Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

The staffroom

Whether you're a permanent teacher, supply teacher or student teacher, you'll find others in the same situation on our Staffroom forum.

Changes to striking?!

14 replies

rollonthesummer · 15/07/2015 19:43

I saw today that the government are trying to pass a bill that prevents unions from striking unless 50% of those eligible to vote, vote to strike.

They also propose to allow agency staff to cover for striking workers-eg striking teachers would just be replaced by daily supplies using the money that the teacher forgoes.

Do we reckon the bill will get passed?!

OP posts:
SuffolkNWhat · 15/07/2015 19:47

Oh it'll get passed sadly.

EthelDurant123 · 15/07/2015 19:49

Unfortunately yes, despite the government being elected on a lesser mandate.

rollonthesummer · 15/07/2015 20:05

That's crap :(

OP posts:
RemusLupinsBiggestGroupie · 15/07/2015 20:07

Mmm - You'd think 36.9% ought to be enough really, based on the present government.

downgraded · 15/07/2015 20:10

Let's hope so. I don't see why anyone would think it's reasonable to strike with less than 50% support.

noblegiraffe · 15/07/2015 20:15

In the case of a national strike, I can't imagine that there are enough supply teachers to fill the gap. We can barely get enough in to cover staff being hit by a sickness bug.

Many wouldn't cover for a striking colleague anyway.

RemusLupinsBiggestGroupie · 15/07/2015 21:19

Agree entirely that the likelihood of schools being able to call in sufficient supply staff is v low.

downgraded · 15/07/2015 21:29

Then the kids will be babysat by whoever is there.

RemusLupinsBiggestGroupie · 15/07/2015 21:33

But that is unlikely to happen, because staff are not obliged to cover for a striking colleague.

downgraded · 15/07/2015 21:49

But some will, so kids would be herded into the hall to watch a dvd. Which simply plays into the idea of a lot of parents that schools are glorified babysitters.

RemusLupinsBiggestGroupie · 15/07/2015 22:19

No - it shows that without proper teachers, children won't get properly taught, and that is why teachers should perhaps be valued a little.

CandOdad · 15/07/2015 22:24

I know in our area that agencies can't provide as many staff as they are asked for on a day to day basis, so this wouldn't really be an option.

MiniSis · 16/07/2015 09:18

Let's hope so. I don't see why anyone would think it's reasonable to strike with less than 50% support

I don't see how it is reasonable to run a country with less than 50% of the support. But ho hum that's a shit system designed to benefit the Tories democracy for you!

:) :) :) :)

MrsUltracrepidarian · 17/07/2015 13:54

Agencies pay supply teacher a fraction of what they charge the school, so would not be economical for schools to pay the fees - would cost them more than the pay of the striking teacher- they would decide to close.
Having said that - if people are in a union and they feel strongly about it they should vote to strike - if they can't be bothered to vote, then the strike shouldn't take place. Its not stopping people striking.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page