Teachers on strike - do they usually name names?

[hester]

Just had a letter from dc's school, warning us of strike action at the end of the month and listing by name those teachers who will be on strike, and those who won't. They will close the classes of the striking teachers, and keep open the others.

Is this normal practice? I would have thought it would expose individual teachers to some irate parents? I also expected that they would treat it as a whole school issue, provide what cover they can, maybe suspend lessons and hav a games day in the hall. And if they couldn't do that, close the whole school?

Does that mean just 3 days strike? Is it likely that the government would cave in, I don't see it.

Out of interest is there is just a couple of teachers striking is the school allowed to use a supply teacher?

not cave in but surely they could talk? if you had an employee that notified you of wanting to strike would you ignore them jolly or try to sort out the problem?

No.

That was to jollydiane.

No, other teachers are not allowed to cover when someone is on strike

I have very happy employees

if a teacher was not scheduled to be in her class on thursdays, would a supply teacher be allowed to take the class if the teacher was on strike rather than in the staff room doing whatever work they do when they have a day/ half a day off each week?

It is tricky though, if a primary carer for a child needs to take time off work (i.e. to cover for a school closure) it makes it hard on the employee and employer. I cannot miss a deadline or we don't get paid. The tax payer does not come to my rescue .

do other professions have unions too? e.g. accountants, solicitors, etc. If not, then why do teachers have unions but not private sector professionals?

Teachers have the same problem though... many are not striking yet their children are in schools that will be closed. We all have childcare problems that effect our work.

I was informed that a professional set their own fee whereas a wage slave was not a professional in the true sense - therefore why would a person who set their own fee have a union

Sun1234, the only thing that the private sector makes is money. If we don't make a profit you don't survive, that helps to focus the mind.

If you work in the private sector and don't like your terms and conditions, you can negotiate with your employer or seek employment elsewhere.

The majority of teaching positions are in state schools and our terms and conditions are determined by the government. We can't just look for a job somewhere else because the terms and conditions will be the same. Since individual teachers are unable to talk directly with the government, unions are there to negotiate on our behalf.

Our school has also named names Hester, unless we are at the same school of course .

Only 4 classes will be "open" on the 30th - 3 in the infant school & 1 in the junior school.

yes and who are the private sector making money for - as it is not always their employees, there are a lot of private companies paying minimum wage - making large profits and then the government is subsidising the employees wages with tax credits and working tax credits as it is not a living wage that is being paid

Sun1234 re: if a teacher normally covered a class on a Thursday, could they take it on the 30th too. Presumably not, as DS2's class teacher never teaches his class on a Thursday, but the class is "closed" on the 30th, because he is on strike .

Do you think you get enough information from the government? I sometimes think that the reasons for the changes are not explained very well.

Why is it all about the teachers, what about other workers??? how can we find childcare at this short notice??? Our children deserve to be educated and if you can do this in less days than you are paid to do, then we should pay less tax and you should get more days off. We are your customer and frankly striking means you are ignoring your customers needs and wants.

Do other workers want to strike archie? Other worker are entitled to strike if they wish so it is not all about the teachers.

BA decided to strike and they didn't please their customers either, I don't think BA staff come under the heading of teaching staff - even if they do have to control 350 odd passengers on a flight that have left their brains at home as they forgot to pack them

Teachers would gain far more support by putting their case to parents rather than parents, I would support you far more if you kept the schools open, my children deserve to be educated and it isn't their fault that you need to strike yet all you affect is them. I only ask one question... are you all actually thinking about your customer????

thta should read putting their case to parents. ignore the rather than repetition sorry

We've just had a letter today saying that 4 classes will be closed (inc dd's!) and the rest open, so that's pretty obviously told us who will be striking!!!!

Its just a guess but I think this has all been promoted by an asset-liability study. This is something that pension fund trustees commission once every five years (from actuaries) and its purpose is to predict whether the pension fund will have enough money in the pot to pay its future liabilities i.e. the pension payments. It takes into account the current age of the scheme members, their life expectancy and it makes conservative estimates on the risk and the likely returns the investments will make.
If there is too much money, its called a surplus and the employer gets to take a contribution holiday (the hasn't happened for a very long time!), and if there is not enough its called a deficit. Small deficits can be fixed sometimes by switching investments. Larger ones require a bigger contribution from employers and huge ones make it to the media as "a pension blackhole".

As this seems to come up every five years, I bet its been prompted by the asset-liability studies, but as its government and everything moves so slowly I bet the 2006 solution was based on a study done maybe three years earlier which would mean that by the time teachers were accepting higher contributions in 2006, the world had already moved on and what they were voting for was already inadequate.

However that would also mean that the next study would have been done in 2008 in the depths of the crisis, so things may not be as bad as the report implies.

Unions should really get advice on this whole issue. Get their heads round it and make sure that they understand every word of the whole study. I think teachers should at least be made privy to the report conclusions. Then everyone could make informed decisions rather than relying on what they were told five years ago by Lord Hutton.

The pension trustees are there to be 100% on the side of the pensioners. Its in their interest not to bankrupt the employer - because then there will be no more pension contributions at all - but the only point of being a trustee is to make sure that the current and future pensioners are able to be given what they are owed. My guess is for the teacher's pension, some will be Department of Education officials and some may well be union officials. It would be very interesting to hear what they have to say and their word (when speaking as trustees) should be a lot less biased than that of the union.