So 'not being listened to' is now a valid reason for industrial action? and I thought going on strike was viewed as a last resort.
Or you could see it as teachers using the last resort of giving up a day's pay in an attempt to prevent changes they truly believe will have a damaging impact on the education of youngsters today and in the future. Probably more of a valid reason than the self-interest ones.
Did you hear that pathetic argument/reasoning on 5 live this morning?
No, I don't listen to the radio,
Was there any need to be so deliberately offensive? "pathetic argument" by all means disagree with what I say and put forward your own argument as to why you disagree, but is it really necessary to be so........ 'Tory' about it?
Let me ask you this, if only 40% of a unions membership voted in a ballot for or against industrial action and 35% of them voted against industrial action, and as a result no industrial action took place, would you support their decision even though the vast majority didn't vote against industrial action?
Or do you only support democracy when it gives the result you want?
because I would unreservedly accept the result in the scenario I gave above, I might not like it, had I been in the minority voting in favour of industrial action, but being a supporter of the democratic process, I would accept it.
But don't you accept that the union leaders have their own agenda (often political) that may have little to do with the views of their members?
[1]Just because people vote for something (unions/government) doesn't mean they will always be best served by the leadership. [2]And the union hierarchy clearly will have influence over its members.
1. Indeed not. I knew some very weak leaderships when I was in a union.
2. H'mmm. Not so much really. A membership can just as easily reject any recommended action as approve it. Many of my old colleagues were Tories, and although belonging to a union would never vote for industrial action on ideological grounds.
No, I don't listen to the radio,
Was there any need to be so deliberately offensive? "pathetic argument" by all means disagree with what I say and put forward your own argument as to why you disagree, but is it really necessary to be so........ 'Tory' about it?
Let me ask you this, if only 40% of a unions membership voted in a ballot for or against industrial action and 35% of them voted against industrial action, and as a result no industrial action took place, would you support their decision even though the vast majority didn't vote against industrial action?
Or do you only support democracy when it gives the result you want?
because I would unreservedly accept the result in the scenario I gave above, I might not like it, had I been in the minority voting in favour of industrial action, but being a supporter of the democratic process, I would accept it.
interesting, so did you apply this line of logic to the 2005 election when Labour only got 35.2% of the public vote?
Also was there an alternative choice on the union ballot paper? do they operate the first past the post rule as well?
I think the teachers would get more support if they refused to to their job (teach) but actually stayed at school so to not inconvenience parents.
Not sure where they'd stand contractually/legally there! Besides teachers aren't child minders, their job is to teach kids.
I'm not saying you are guilty of this, but I think in some quarters there is a definite lack of respect for teaching as a professional career. For example, the whole 'shouldn't expect a job for life' argument. Not sure the same would be said to doctors or solicitors.
interesting, so did you apply this line of logic to the 2005 election when Labour only got 35.2% of the public vote?
Also was there an alternative choice on the union ballot paper? do they operate the first past the post rule as well?
That right there is textbook case of dodging the question.
I think the teachers would get more support if they refused to to their job (teach) but actually stayed at school so to not inconvenience parents.
Teachers could work to rule and do say 35 hours a week and refuse to do anymore but they will argue that this would have more effect on the children than a one day strike.
I suspect it comes down to whether the inconvenience is more important that the education of the child.
Not sure where they'd stand contractually/legally there! Besides teachers aren't child minders, their job is to teach kids.
I'm not saying you are guilty of this, but I think in some quarters there is a definite lack of respect for teaching as a professional career. For example, the whole 'shouldn't expect a job for life' argument. Not sure the same would be said to doctors or solicitors.
I think most people have respect for high standard teachers, I don't think enough of them are in my experience but that is a personal view. What I will state with total conviction teachers get great terms and conditions and Govey is committed to given proven good ones more. I agree with that but already they get above average pay, short hours, huge holidays, fantastic pensions, safety of employment.
Really they do themselves no favours striking, credit to the schools that have opened. I have a lot more sympathy for the local government workers, whose terms and conditions are more normal, I feel they are being really poorly represented at present.
Not at all. If Cameron demands 50% turnout for union ballots, he should also keep to his principles and demand 50% turnout for election results. He won't do the latter because he knows it puts many of his political representatives at risk of having to resign on principle.
How can you justify less than 15% of the public calling for the election of a PCC?
One rule for unions, another for elected representatives.
Several poster have raised this point but it is not a like for like scenario. I will try to explain:
In "normal" (MP / council) type votes, all of the (registered) electorate (not just party members) have the opportunity to vote (many don't for various reasons). The candidate with the most votes "wins" and the candidate is elected.
In a ballot for industrial action, the unions are seeking a mandate from (only) union members to take a course of action.
When (say) you have a 27% turnout (vote) by union members and a majority of that 27% vote in favour of strike action, currently all of the members (& in many cases their non-union colleagues) have to join the strike (or get called scabs / blacklegs etc.) even though the majority did not vote for that action and 73% (in this scenario) didn't express an opinion.
Hence if less than a clear majority of members vote in favour of strike action, then the motion is effectively rejected by the majority and the strike action should not happen.
It is complicated, but I hope I've got my point across (anybody help further)?
As for teachers and nurses they had many big jumps in terms and conitions before the crash. They are very well looked after, very weak or selfish for teachers to be striking when they still get a fantastic package, for often mediocre at best performance.
And you should try sacking poor performing nurses and teachers!
I think most people have respect for high standard teachers, I don't think enough of them are in my experience but that is a personal view. What I will state with total conviction teachers get great terms and conditions and Govey is committed to given proven good ones more. I agree with that but already they get above average pay, short hours, huge holidays, fantastic pensions, safety of employment.
Really they do themselves no favours striking, credit to the schools that have opened. I have a lot more sympathy for the local government workers, whose terms and conditions are more normal, I feel they are being really poorly represented at present.
To be fair, short hours is nonsense. They don't get 'hours', they get work. Im sure there are bad teachers that don't do the work they should, of course there are, but equally most teachers I know work 8-6 at least, and then bring work home to do in the evenings/weekends.
Yes, they get holidays to make up for it, but they generally use part of them for planning/report writing/sorting classrooms etc. And besides, the holidays are actually for the kids, not the teachers. They need the break (and yes, summer hols are probably too long) so what are teachers supposed to do?
And 'above average pay' reflects my point that they are a profession which they work and train hard for. They don't step into a 30k job straight out of uni. There are plenty of people that earn a heck of a lot more that aren't expected for instance to travel with a bunch of kids to a foreign country for a week to act as teacher, parent, friend, social worker and all round guardian angel.
And the government are doing what the population voted for
Well no, they're not. But then, no government ever does what it promises in its pre-election manifesto. Which highlights a major difference: at least the unions are accountable to their members more than once every five years and the members also get to vote on individual issues.
My opinion on the AV referendum has nothing to do with the question of union ballots v general elections so I'll pass on that thanks.
I say the two aforementioned voting mechanisms can't be compared simply by pointing out similar dumb arsed statisitics. Feel free to convince me otherwise.
So the EU referendum will have to have above 50% vote of the public or it's null and void?
No, I don't listen to the radio,
Was there any need to be so deliberately offensive? "pathetic argument" by all means disagree with what I say and put forward your own argument as to why you disagree, but is it really necessary to be so........ 'Tory' about it?
Let me ask you this, if only 40% of a unions membership voted in a ballot for or against industrial action and 35% of them voted against industrial action, and as a result no industrial action took place, would you support their decision even though the vast majority didn't vote against industrial action?
Or do you only support democracy when it gives the result you want?
because I would unreservedly accept the result in the scenario I gave above, I might not like it, had I been in the minority voting in favour of industrial action, but being a supporter of the democratic process, I would accept it.
The ballot would ask for a mandate to take affirmative action. If there is no majority in favour of that action, then no action should be taken.
But don't you accept that the union leaders have their own agenda (often political) that may have little to do with the views of their members?
Just because people vote for something (unions/government) doesn't mean they will always be best served by the leadership. And the union hierarchy clearly will have influence over its members.
I see, so what do you suggest we replace the current system of democracy with? something that only gives the results you want perhaps?
A Big Brother type dictatorship where 'the beloved leader' always knows What's best for us, because we are just gullible children who need someone to make our decisions for us?
I find this thread utterly hilarious I don't think I have ever seen a thread in which so many Tory supporters/anti trades unionists anti working class people, have twisted and turned and contradicted themselves, Is their a collective term for a gathering of hypocrites?
If not may I suggest "a Tory"?
We have the "how is it democratic to call a strike when only 35% of the elector...... oops when only 35% of the membership voted in favour?' lot,
(do these people have an 'irony by-pass operation or something?)
the very same lot who, I am certain, would overwhelmingly support said vote should it go against industrial action.
Then we have my favourite, those who complain that it's un fair for people to DARE to withdraw their labour (after a democratic vote) if it's going to create some annoyance or inconvenience for people, although this is the whole point of taking industrial action I mean, what would be the point of withdrawing one's labour if no one even notices?
I am self employed and work alone from home I've been on strike for a week, anyone noticed? apart from the missus.
While we have others complaining (sneering?) that they haven't even noticed the strike therefore what's the point in the strike?
No doubt HAD the strike had the slightes impact on their day they would now be complaining about those 'evil' trades unions for having the audacity to stand up for and defend the rights and welfare of the the "decent hard working families" of this country against the benevolence and loving kindness of 'the beloved leader'
just as they have been conditioned to respond by all the loving and benevolent 'beloved leaders' past and present.
Comments
Bins Collected
Schools Open
Job Centre Open
Road Sweepers out and about.
Library Open
Fire Station functioning as normal
Are you sure it is today?
Or you could see it as teachers using the last resort of giving up a day's pay in an attempt to prevent changes they truly believe will have a damaging impact on the education of youngsters today and in the future. Probably more of a valid reason than the self-interest ones.
But hey, I guess that doesn't suit your agenda.
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/jan/15/ofsted-chief-teachers-quitting-scandal
Who knows where they go but they leave teaching altogether and therefore it would be great to know how this is good for childrens education.
It would be interesting to know what the government are doing about this when you take into the account the cost of training teachers.
No, I don't listen to the radio,
Was there any need to be so deliberately offensive? "pathetic argument" by all means disagree with what I say and put forward your own argument as to why you disagree, but is it really necessary to be so........ 'Tory' about it?
Let me ask you this, if only 40% of a unions membership voted in a ballot for or against industrial action and 35% of them voted against industrial action, and as a result no industrial action took place, would you support their decision even though the vast majority didn't vote against industrial action?
Or do you only support democracy when it gives the result you want?
because I would unreservedly accept the result in the scenario I gave above, I might not like it, had I been in the minority voting in favour of industrial action, but being a supporter of the democratic process, I would accept it.
1. Indeed not. I knew some very weak leaderships when I was in a union.
2. H'mmm. Not so much really. A membership can just as easily reject any recommended action as approve it. Many of my old colleagues were Tories, and although belonging to a union would never vote for industrial action on ideological grounds.
What about the parents who lose money taking an extra day off work, or paying for replacement child care?
I think the teachers would get more support if they refused to to their job (teach) but actually stayed at school so to not inconvenience parents.
interesting, so did you apply this line of logic to the 2005 election when Labour only got 35.2% of the public vote?
Also was there an alternative choice on the union ballot paper? do they operate the first past the post rule as well?
They may get more support from parents but will it get them what they're asking this Government for ?
I don't think either will get them what they want, but at least they would maintain more support from parents.
And you say I was posting rubbish
Will this action?
Not sure where they'd stand contractually/legally there! Besides teachers aren't child minders, their job is to teach kids.
I'm not saying you are guilty of this, but I think in some quarters there is a definite lack of respect for teaching as a professional career. For example, the whole 'shouldn't expect a job for life' argument. Not sure the same would be said to doctors or solicitors.
That right there is textbook case of dodging the question.
Teachers could work to rule and do say 35 hours a week and refuse to do anymore but they will argue that this would have more effect on the children than a one day strike.
I suspect it comes down to whether the inconvenience is more important that the education of the child.
I think most people have respect for high standard teachers, I don't think enough of them are in my experience but that is a personal view. What I will state with total conviction teachers get great terms and conditions and Govey is committed to given proven good ones more. I agree with that but already they get above average pay, short hours, huge holidays, fantastic pensions, safety of employment.
Really they do themselves no favours striking, credit to the schools that have opened. I have a lot more sympathy for the local government workers, whose terms and conditions are more normal, I feel they are being really poorly represented at present.
Several poster have raised this point but it is not a like for like scenario. I will try to explain:
In "normal" (MP / council) type votes, all of the (registered) electorate (not just party members) have the opportunity to vote (many don't for various reasons). The candidate with the most votes "wins" and the candidate is elected.
In a ballot for industrial action, the unions are seeking a mandate from (only) union members to take a course of action.
When (say) you have a 27% turnout (vote) by union members and a majority of that 27% vote in favour of strike action, currently all of the members (& in many cases their non-union colleagues) have to join the strike (or get called scabs / blacklegs etc.) even though the majority did not vote for that action and 73% (in this scenario) didn't express an opinion.
Hence if less than a clear majority of members vote in favour of strike action, then the motion is effectively rejected by the majority and the strike action should not happen.
It is complicated, but I hope I've got my point across (anybody help further)?
And you should try sacking poor performing nurses and teachers!
To be fair, short hours is nonsense. They don't get 'hours', they get work. Im sure there are bad teachers that don't do the work they should, of course there are, but equally most teachers I know work 8-6 at least, and then bring work home to do in the evenings/weekends.
Yes, they get holidays to make up for it, but they generally use part of them for planning/report writing/sorting classrooms etc. And besides, the holidays are actually for the kids, not the teachers. They need the break (and yes, summer hols are probably too long) so what are teachers supposed to do?
And 'above average pay' reflects my point that they are a profession which they work and train hard for. They don't step into a 30k job straight out of uni. There are plenty of people that earn a heck of a lot more that aren't expected for instance to travel with a bunch of kids to a foreign country for a week to act as teacher, parent, friend, social worker and all round guardian angel.
Well no, they're not. But then, no government ever does what it promises in its pre-election manifesto. Which highlights a major difference: at least the unions are accountable to their members more than once every five years and the members also get to vote on individual issues.
So, in short, the two are not comparable at all.
They could always resign and find a job that meets their aspirations?
So the EU referendum will have to have above 50% vote of the public or it's null and void?
The ballot would ask for a mandate to take affirmative action. If there is no majority in favour of that action, then no action should be taken.
I see, so what do you suggest we replace the current system of democracy with? something that only gives the results you want perhaps?
A Big Brother type dictatorship where 'the beloved leader' always knows What's best for us, because we are just gullible children who need someone to make our decisions for us?
I find this thread utterly hilarious I don't think I have ever seen a thread in which so many Tory supporters/anti trades unionists anti working class people, have twisted and turned and contradicted themselves, Is their a collective term for a gathering of hypocrites?
If not may I suggest "a Tory"?
We have the "how is it democratic to call a strike when only 35% of the elector...... oops when only 35% of the membership voted in favour?' lot,
(do these people have an 'irony by-pass operation or something?)
the very same lot who, I am certain, would overwhelmingly support said vote should it go against industrial action.
Then we have my favourite, those who complain that it's un fair for people to DARE to withdraw their labour (after a democratic vote) if it's going to create some annoyance or inconvenience for people, although this is the whole point of taking industrial action I mean, what would be the point of withdrawing one's labour if no one even notices?
I am self employed and work alone from home I've been on strike for a week, anyone noticed? apart from the missus.
While we have others complaining (sneering?) that they haven't even noticed the strike therefore what's the point in the strike?
No doubt HAD the strike had the slightes impact on their day they would now be complaining about those 'evil' trades unions for having the audacity to stand up for and defend the rights and welfare of the the "decent hard working families" of this country against the benevolence and loving kindness of 'the beloved leader'
just as they have been conditioned to respond by all the loving and benevolent 'beloved leaders' past and present.