So, there's a lot of coverage on the strike on thursday.
The government is saying it doesn't want it to happen, well of course you don't, because those striking are striking against you! Isn't it odd how they don't complain about private industry strikes, like the BA cabin crew strikes? However, Gove then saying that the government should change the laws on strikes is stupid in the extreme. Striking is the most powerful method of peaceful protest we have, something we should keep, something that has shaped employment law for generations. Shame on them for threatening to make it illegal, to remove the power of protest is to move from democracy to oppression.
To further demonstrate Gove's complete stupidity he then says parents should go in to schools to keep them open. Firstly people covering for others when striking does down the power of the protest. Let's also not forget that for the parents to go in they would need to all be CRB checked (thanks to the governments laws on child protection) which we know is impossible in the time frame. Also he's expecting members of other unions represented in schools to support this, does he really think that NASUWT teachers will facilitate parents covering for NUT teachers? Really?
I will admit the pension system needs to be updated, however people who work in the public sector work in the public interest, there should be some reward for that, for giving up someone's life to serve the nation be that as a policeman, or fireman or teacher. These people work for the protection and service of all. Then there is the wage gap between private and public, it does exist. When I worked in the NHS as an analyst I earned £23k, I could have earned £28k in the private sector, more in London. That wage gap is accepted by public workers as the terms are better, better working conditions, better hours, better pensions. Thats what the gap pays for, that's why we accept it. Personally I would change the pension to be part final salary (where final salary means an average of the last 3 years wage) and part proportional salary (where this means an average of your yearly wage in the later 60% of your career) i.e. if you work for 30 years, final salary means an avarage of years 28,29 & 30 and the proportional part is based on an average of years 12 to 30. And the split between these 2 pots increases in favour of the final salary based on the number of years worked total, starting at say 30% final salary working up to a max of 60% final salary.
Suffice to say that I am less than impressed with the Cameron and Gove today (more than usual), i hope they see sense but we all know that a Tory seeing sense is about as likely as Labour-man saying Thatcher was awesome.
Well... I'm afraid I don't agree with you.
ReplyDeleteI proffer Archbishop Cranmer, who makes a solid point in opposition to your own...
http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2011/06/teaching-unions-give-lesson-in-blind.html
In the meantime, I would correct some basic errors in your mode of argument. I think it is heartfelt, but basic factual errors and unbacked assertions take away from you ability to argue your viewpoint.
- I would say that the case of the BA strikes is not a fair comparison: the government was not the employer in that case. BA was and they did object to the strikes.
- I also challenge you to find any evidence that the present administration expressed support for the BA strikes.
- I can find no evidence that anyone has called for strikes as they exist today to be made illegal.
- I believe that the theory was to treat strikes as wildcat (currently illegal) unless they had support from >50% of the union in question. This is both wrong and redundant as the fact that so few have actually called for strikes has already heavily undermined support for them.
- Both of which are good reasons why nobody is going to actually propose legislation on the matter.
- I think it cynical of you to assume that no teacher would want to see children educated or assist parents trying to help the. Likewise the outright dismissal of the capacities of parents to influence of the education of children.
- I will respond later on the actual meat of your argument.
I'll address each point on it's own:
ReplyDeleteWell... I'm afraid I don't agree with you.
- Fair play, it would be a boring world if we all agreed!
I would say that the case of the BA strikes is not a fair comparison: the government was not the employer in that case. BA was and they did object to the strikes.
- True enough, but BA are not able to table changes to the law, the Government can and as such should be responsible with it's powers and not use them as a threat like a petty school-yard bully. Also, employers are supposed to object, thats the point of the strike, thats the power of the strike! However, objections should not be threats, thats illegal.
I also challenge you to find any evidence that the present administration expressed support for the BA strikes.
- Thats not my point, my point is they didn't object about the use of industrial action until it's aimed against them. If they accept that industrial action is an acceptable method of resolving complaints in private industry then the same must be true in the public sector
I can find no evidence that anyone has called for strikes as they exist today to be made illegal.
I believe that the theory was to treat strikes as wildcat (currently illegal) unless they had support from >50% of the union in question. This is both wrong and redundant as the fact that so few have actually called for strikes has already heavily undermined support for them.
Both of which are good reasons why nobody is going to actually propose legislation on the matter.
- I'll deal with these together. Your first argument is answered by your second, you state no-one is making them illegal and then in the second statement you say how the government is going to treat them as something which is illegal, thus they are threatening to make strikes illegal. They can not possibly mean to make union ballot's have to represent over 50% of the electorate when they themselves just campaigned against AV. Democracy is the expression of the majority (even if only by 1 vote), this has to be the majority of those that voted not the total electorate. Not voting is abstaining by silence and thus they have accepted the will of the majority that do vote.
I think it cynical of you to assume that no teacher would want to see children educated or assist parents trying to help the. Likewise the outright dismissal of the capacities of parents to influence of the education of children.
- I think you underestimate the trade unionisim within the Teaching profession. I am not dismissive of parents abilities, merely that they are not qualified teachers and therefore the education gained would not be of the same standard. Likewise, bringing in others to prevent closures as a result of strikes does down the power of industrial action. Industrial action is the most powerful method of peaceful protest, if we don't have that we will have to head towards non-peaceful protest to prevent oppression, and that's a dark road I don't want to tread.
I would welcome your views on the 'meat' of my argument.
As far as I can tell the main body of your argument is based on the idea that the value of the pension (and other benefits) is pretty much the same as the difference between private and public sector salaries. Ergo, reducing this in any way is unfair because it makes the total remuneration smaller than the equivalent. Which I concur is bad.
ReplyDeleteHowever, when actuaries looked into the actual cost of paying these pensions then it turned out to be worth considerably more than the wage difference... as anyone who has ever tried to get a private pension could have told the bastards.
It was never costed when it was set up, people failed to take into account the fact that the average life expectancy was going up (a lot) and nobody had ever actually put aside money in a pot to deal with it. This has been a ticking time-bomb for a long time and people have known about it since the private sector pensions buggered up about ten years ago. Its the reason the previous administration suddenly became keen on privatisation (backdoor or otherwise), because they knew they had to tackle this bubble, but wouldn't go up against the Unions about it.
In short, the present situation is wildly unfair in favour of the pension getters and cranking it back a little will make everyone's life better in the long run.
One does not talk politics online to agree with people. Or perhaps I should say that one should not... ;)
ReplyDeleteOn the BA strike, do you refer to the 2010 dispute or the 2011? As I understand it on March 14 2010 the transport secretary said that the planned strike was "totally unjustified"... sounds like coming out against them to me. The 2011 strikes didn't materialize because negociation resolved the issue, thus no comment was necessary.
Peripherals aside, the body of your argument is that the government should not use the threat of legal action to attempt to intimidate strike action out of existence? I actually agree with that and think it was foolish to bring that up. I think I made it plain that I agreed with that, even though I bit at the loose terminology of your first statement. (I also realised that I had contradicted myself somewhere between clicking to post and re-reading it, a moment too late).
One could argue in return that threatening to shirk work in a manner that is legally protected from getting you fired is in itself a bullying tactic. Not to mention the violence and hatred frequently directed towards "scabs" who think that the work they do is more important than the Union.
I am amused by your reversal on the 50% requirement (you want it for politicians, but not when childrens education is at stake), but accept the difference between the overall population and the voting one. The problem is the abstenance: one side assumes that it is tacit permission, the other a rejection. Arguably, a requirement for quorum would encourage TU leadership to ensure that members were motivated to vote and it would encourage them to be more receptive to the actual wants of the people they ostensibly represent... but it is not for the government to define the rules of union votes.
I think that reducing the power of industrial action is exactly the aim of encouraging people to keep schools open and while those days would not be as valuable as others, there would at least be continuity. Providing a degree of service will prove that the active union members are not as irreplacable as they seek to represent themselves and erode their bargaining position on this issue, so of course it is being encouraged.
It would also be better for childrens education, but I've always found "But think of the Children!" to be a weak argument, so I'll not deploy it here.
Industrial action is indeed a powerful weapon, but as with all such it must be used with restraint or it will be taken away. Frivolous actions, dismissed as union bullying tactics, weaken other peoples support for striking... people see it as a selfish annoyance (see Bob Crow) rather than means of protest.
It comes down to whether you believe in the cause they are striking for, or rather how the general public feels about it. Campaigning to keep their boom-time advantages in a bust-time economy is not a good position to woo the recession-bitten crowd.
Again, working through them one by one:
ReplyDeleteAs far as I can tell the main body of your argument is based on the idea that the value of the pension (and other benefits) is pretty much the same as the difference between private and public sector salaries. Ergo, reducing this in any way is unfair because it makes the total remuneration smaller than the equivalent. Which I concur is bad.
However, when actuaries looked into the actual cost of paying these pensions then it turned out to be worth considerably more than the wage difference... as anyone who has ever tried to get a private pension could have told the bastards.
- There are 2 points here, first I do believe that public service should be rewarded, people who serve the nation should be recognised for the good work they do and the fact that without them the country would be in ruins.
Also, why should body A be made to suffer because body A screwed up? Now that's not to say that the pension shouldn't change, as I've said before it should, however the current changes which aren't being negotiated, would be an effective £60 per month increase in payments but a total average loss of £250,000 out of pension funds, with an approx 610,000 teachers in the country that's a net gain for the government of 152,500,000,000 (152.5Bn!!!!) that's more than the total UK national deficit, hence my belief that the current changes are too much. If we accept the current changes are too much and the fact that the government is refusing to engage fully in negotiations over the changes then surely striking is the most (and only) effective answer?
It was never costed when it was set up, people failed to take into account the fact that the average life expectancy was going up (a lot) and nobody had ever actually put aside money in a pot to deal with it. This has been a ticking time-bomb for a long time and people have known about it since the private sector pensions buggered up about ten years ago. Its the reason the previous administration suddenly became keen on privatisation (backdoor or otherwise), because they knew they had to tackle this bubble, but wouldn't go up against the Unions about it.
- That's possible, like I've said above, I'm not saying that the pension shouldn't change, just that the current proposed change is too much and unfair. The fact that Labour didn't deal with it, should not be taken out on the teachers.
On the BA strike, do you refer to the 2010 dispute or the 2011? As I understand it on March 14 2010 the transport secretary said that the planned strike was "totally unjustified"... sounds like coming out against them to me. The 2011 strikes didn't materialize because negotiation resolved the issue, thus no comment was necessary.
ReplyDelete- Yes I was referring to the 2010 strikes, however I must have missed those comments. However, I'm not sure they threatened to change the legislation surrounding strikes as a result of their opposition. That's my point, a strike you disagree with is one thing, but to change the laws to degrade the RIGHT to strike is an entirely different thing and should be fought!
One could argue in return that threatening to shirk work in a manner that is legally protected from getting you fired is in itself a bullying tactic. Not to mention the violence and hatred frequently directed towards "scabs" who think that the work they do is more important than the Union.
- In many ways yes I suppose strikes are a bully tactic, but they are legal form of peaceful protest and a very powerful one. Any form of protest is in essence an attempt to bully others in to changing their mind.
I am amused by your reversal on the 50% requirement (you want it for politicians, but not when childrens education is at stake), but accept the difference between the overall population and the voting one. The problem is the abstenance: one side assumes that it is tacit permission, the other a rejection. Arguably, a requirement for quorum would encourage TU leadership to ensure that members were motivated to vote and it would encourage them to be more receptive to the actual wants of the people they ostensibly represent... but it is not for the government to define the rules of union votes.
- No thats not quite right, what I want is the rules to be the same, same = fair. To slate the unions for not having 50% of membership voting, and yet still accept general elections without 50% is childish, and fundamentally wrong. To be 'fair' the same rules should apply to all, therefore I find it laughable that the Tories will shout about not having 50% of a union agree with a strike yet campaign against the 50% AV system for general elections, it just shows how self centred and infantile they are.
I think that reducing the power of industrial action is exactly the aim of encouraging people to keep schools open and while those days would not be as valuable as others, there would at least be continuity. Providing a degree of service will prove that the active union members are not as irreplacable as they seek to represent themselves and erode their bargaining position on this issue, so of course it is being encouraged.
It would also be better for childrens education, but I've always found "But think of the Children!" to be a weak argument, so I'll not deploy it here.
- The whole purpose and power of industrial action is because it causes upset and damage. Like when the fire service strike, the fact that the army have been brought in is exactly the point. It makes people sit up and take genuine notice of the strength of feeling.
Industrial action is indeed a powerful weapon, but as with all such it must be used with restraint or it will be taken away. Frivolous actions, dismissed as union bullying tactics, weaken other peoples support for striking... people see it as a selfish annoyance (see Bob Crow) rather than means of protest.
- Yes frivolous action should not happen. But the issues at stake here are huge, and not just for the teachers. The Tories are attempting to change someone's contract terms without negotiation. You will I suspect say that they are negotiating, but not the change merely on when to implement it, that is not a true negotiation, that's only being willing to talk one half of the subject and not entering into a debate on the actual change and the size of it.
I was on strike today, and i just felt i wanted a place to share my (very non political) viewpoint, i see the same points from Joe public and I'm feeling perhaps a little victimised today. I didn't want to be on strike particularly, equally there is no way I feel I can manage in a classroom of 25 noisy, lively, loud and quick thinking pupils at 68 years old.
ReplyDeleteI know things need to change, I know we all need to tighten our belts. I get it. I don't mind paying more (though I can see how those with dependents, who live to their means might find an extra £100+ per month a struggle). Alternatively I don't mind the £250000 loss I'm estimated over the 25 years of my pension. What I do mind is the perfect storm the government are suggesting, all three...? too much!
The responses from the public have been amusing too, no particular rants about the job centre, or other Public sector workers, ooooh no! "teachers striking- it's disgusting!" I know it's cost people in child care, and I'm not happy about it but for goodness sake we didn't go out beating puppies to death! A bit of perspective- if your child had been ill you would have had to do the same. Besides it was a nice day to spend with the family/ grandparents etc, you could always have come and joined in (a stronger voice- perhaps no repeat?!).
The government is supposedly trying to make teaching a 'respected' profession again, by telling us we are useless after leaving the profession? By encouraging us to be viewed as free child care? Surely not the intent but certainly a by-product.
Yes we get a lot of holidays, but of every week off I spend at least 2 days working. I work 8.30 - 4.30 (often with no break), then I go home and usually do more, and I'm responsible for the future of the 25+ kids in each of my classes, and by extension the nation (after all they will be the ones looking after things and making the decisions when we finally get this pension). We need our holidays, we earn them.
Teachers do all this because 99% of us genuinely love our jobs, I wouldn't want to do anything else. This doesn't mean we should grin and bear it when we get kicked. I don't WANT to strike again, I want to be at work. All we need is a bit of compromise, some discussion and a teeny bit of flexibility and it wont happen. I finish my NQT year soon (the probationary period) that's 4 years of training... looks like I should have just been a banker!