strike

[jamdonut]

I am a TA.I am not striking today,because I don't believe it will achieve anything,although I do believe in the right to strike. But what really annoys me is the people on the news saying "why don't they strike in non- educational time?". Well....because then it wouldn't be a strike,would it? Strikes are meant to cause disruption so they are embarrassing to employers/government,precisely because it causes inconvenience to others,thus drawing attention to their cause.

Or am I being unreasonable?

What ThatBloodyWoman said.

Serial joiners are the bane of our lives as reps.

Shockingly I feel for you working in DWP, conditions sound truly horrendous, the banning of the posters flagging conditions was outrageous.

My own SofS decided to further reduce our 1% 'raise' by funding progression costs from the 1% reducing it to 0.8% even though other funding was available to cover progression. He's a ballroom dancing former economics don btw.

The other stuff that really gets my goat, is that while everyone is complaining about striking, this government has increased our qualifying period for employment protection from one year to two, made access to employment rights via tribunal much harder, and scrapped the agricultural wages board.

The working person is being shit on from a great height here people.

I would like to ask a question: am I right to think that if you are on strike you should be on the picket line or demonstrating in some way?

I've seen a post on here only this week about a TA who was looking forward to going for a long lunch with her striking colleagues. And friends on Facebook post about lie-ins and sitting in the garden while they're on strike.

Is that acceptable? From a Union Member's point of view? It pisses me off no end but I work in the private sector in a profession not known for Union membership so I know very little about it. Is there a moral obligation to be on the picket line? Or is it enough that they aren't at work?

auldspinster echt and ThatBloodyWoman I would like to, er, embrace you in a non-dodgy way :) You get what I'm on about.

To rip me mask off, I'm a PCS rep. I have seen conditions decline dramatically since we had a Coalition government. Facilities time has been cut so reps are defending members in their own time. The Performance Review system has seen reps told that they would automatically be marked "needs to improve" for being union representatives. Check off is threatened and the right to strike is threatened for public sector workers, because according to the Tories, it "makes us too close to the state". For the avoidance of doubt, PCS is a non-affiliated union.

We are in a very difficult position. Nothing about this is pleasant. I don't enjoy striking, but I have been pushed into the position by the present government that I have to strike. If people are shocked and dismayed by striking workers, stop blaming strikers. Start blaming the government.

Trazzletoes the important thing about being out on strike is that you don't come in to work. :)

I am on the picket line, and I am super happy if people join me, but the most important, the essential point, is that they do not come into work at all. They might spend their strike day on protests, getting their hair done, jumping around in a bra or going to the beach. As long as they're not going in.

Striking won't work if the public don't end up on your side. If you are in the minority, then why would the government support you? The public currently are, mainly, not big fans of teachers. Striking makes them even more resentful. There is less need/desire to do anything. If more of the public sided with you, there would be more pressure for the government to do something. But they don't, so they won't.

And, I do blame the government. I have played that slap Gove game, and I don't like what he's doing to the education system and to teachers. BUT most people don't blame the government, they blame you, and making more people blame you will make the situation worse, not better. I support and agree with striking IF it is clear to the public why you are striking (muddled messages from the unions are not helping) exactly AND how that will benefit them and their children. There were loads of speakers at rallies to get the teachers going (for good reason), but to really work, they need to be speaking to the public, the voters, the ones who can stop the government.

Shockingly I'm also a PCS rep, we managed to negotiate away the performance management quotas and have been assured (for what it's worth) that no libdem secretary of state would cancel check off.

On the flip side our group GEC have taken upon itself to reorganise branches across geographical lines instead of by workplace, thus splitting up our successful branch and piling on more work to already overstretched reps. The result of which our most experienced reps aren't standing for re-election.

Why does it matter what they do when on strike, ie not in receipt of any pay that day? Obviously good to start the day with a picket line, or attend a rally if one is planned, but really can't see why this "pisses you off no end" Trazzletoes?

Exactly Igggi, if they're on strike I am happy and I applaud them :) I signed up a new member the day before the strike, and she went dancing round the office singing "I'm gonnae be on the beach tomorrow" :D

She's not hugely political and I was delighted that she was a. interested in joining the union and b. determined not to scab. Which she didn't - she did not cross the line. That is all we ask really.

GiantIsoPod I'm not a teacher any more so I can't answer all your points but I will try some :)

First of all, we are negotiating with management not the public. We might annoy or upset the public, but my responsibility is to my members, not to everyone who has ever existed ever. I negotiate pay, terms and conditions on behalf of the members of my union - I am not a negotiator for all of humanity. It doesn't make any sense to me to say "well the public will be upset if you strike/get paid more" or "how do I explain a picket line to my PFB who bursts into tears when she can't go into school/I can't sign on" etc.

My job, and it's a fairly hard and thankless one, is to try and attain decent working conditions for the members of my union. It's not to make everyone happy - if I wanted to do that, I'd be walking on the streets handing out kittens and lollipops (and would probably still get complaints that the kittens were too furry and I hadn't carried out a comprehensive risk assessment on the lollipops).

TBH it kinda depresses me that I am still having to explain the role of the union rep in the 21st century. Unions have been around for centuries. What still confuses you?

Why does it piss me off no end?

Because as has already been mentioned several times on here, strikes are meant to cause disruption (amongst other things). Without disruption, there's little point in striking. Therefore, ordinary people's lives are being disrupted for your actions. So, I had (clearly wrongly) assumed that if you are on strike you passionately believe in the cause you are striking for. And I would therefore have thought it should be expected that the striker should be doing something else constructive towards the cause by demonstrating, or being on the picket line for instance.

So I asked for clarification of that.

My day is being disrupted through something I have zero power over so I feel personally it would be a constructive use of your time to be doing something rather than just lying around in the garden.

Clarification was given some time ago now and I was politely informed that I was wrong and it was explained why.

Trazzletoes you're going ultra-left! Never go ultra-left!

I do understand your position and TBH I would love to see all of the members who were called out on the line and on rallies. On a strike day, I expect to be picketing and on at least one rally if not two. But I cannot ask that of members, because (and this gets complex) I can't ask them to share my political outlook. What I can ask them to do, and which most of them do, is to not cross a picket line and to respect the democratic decision of the union to strike.

Management ultimately want votes though. Going against the public (by supporting teachers) means they will lose votes. To get management on your side, the public need to be on your side. If the public are upset, well, that's the point, but they need to be upset at management, because the fear of losing voters is the reason Gove will change his stance, he doesn't give a fuck about kids or teachers, it's about votes and staying in power. If he would lose that by supporting teachers, then he won't support teachers. If he would lost that by not supporting teachers (if the public sides with the teachers) then he'd support the teachers.

GiantIsopod I'm not agreeing with ya, and I will attempt to explain why :)

Gove will change his stance, he doesn't give a fuck about kids or teachers, it's about votes and staying in power

Gove has an ideological position, as do the rest of the coalition government. The position is that teachers and union members in general are evil militant Trots, therefore unions need to be abolished.

I can say honestly that the vast majority of union members and union officials are NOT Trotskyists. Or Marxists of any stripe, or even political. I would love it if they were, they are not. What they are, however, is concerned about how members are facing difficulties, losing money and being oppressed by changing conditions at work.

People who wouldn't know who Cameron or Gove or Maude were if they strolled up and punched them in the face are now saying "I can't believe this is happening, what do I do to make it stop?" This is why we are seeing mass strikes. People are genuinely upset and horrified by what is happening in their workplaces.

Yes, they have a (very, very goody reason to be horrified. But not enough people outside the workplace are saying the same thing. Public opinion is, mostly, against teachers...and although many won't support Gove, there is more and more resentment building up. A lot of people have lost respect for teachers and a lot of people are seeing teachers as lazy whingers who strike at the drop of the hat. That isn't true, of course, but with public perception already like that, making people inconvenienced even more will mean they blame the teachers for the strikes (not the government) and means there is less and less reason for Gove to change anything. The position Gove has is, as you say, against teachers, but now that's becoming the position many/most members of the country take too. It doesn't matter what you are (well, it does, but it won't really affect the results of the action), it matters how the other voters/the public see you.

Ultra-left? how very dare you! I was actually scared you were going to tell me off for being too right-wing!!!

I think that's the only time in my entire life I will ever be described as "going ultra-left" .

I agree with shocking, while being on the picket line is a bonus in terms of visible support, not crossing the picket line is the main thing. The employer doesn't sit there dismissing as irrelevant those not marching; it's how many people are in/out of the building that matters.

Bit it wasn't just teachers striking was it?

I don't think the public is going to change its perceptions of teachers anyway but it might take the issues a lot more seriously if their industrial action were 1. part of a concerted, national campaign and 2. teachers actually all went on strike together and actually responded to their union ballots instead of finding reasons not to strike on the day. While they bend over backwards to find reasons to make exceptions they might just as well not bother at all.