How can the headmaster be so confident that his school is unaffected by strike action?

[EdwiniasRevenge]

Letter sent out middle of last week. The school is unaffected by strike action. Officially the teachwra don't have to inform of intent to strike until today (or was it Friday?)

How can he be so confident?

It is not a small school (2-3 classes per year across full primary range).
We are talking about 17 teachers.
Surely some are in the unions that are striking?
Surely some will be wantong to support the industrial action?
As I understand it the other unions support the strike in that their members are instruxted not to cover striking teachers.

I have a suspiscion that the head (who has a reputation for being very 'assertive' has somehow negated the strike.

Has he/can he ban his teachers from striking?
Has he/can he offer incentives not to strike?

How will he cover a class if a teacher is striking? Are the TAs being dumped on?

AIBU to feel sorry for staff at the school? Either the teachers that may be blocked from striking or the staff that are being dumped on to pick up the flack?

If a teacher is striking how is he

I think it depends on his relationship with the staff. In my school, all staff let the head know in advance if they will be on strike so that she can make a decision about whether to close or stay open. If a person hadn't decided, they would let the head know. Nobody in my school would go on strike without giving the head advance notice.

Same as above.

But also, it's just an NUT strike (I think) so it depends on which unions the teachers are in.

I thought it was NUT and NASWUT? Which I thought represented a large proportion of teachers (50%+?).

This is a new(ish) headmaster and from what I gather his relationship with staff could be better...

It's a joint NAS and NUT strike. If no one is striking in that school it sounds like the staff are too scared. Every school round here is going to be shut, and in my school, the head teachers are supporting the strike

He may know that staff are members of other unions.

He may know that staff are planning not to strike evenif part of a striking union.

He may be able to provide enough cover from SMT (even I they shoukdn't, hey might agree).

He might simply mean 'enough adults on the premises to mean the children can come in and have a day with adequate supervision, though not quite normal teaching'.

Neither of my dcs' schools are affected tomorrow. For reasons no more sinister than the fact that only 1 member of staff has chosen to strike and the Head is covering that class. It all got discussed last week as I understand it. I think that although technically the teachers have longer to give notice, they are sensible enough to know that giving working parents virtually no notice to arrange emergency childcare is not going to endear them to anyone.

I've not heard a peep about it from DCs school ..... thing is that Academy heads may well take a much harder line about such things and parental sympathy will be pretty limited

I think parents may have a lot of sympathy - provided teachers don't shoot themselves in the foot by not giving notice.

I know that legally they don't have to disclose their intentions, but they also need to think about the bigger picture. Parents who have a day or few to make contingency arrangements will be more supportive than those who are buggered around on the day. Yes, parents have to cope with the unexpected (illnesses etc) but this needn't be unexpected, and consideration for them will reap benefits in levels of support for the cause.

I teach in an Academy. Out heads are sympathetic to it. Why should they take a harder line?

Half our school is closed half open. DD is thrilled she has to go in whilst DS doesn't

Whereabouts in the country are you? One of the unions (either NUT or NASUWT, not sure which) has split into two, geographically, so the North and East (mainly) are striking tomorrow, and the South and West (roughly) on the 17th Oct.

None of my dcs schools are striking. Two are very large, much larger than the size you're talking about. They have been out on strike before, so I'm confident that the head hasn't been doing any "influencing", and he's not that sort either.

I would imagine he had asked the staff to let him know sooner rather than later. They may have only had to tell him by today, but most staff will have let know of intent earlier if asked.
If he asked them if they were planning on striking, or they're in different unions, and they said confidently that they weren't last week, then they could choose to leave him on the hop today, but I would imagine most of them value their professional relationship with each other enough not to do that.

It could be that he can cover the few teachers at his school in NUT/NASUWT with high level teaching assistants and himself and any non-teaching deputies.
Those unions representing most teachers nationally doesn't mean the dominate every school.

I know that around 40% of the teachers did strike a couple of years ago.

This will possibly out me but the whole school is holding an open classroom event where parents are spending the afternoon seeing their childs classroom 'as a normal working class'. I can't imagine he will be using hltas for that.

I just don't like the 'feel' and how the teachers may not have a real option to strike.'

HLTAs, especially if in a union themselves, should not be covering for teachers on strike. Unless they were scheduled to do they anyway because they have always done Tuesday afternoons for example.

If you are in UNISON (who I work for) and are asked to cover a teachers duties, say no-any problems get on the phone to your branch who will sort it.

Sending solidarity to our teachers.

No one should be covering the classes of striking teachers. ShoeWhore, your Headteacher is acting illegally.

I am the only teacher striking in my school, although there are around 11 other teachers in the relevant unions. For one reason or another (mostly pretty poor reasons as far as I'm concerned), none of the others are striking. However, I have the full support of my Headteacher and he has gone out of his way to make sure that I know that my views on the strike are valued and valid.

I can see the way it might look from outside the school though - that the HT is putting pressure on staff not to strike. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth.

Lots of teachers are just in unions for the legal protection, not the politics. I'm in the other one (ATL), so wouldn't be striking anyway.

My DD school said they never close due to strikes. If anyone does strike (no one has in the last 10 year's), then they cover it.

Covering a class is not illegal. The Unions ask their staff not to, but they can if they wish.

Trinity

This is taken from the NASUWT website re. using agency staff to cover for striking teachers...

I see from this case that it is not the school who are acting unlawfully, but the supply agency would be. I'll look for the guidance on being asked to cover for colleagues.

13b. My headteacher is planning to employ agency supply teachers to cover for staff who are on strike, is that allowed?

Schools who do this will leave themselves vulnerable to legal action as they will be assisting a supply agency in committing unlawful acts. It is unlawful for a supply agency to provide workers to an employer to cover any workers taking part in official industrial action. The relevant statutory provision is regulation 7 of the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003. Any breach of that regulation is a criminal offence on the part of the supply agency, and will also mean they incur civil liability to anyone who suffers damage from the breach. While the Regulations themselves are only directed at supply agencies, and do not directly affect schools who might use supply teachers to cover those taking part in industrial action; planning on using teachers via supply agencies; need to aware of the law.While schools will not themselves be in breach of the Regulations, by using supply teachers they will be assisting the supply agency in the commission of various unlawful acts and so will themselves be liable in similar fashion.

I wasn't referring to bringing in new staff, but about colleagues covering.

From NUT website:
The NUT would not expect staff not taking part in the action to be asked to undertake the work of colleagues taking strike action. Other unions have advised their members of the usual convention that their members will not undertake work normally undertaken by those who are taking strike action.

UNISON’s advice to its members is as follows: “School support staff should not be expected to provide cover for or take classes, where this would normally be done by teachers who are on strike. In particular, HLTAs or cover supervisors should only be taking classes or providing cover where they are contracted to do so, it is timetabled or part of their normal duties. Staff should not be moved from the duties they would normally have carried out in order to cover classes and frustrate the industrial action of colleagues. Members who are under pressure to cover should contact their UNISON rep, branch or region for further advice and support. Members should not be pressured to provide cover on health and safety grounds to avoid closure of a workplace. Employers should be reviewing any risks and health and safety procedures, including evacuation of workplaces taking account of the impact of staff taking strike action.”

EdwiniasRevenge - if it's fear of the HT causing staff not to go out on strike, you'll find out in the next few years as an increasing number of staff start to leave, to be replaced by increasingly junior people as anyone any good with experience won't touch the school with a barge pole, having heard of the HT's reputation through the grapevine.

I'm not in the UK, so not affected by this strike, but there is no way that anyone at our school would ever let our head know on the morning of a strike that we were going to be off at a rally. Aside from anything else, we're professionals, we care about our students and their parents, and we would always have discussed it with our head in advance and as a team. As someone upthread has already said, it does no good getting parents offside by not letting them know what we are planning.