Teacher strikes

My mum was a teacher and I know that, despite common belief, its not an easy job with short days and long holidays. My mum was constantly working, doing marking every evening, making lesson plans and completing paperwork. During the holidays she marked exam papers and prepared work for the next term. We could only go on holiday during school holidays just like every other family and teachers wages are not great. If it wasn't for my dads well paid job, I doubt we could have afforded a holiday and we certainly never went abroad. The trouble with a strike is that it affects so many people in so many ways, but would it have an affect if it didn't? The idea is to create as much mayhem as possible and striking during the school holidays would go unnoticed. I do feel that most schools try hard to minimise the effects, for example, both my school-age children are in school today, but doesn't that also minimise the impact of the strike?

To sound completely ignorant what are they striking against?

I know the retirement age is going up but what is happening to the pensions?

Public sector employees are having to contribute more for less out.

I'm not a teacher, but I support the strikes and the concept of striking. It's not just about pay and pensions, and it'll be far worse for the kids in the long run if teachers are increasingly demoralised and aren't given the opportunity to protest against processes that they feel are detrimental to teaching.

I've been reading up and I agree with this.

The pensions and pay are what is being focussed on in the media and I think this is what is creating the negative feeling. Yes teachers work long hours but so do a lot of other people in the private sector. Yes the retirement age is rising but this is not just for teachers it is for everyone, and the point about the pensions is fine but some people in the private sector do not have company contributions to a pension so in that sense they are more fortunate. For these reasons I don't have much sympathy but when it comes to introducing targets and processes that those in the profession feel are detrimental to the teachers and the students I understand why they would want to strike against it.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to say I don't agree with the striking. Yes working longer hours, no pay rises, pension contributions increased etc all suck, but it's not just teaching that has this. I work in the video games industry, overtime or 'crunch' is pretty much expected, some friends of mine work 14 hour days, 7 days a week for 3/4/5 months on end, no over time pay, may get a few days off at the end. I have never had a pay rise in 7 years of being in games, the only way I get paid more is if I move companies, but strikes in games never happen, they'd just boot us out and find someone new. Another friend of mine works in the catering industry, she consistently works 15 hour days, and more than once has finished a shift at 3am, only to have to be back in at 7am, but she doesn't strike. Being taken advantage of job wise sucks, but unfortunately that just seems to be how it is these days, employees want more for less.

Exactly. My H2B works in ticketing and he too is in the exact same situation - expected to work longer hours with no extra pay, etc. Staff have been cut and not replaced and the remaining staff are just expected to fill the gaps. My brother and sister in law are both teachers, but I'm not sure I agreee with the strikes either.

And how might you suggest workers limit the ability of their employers to take advantage of them?

No offence but nobody would care if a software developer called a one day strike - it affects very few people. When teachers (or doctors/transport workers/firemen/etc) strike, it causes major issues for lots of people. This reflects how crucial such jobs are for the general public.

In the bluntest terms, you don't strike because it doesn't hold any power. Therefore, you seek to reduce the power of striking for everyone, while ignoring how striking has delivered equal pay, female worker rights, safe working conditions, equality of opportunity, and any other number of good and important outcomes.

This is not a race to the bottom. Nobody should accept being exploited because others do. High profile demands for better working conditions in one sector empowers every worker to strive for the same.

I've just been for lunch with Mum and the pub was full of hammered teachers.... ?

We gotta fight

For the right

To paaaaaaarrttttttaaaaay.

Tequila anyone?

Doh, should have been employers want more for less, not employees.. although that might happen to ha. The video games industry isn't 'important' as teaching sure, I'm not disputing that, it brings a hell of a lot of money to the UK, and is bigger than the film industry now, but the point I was trying to make is, that there are a lot of people with sh*ttier jobs, sh*ttier pay and sh*ttier conditions who aren't striking, regardless of how important their job is to society. OH's dad is a teacher, he works silly hours, but would never dream of striking, he just gets on with it, and I guess maybe that's just the way I feel about my job, I didn't like working for overtime for free, so now I don't, simple as, does that mean I strike during my contracted working hours, nope, I just don't work if I don't get paid for it.

I'm paddling around in the same boat as teachers in terms of public sector pay and pension, long hours etc - but we can't strike.

I didn't strike today because I'm not in the right union. I didn't last time because I would have been the only one in the school so the only person that would have been affected in any way was me.

I know teachers aren't the only ones having a bad time but that doesn't make it ok. I work about 65 hours a week yet on paper get paid for 32.5, that's a hell of a lot of unpaid overtime that I don't have the option of not doing. This is the first day in several weeks I've been home before half 6 and I get to work for about 7:30 most days. I also have about 2 hours of work to do tonight.

We are constantly subjected to observations and scrutiny and nothing is ever, ever good enough. My pay next year will depend on 90% of my children making good progress, which considering some of the crappy home lives some of them have would be a bloody miracle.

I have a postgrad qualification yet only earn about £8 an hour over the year. I know teachers on the point of retirement, who have been working for 30+ years who only have a salary of £7000 and that's not going to get any better. Something is going to have to change if the government wants qualified decent people teaching kids.

*Gets off soapbox* Sorry for the rant. ?

I'm a teacher, the issue is that we will have to pay a good deal more to get a smaller pension, plus work longer so pay into it for longer, again, knowing it will be smaller. I don't like it, who would, but I can see that there are too many old people and society doesn't have the money for all of them now we live longer etc. I'm not sure what the solution is but that is why in the uk they are striking.

Is that a salary in real terms? Mil is a teacher and is on a decent salary but I guess if that was averaged out over the hours she works then it would be less.

With regards to pay my understanding (could well be wrong) is that teachers are on the same salary no matter where they are in the uk, is that the case? Performance related pay surely is a way of differentiating between the successful and not? I'm on prp and there are many factors outside of my direct control too as a teachers would, is this not a way if rewarding the good teachers for the hard work they put in?

The pension stuff is crap though- agree with that.

Yes as OP said, I am a high school teacher. However I am not fully 100% on this strike as I am not in that union (NUT).

I believe, from staff room chat, that the NUT are striking as the govt agreed many years ago to certain things with that particular union and didn't stick to them. This isn't about any recent issues, as far as I am aware, but older problems.

I joined a non striking union a few years ago as previous strikes were held just before the exams which I completely disagreed with, as it jepordised my lovely yr 11s and not the govt. However now the situation has worsened, in my school particularly after our recent damning ofsted report, and I have just joined a different union, one which has striked (struck?) and I am prepared to do that again now. The unions stand by us, and I will stand by them if and when they cann for action.

In principle I do not agree with anything that could have a negative impact upon our children's education, such as losing a day of education, however Gove and his ilks' reforms certainly do not prioritise our children equally. What they are making children do is disgusting, and a disgrace, and if I wasn't going on mat leave next year I would be tempted to leave my career for something else. I do not feel I am doing the job I signed up for any more and I am actually devastated over it.

We are told to focus on ever 6 (that's free school mealers) pupils and make sure they all make at least 4 levels of progress. 5 years ago, if you arrived in year 7 on a 4b you were expected a D grade at best by year 11. Now the govt has raised that target. 4b now = grade B (hahahahaha!) and if we don't get that child that grade, we fail our performance management and therefore could lose pay. If every single child in our yr 11 has that target, we could face the sack. The exams aren't easier. We have less help, bigger classes, fewer resources, yet are supposed to get a below average ability child an above average GCSE grade - in 13 different subjects.

The gifted and talented programmes are being done away with. SEN provisions are changing too, and not for the better. There is no money available for the TAs our vulnerable learners need. Imagine you are a parent of an average child, not on FSM. Your child is not classed as a priority by the people in power, the very people who a few years ago called for 'every child matters'. Your child effectively does not matter any more. That is the message Gove and ofsted are sending. Schools have pressure on them to get amazing grades for certain categories, and if your children are not in that category then the school (speaking about SLT and ofsted, not the average classroom teacher, who are obsessed with the league tables) will not give 2 hoots for their progress for the majority of the time.

Too much time is now spent in knee jerk reactions to every single announcement the govt make, and not enough time can be given to effective long term planning. Gove changed the spec for English half way through our current year 11's course. 20% of it was suddenly done away with, no matter how hard the children had worked. How is that right, or fair, or making sure 'every child matters?' Current year 8 will be expected to do a whole pre 1914 text and learn by rote, a return to the dark ages that proves a child can memorise chunks of text but in no way shows progress (or enjoyment of learning...) Current year 9 are expected to take full Language and Literature courses that previously only high ability learners (B/A graders) did. Imagine the stress for those learners who are not of higher ability, trying to cope with 2 extra exam papers. Without any SEN support.

For those who are unsympathetic in the private section: Imagine if your boss said every month that your role was changing, your role was being altered into a job you didn't even apply for, and haven't asked for. If each month new duties were added to your already huge list of responsibilities and if you didn't achieve everything, you had your pay docked and moved down onto the scale below. Not that you would miss a bonu or two, but your basic rate of pay lowered completely. Imagine if you had the misfortune to have spent 9 months of the year with a faulty computer and so of course you couldn't complete the workload. Yet your colleague had been given the best new spec PC available, and has been given pay progression, even though you worked just as hard. Imagine they changed your hours, making them longer, but not your pay and didn't give you any breaks. Imagine you get a 30 minute lunch break, but during that (unpaid) time you are expected to stand in a noisy canteen or corridor to eat your sandwich whilst watching for any signs of bullying or violence or misconduct. Imagine they gave you 2 weeks unpaid holiday but demanded you still came in every day to continue working. Imagine they changed every single thing about your working conditions, including the pension you signed up for years previously, with no discussion and no way for you to disagree without losing your job. Then tell me you wouldn't try to take action, or at the very least want to be heard in your concerns.

If striking can improve anything then I will certainly do as many as it takes. If the teachers are in the pub today, that is because under union guidelines they are not allowed to do any marking or assessment, or anything school related, so why not take one day (unpaid) and have a social break, and try to forget the absolute nightmare that is the education system?

Love threads like this.

I don't have a moral issue with teachers striking, but I don't agree to firemen striking - I think that is so wrong as actively puts people in danger, and think they shouldn't be able to strike, much like police.

I guess like all there's a balance to strike (not intentional pun). In France (from what I understand) it's so far in favour of public service it has a detrimental impact on society (the world according to my husband, and part of the reason he left).

I think it's a shame there's such a divide, a kind of "them and us" between public and private sector.

I do feel very sorry for the people it impacts. Eg today a secretary at work basically had to phone up to beg to have one of her days of annual leave brought forward from next year, as she'd already used up her holiday allowance. The first person she spoke to said no, she had to take it as unpaid leave, and she's in a position where one day is not something she can afford to lose. The alternative was she paid £40 for her kid to go to childminders, which she couldn't afford either. Luckily she spoke to somebody more senior who of course agreed her very reasonable request.

*claps Pandorasbox*

100% this.

?

In general I don't like strikes, because there are always innocent people caught up and disadvantaged by the consequences.

I can't suggest a better way for teachers to make their stand to be fair either.

As a bottom of the pile lowly call centre type worker all my life, I can tell you that there will be people out there who couldn't afford a day off work, and may even be in trouble or lose their jobs over taking a day. This might sound extreme to some people but I can assure you this happens among agency staff etc. These people are also working long days on minimum wage, getting little or no pension so tend not to sympathise with what they see in the press about the strike (without going into the stuff about striking about the curriculum stuff, it's the pay, conditions and pensions that's publicised!)

Which is why (I assume) they generally only print that stuff - they know a lot of people won't have sympathy but that probably sells more papers.

I think the general public should know more about the detrimental changes happening to their children's education, but the media seems to always focus on the money stuff - making us look really grabby. I don't know why. Maybe the govt and media are hand in hand and it is in both their interests to show it in this light and not reveal what is going on?

Nobody goes into teaching to be a millionaire but we do expect to be getting the basic fair pay and conditions, which we signed up for when we trained and applied and received contracts. Although I am well aware what we get is amazing compared to a lot of other jobs out there, and I feel very lucky at times, when I stop and think about what the government are doing to our profession and our kids it makes me fume.