To think it was a tactful way of saying ‘working class?’

[BoothsDelivery]

I went to a school in the middle of 2 deprived council estates.

In one of our classes, we were taught a bit about trade unions. Teacher asked us if we had a parent who was in a trade union. When we all looked blank as if he’d just asked had we been to the moon - he asked in a louder voice :

Well, come on, this is a part of the city where people have working jobs. Is anyone’s parent in a trade union?

looking back, do you think he used the phrase ‘working jobs’ because it sounds more tactful than saying “this is a working class area?”

I regularly think about things, some from yesterday or last year or last decade and yes sometimes from longer. I don’t know why snotty about it to be honest. It’s not hurting anyone, is it?

And I'm delighted that I'm not pig ignorant. There, now we're both happy!

Who knows. It's a bit weird that you're still dwelling on it many years later.

it was probably a euphemism for working class, yes. And a slightly clunky and inaccurate phrase.
But not offensive in any way.

I am also struggling to understand why you’re still mulling it over more than 30 years later.

He probably meant what is termed "blue collar jobs" in America

As opposed to non-working jobs?

As a teacher, I'd imagine he was in a union. Almost all teachers are.

Unions aren't "provided" by jobs, they are something you join, pay a membership for. There are a very few exceptions but almost everyone can be in a union. Absolutely not just public sector!
Without unions existing how do workers campaign for pay increases, maternity rights etc? Who supports you if someone complains about you?

What?

Well yes, this is the Marxist understanding isn't it? If you sell your labour, you are working class.

Er - what, what? I’m not trying to be rude. I just don’t know which part of the above you didn’t understand (which is what I assume was meant by ‘what?’)

There are lots of areas where a particular legacy industry dominates or at least used to. Steel in the north east, automotive around Birmingham, textiles around bradford & Leicester. These would all be unionised and if in an area known to be inhabited by a lot of people employed in those industries its not a weird question

All of the above.

Why Nottingham? Why 1984? WTF are you talking about?

How long ago did this person say this? I'd think that most children could barely name and describe their parents' job title correctly, never mind know if they were in a union.
And 'working jobs'? As opposed to what?
He needs to explain and teach the concept a bit better by the sounds of it.

Why is it a weird thing to be asking?

Why would you need to be tactful to say working class? It’s not an insult.

1992

I think when faced with blank expressions from his students he was trying to describe it in the simplest possible terms. Perhaps it was a bit clumsy. But sometimes to simplify things to the level a 5 year old might understand you lose nuance.

There is little point being in a union if your employer doesn’t recognise it, which will be the case for most non unionised work forces.

I'm just impressed you remember anything a teacher said at school. I can't remember one sentence any teacher ever said so specifically.

'Working job' strikes me as a bit needlessly euphemistic, if anything. There's nothing wrong with having a working class job, but the term 'working job' sounds ridiculous.

I don't think any of my teachers would have asked if our parents were members of a union because it's none of their business, and there may be reasons why the parents or children wouldn't want to discuss it with just anyone. As others have said, most younger students probably have no idea if their parents are part of a union, so raising his voice impatiently when they didn't have an immediate answer wasn't great, either.

But the teacher would've been in a union as well. Doctors, too.

I suspect the reference is to the miner's strike. If memory serves, the Nottinghamshire miners were balloted and voted to continue working and it caused a lot of issues with the rest of the miners who were out on strike. I disagree with that poster actually, a lot of deprived areas have a pretty strong union presence.

She might have meant that, but it makes no sense.

A) Nottingham is not Nottinghamshire. The miners were Notts miners, not Nottingham miners.

B) Mining areas weren't deprived areas. Miners were well paid, because they had strong unions.

Isn't that a bit of a tautology?

Isn't it the other way around now anyway? If you're in a unionised job you're more likely to be middle class, teachers, doctors etc.
Poorer people aren't in unions anymore (funny that) shop workers, care workers etc.

Office work 😁