believe it to be.

What I did not care for was the way in which it was expressed: I won't bother saying any more than that, but I dislike sarcasm and I dislike rudeness - that is all.

I think it depends what you mean by "cannot win" If you want union protection I think that following calls to democratically agreed action is part of the deal.

You've called ilove rude, sarcastic and, particularly unpleasantly, snide.

I wouldn't like those names directed at me roasted.

I'm sorry but if you are in a union then you go with what they say. I'm a teacher but I don't agree with one day strikes (I don't think they achieve anything) so I have joined a non-striking union.

Someone in my department is coming in on strike day and I am angered by it. She is playing the 'we won't be able to afford to eat nice food' card. She went on strike for the last one but moaned for days afterwards - I gave her the details of my union but she won't switch as she feels it is too small and won't have such good legal benefits. She may have a point but I strongly believe that if you are in a union, you support what they do - you can't just take the good bits.

Yes, and I do not disagree with that point Ilovesooty, at all. What I do feel however is that it is very difficult to have protection of a legal nature without being a member of a union - and it shouldn't really be.

Yes, you can get legal protection on home insurance but this would only step into play when things became quite intense. Smaller, yet intimidating actions (I am thinking of for example being called into a meeting without being informed as to what the meeting pertains to) require some support without actually needing legal protection.

ThatBloodyWoman - I believe the post was. I really don't like it when people (general, not specific) do that and I will comment on it when they do.

At any rate, I think we have moved on from that - it is you continuing the argument now, not me.

YABU, you should be grateful to your Dp and others like her who are willing to consider striking in order to stand up for education including the pay and working conditions of teachers.

Of course unions are only as effective as their members I personally am saddened by the fact that so many members only want the insurance and safety net aspect but that's the way it is and there is nothing to be done about that unfortunately.

I don't accept that I was sarcastic or rude. I stated what appeared to be a fact - which turned out to be incorrect as I was not told about your resignation from the union.

ThatBloodyWoman

The post was undoubtedly in my eyes extremely sarcastic - I am surprised you genuinely don't appear to see that it is.

However, moving away from that as I have no desire to spoil the discussion for other posters, I feel the issue is that not so much that members "only want" the insurance/safety net aspect but that they are repeatedly told that they need it.

You moved on because you weren't called out on it.

If you feel strongly against striking, join a non striking union, like voice. They might not have such clout (yet) but if every teacher who felt they needed union support but not strike action joined it it would have more clout.

This is just so indicative of modern society. We are all paralysed by political and ideological lethargy. Very few of us have strong enough beliefs to fight for a change (whatever that change may be) and we look on those who do with suspicion.

If you don't agree with striking, you agree with allowing the continued evaporation of living standards and the widening of the gap between rich and poor. If you think it is wrong, I hope you enjoy our impending return to Victorian social inequalities.

You're welcome ilove.

You are continuing the argument.

I didn't like the way I was spoken to and I said so.

I am a very tolerant and patient person but one promise I have always stood by is that I won't be spoken to in a manner that is rude, sarcastic or unpleasant without stating that I object to it - because I don't speak to others like it.

I will hide the thread because I have absolutely no desire to continue an argument and spoil the discussion.

Things moved on - I didn't like a post and said so. I didn't like it because it was both sarcastic and rude.

Yes they need it. Sadly many won't buy into the other aspects. Unions are as effective as their members.

roasted teachers are intelligent people.
They can make their own minds up, whatever they are told.

Well, don't continue it then roasted.

Move on and debate the point now.

If it was sarcastic and rude I expect to offend others who seem to make similar points about the pick and mix approach to union membership but fail to provide the crucial information that they have resigned from their union.

He needs to act in his principle/beliefs if that inc strike,then he strikes
Your today night takeaway whilst a treat isn't a dream breaker or ideological principle

Frumious you have hit the nail on the head- that is how I feel. DP still comes home having bought books or unnecessary bits and bobs. She buys and drinks wine and whisky (not to excess before anyone starts speculating!) She bought her DD, who is 20 years old and a student not living with us, a leather jacket for £70. Meanwhile I am shopping in Lidl and haven't had my hair cut since last summer. I do resent DP I'm afraid and this striking thing is not helping.

So this is about your troubled relationship and resentment,not strike
You'll still have lingering resentment whether or not dp strike

Did you vote against the strike? If you didn't, and you're not prepared to support it, then I'd consider cancelling your union membership.

Not convinced going on your recent post though that this is entirely about the strike. Sounds more like straw/camel's back to me.

We are really struggling with money right now and are desperately trying to save for a baby but I still support my DP's right to strike, I would hate for him to go to work when all his colleagues are striking for principals that affect him just as much. I think that the financial impact of the not striking i.e. no change in Gove's plans for pay deals and pensions will be much bigger than one day's pay and what about the effect on our child's future education in this country.