Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2014 7:58 pmNationStates
Because sometimes even national leaders just want to hang out
https://forum.nationstates.net/
Should teachers be allowed to strike?
Page 4 of 10
Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2014 7:58 pmPosted: Thu Sep 11, 2014 8:02 pmHow about instead of debating whether or not teachers should be allowed to strike, we ask if the government should be allowed to repeatedly violate the teachers' constitutional rights and then deliberately stall negotiations out in order to destroy the union. That's the sort of shit that needs to be addressed, not whether or not workers have the right to protest unfair conditions.
Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2014 8:02 pmShould teachers be allowed to strike?
Yes.
EDIT: Should we eliminate government subsidies for private schools?
On principle yes, but I don't know what kind of effect it would have on our education system. I'd need some kind of data first.
Yes.
EDIT: Should we eliminate government subsidies for private schools?
On principle yes, but I don't know what kind of effect it would have on our education system. I'd need some kind of data first.
Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2014 8:05 pmFar less of one than too many students per-classroom, outdated material (due to lack of funds), outright false material, and not understanding that achievement can be relative. The state places burden for all student failure on the teacher of that class's teacher, without examining other potential issues, such as the students' attendance or (and I have seen this before in nearly all of my classes) sub-literacy of students (whatever the cause). For example, at the school my mom teaches at, the Special Ed. Teacher was let go because his students scored "under basic" on the EOC exam. I hope you see the problem.
You know there's a problem when my mother, the most staunchly Republican person I know, says the problem is that "education is being run like a business."
Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2014 8:10 pmNeo Industrium wrote:If you aren't from British Columbia (the place that grows all of the weed that you use), we're dealing with a 3 month long teacher strike.
This has brought up an interesting question for residents of BC: Is Teaching an Essential Service? Personally, I don't think so. Governments usually use essential services legislation to protect public safety. Teaching doesn't protect public safety.
This has also brought up the question as to whether our right to education is being violated through the teacher strike. Personally, I don't think so. Sure, you can reference "the right to education" in countless agreements that Canada has signed, but we also have the right to unionize and join trade unions. I don't think that the right to education is more important than fighting for favourable working conditions.
So NSG. Should teaching be designated as an essential service? Are students' rights being violated when teachers strike? What constitutes an essential service and should that definition be changed? Are unions even necessary in today's developed nations? Are teachers evil, slimeful human beings that need to be purged off the earth?
These are non-rhetorical questions. Answer below.
EDIT: Should we eliminate government subsidies for private schools?
Ralph Klein pulled this atrocious bullshit when he was premier of Alberta. Any time a profession went on strike in an effort to leverage better wages (in a province that generally pays shit wages during a time of runaway housing costs), he tried to declare them an essential service and deny them the ability to strike at all.
So, in order of your questions: No. No. There is no such thing as an essential service where the definition includes the denial of the right to unionise and/or strike to prevent exploitation. Yes, they are - particularly since the ridiculous Trickle Down theory clearly demonstrated that the only thing that trickles down is the piss of corporate executives on their peons. No, they're not.
Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2014 8:16 pmPosted: Thu Sep 11, 2014 8:30 pmPosted: Thu Sep 11, 2014 10:10 pmKAS SRD wrote:They should be given more money and respected more, but not strike for more than a week at a time every year or so. Education is completely essential and I'm surprised at the number of people who think it isn't.
If they don't strike for more then a week they wouldn't get their point through. It would be pointless.
Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2014 10:21 pmBecause fuck the students education am i right
Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2014 10:27 pmIn Germany, the majority of teachers are public servants and therefore don't have the right to strike.
The plus side is that they can't be fired either.
Personally, I would prefer it if the teachers had both the right to strike and the possibility of being fired.
The plus side is that they can't be fired either.
Personally, I would prefer it if the teachers had both the right to strike and the possibility of being fired.
Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2014 10:27 pmI feel that binding arbitration is ideal, instead of this strike.
But as a Saskatchewaner who knows some teachers from British Columbia, the reason is due to class size, lack of funding to fix infrastructure, as well as get textbooks, and more recent materials, and especially special education. But if the BC government ignores a court ruling and do everything they can to sabotage the teacher's union and make them look evil...
At what point should the striking teachers decide "enough is enough" and decide to overthrow Christie Clark and form their own alternate provincial government, to represent the best interests of the people of the province?
Thus, I support the strikers, because IIRC, the education system in British Columbia is perhaps the worst in the country. If it were in the USA, it'd probably be the best public school system in the country. That's how bad I feel it is. If they do decide to bring down Christie Clark, I would personally give them moral support.
But as a Saskatchewaner who knows some teachers from British Columbia, the reason is due to class size, lack of funding to fix infrastructure, as well as get textbooks, and more recent materials, and especially special education. But if the BC government ignores a court ruling and do everything they can to sabotage the teacher's union and make them look evil...
At what point should the striking teachers decide "enough is enough" and decide to overthrow Christie Clark and form their own alternate provincial government, to represent the best interests of the people of the province?
Thus, I support the strikers, because IIRC, the education system in British Columbia is perhaps the worst in the country. If it were in the USA, it'd probably be the best public school system in the country. That's how bad I feel it is. If they do decide to bring down Christie Clark, I would personally give them moral support.
Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2014 12:42 amNow this is an event that actually merits back-to-work, unlike the Canada Post strike.
EDIT: For those unfamiliar with the term, a back-to-work law in Canada is a law passed by Parliament/a provincial legislature declaring a strike illegal and forcing arbitration by a labour relations board, since we don't have a right to strike.
EDIT: For those unfamiliar with the term, a back-to-work law in Canada is a law passed by Parliament/a provincial legislature declaring a strike illegal and forcing arbitration by a labour relations board, since we don't have a right to strike.
Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2014 12:56 amwat
Exxosia wrote:Are students' rights being violated when teachers strike?
If they are attending a private school, yes, as they are being directly denied a service paid for directly. Public schools are paid for through a convoluted series of things and by the time the money gets to the student, you can't discern what is being violated.
wat
Exxosia wrote:What constitutes an essential service and should that definition be changed?
A service mandatory to sustaining the biological functions of life.
This is an atrocious metric.
Exxosia wrote:Are unions even necessary in today's developed nations?
The existence of unions outside small operations (i.e. a single company, a single factory, or a single school district) means a nation is not developed. Unions above a local scale are a side-effect of massive problems in a society and indicative of underlying mechanisms not being addressed.
wat
Exxosia wrote:Are teachers evil, slimeful human beings that need to be purged off the earth?
In my experience, most are. But that has more to do with that most people are horrible and thus most teachers are horrible in about the same ratio.
Fucking wat.
Stop huffing the fucking paint.
As a response to existing problems.
People seem to have some weird delusion that teachers actually have it easy, so they don't need to strike, and shouldn't strike, and in the most pathetically twisted logic I've ever seen "should be grateful" they are able to get jobs as teachers. No they fucking don't. It's ludicrously demanding and enormously stressful.
It's astoundingly ignorant of reality.
Rebellious Fishermen wrote:Should teachers be allowed to strike?
Yes.
EDIT: Should we eliminate government subsidies for private schools?
On principle yes, but I don't know what kind of effect it would have on our education system. I'd need some kind of data first.
Private schools should only be being subsidised if there is some enormous shortfall in the availability of public school places in the nearby area. This way, government subsidy is only being used to ensure reasonable access to education (and I'd much rather it be the government subsidising a parent's fees to send their children there - or possibly subsidising the school directly in exchange for a lower tuition fee rate for less well-off students on some kind of vouchers system or something.
Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2014 1:58 amOf course they should be allowed to strike.
Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2014 2:08 amTelling a group if people they're not allowed to strike would just make strike action more effective. Let's say teachers are outlawed from striking - but they just decide to do it anyway. What are you going to do, cart them off to jail and leave your schools without staff?
Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2014 2:10 amVozt Yurkova wrote:Telling a group if people they're not allowed to strike would just make strike action more effective. Let's say teachers are outlawed from striking - but they just decide to do it anyway. What are you going to do, cart them off to jail and leave your schools without staff?
Police strikes are banned, but who's going to stop them?
Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2014 2:15 amTeachers, while incredibly important for the future of any nation that seeks to advance, are not an essential workforce. This puts them in the position of being able to strike for their rights, just like any other labourer should be able to do. While it is logical to prohibit some job groups from striking - firemen, for example - teachers are not one of those groups. They deserve better job conditions, and they are exercising what I believe is their constitutional right.
Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2014 2:23 amChestaan wrote:Vozt Yurkova wrote:Telling a group if people they're not allowed to strike would just make strike action more effective. Let's say teachers are outlawed from striking - but they just decide to do it anyway. What are you going to do, cart them off to jail and leave your schools without staff?
Police strikes are banned, but who's going to stop them?
"Quick! Call the - oh."
Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2014 2:43 amChestaan wrote:Vozt Yurkova wrote:Telling a group if people they're not allowed to strike would just make strike action more effective. Let's say teachers are outlawed from striking - but they just decide to do it anyway. What are you going to do, cart them off to jail and leave your schools without staff?
Police strikes are banned, but who's going to stop them?
Well yeah, basically. I can see why coppers wouldn't be too enthusiastic about striking though. Can you imagine the backlog of shit that would build up with nobody around to deter crime and arrest perps? Think of the paperwork. I guess maybe like one or two officers feel a sense of duty toward protecting the public too so there's that.
Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2014 2:48 amAggicificicerous wrote:How about instead of debating whether or not teachers should be allowed to strike, we ask if the government should be allowed to repeatedly violate the teachers' constitutional rights and then deliberately stall negotiations out in order to destroy the union. That's the sort of shit that needs to be addressed, not whether or not workers have the right to protest unfair conditions.
+1
Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2014 2:48 amVozt Yurkova wrote:
Well yeah, basically. I can see why coppers wouldn't be too enthusiastic about striking though. Can you imagine the backlog of shit that would build up with nobody around to deter crime and arrest perps? Think of the paperwork. I guess maybe like one or two officers feel a sense of duty toward protecting the public too so there's that.
It's happened before in Ireland. Most of the Gardai called in sick and thus it was called "The Blue flu".
Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2014 3:21 amVozt Yurkova wrote:
Well yeah, basically. I can see why coppers wouldn't be too enthusiastic about striking though. Can you imagine the backlog of shit that would build up with nobody around to deter crime and arrest perps? Think of the paperwork. I guess maybe like one or two officers feel a sense of duty toward protecting the public too so there's that.
Who says perps in real life?
I think even those one or two duty-afflicted officers would side with their union. In the US and Canada, police are all unionised.
Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2014 3:28 amAredshan wrote:In all seriousness, I'm undecided about the matter myself. On the one hand, month-long strikes can impair education but on the other hand, teacher wages are usually unfairly low.
Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2014 3:29 amPosted: Fri Sep 12, 2014 3:33 amOkay, a couple things about striking.
1. No one actually likes striking.
Striking for a long period is hard. You don't get paid while you're on strike. You might manage to negotiate partial wages during the period once a contract is agreed upon and everyone goes back to work, but when the strike happens, you have whatever money you already have to last you until the strike is over. Rent is still due, if you are renting (which, on a teacher's wages, there's a good chance you are). Mortgage payments are still due, if you have one of those. Utility bills are still due, if they're not included in rent or you own your home. Any student loan bills you still have from college, are still due. You still have to buy food, obviously. And now that you're striking, you likely have no income. There are various ways unions have attempted to mitigate this, but unions still generally only go on strike for long periods of time if the situation has become untenable, because at its fundamental core, going on strike is still making a bet with your employer that they'll cave to at least some of your grievances/demands before you starve or become homeless.
2. Banning striking does not make striking impossible.
Here's the thing. Going on strike was once illegal. For everybody. And people still did it, because the strike is one of the very few sources of leverage workers have over their employers. They did so even though in some cases they were beaten and/or shot, because desperate times call for desperate measures. Legally prohibiting teachers from striking isn't going to fix the problem. If you want to avoid a strike, you should avoid making your workers feel like they're being backed into a corner.
1. No one actually likes striking.
Striking for a long period is hard. You don't get paid while you're on strike. You might manage to negotiate partial wages during the period once a contract is agreed upon and everyone goes back to work, but when the strike happens, you have whatever money you already have to last you until the strike is over. Rent is still due, if you are renting (which, on a teacher's wages, there's a good chance you are). Mortgage payments are still due, if you have one of those. Utility bills are still due, if they're not included in rent or you own your home. Any student loan bills you still have from college, are still due. You still have to buy food, obviously. And now that you're striking, you likely have no income. There are various ways unions have attempted to mitigate this, but unions still generally only go on strike for long periods of time if the situation has become untenable, because at its fundamental core, going on strike is still making a bet with your employer that they'll cave to at least some of your grievances/demands before you starve or become homeless.
2. Banning striking does not make striking impossible.
Here's the thing. Going on strike was once illegal. For everybody. And people still did it, because the strike is one of the very few sources of leverage workers have over their employers. They did so even though in some cases they were beaten and/or shot, because desperate times call for desperate measures. Legally prohibiting teachers from striking isn't going to fix the problem. If you want to avoid a strike, you should avoid making your workers feel like they're being backed into a corner.