Another strike on the 30th Nov over pensions

16 Nov 2011

Quote by deancannock
Dress it up this way, its a result thats legal and you can take strike action with. Thts all that matters.
An interesting thread it bears home a lot of what I said before. People look too much now at what others get that they dont rather than looking at if what they are getting is fair.

The result may be legal but is it fair.....seeing as how you insist on fairness?
When twice as many people vote for industrial action than those that don't....I think thats very fair.
I really don't think these people bother that much about public support. They feel an injustice has been done, and they wish to take action to regester there displeasure at that. They have taken a vote, twice as many people voted in favour of industrial action. So they have every right to take this action.
There were more people that didn't vote than voted for the strike. You really believe that to be fair? To take your argument to the extreme degree, if 97% of the union didn't vote, 2% voted to strike and 1% voted against, would it still be fair to strike? After all, there would still be twice as many people voting for strike action as against.
My personal view is that a vote in favour of a strike should be supported by at least 51% of ALL union members in order to guarantee a majority of the members support strike action....but of course unions won't impose such restrictions as they know that current set ups allow for minority "yes" votes to dictate strike action.

16 Nov 2011

Oh, I dunno Max. Seems reasonable to assume those who didn't vote weren't really arsed either way, possibly because they didn't feel they'd had sufficient time and energy to fully get to grips with the subtleties and so were prepared to put their trust in the majority decision of those who were maybe better informed, or felt more strongly. Maybe they had faith that the collective wisdom of their peers would be sufficient to guarantee a result that favoured their best interests. Their silence on the issue can be read as tacit consent whichever way the vote goes? It's no doubt a flawed process but you can only ever really count the votes that are cast, and I'm not sure forcing everyone to vote which is what a 51% rule would effectively do is any more valid when it comes to strike action than it would be if applied to governmental elections.
Neil x x x ;)

16 Nov 2011

Quote by neilinleeds
Oh, I dunno Max. Seems reasonable to assume those who didn't vote weren't really arsed either way, possibly because they didn't feel they'd had sufficient time and energy to fully get to grips with the subtleties and so were prepared to put their trust in the majority decision of those who were maybe better informed, or felt more strongly. Maybe they had faith that the collective wisdom of their peers would be sufficient to guarantee a result that favoured their best interests. Their silence on the issue can be read as tacit consent whichever way the vote goes? It's no doubt a flawed process but you can only ever really count the votes that are cast, and I'm not sure forcing everyone to vote which is what a 51% rule would effectively do is any more valid when it comes to strike action than it would be if applied to governmental elections.
Neil x x x ;)

It would not force everyone to vote, it would just mean the unions could only take strike action if they could galvanise enough interest

16 Nov 2011

Quote by Bluefish2009
Oh, I dunno Max. Seems reasonable to assume those who didn't vote weren't really arsed either way, possibly because they didn't feel they'd had sufficient time and energy to fully get to grips with the subtleties and so were prepared to put their trust in the majority decision of those who were maybe better informed, or felt more strongly. Maybe they had faith that the collective wisdom of their peers would be sufficient to guarantee a result that favoured their best interests. Their silence on the issue can be read as tacit consent whichever way the vote goes? It's no doubt a flawed process but you can only ever really count the votes that are cast, and I'm not sure forcing everyone to vote which is what a 51% rule would effectively do is any more valid when it comes to strike action than it would be if applied to governmental elections.
Neil x x x ;)

It would not force everyone to vote, it would just mean the unions could only take strike action if they could galvanise enough interest
Are You also going to say that a government can only be formed if it has over 50% of the total electorate....are you also going to say any council offical can only be elected if they get over 50% of the total electorate. If that is the case we would never have an elected government or council. The turnout at general elections is on average about 70%. The turnout for council elections is quite often less than 50% !!!
You an't have one rule for the unions and one rule for everyone else !!!
The simple answer is if you feel strongly one way or the other...use your vote.

16 Nov 2011

Quote by deancannock
Oh, I dunno Max. Seems reasonable to assume those who didn't vote weren't really arsed either way, possibly because they didn't feel they'd had sufficient time and energy to fully get to grips with the subtleties and so were prepared to put their trust in the majority decision of those who were maybe better informed, or felt more strongly. Maybe they had faith that the collective wisdom of their peers would be sufficient to guarantee a result that favoured their best interests. Their silence on the issue can be read as tacit consent whichever way the vote goes? It's no doubt a flawed process but you can only ever really count the votes that are cast, and I'm not sure forcing everyone to vote which is what a 51% rule would effectively do is any more valid when it comes to strike action than it would be if applied to governmental elections.
Neil x x x ;)

It would not force everyone to vote, it would just mean the unions could only take strike action if they could galvanise enough interest
Are You also going to say that a government can only be formed if it has over 50% of the total electorate....are you also going to say any council offical can only be elected if they get over 50% of the total electorate. If that is the case we would never have an elected government or council. The turnout at general elections is on average about 70%. The turnout for council elections is quite often less than 50% !!!
You an't have one rule for the unions and one rule for everyone else !!!
The simple answer is if you feel strongly one way or the other...use your vote.
sorry but you are confusing the issue, we are not talking about electing union officials we are talking about strike votes. Try comparing apples with apples.
If you want to compare a strike vote to a goverment vote, compare it to a Bill being voted throgh the house of commons. It will not become Law unless the goverment has an absolute majority. Therefore it needs 50% + 1 vote to succeed.

16 Nov 2011

Quote by Bluefish2009
Oh, I dunno Max. Seems reasonable to assume those who didn't vote weren't really arsed either way, possibly because they didn't feel they'd had sufficient time and energy to fully get to grips with the subtleties and so were prepared to put their trust in the majority decision of those who were maybe better informed, or felt more strongly. Maybe they had faith that the collective wisdom of their peers would be sufficient to guarantee a result that favoured their best interests. Their silence on the issue can be read as tacit consent whichever way the vote goes? It's no doubt a flawed process but you can only ever really count the votes that are cast, and I'm not sure forcing everyone to vote which is what a 51% rule would effectively do is any more valid when it comes to strike action than it would be if applied to governmental elections.
Neil x x x ;)

It would not force everyone to vote, it would just mean the unions could only take strike action if they could galvanise enough interest
Spot on Blue!

16 Nov 2011

Quote by Max777
Oh, I dunno Max. Seems reasonable to assume those who didn't vote weren't really arsed either way, possibly because they didn't feel they'd had sufficient time and energy to fully get to grips with the subtleties and so were prepared to put their trust in the majority decision of those who were maybe better informed, or felt more strongly. Maybe they had faith that the collective wisdom of their peers would be sufficient to guarantee a result that favoured their best interests. Their silence on the issue can be read as tacit consent whichever way the vote goes? It's no doubt a flawed process but you can only ever really count the votes that are cast, and I'm not sure forcing everyone to vote which is what a 51% rule would effectively do is any more valid when it comes to strike action than it would be if applied to governmental elections.
Neil x x x ;)

It would not force everyone to vote, it would just mean the unions could only take strike action if they could galvanise enough interest
Are You also going to say that a government can only be formed if it has over 50% of the total electorate....are you also going to say any council offical can only be elected if they get over 50% of the total electorate. If that is the case we would never have an elected government or council. The turnout at general elections is on average about 70%. The turnout for council elections is quite often less than 50% !!!
You an't have one rule for the unions and one rule for everyone else !!!
The simple answer is if you feel strongly one way or the other...use your vote.
sorry but you are confusing the issue, we are not talking about electing union officials we are talking about strike votes. Try comparing apples with apples.
If you want to compare a strike vote to a goverment vote, compare it to a Bill being voted throgh the house of commons. It will not become Law unless the goverment has an absolute majority. Therefore it needs 50% + 1 vote to succeed.
wrong....Would you say if a MP's abstains....that is counted as a vote against. Do you honestly think all 650 are there to vote every time on every bill ? But ofcause useing your way, it would mean any MP abstaining or not voteing is actually as good as voting against the Bill, as you would need 326 votes or more, to have a total majority !!! the house of commons does not work that way . It is based on a simple majority of those that vote ! Exactly the same way as the union vote is counted.

16 Nov 2011

Quote by deancannock
Oh, I dunno Max. Seems reasonable to assume those who didn't vote weren't really arsed either way, possibly because they didn't feel they'd had sufficient time and energy to fully get to grips with the subtleties and so were prepared to put their trust in the majority decision of those who were maybe better informed, or felt more strongly. Maybe they had faith that the collective wisdom of their peers would be sufficient to guarantee a result that favoured their best interests. Their silence on the issue can be read as tacit consent whichever way the vote goes? It's no doubt a flawed process but you can only ever really count the votes that are cast, and I'm not sure forcing everyone to vote which is what a 51% rule would effectively do is any more valid when it comes to strike action than it would be if applied to governmental elections.
Neil x x x ;)

It would not force everyone to vote, it would just mean the unions could only take strike action if they could galvanise enough interest
Are You also going to say that a government can only be formed if it has over 50% of the total electorate....are you also going to say any council offical can only be elected if they get over 50% of the total electorate. If that is the case we would never have an elected government or council. The turnout at general elections is on average about 70%. The turnout for council elections is quite often less than 50% !!!
You an't have one rule for the unions and one rule for everyone else !!!
The simple answer is if you feel strongly one way or the other...use your vote.
sorry but you are confusing the issue, we are not talking about electing union officials we are talking about strike votes. Try comparing apples with apples.
If you want to compare a strike vote to a goverment vote, compare it to a Bill being voted throgh the house of commons. It will not become Law unless the goverment has an absolute majority. Therefore it needs 50% + 1 vote to succeed.
wrong....Would you say if a MP's abstains....that is counted as a vote against. Do you honestly think all 650 are there to vote every time on every bill ? But ofcause useing your way, it would mean any MP abstaining or not voteing is actually as good as voting against the Bill, as you would need 326 votes or more, to have a total majority !!! the house of commons does not work that way . It is based on a simple majority of those that vote ! Exactly the same way as the union vote is counted.
MPs do abstain from various votes but not the important ones, the Party Whips see to that. A government could not govern without an absolute majority, well not for very long and not without horsetrading.

16 Nov 2011

Quote by Max777
Oh, I dunno Max. Seems reasonable to assume those who didn't vote weren't really arsed either way, possibly because they didn't feel they'd had sufficient time and energy to fully get to grips with the subtleties and so were prepared to put their trust in the majority decision of those who were maybe better informed, or felt more strongly. Maybe they had faith that the collective wisdom of their peers would be sufficient to guarantee a result that favoured their best interests. Their silence on the issue can be read as tacit consent whichever way the vote goes? It's no doubt a flawed process but you can only ever really count the votes that are cast, and I'm not sure forcing everyone to vote which is what a 51% rule would effectively do is any more valid when it comes to strike action than it would be if applied to governmental elections.
Neil x x x ;)

It would not force everyone to vote, it would just mean the unions could only take strike action if they could galvanise enough interest
Are You also going to say that a government can only be formed if it has over 50% of the total electorate....are you also going to say any council offical can only be elected if they get over 50% of the total electorate. If that is the case we would never have an elected government or council. The turnout at general elections is on average about 70%. The turnout for council elections is quite often less than 50% !!!
You an't have one rule for the unions and one rule for everyone else !!!
The simple answer is if you feel strongly one way or the other...use your vote.
sorry but you are confusing the issue, we are not talking about electing union officials we are talking about strike votes. Try comparing apples with apples.
If you want to compare a strike vote to a goverment vote, compare it to a Bill being voted throgh the house of commons. It will not become Law unless the goverment has an absolute majority. Therefore it needs 50% + 1 vote to succeed.
wrong....Would you say if a MP's abstains....that is counted as a vote against. Do you honestly think all 650 are there to vote every time on every bill ? But ofcause useing your way, it would mean any MP abstaining or not voteing is actually as good as voting against the Bill, as you would need 326 votes or more, to have a total majority !!! the house of commons does not work that way . It is based on a simple majority of those that vote ! Exactly the same way as the union vote is counted.
MPs do abstain from various votes but not the important ones, the Party Whips see to that. A government could not govern without an absolute majority, well not for very long and not without horsetrading.
so you accept that 90% of the bills go through the house of parliment, without in what your eyes you would call an absolute majority then..ie: 326 votes in favour. Haveing worked with a now retired MP for a while, I can assure you, the way it works is what is called the buddy system. Each MP tries to buddy up with a MP from the opposition. Then they both agree not to vote on the run of the mill parliment business, therefore equalling each other out. Indeed the Prime minister would never be able to leave on any offical business, if he was required to vote on every bill that was passed in parliment. The leader of the opposition simply agress not to vote either. It was you that said the union vote should be compared to the vote in the house of commons !! It works on the fact that a majority vote in favour...that is not a 50% or more vote of total MP's but simply a majority vote. Exactly the same as the union vote !!!

17 Nov 2011

I have no idea as to what the percentage is and I suspect neither do you. I accept my example was not a good one, I will put it down to the late hour, as parliamentary votes include an element of 'weighting' due to the size of the government majority at the time of the vote.
So on that note, I'm sure that you will accept everything that this government does, after all they were elected by the democratic process. As someone said in an earlier post we can't have one law for the unions and one for the government, can we?

17 Nov 2011

Quote by Max777
I have no idea as to what the percentage is and I suspect neither do you. I accept my example was not a good one, I will put it down to the late hour, as parliamentary votes include an element of 'weighting' due to the size of the government majority at the time of the vote.
So on that note, I'm sure that you will accept everything that this government does, after all they were elected by the democratic process. As someone said in an earlier post we can't have one law for the unions and one for the government, can we?

100% max...I don't have to like it...but I fully accept that the government rules by majority consent.

17 Nov 2011

Quote by deancannock
I have no idea as to what the percentage is and I suspect neither do you. I accept my example was not a good one, I will put it down to the late hour, as parliamentary votes include an element of 'weighting' due to the size of the government majority at the time of the vote.
So on that note, I'm sure that you will accept everything that this government does, after all they were elected by the democratic process. As someone said in an earlier post we can't have one law for the unions and one for the government, can we?

100% max...I don't have to like it...but I fully accept that the government rules by majority consent.
but that's exactly what the unions are NOT doing Dean. I wonder what the union reaction will be to the 60% of members that didn't vote for the strike should they decide to cross the picket lines?

17 Nov 2011

Quote by Max777
I have no idea as to what the percentage is and I suspect neither do you. I accept my example was not a good one, I will put it down to the late hour, as parliamentary votes include an element of 'weighting' due to the size of the government majority at the time of the vote.
So on that note, I'm sure that you will accept everything that this government does, after all they were elected by the democratic process. As someone said in an earlier post we can't have one law for the unions and one for the government, can we?

100% max...I don't have to like it...but I fully accept that the government rules by majority consent.
but that's exactly what the unions are NOT doing Dean. I wonder what the union reaction will be to the 60% of members that didn't vote for the strike should they decide to cross the picket lines?
Scab, name calling, intimidation, threats, concrete blocks perhaps????? dunno

17 Nov 2011

and if the government passes a law that I don't like...do I have to abide by that law as I didn't vote for that government party. Ofcause I do...or I face the wrath of the courts !!
Is this not the same, that you may not like the result, but you have to accept it.
As for the old militant picket lines....I think you may be harking back to the early 80's days. Now you are limited to how many can be on the picket line. If anyone wishes to cross that picket line, they have the right to do so, but also one person from the picket line, with permission and accompanied by a policeman, can explain why they would rather they didn't cross the picket line, for up to 2 minutes !! If after that period the person still wishes to cross the picket line, they must be allowed free passage. This is the current law as it stands. The days of the miners strike when people were bused in, are well gone. Intimidation on the picket lines from Head Teachers Assoc !!!!... the Head shout Scab at the head of religious studies who is crossing the picket line. Headmaster standing at the gates dropping concrete on the history teachers new ford mondeo !!! Can't quite see it myself....can you ???

17 Nov 2011

Max .... just admit it you're arguing what is at best a spurious point AND you're wrong
Governments do not rule by majority consent they rule because people accept the democratic process,I can't be bothered to google figures but I'm fairly sure that it is a hell of a long time since any government received more than 50% of the actual vote nevermind the potential vote....unions are no different,you join the union you accept the rules and democratic process that that union adheres to ... a ballot was held the vote decided in favour of strike action end of story
Quite why you wanted to lead this thread down the blind alley that you have I'm sure only you know,but it has been,so far at least,an admirable diversionary tactic

17 Nov 2011

Quote by deancannock
and if the government passes a law that I don't like...do I have to abide by that law as I didn't vote for that government party. Ofcause I do...or I face the wrath of the courts !!
Is this not the same, that you may not like the result, but you have to accept it.
As for the old militant picket lines....I think you may be harking back to the early 80's days. Now you are limited to how many can be on the picket line. If anyone wishes to cross that picket line, they have the right to do so, but also one person from the picket line, with permission and accompanied by a policeman, can explain why they would rather they didn't cross the picket line, for up to 2 minutes !! If after that period the person still wishes to cross the picket line, they must be allowed free passage. This is the current law as it stands. The days of the miners strike when people were bused in, are well gone. Intimidation on the picket lines from Head Teachers Assoc !!!!... the Head shout Scab at the head of religious studies who is crossing the picket line. Headmaster standing at the gates dropping concrete on the history teachers new ford mondeo !!! Can't quite see it myself....can you ???

I am sure you are quite correct Dean.
I have a slanted view of unions I'm afraid. When I was a child my father drove buses for a living. I have no idea what it was all about or when exactly it was now as I was too young, some time in the 70s that the bus company went on strike, I have vivid memory's of the upset it caused in our house and the lack of money that went with it. We all then had to live through the miners strike in the 80s, every night on TV. Night after night of violence and Scargills gob. I know minors had it very hard also and am not dismissing your personal tragedy.
We now have a second day this year where children's education will be put on the back burner and many parents will have to have time of off there jobs, jobs that may well not have the perks the teachers are striking over.

17 Nov 2011

Quote by Bluefish2009
I have a slanted view of unions I'm afraid. When I was a child my father drove buses for a living. I have no idea what it was all about or when exactly it was now as I was too young, some time in the 70s that the bus company went on strike, I have vivid memory's of the upset it caused in our house and the lack of money that went with it. We all then had to live through the miners strike in the 80s, every night on TV. Night after night of violence and Scargills gob. I know minors had it very hard also and am not dismissing your personal tragedy.
We now have a second day this year where children's education will be put on the back burner and many parents will have to have time of off there jobs, jobs that may well not have the perks the teachers are striking over.

I can't comment on your fathers strike Blue,but why do you seem to blame the unions for the strikes ??? The miners went on strike because the Thatcher government unilaterally reneged on standing negotiated agreements on pit closures,and then refused to negotiate their new imposed timetable for closures .... what do you expect an organisation formed to protect the interests of its members to do ????
So what then should unions do now ?? The government consistently refuses to offer anything by way of compromise, the unions have repeatedly gone to negotiations only to be offered nothing, so what should they do ?? just roll over and allow their members interests to be ignored ?? that's not their job, that's not what their mandate is for .... if anyone in this situation is putting the public and children on the back burner it is the government ... perhaps if they weren't so busy signing sweetheart deals with Virgin money we may get a fairer deal for the public
The only thing this and all tory governments care about is enriching the already rich.

17 Nov 2011

Quote by Staggerlee_BB

I have a slanted view of unions I'm afraid. When I was a child my father drove buses for a living. I have no idea what it was all about or when exactly it was now as I was too young, some time in the 70s that the bus company went on strike, I have vivid memory's of the upset it caused in our house and the lack of money that went with it. We all then had to live through the miners strike in the 80s, every night on TV. Night after night of violence and Scargills gob. I know minors had it very hard also and am not dismissing your personal tragedy.
We now have a second day this year where children's education will be put on the back burner and many parents will have to have time of off there jobs, jobs that may well not have the perks the teachers are striking over.

I can't comment on your fathers strike Blue,but why do you seem to blame the unions for the strikes ??? The miners went on strike because the Thatcher governmentunilaterally reneged on standing negotiated agreements on pit closures,and then refused to negotiate their new imposed timetable for closures .... what do you expect an organisation formed to protect the interests of its members to do ????
So what then should unions do now ?? The government consistently refuses to offer anything by way of compromise, the unions have repeatedly gone to negotiations only to be offered nothing, so what should they do ?? just roll over and allow their members interests to be ignored ?? that's not their job, that's not what their mandate is for .... if anyone in this situation is putting the public and children on the back burner it is the government ... perhaps if they weren't so busy signing sweetheart deals with Virgin money we may get a fairer deal for the public
The only thing this and all tory governments care about is enriching the already rich.
Or was it revenge that Scargill wanted?

17 Nov 2011

Quote by Bluefish2009
Or was it revenge that Scargill wanted?

No it was Thatcher that was out for revenge for the miners bringing down the Heath government of which she was a member .... what do you think Scargill wanted revenge for ??

17 Nov 2011

Quote by Bluefish2009

17 Nov 2011

Quote by Staggerlee_BB

Or was it revenge that Scargill wanted?

No it was Thatcher that was out for revenge for the miners bringing down the Heath government of which she was a member .... what do you think Scargill wanted revenge for ??
Yes of coarse, that was it, I remember now, he thought he was going to do the same and bring down Thatcher and her Government

17 Nov 2011

Quote by deancannock
and if the government passes a law that I don't like...do I have to abide by that law as I didn't vote for that government party. Ofcause I do...or I face the wrath of the courts !!
Is this not the same, that you may not like the result, but you have to accept it.
As for the old militant picket lines....I think you may be harking back to the early 80's days. Now you are limited to how many can be on the picket line. If anyone wishes to cross that picket line, they have the right to do so, but also one person from the picket line, with permission and accompanied by a policeman, can explain why they would rather they didn't cross the picket line, for up to 2 minutes !! If after that period the person still wishes to cross the picket line, they must be allowed free passage. This is the current law as it stands. The days of the miners strike when people were bused in, are well gone. Intimidation on the picket lines from Head Teachers Assoc !!!!... the Head shout Scab at the head of religious studies who is crossing the picket line. Headmaster standing at the gates dropping concrete on the history teachers new ford mondeo !!! Can't quite see it myself....can you ???

The point I was making is that the union is striking because it does not accept what the government is doing.......yet it will expect all it's members to adhere to the strike, despite some members disagreeing with it. Isn't there a degree of hypocrisy?
No one mentioned old militant picket lines.

17 Nov 2011

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
Max .... just admit it you're arguing what is at best a spurious point AND you're wrong
Governments do not rule by majority consent they rule because people accept the democratic process,I can't be bothered to google figures but I'm fairly sure that it is a hell of a long time since any government received more than 50% of the actual vote nevermind the potential vote....unions are no different,you join the union you accept the rules and democratic process that that union adheres to ... a ballot was held the vote decided in favour of strike action end of story
Quite why you wanted to lead this thread down the blind alley that you have I'm sure only you know,but it has been,so far at least,an admirable diversionary tactic

I'm wrong about what exactly? Having an opinion which differs to yours?
Please read back through the thread and highlight where I have said that governments rule by majority consent. You obviously missed me agreeing with you when you made the same point earlier in the thread.
As for anyone leading anyone down a blind alley, it's the way the thread has evolved. Stay out of the alley if you don't like it.

17 Nov 2011

Quote by Staggerlee_BB

I have a slanted view of unions I'm afraid. When I was a child my father drove buses for a living. I have no idea what it was all about or when exactly it was now as I was too young, some time in the 70s that the bus company went on strike, I have vivid memory's of the upset it caused in our house and the lack of money that went with it. We all then had to live through the miners strike in the 80s, every night on TV. Night after night of violence and Scargills gob. I know minors had it very hard also and am not dismissing your personal tragedy.
We now have a second day this year where children's education will be put on the back burner and many parents will have to have time of off there jobs, jobs that may well not have the perks the teachers are striking over.

I can't comment on your fathers strike Blue,but why do you seem to blame the unions for the strikes ??? The miners went on strike because the Thatcher government unilaterally reneged on standing negotiated agreements on pit closures,and then refused to negotiate their new imposed timetable for closures .... what do you expect an organisation formed to protect the interests of its members to do ????
So what then should unions do now ?? The government consistently refuses to offer anything by way of compromise, the unions have repeatedly gone to negotiations only to be offered nothing, so what should they do ?? just roll over and allow their members interests to be ignored ?? that's not their job, that's not what their mandate is for .... if anyone in this situation is putting the public and children on the back burner it is the government... perhaps if they weren't so busy signing sweetheart deals with Virgin money we may get a fairer deal for the public
The only thing this and all tory governments care about is enriching the already rich.
Militant teaching union members are threatening a return to the sustained industrial action of the 1980s that caused havoc in schools for years.
Teachers and teaching assistants will refuse to hold nativity plays, put up Christmas decorations, photocopy hand-outs for class or supervise out-of-hours games sessions.
They will not prepare lessons, mark homework, write reports, chase up truants, track pupils’ progress or stream youngsters. And they will work a strict 6.5-hour day, a 32.5-hour week and a 194-day year, and refuse to cover the class of a sick colleague.
Read more:

17 Nov 2011

I do apologise Max below is where I made the error

Quote by deancannock
I have no idea as to what the percentage is and I suspect neither do you. I accept my example was not a good one, I will put it down to the late hour, as parliamentary votes include an element of 'weighting' due to the size of the government majority at the time of the vote.
So on that note, I'm sure that you will accept everything that this government does, after all they were elected by the democratic process. As someone said in an earlier post we can't have one law for the unions and one for the government, can we?

100% max...I don't have to like it...but I fully accept that the government rules by majority consent.
That said .... all this my % beats your % is going nowhere

17 Nov 2011

Quote by Bluefish2009
Militant teaching union members are threatening a return to the sustained industrial action of the 1980s that caused havoc in schools for years.
Teachers and teaching assistants will refuse to hold nativity plays, put up Christmas decorations, photocopy hand-outs for class or supervise out-of-hours games sessions.
They will not prepare lessons, mark homework, write reports, chase up truants, track pupils’ progress or stream youngsters. And they will work a strict 6.5-hour day, a 32.5-hour week and a 194-day year, and refuse to cover the class of a sick colleague.
Read more:

Sounds terrible doesn't it Blue ... so why do you think they may feel this is necessary ??
And more pertinently given your source ... where have the teaching unions said this??
They would of course if they did this be working to rule,i.e. fulfilling their contractual obligations, something in most jobs would be considered perfectly acceptable,why not for teachers ??

18 Nov 2011

Quote by Staggerlee_BB

Militant teaching union members are threatening a return to the sustained industrial action of the 1980s that caused havoc in schools for years.
Teachers and teaching assistants will refuse to hold nativity plays, put up Christmas decorations, photocopy hand-outs for class or supervise out-of-hours games sessions.
They will not prepare lessons, mark homework, write reports, chase up truants, track pupils’ progress or stream youngsters. And they will work a strict 6.5-hour day, a 32.5-hour week and a 194-day year, and refuse to cover the class of a sick colleague.
Read more:

Sounds terrible doesn't it Blue ... so why do you think they may feel this is necessary ??
And more pertinently given your source ... where have the teaching unions said this??
They would of course if they did this be working to rule,i.e. fulfilling their contractual obligations, something in most jobs would be considered perfectly acceptable,why not for teachers ??
Agree sounds terrible, and then spotted the link to that well known balanced and highly respected source, not, of the Daily Mail
banghead

However thoughts of the tax avoiding and other thoughts perhaps for another thread

18 Nov 2011

every union member had a right to vote ether for or against a strike. i understand what max is saying but i think that any member that did not vote who did not want to strike, then they only have themselves to blame for this up and coming strike action. without pay let us remember.
they have a right to vote and i think over half chose not to. where is the fecking sense in that? putting an x on a piece of paper? is it reely that much of a hardship?
maybe next time they are asked to vote on strike action maybe the ones who do not want to strike will vote.

18 Nov 2011

Quote by HnS

Militant teaching union members are threatening a return to the sustained industrial action of the 1980s that caused havoc in schools for years.
Teachers and teaching assistants will refuse to hold nativity plays, put up Christmas decorations, photocopy hand-outs for class or supervise out-of-hours games sessions.
They will not prepare lessons, mark homework, write reports, chase up truants, track pupils' progress or stream youngsters. And they will work a strict 6.5-hour day, a 32.5-hour week and a 194-day year, and refuse to cover the class of a sick colleague.
Read more:

Sounds terrible doesn't it Blue ... so why do you think they may feel this is necessary ??
And more pertinently given your source ... where have the teaching unions said this??
They would of course if they did this be working to rule,i.e. fulfilling their contractual obligations, something in most jobs would be considered perfectly acceptable,why not for teachers ??
Agree sounds terrible, and then spotted the link to that well known balanced and highly respected source, not, of the Daily Mail
banghead

However thoughts of the tax avoiding and other thoughts perhaps for another thread
I was unaware we could only quote from certain sources, I do hope this meets with approval

The result, due today, comes as it emerged staff could also instigate "work to rule" action with teachers working six and a half hour days and refusing to carry out any non-teaching duties.