Don't want to join the teaching strike

[SweetRascal]

I'm a primary school teacher of 12 years and with the NEU. For my own reasons, I don't want to vote yes to striking but will this be judged negatively by other teachers? I just don't feel comfortable with the disruption it causes.

And if your union is you can opt out of the political fund. Done spread misinformation just because you’re not a fan of unions, @Phineyj
Why don’t you want ordinary working people to have a voice? Don’t you like weekends, holiday pay, sick pay, maternity pay and on and on

I’d judge both, @Willyoujustbequiet
Everyone was struggling to feed their kids. What makes you think I didn’t have a personal connection to it all?

I am judging non striking colleagues as presumably you will want to enjoy whatever we win in this battle- or will you refuse to take a pay rise if we manage to negotiate one?

Also,I cannot afford to lose pay, but sometimes it's worth it in long term.

I'm not spreading "misinformation". The teaching unions explicitly state that your membership fee goes towards campaigning (small p politics). As their stance is very clearly anti the government, they hardly need to say where they lean politically, even if somehow teachers were unaware which major party is associated with the union movement.

neu.org.uk/join-now

www.nasuwt.org.uk/why-join.html

Show me where it says here that by joining you've a responsibility to strike, or that you must join the strike in the event the majority vote yes?

Where has anyone said that it would be stated on the websites?

I posted the links to show that the organisations themselves don't seem to expect or require the kind of solidarity being advocated by some posters on this thread.

I don't really understand the argument that non-striking union members will take the benefits - the benefits will apply to all, including people not in a union, so it makes little odds whether they don't strike as a union member or don't strike as a non-union member.

I do think a lot of younger teachers also don't know a lot about unions. You're told to be in one for professional cover. If you were born after the miner's strikes and your parents weren't in unions, I can understand why you might not know about collective bargaining. It was explained to me by a colleague who'd had it explained to her by a teacher 30 years older.

Can I ask, if you do the ‘right thing’ and move to a non-striking union, and others from another union go on strike and gain better pay and conditions. Would the teachers from the non-striking union also reap the rewards ‘guilt-free?’ Or would only the teachers from the striking union get rewarded? I don’t know how this stuff works.

State school teaching is what is technically described as a monopsony - single main employer. In reality the government pay the wages, although teachers are employed by the schools.

So wage increases have to be applied to all (schools can deviate from the national pay scales but it would be illegal to do so based on whether an employee was a union member or not).

Show me where it says here that by joining you've a responsibility to strike, or that you must join the strike in the event the majority vote yes?

Where it says "union". Which means acting together, because when workers act together, they have power over their employer who might not need individuals, but needs them as a group. It's about solidarity.

It's not just about professional indemnity insurance and only looking out for yourself.

@noblegiraffe, I have always had a lot of respect for your posts on Mumsnet.

I know what a union is.

The two biggest teaching unions have over 800,000 members. I doubt they all joined for the same reason or think the purpose of a union is the same thing.

Exactly. Unions are collective entities. They're not just there so people can look out for themselves by purchasing indemnity insurance.

Thatcher and the subsequent erosion of unions obviously influences a lot of people, unfortunately.

I doubt they all joined for the same reason or think the purpose of a union is the same thing.

No doubt. But that doesn't change what a trade union is.

I think that people have become more self centred in general too, so don’t do things for the greater good nowadays. It’s another issue for unions. In the future, when it’s too late, people will realise that they should have stood together when they could. When they realise that the future for their children is minimum wage and poor conditions virtually everywhere.

Good point @Honeyroar .I agree.

Then don't.

But aren't you at all outraged by the fact they Teacher pay rises this year were not funded by the government.

To put it into context, that's a 100k hit to our 3 year plan.

Imagine the benefits that will not be realised to the children.

Also, the Burgundy Book was negotiated line by line by your Union. I wonder if you've read it?

I am not a Teacher, but I can tell you your world in education would be a lot chillier without its protections.

No one wants to strike. No one wants to disrupt education. The fact that the Headteachers union has balloted for the first time in 80 odd years should tell you this is a time to speak up. It's a much broader question than pay.

The Burgundy Book that only has to be followed by approx 25% of state schools (I know most contracts are based on it including independent ones), hasn't been updated in 22 years and has been superseded in some places by statutory legislation - that one? Yes I have read it. I was sent a copy by ATL when I joined.

Admittedly, when I first started teaching in my early 20s, I didn't know much about teaching unions other than I should be in one.

My personal reasons for not joining in with a strike are still valid even if others don't agree. As others have said, it's democracy.

I'm going to be changing over from NEU to Edapt. Many people on here have said about not accepting a pay increase if the strike should be successful. I really don't know how to answer this. Does anyone in a non-striking union or not in a union at all, just turn down any extra money? Should striking be made a compulsory part of teaching in order to receive a pay increase? I really don't know enough about these things but what I do know is, I don't have to follow the crowd. I don't want to be judged negatively but equally I don't want to go against my own moral beliefs and values.

I think the point about accepting a pay rise despite not taking part in action - practically, you can't turn down a pay raise. But morally, it is plain the government is not currently going to give a decent, funded pay rise, so if they change their minds after a strike/work to rule, are you happy to accept it despite not taking part? So a moral question really.

I do not want to damage students' education, have spent years doing so much beyond my hours (like most teachers). The decider for me is the incredible difficulty in recruiting, the number of subjects having to be taught by non-specialists, the number of my colleagues off sick with WRS. That is going to damage student's education more than a few days of strike action.

At least @SweetRascal you aren't retaining membership of a union. Since Edapt isn't actually a union it seems as though your needs will be covered.

How do people square the circle if their union doesn’t vote to strike but another one does and a pay increased is awarded? Will you not accept it or donate to charity since you didn’t strike for it?

For this reason alone our head teacher has told us she encourages us to strike. She said we need to do it if we want all of our colleagues to still be sat with us next year.