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?

Can a anyone help me with what is fact and what is fiction. I don't want to get into the emotion of what is right and wrong, but I am interested in the facts.

1. Do unions really get tax payer funding/support?
2. Is there any independent report that shows teachers pensions can be funded i.e. they can be afforded?

1. Trade Unions are tax exempt if that's what you mean

1. the reason negotiations have broken down is because the unions agreed in 2007 to pay higher contributions if it became necessary but the government has failed to produce evidence

Thanks

The reason I asked was in the Standard today there was a piece about pension apartheid, and in it it suggested that tax payers "funded" unions. Also it said that there was a report from the Office Budget Responsibility but I cannot find such a report.

The report her

Have a read and let me know you views from a teachers view point, off to put the kids to bed . This can be your homework!

Wow Strix...I'm staggered by your lack of understanding.

www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmpubacc/833/83302.htm

?This report on pensions from the Public Accounts Committee serves to strengthen the already strong case that public sector pensions are not the drain on the country's finances that the government claims. The committee recognises that the pension scheme changes of 2007-2008 have served to stabilise costs and will affect significant savings.

"The government is being disingenuous when it claims that pension costs are unaffordable - the committee quite rightly points out that the government has failed to find out what is affordable. To move to make changes to the pension scheme for teachers when the case for change is unproven is reckless in the extreme. The government runs the risk of needlessly demoralising a whole profession without any evidence of a need for change."

regardless of whether or not teachers have generous renumeration packages or not. I doubt most people could put up with the S that gets dumped on them daily from parents, SMT and the government. It strikes me that they should be entitled to a decent pension/ retirement after the hard work they put in to their jobs throughout their career; after all that I'm sure they need the rest.

Labtech28 what about the rest of the working public are we all less deserving?!
I thought teachers were well paid and got ample holidays & reasonable pensions
and those that are in a job should regard themselves as fortunate (I don't mean undeserving)
there are a lot of people who would love to work but cant get a job, including I am sure, some of the parents of the kids who go to the schools of those striking teachers
Having said that, still not as bad as the 6-7000 pounds the MPs are awarding themselves

I thought teachers were well paid and got ample holidays

Well paid? Meh. Our holidays are fab - but they are unpaid, btw

Why exactly have you upped a two year old thread to discuss this?

apologies
I looked to see if there were any discussions on teachers going on strike (again)
and didn't look at the date
so you can ignore if you wish
I hope my spelling is up to scratch (I recognise one of your responses on another thread)

No idea what post you have seen, but just in case

I've been teaching 20+ years - only seen 3 days' strikes in that time. i would argue your 'again' and would suspect more than a little media sway there.