To not send my children to school on the strike days?

[mumoffourminimes]

(Primary) school have said they will open on the strike days with TAs in classrooms instead of teachers and they will not be covering the national curriculum (fair enough). But do I have to send the children in under these circumstances?

Is it even safe to have a school full of children and half the number of adults?

I'm especially thinking of the younger years, unfortunately there have been some violent incidents in both yr1 and reception classes and there are some kids that really need the supervision.

I don't want to send my children in for babysitting services, i'm at home on maternity leave so I don't need that, lucky I know. So AIBU not to send them?

So?!

No, they don't. I work in one that is closed to all children on Wednesday.

it depends if their attendance is being counted or not...

and just remember that - just because some teachers are on strike - it doesnt mean that your child's class teacher is.

it isn't compulsory to strike.

they are picketing their fellow workers - not the parents or the kids.

some parents have to work and are in jobs where striking isnt an option.

Yes, I’ve never worked in a job as a professional where I could even join a union. Hence the workload is insane, the pay inadequate and you are totally on your own. The answer to that isn’t saying no one should be able to join a union, it’s that all workers should have access to a union if they wish to join one, to safeguard their rights.

I would also prefer to keep the dc at home. But I don't want to risk a fine.

Some parents can’t afford to take unpaid parental leave to cover strike days. If it’s a choice of not having enough money for food/ heating then I’d send the dc off to the glorified babysitting service.

i agree that everyone should be able to - but some people also work in low paid jobs where there is no union and - or the staff are too scared or not interested in joining.

strike action isnt always the best route to sorting workplaces out anyway

and the kids need education.

i wouldnt worry about crossing the picketline as a parent. the picket line is there to attempt to stop other people going to work - however they cannot stop them.

nonsense. how can a kid be a scab? how outdated!

it didnt work for the miners or anyone else to label their fellow workers scabs.

btw i come from a mining family...

trade unions are playing games with the workers and the public. they have better hands to play than having their workers go on strike (without pay) and leaving the kids without education.

these trade unions arent as great as what they make out to be and certainly arent all that they portray themselves to be. they have plenty of money themselves but dont care about leaving the workers short or causing internal tensions.

they have plenty of legal knowhow at their fingertips and know fine well that there are better ways of dealing with this - and could easliy pay for professional negotiators to speak to the government.

we are not living in the 1970s or the 1980s

me too.

I'm wondering what the legalities are here. I don't believe any child going to school is a scab (they're probably not going to do any work that day, and I'd hope they won't be taking the place of a striking teacher). But the school my kids attend says school is open, but they won't be doing the national curriculum that day and there will be periods of supervision in the hall. It's my day off, so I'd prefer the kids to have a nice day with me than sit in the hall with 200 kids and one TA,

Surely we can't be breaking the law by refusing to send our children in on a day when they've said they won't be taught?

Unions ARE professional negotiators. They have been undertaking industrial action short of strike for years. The government has done nothing but cut, cut, cut. Their wages have still gone up, they don’t need to fundraise for the basic needs of their offices. Strike action is a last resort. The government is at fault for failing to engage in good faith with the teachers and their unions. Like nurses they thought these suckers will never strike so f them.
I agree though I think it would have been a great idea to organise community centres to run clubs on the days of strikes for parents who are low waged and need to work. Again though this needs to come from the community. Not supporting other workers doesn’t benefit those of us who cannot join a union.

Ours is closed as they do not know how many teachers will be working. It is a secondary.
No mention of any online work either, so it looks like an extra day off for mine.

Some Slt at my school are striking

the money for childcare could also come from the unions. not all teachers will want their class to miss days of education or necessarily agree with the strike action.

each should choose their own course of action and not be marked for it.

Yes, but they must be teaching staff and members of a teaching union. Headteachers as I said cannot be members of a teaching union.

Unions can’t throw money around. Like any incorporated organisation they have to account for it. Teachers pay subscriptions to their union which includes among other things a strike fund to compensate workers for their lost pay so they get something. Teachers who don’t want to strike won’t be on strike? Teachers don’t have to join a union and many don’t.

Ive not heard anything from our school, no idea if we are potentially affected or not.

So they do get strike pay, why do people say they don't

have you any idea about how rich these unions actually are? they arent little groups who meet in town halls collecting 50 p subs from members each fortnight?

they own land and buildings overseas and all sorts... for example - buildings in manhatten.

So they do get strike pay, why do people say they don't

NEU do not pay their members to strike.

Unions maintain a strike fund. I don’t know what the conditions are when people are paid or what percentage of their actual wage they receive. It will not be what they usually get and also they paid in to the fund? Why should they not get the benefit of it?

The post I quoted mentioned a strike fund to compensate workers for lost pay so they get something

Their membership collectively owns it. They hold a lot of money collectively because a lot of people are members of unions and pay in to them. A lot of people are employed by unions and have to be paid. What’s your problem with workers organising themselves in to strong unions for their own protection with assets to back them? That’s a wise way to invest money, through diverse means. They have to be accountable for the money and have a fiduciary duty to look after it. They can’t just bung it in an account.

The post I quoted mentioned a strike fund to compensate workers for lost pay so they get something

Strikers don't get any pay when they are striking. The NEU has a hardship fund which members who are particularly impacted by losing pay can apply to.