Please Sir can I have more!!

[Asthehills]

7 minutes ago, DrunkenMonkey said:

If only there were a realistic way of attracting high achieving workers...

Begins with an M and ends with a Y

Do you not think the current offer provides that?  36k starting seems pretty generous?

Do you know if the latest offer has actually been out to members, as at least one other union is happy with it

[Newbie]

1 hour ago, Banker said:

Still only 54% so not massive endorsement!!

You seem to be assuming that all of the NASUWT members who didn't vote would be against strike action. I don't know whether they would be in favour of a strike or against it, but you can't assume that they would be against.

The other way of looking at it is that 92% of the members that did vote were in favour of industrial action, and 82% of them were in favour of strike action if necessary. That is pretty conclusive and all sorts of democratic processes are decided on much lower turnouts and much lower percentages of the vote.

[Asthehills]

12 minutes ago, Newbie said:

The other way of looking at it is that 92% of the members that did vote were in favour of industrial action, and 82% of them were in favour of strike action if necessary. That is pretty conclusive and all sorts of democratic processes are decided on much lower turnouts and much lower percentages of the vote.

Serious question as I am confused.  Was that ballot before or after the latest revised offer?

It seems to be the one that those in support of the teachers keep quoting, but I haven’t seen or heard any evidence that the latest pay offer was put to the members before that vote was taken.

As far as I can make out the latest vote to actually strike is the one where the union are stating a percentage of RESPONDENTS voted in favour and are being very sketchy on actual figures.

Another Union have accepted the offer, and word on the street is that there is very little actual support for strike action through the schools as a whole and that actually, nearly all the support for striking is centred in one particular school.  Again, word on the street is that the majority of teachers just want to accept and get on with teaching and are dead against a walkout.  The ones I know and talk to are embarrassed to be associated with it and feel like one particular Union is bullying people and generating hassle for the sake of it.

There are obviously posters here who work in schools and are in the union.  My advice would be if you want public support give a clear statement on members thoughts on the latest offer, and a clear breakdown of how many teachers actually want to strike per school - in actual numbers, not percentages.

That way those of us on the outside who are hearing rumours that it’s just a few shit stirrers and who are really just sick of government resources being wasted negotiating what appears to already be a generous offer can have a better understanding of what teachers actually think.  Honestly, the ones I have spoken to in the last week are ALL against any action and happy with the offer on the table.

Edited November 7, 2022 by Asthehills

[quilp]

4 minutes ago, Asthehills said:

Serious question as I am confused.  Was that ballot before or after the last est revised offer.

It seems to be the one that those in support of the teachers Kew quoting, but I haven’t seen or heard any evidence that the latest pay offer was put to the members before that vote was taken.

As far as I can make out the latest vote to actually strike is the one where the union are stating a percentage of RESPONDENTS voted in favour and are being very sketchy on actual figures.

Another Union have accepted the offer, and word on the street is that there is very little actual support for strike action through the schools as a whole and that actually, nearly all the support for striking is centred in one particular school.  Again, word on the street is that the majority of teachers just want to accept and get on with teaching and are dead against a walkout.  The ones I know and talk to are embarrassed to be associated with it and feel like one particular Union is bullying people and generating hassle for the sake of it.

There are obviously posters here who work in schools and are in the union.  My advice would be if you want public support give a clear statement on members thoughts on the latest offer, and a clear breakdown of how many teachers actually want to strike per school - in actual numbers, not percentages.

That way those of us on the outside who are hearing rumours that it’s just a few shit stirrers and who are really just sick of government resources being wasted negotiating what appears to already be a generous offer can have a better understanding of what teachers actually think.  Honestly, the ones I have spoken to in the last week are ALL against any action and happy with the offer on the table.

What a load of subjective, falacious bollocks...

13 hours ago, Asthehills said:

I am done in and going to bed.  8:30 to 4 tomorrow with only a lunch hour and a couple of breaks 

Shouldn't you have your head down, working..? 

[Asthehills]

1 minute ago, quilp said:

What a load of subjective, falacious bollocks...

Shouldn't you have your head down, working..? 

Your opinion.

I genuinely think it would help their cause if they provided some clarity on the situation as the rumour mill is rife with it actually just being a small and very vocal minority stirring things up.

If they want to leave it as is, and just be perceived as petulant foot stampers who won’t stop until they get their 30 percent then let them crack on, but they will continue to lose more and more public support.

[0bserver]

1 hour ago, manxman1980 said:

Redundancy should only be used where;

- all or part of an organisation is closing

- there is a reduction of work of a particular kind

- the work has changed location 

Now which of the above would you care to suggest apply to your suggestion? 

Arguably you could offer new terms and conditions and dismiss those that do t accept the new terms but that is not a good look (ask P&O) and can come at a significant cost in the form of settlement agreements.

Change location. Close some of the smaller schools and rearrange the teaching roster.

[Asthehills]

57 minutes ago, 0bserver said:

Change location. Close some of the smaller schools and rearrange the teaching roster.

How does the number of DESC staff employed in relation to the number of kids under 18 stack up compared to the UK and specifically London Fringe?

I would put money on our staff to child ratio being way higher than UK

Edited November 7, 2022 by Asthehills

[Newbie]

54 minutes ago, Asthehills said:

Serious question as I am confused.  Was that ballot before or after the latest revised offer?

It seems to be the one that those in support of the teachers keep quoting, but I haven’t seen or heard any evidence that the latest pay offer was put to the members before that vote was taken.

As far as I can make out the latest vote to actually strike is the one where the union are stating a percentage of RESPONDENTS voted in favour and are being very sketchy on actual figures.

Another Union have accepted the offer, and word on the street is that there is very little actual support for strike action through the schools as a whole and that actually, nearly all the support for striking is centred in one particular school.  Again, word on the street is that the majority of teachers just want to accept and get on with teaching and are dead against a walkout.  The ones I know and talk to are embarrassed to be associated with it and feel like one particular Union is bullying people and generating hassle for the sake of it.

There are obviously posters here who work in schools and are in the union.  My advice would be if you want public support give a clear statement on members thoughts on the latest offer, and a clear breakdown of how many teachers actually want to strike per school - in actual numbers, not percentages.

That way those of us on the outside who are hearing rumours that it’s just a few shit stirrers and who are really just sick of government resources being wasted negotiating what appears to already be a generous offer can have a better understanding of what teachers actually think.  Honestly, the ones I have spoken to in the last week are ALL against any action and happy with the offer on the table.

Personally, I don't know the answer to your question as I don't work in teaching. The BBC did report 3 days ago that the revised offer was overwhelmingly rejected by the NASUWT. They didn't provide figures but presumably there must have been some sort of consultation with members to reach that conclusion. I am quite sure that if the NASUWT had behaved illegally, the government would be making sure that was reported.

The NASUWT appear to have jumped through all of the procedural hoops to allow them to take industrial action. Currently, in the UK, the Tory party is hoping to change the law to make it harder for Unions to take strike action, but even their proposed bar of 50% of those eligible voting for strike action in order to make a strike legal, has been passed by the NASUWT here. Ever more draconian rules designed to allow employers to bully employees into accepting a declining standard of living are not going to work well in the longer term.

On the other hand Julie Edge is in the media deliberately misrepresenting the NASUWT demands, presumably in an effort to get the public to turn against teachers. Whichever way you cut it, a significant number of teachers on the island appear to have grave concerns about the future of the educational system on the island. People may live to regret just writing them off as greedy and lazy.

Edited November 7, 2022 by Newbie
typo

[Asthehills]

17 minutes ago, Newbie said:

even their proposed bar of 50% of those eligible voting for strike action in order to make a strike legal, has been passed by the NASUWT here.

I remain to be convinced but guess we will find out in the next few weeks.

[Banker]

3 hours ago, DrunkenMonkey said:

What evidence do you have to support this?

They said they didn’t need to as bad approval to strike action previously, using same arguments as RMT/CWU etc ie don’t ask the members about new offers!!

[Newbie]

2 minutes ago, Banker said:

They said they didn’t need to as bad approval to strike action previously, using same arguments as RMT/CWU etc ie don’t ask the members about new offers!!

If a Union sets out to its membership what they feel the minimum acceptable offer is, and the membership vote to accept that, it seems crazy to expect them to have to go back and re-ballot when there is an offer that doesn't meet their previously agreed minimum. I can see why employers would want to make it law that all offers had to be balloted. They could say "Well they rejected 3% so we will increase it to 3.05%. Please go and re-ballot your members, even though their minimum acceptable offer was 10%". And then "OK so they rejected 3.05%, we will increase it to 3.1%. Please go and re-ballot". It is a ploy to break the Unions.

Basically what it is saying is that Union representatives are not allowed to represent their members. The equivalent in Government would be that any time a decision had to be made it would have to be the subject of a public referendum, as the elected representatives would not be allowed to take decisions on behalf of their electorate.

[manxman1980]

1 hour ago, 0bserver said:

Change location. Close some of the smaller schools and rearrange the teaching roster.

What would that achieve?  

You could start there but an employer is obliged to look at reasonable alternative employment and in most cases the change in the location of the work on the Island would not be significant. 

The teachers from the closed schools would simply be moved to these new locations and you would still have the same people employed.

How has that solved anything? 

[Banker]

34 minutes ago, Newbie said:

If a Union sets out to its membership what they feel the minimum acceptable offer is, and the membership vote to accept that, it seems crazy to expect them to have to go back and re-ballot when there is an offer that doesn't meet their previously agreed minimum. I can see why employers would want to make it law that all offers had to be balloted. They could say "Well they rejected 3% so we will increase it to 3.05%. Please go and re-ballot your members, even though their minimum acceptable offer was 10%". And then "OK so they rejected 3.05%, we will increase it to 3.1%. Please go and re-ballot". It is a ploy to break the Unions.

Basically what it is saying is that Union representatives are not allowed to represent their members. The equivalent in Government would be that any time a decision had to be made it would have to be the subject of a public referendum, as the elected representatives would not be allowed to take decisions on behalf of their electorate.

But 8% is not insignificant plus c12% for new teachers & if it’s that poor why are other unions accepting including the NUT which balloted members on new offer, it’s just the leaders are spoiling for a fight with government whilst picking up full pay

[Newbie]

25 minutes ago, Banker said:

But 8% is not insignificant plus c12% for new teachers & if it’s that poor why are other unions accepting including the NUT which balloted members on new offer, it’s just the leaders are spoiling for a fight with government whilst picking up full pay

I don't know. As I said above, I don't work in teaching. By NUT I presume you mean NEU. Do you have a link to the information on their ballot on the revised offer? How many teachers do they represent? How many voted? i.e the same sort of information that many people want about NASUWT before they accept that it is a widely held view amongst teachers.

8% as you say is a pretty good offer compared to many workers and only represents a drop of 2% or so in real terms. What the NASUWT seem more concerned about (and this is only me surmising) is the 30% erosion in their real terms pay over the last 10 years. To that end, the offer doesn't help with that - it makes it worse.

Why the NEU were happy to accept that, I don't know, but according to the government figures there are around 1,000 teachers on the island and over 600 of them are represented by NASUWT, so it doesn't seem right to just dismiss their views.

[Banker]

8 minutes ago, Newbie said:

I don't know. As I said above, I don't work in teaching. By NUT I presume you mean NEU. Do you have a link to the information on their ballot on the revised offer? How many teachers do they represent? How many voted? i.e the same sort of information that many people want about NASUWT before they accept that it is a widely held view amongst teachers.

8% as you say is a pretty good offer compared to many workers and only represents a drop of 2% or so in real terms. What the NASUWT seem more concerned about (and this is only me surmising) is the 30% erosion in their real terms pay over the last 10 years. To that end, the offer doesn't help with that - it makes it worse.

Why the NEU were happy to accept that, I don't know, but according to the government figures there are around 1,000 teachers on the island and over 600 of them are represented by NASUWT, so it doesn't seem right to just dismiss their views.

Despite the NASUWT's rejection of the 8% pay rise offer, it has been accepted by the National Education Union (NEU).

A spokeswoman for that union said 77% of its membership of more than 350 teachers were in favour of accepting the Department of Education Sport and Culture's (DESC) offer for the 2022-2023 year.