Strike action by the NUT

[Jazzratt]

Today the first teacher's strike in decades occurred here in Britain, the reason, basically, being that teachers are receiving - in real terms - a pay cut. This isn't just damaging to NQTs and the numbers of people entering the profession but also those who have been in the profession for quite some time. There has been a lot of controversy surrounding this strike as it falls very close to exams and for this reason a lot of the rightwing press has been up in arms about it. My question to OIers (especially those that don't seem to mind the concept of a strike in general, like TomK) is where they stand on the issue - are the teacher's justified in striking or are they unnecessarily and selfishly interrupting the education of Britain's youth?

My own view is, of course, one of solidarity with the NUT.

[Patchd]

Solidarity with the teachers strike, no doubt about it. We had a few strikebreakers in our college/school, should be expelled from the union in my opinion.

And its ridiculous to have a one day strike in this day and age, especially if you're in education. A week would have been taken a lot more seriously.

Also, there was the case of some teachers in unions other than the NUT, who couldn't go on strike in fear of getting a disciplinary...thanks to Thatcher for introducing it, and Labour for not making any improvements.

[Jazzratt]

Solidarity with the teachers strike, no doubt about it. We had a few strikebreakers in our college/school, should be expelled from the union in my opinion.

Damn right. Didn't have any of the cowardly shits at my mum's school, I don't think. Strike breakers are scum.


And its ridiculous to have a one day strike in this day and age, especially if you're in education. A week would have been taken a lot more seriously.

Yeah, but considering the public opinion, I don't know how much good that would have done - the government may even spin it so they look like the strong ones not capitulating to the blackmail of teachers :(

[Colonello Buendia]

I am 100% backing the NUT. they strike breakers are scabs and pigs. if a new pay agreement is reached they should get the new lower rate. I'd agree that a week long strike would be more effective but I can't be sure seen as I'm not in England. I do think I'd support a week long teachers strike in scotland because well anytime away from the most bourgeois and dishonest curriculum is welcomed.

[Kami]

Yeah, but considering the public opinion, I don't know how much good that would have done - the government may even spin it so they look like the strong ones not capitulating to the blackmail of teachers http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/sad.gif
I saw the news today, I wasn't sure whether to laugh or cry at the way the government was spinning it; all those poor little children are being deprived of their education!

[Kropotesta]

So, to those advocating a week strike, are you willing to pay their loss of pay? That's generally why that idea is dead in the water.

[Kropotesta]

Solidarity with the teachers strike, no doubt about it. We had a few strikebreakers in our college/school, should be expelled from the union in my opinion.

It was only school teachers striking, not sixth forms/universities.

[Killfacer]

i back the NUT completely and anyone who doesnt go on strike is a tosser (some teachers at my school refused to go out on strike, despite being in the NUT). Any longer than a day and things would of turned nasty. The coverage by the BBC was atrocious already, they had no representative from the NUT and just banged on about how angry parents are. If they had striked for any longer public opinion would of forced them into stopping or being hated. (i go to sixth form at a secondary school).

[Robert]

As much as can be done to keep good teachers in their jobs should be done. If their salaries are unjustifiably falling, then sure, they should strike. How do you establish what is a fair salary? Compare their salaries with some kind of national average of professionals with equal levels of education, possibly.

If you join the union, you should abide by the majority and honor the strike. Parents however need to try and pick up the slack during the strike to be sure Johnny doesn't lose out to his counterparts in Japan and Finland.

[IcarusAngel]

Also, there was the case of some teachers in unions other than the NUT, who couldn't go on strike in fear of getting a disciplinary...thanks to Thatcher for introducing it, and Labour for not making any improvements.

Yes. I heard after Thatcher's numerous "educational reforms" England's school started performing worse, just like here in the US there has generally been a "war on education," although you can probably learn more about the US' true history now then 40 years ago (still not much though).

It seems conservatives have wanted to underfund, wreck, and weaken education to the point where privatization looks like a viable option, which it of course never is.

[Patchd]

It was only school teachers striking, not sixth forms/universities.
I go to a sixth form college, part of a school, so the teachers teach lower years as well as the senior school too.


So, to those advocating a week strike, are you willing to pay their loss of pay? That's generally why that idea is dead in the water.
Surely unions should provide a strike cheque, if not, then I don't see why I wouldn't contribute some of my earnings to some fund for striking teachers.


Yeah, but considering the public opinion, I don't know how much good that would have done - the government may even spin it so they look like the strong ones not capitulating to the blackmail of teachers
Like Thatcher did with the miners? Yes, possibly, but its not about how the strikers might be perceived, its about whether they achieve their goals or not, and its about time that the rest of the population supported the education caste and put some pressure on the government to at least give a pay rise equal to the rate of inflation for our teachers.

[Jazzratt]

Like Thatcher did with the miners? Yes, possibly, but its not about how the strikers might be perceived, its about whether they achieve their goals or not, and its about time that the rest of the population supported the education caste and put some pressure on the government to at least give a pay rise equal to the rate of inflation for our teachers.

The government though can feel just in not giving into the pressure if public opinion is behind them, however a lot of the opinions after the strike seem to be more positive. Let's hope that the planned rolling strikes have more of an effect. Yesterday's strike was a good kick up the arse for the government, but if it isn't followed up in the way outlined during the easter confrerence it won't do much good.

[Kropotesta]

Surely unions should provide a strike cheque, if not, then I don't see why I wouldn't contribute some of my earnings to some fund for striking teachers.

I don't think Unions really have enough money to fully pay each striking teacher in their Union for a week. Also the money put in is usually used for meetings and various actions to support the works, and the bueraucrats.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Our school sent all the NUT teachers to supervise a week long school trip this day :(

although we started chanting "scab" at our maths teacher

[Patchd]

although we started chanting "scab" at our maths teacher
We did that to our politics teacher, although we weren't shouting at him.


I don't think Unions really have enough money to fully pay each striking teacher in their Union for a week. Also the money put in is usually used for meetings and various actions to support the works, and the bueraucrats.
How long did the miners' strike go on for and how were they looked after?

[pusher robot]

My question to OIers (especially those that don't seem to mind the concept of a strike in general, like TomK) is where they stand on the issue - are the teacher's justified in striking or are they unnecessarily and selfishly interrupting the education of Britain's youth?

Well, it depends on the circumstances, really. Did they contractually promise not to strike and are now having buyer's remorse? Then it's probably unjustified unless the government broke its contractual obligations first. On the other hand, if they did not promise to strike in exchange for some consideration, then they have every right to decide not work. Likewise, though, everyone else does have every right to decide they they do want to work. Just because a striker decides that he is unwilling to work under certain conditions, he has no right to dictate his terms onto other people. That prerogative to work or not goes both ways. So if the strikers should find themselves replaced, I would not have a problem with that either.

[Kropotesta]

How long did the miners' strike go on for and how were they looked after?
the unions gave a basic pay, far from their wages, and also money was donated to miner families.

[Bud Struggle]

My question to OIers (especially those that don't seem to mind the concept of a strike in general, like TomK) is where they stand on the issue - are the teacher's justified in striking or are they unnecessarily and selfishly interrupting the education of Britain's youth?


On the idea of a strike my belief is that the teachers should get whatever they can get. I have no belief in the "greater good." It the teachers could force the government to pay a bit more in a one day strike--they might do a bit (or a lot) better in a week or a month. It should be an open market. The teachers should get as much as society can afford to pay for their efforts. Now there will be a breaking point--if the teachers are being paid over a certain point--maybe people from other professions will see it as a better way to make a living and look for jobs in that area. That's fine, too.

I'm not just for business corporations making money--each individual is a "corporation" that should look out for it's own self interest. If joining with other "corporations" a teacher can do better--it should.

If I was a teacher I would be all for striking as long as it takes to get the most out of my employer for the job I do.

I would say that about employees in my factory, too. But, it's not my fault that my employees aren't good business people. :(

[Redmau5]

It was only school teachers striking, not sixth forms/universities.

No, alot of lecturers from colleges also joined the strike. Not on the same scale as the teachers obviously, but lecturers from around 250 colleges joined the strike as well.


each individual is a "corporation"

Really, they're not.

[Invader Zim]

I support the strike. Teachers are under paid, and being asked to work harder, longer and in an increasingly stressful enviroment. They should be having a pay increase, and a vast one, not a decrease in pay.


We had a few strikebreakers in our college/school, should be expelled from the union in my opinion.Like as not they aren't in the union to be kicked out. The NUT is one of several teachers unions.


The coverage by the BBC was atrocious already, they had no representative from the NUTThis is abjectly false, as anyone who watched the news could see. Not only did they interview members from the NUT, but individual teachers and a representative from the TUC.

[Killfacer]

I agree with the strike and am in full support, but to say teachers are "under paid" or even poorly paid is ridiculous. My english teacher for example is on 40k, not bad at all.

[Kropotesta]

No, alot of lecturers from colleges also joined the strike. Not on the same scale as the teachers obviously, but lecturers from around 250 colleges joined the strike as well.
That maybe so, however they weren't officially on strike.

[InTheMatterOfBoots]

I agree with the strike and am in full support, but to say teachers are "under paid" or even poorly paid is ridiculous. My english teacher for example is on 40k, not bad at all.

The figures being banded around by government officials are averages and vastly inflated. Most teachers entering the profession will get less than half of that. You have to be in teaching for years to earn that kind of money.

[Jazzratt]

The figures being banded around by government officials are averages and vastly inflated. Most teachers entering the profession will get less than half of that. You have to be in teaching for years to earn that kind of money.

Even then it depends what you teach. Primary teachers get an especially raw deal, they can't (generally) afford a house in their catchment area without running up massive debts. The main problem with teacher pay is that it's under the value of inflation - they can't even afford proper necessities, much less luxuries.

[Killfacer]

i admit that most teachers cannot afford to pay for their own mortage (the inflation on the mortage is more than the inflation on their pay) but they still get payed alot. Despite what you may say, teachers easily get payed enough. There are other workeers which need the money more than them!

[Green Dragon]

If the teachers, in a socialist system felt unfairly treated, would their right to strike be similiarly protected?

[Die Neue Zeit]

i admit that most teachers cannot afford to pay for their own mortage (the inflation on the mortage is more than the inflation on their pay) but they still get payed alot. Despite what you may say, teachers easily get payed enough. There are other workeers which need the money more than them!

What an idiotic statement. EVERY worker needs to be compensated for the FULL value of his labour - something which capitalism cannot allow.

[Robert]

"EVERY worker needs to be compensated for the FULL value of his labour." Agreed. How do you calculate it?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Certainly not through "market mechanisms," which enable the extraction of surplus value :p

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/6579/epipart3.htm

[Kropotesta]

If the teachers, in a socialist system felt unfairly treated, would their right to strike be similiarly protected?
they'd probably ban the Unions.....

[Robert]

Certainly not through "market mechanisms," which enable the extraction of surplus value

Okay. Through what, then? By whom, then?

[Herman]

Okay. Through what, then? By whom, then?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_theory_of_value#Marx.27s_contribution

[redSHARP]

from what i gather, most people support the strike, it makes me smile knowning that! if teachers feel that they need more money to pay for rising costs and to support their families, then so be it. we should support them 100%, because i sure as fuck do!

[pusher robot]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_theory_of_value#Marx.27s_contribution

I'm unclear how this would be applied to teachers. Can you elucidate? Does one calculate the use value of the students before and after the teaching? What if several teachers are involved, some good and some bad? What are the metrics for determining the use-value of a student?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Of course unions and strikes would be allowed. I imagine the atmosphere would be a lot less adversarial, though.

[Green Dragon]

[
quote=Ron Burgundy;1134730]Of course unions and strikes would be allowed. I imagine the atmosphere would be a lot less adversarial, though.[/QUOTE]

But why would they be allowed? It makes no sense. If it is the ideal socialist community, this means that the teachers are participating in fully democratic community, where they get to control their economic lives. Therefore, the community democratically decides to proceed with some act of which the teachers dissagree. But they were the minority vote.

Is withholding their labor an acceptable response for being on the wrong end of a democratic decision?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

But why would they be allowed? It makes no sense. If it is the ideal socialist community, this means that the teachers are participating in fully democratic community, where they get to control their economic lives. Therefore, the community democratically decides to proceed with some act of which the teachers dissagree. But they were the minority vote.

Is withholding their labor an acceptable response for being on the wrong end of a democratic decision?
But workers' don't go on strike over nothing. Obviously, all workers would like to be paid more and/or work less hours with more benefits, yet not all workers are on strike all the time. Generally strike action is an action of last resort once it is decided that the current system is inherently flawed and unworkable. This tends to happen quite often under capitalism but would obviously happen considerably less in a worker-run society so I can't imagine strikes being nearly as common, if they exist at all. Even if you did occasionally have some who thought they could do better, that feeling would probably be considerably less than how most workers feel most of the time under capitalism. A workers' society is, by definition, a good deal for workers.

I guess what I'm saying is that a socialist state would not seek to outlaw association of workers and theoretically would have no mechanism to prevent strike action, but there realistically wouldn't be any grounds for strike action anyway.

[Awful Reality]

I saw the news today

Lol. For a second there I thought you had posted the lyrics to A Day in the Life.

[Green Dragon]

But workers' don't go on strike over nothing. Obviously, all workers would like to be paid more and/or work less hours with more benefits, yet not all workers are on strike all the time. Generally strike action is an action of last resort once it is decided that the current system is inherently flawed and unworkable. This tends to happen quite often under capitalism but would obviously happen considerably less in a worker-run society so I can't imagine strikes being nearly as common, if they exist at all. Even if you did occasionally have some who thought they could do better, that feeling would probably be considerably less than how most workers feel most of the time under capitalism. A workers' society is, by definition, a good deal for workers.

I guess what I'm saying is that a socialist state would not seek to outlaw association of workers and theoretically would have no mechanism to prevent strike action, but there realistically wouldn't be any grounds for strike action anyway.

But why would there not be grounds for a strike in a socialist community? In the capitalist community, strikes occur when workers are dissatisfied with their working conditions. Is it the claim that workers will NEVER be dissatisfied in a socialist community? Such a claim would seem ridiculous. Obviously then, the workers can't and don't always get what they want. There is of course a process to seek it. But it would seem that in a socialist community a striker is someone who has come out on the short end of the stick in the process. A strike would seem an attack on the system, not something the system would logically seek to protect.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

But why would there not be grounds for a strike in a socialist community? In the capitalist community, strikes occur when workers are dissatisfied with their working conditions. Is it the claim that workers will NEVER be dissatisfied in a socialist community? Such a claim would seem ridiculous. Obviously then, the workers can't and don't always get what they want. There is of course a process to seek it. But it would seem that in a socialist community a striker is someone who has come out on the short end of the stick in the process. A strike would seem an attack on the system, not something the system would logically seek to protect.
Either you didn't read my post or you didn't understand it. Workers do not, even under capitalism, undertake serious industrial action simply because they are unsatisfied with their working conditions. You often hear workers complaining about their pay or their hours. I'm sure many, even most, probably all workers would like more pay and less hours. Yet, as I have said, not all workers are on strike all the time. In fact, strikes occur relatively rarely even in capitalism.

You are saying that under socialism people could simply refuse to work and hold the rest of society to blackmail out of reckless self-interest. First of all however, you must keep in mind that when a large section of the workforce goes on strike, society as a whole suffers. This acts as a deterrent to potential strikers in any society and is why strikes are best conducted through workers' associations which are accepted as legitimate by society (like they are today). I think what you're getting at isn't so much a legitimate industrial action as the age-old question of "what if someone doesn't work under communism", because realistically we are talking about someone refusing to work based on irrational or unrealistic grounds. This question has been answered from the very beginning, and the answer isn't really that surprising. "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs"; "he who does not work, neither shall he eat". The real difference between someone not working as outlined above and workers undertaking strike action is that workers generally undertake legitimate industrial action when their needs are being blatantly and unjustifiably ignored by the powers that be. This would not happen in a workers' society; if it does happen in a given society, then that society is not a workers' society.

[Robert]

This would not happen in a workers' society; if it does happen in a given society, then that society is not a workers' society.

That's a nice box. There is no escape. For some reason I don't like it. What's wrong with it? You seem to envision a society where no one is entitled to think life is unfair. It thus bears an odd resemblance to libertarianism, but it smells coerced. Coerced libertarianism?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

No, that wasn't what I was saying. A workers' society is, be definition, a society which works for the workers, in which workers are happy. If society does not work for the workers, if workers are not happy, then that society is not, by definition, a workers' society. It is still a society, but I was asked what the situation would be in a socialist society which I consider to be a workers' society. No one is forced or even obliged to think that life is fair, I never suggested that. I'm just saying that a socialist society would provide a fair deal for workers.

[Green Dragon]

No, that wasn't what I was saying. A workers' society is, be definition, a society which works for the workers, in which workers are happy. If society does not work for the workers, if workers are not happy, then that society is not, by definition, a workers' society. It is still a society, but I was asked what the situation would be in a socialist society which I consider to be a workers' society. No one is forced or even obliged to think that life is fair, I never suggested that. I'm just saying that a socialist society would provide a fair deal for workers.


Ahhh! In other words, a socialist community can never fail. If it does, it means it was never really socialist.
Quite the ideologue, are we?

[Green Dragon]

You are saying that under socialism people could simply refuse to work and hold the rest of society to blackmail out of reckless self-interest.

Well, yes, they could indeed act out of self-interest. Why else strike?


First of all however, you must keep in mind that when a large section of the workforce goes on strike, society as a whole suffers.

This could be true.


This acts as a deterrent to potential strikers in any society and is why strikes are best conducted through workers' associations which are accepted as legitimate by society (like they are today).

Okay. Only approved organisations, approved by "society," and determined in some fashion can be considered valid worker associations. All others need not apply.


I think what you're getting at isn't so much a legitimate industrial action as the age-old question of "what if someone doesn't work under communism",

No. What I am asking is how do workers, in a socialist community, strike against themselves?


The real difference between someone not working as outlined above and workers undertaking strike action is that workers generally undertake legitimate industrial action

Legitimate strike action seems to suggest strike action which is approved by the community. Which would seem to make no sense the strikers would be equal owners as the rest of the society. The difference being the strikers have lost a democratic vote.



when their needs are being blatantly and unjustifiably ignored by the powers that be. This would not happen in a workers' society; if it does happen in a given society, then that society is not a workers' society.
[/QUOTE]

The powers that be, in a socialist community, would be nothing more than the majority of the workers on any given issue. Why would they authorise a strike against themselves, since after all, they do not agree with the claims of injustice made by the strikers? Who represent a defeated minority in a democratic election.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Ahhh! In other words, a socialist community can never fail. If it does, it means it was never really socialist.
Quite the ideologue, are we?
A lot like how a capitalist society without property rights isn't really a capitalist society. I really don't see how that's so hard to understand to be honest.

I'll reply to the rest later.