Iuchi_Zien Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 Not at all, just one rule for one and one for the other. Now if I start the job and strike in protest at been ground down to such a low rate of pay? Are you a teacher or married to one? are you all right jack. So you would be happy agreeing to terms and conditions for a job and then halfway through the job the employers turning round and saying, "Sorry, we went on a world tour so we want you to subside the cost of it by dropping your price by 20%". You're telling me you would be happy with that? A contract is a contract. The teachers signed that contract and agreed to provide their skills for the benefits provided within that contract. Now the government has decided to re-write that contract and I don't blame the teachers for being angry about it. If you think being a teacher is such a cushy job, why don't you train for it? After all, all you need is a degree and to complete a teacher training course, don't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rickiethecat Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 What do the public sector strikers hope to achieve? Do they think that by going on strike the government will magically find a big bag of money that will enable the taxpayer to fund their gold plated pensions and enable them to retire in their 50s? Just accept it, there's a financial downturn, we're all going to be worse off and will have to work longer for less, whether we're in the public or private sector. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eastbank Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 So you would be happy agreeing to terms and conditions for a job and then halfway through the job the employers turning round and saying, "Sorry, we went on a world tour so we want you to subside the cost of it by dropping your price by 20%". You're telling me you would be happy with that? A contract is a contract. The teachers signed that contract and agreed to provide their skills for the benefits provided within that contract. Now the government has decided to re-write that contract and I don't blame the teachers for being angry about it. If you think being a teacher is such a cushy job, why don't you train for it? After all, all you need is a degree and to complete a teacher training course, don't you? contracts get changed all the time....one footballer as had his ripped up...he was on 80 grand a week...now he is only on 40.....thats a loss of 2 million on the year... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cuey Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 What do the public sector strikers hope to achieve? Do they think that by going on strike the government will magically find a big bag of money that will enable the taxpayer to fund their gold plated pensions and enable them to retire in their 50s? Just accept it, there's a financial downturn, we're all going to be worse off and will have to work longer for less, whether we're in the public or private sector. Gold plated. The average teacher gets 10k a year pension. Thats just above income support. With no pension they would get income support which you would also contribute to but with nothing in return. If you read the more in depth details rahter than the daily mail headline you'll see the bigger issue. The government is saying there is a shortfall to fund them BUT won't say how much and won't release the figures. Would you pay someone if they said "you own me money but i can't show you the details just trust me". There was plenty of money in the pension pot when Gordon Brown took £5 Billion out. If that 5 billion is put back and the figures released then there is probably grounds to start talking. Until then its just the government demanding money with menaces. You say you are funding the pension but ask your self where the 5 billion went. Probably on service you use, so effectively their pension funded you. We all pay tax that funds things we will never use. Thats the basis of a society. We pay for the collective good. If education isn't a collective good then i don't know what is. That said the teachers don't do them selves any favours with the moaning about how tough the job is. I'm sure it is, but no tougher than killing yourself down a pit or risking your helth in a forge. Both sides should stick to the agreement. Good teachers should be rewarded and bad ones should be shown the door. That way everyone benefits and next the generation might have enough skills to keep the country running. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-clips Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 There many demonstrations in the Thatcher era, many of which did not work, did not even scratch the surface. The Polltax revolt however paid immediate dividends as the protesters burned buildings and commited acts of violence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sibon Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 There many demonstrations in the Thatcher era, many of which did not work, did not even scratch the surface. The Polltax revolt however paid immediate dividends as the protesters burned buildings and commited acts of violence. I'm pretty confident that won't be the case tomorrow. It wasn't the violence that tipped the balance in the poll tax dispute anyway, or the miners would have won the 1984 strike, hands down. The moral argument was the source of the victory in the poll tax protests. I'm hoping that my union leaders can get that out, loud and clear tomorrow. There is a lot of background chatter to cut through first though. Just in case you were wondering, I know that you are trolling, but I thought you might like a sensible reply:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sccsux Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 But the tories won the last election with a majority but not enough of a majority to go it alone. There should not be a strike without a clear majority not a minor fluctuation. That's because of a 3 way voting system and because our voting system is based on constituencies and seats. If we had a 2 party systems without constituencies, then the cons would have won a majority and would have formed a government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-clips Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 I'm pretty confident that won't be the case tomorrow. It wasn't the violence that tipped the balance in the poll tax dispute anyway, or the miners would have won the 1984 strike, hands down. The moral argument was the source of the victory in the poll tax protests. I'm hoping that my union leaders can get that out, loud and clear tomorrow. There is a lot of background chatter to cut through first though. Just in case you were wondering, I know that you are trolling, but I thought you might like a sensible reply:) I am not trolling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 That's because of a 3 way voting system and because our voting system is based on constituencies and seats. If we had a 2 party systems without constituencies, then the cons would have won a majority and would have formed a government. but they won more seats than the others so they still had a majority, why does a 3 way system make any difference. We just decided it would. We could do the same with strikes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magilla Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 I am not trolling. No? Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.