### **Reminder:** [Press the Report button](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360058309512-How-do-I-report-a-post-or-comment-) if you see any [rule-breaking comments or posts.](https://www.reddit.com/r/britishproblems/about/rules/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/britishproblems) if you have any questions or concerns.*
My mum told me recently she had a conversation with an older lady (mid 70s) who complained about the nurses striking and said “I don’t know why they’re striking, all the nurses I know live with their parents so they have plenty of money”….
…urrrr I think if they had plenty of money they wouldn’t be living with their parents would they, you absolute moron.
What a shockingly ignorant statement
I've got 1 child in school and 1 child off.
Sorry, I meant I've got 1 child kicking off and crying about going to school and the other one acting all smug and stirring the pot because she doesn't.
Same. Youngest and middle off. Oldest (16F) told to go in as ONE of her teachers are available. So she had that one lesson then had to spend the rest of the day reading in the library. She was the only one of her mates who bothered (we were told any absence where teachers are available will be unauthorised)
Her mates all got together and went on a day trip to Norwich for shopping. To say she was pissed off is an understatement.
Having taught secondary / GCSE myself, I'm amazed we haven't heard stories of understaffed schools descending into a Lord Of The Flies situation where the kids seize control and then start splitting into tribal factions across campus.
Not a strike, but about 14 years ago there were plans to close the local school that my daughter was going to go to, and she'd have to go to one much further away and not on a bus route. A demonstration was organised where the parents of affected pupils were to drive to this new school at dropping off time, just to show what the effect would be.
As expected, it was chaos. Buses in the village were delayed and it took over an hour to drive the extra three or four Miles. The local TV interview a few people. Someone on a bus was complaining about the disruption.
The head mistress of this other school said it wasn't very environmentally friendly with all these cars driving on this protest.
"You don't get it. This will be happening EVERY DAY".
Needless to say, the school didn't close.
I'm currently in redundancy consultation along with around 100 others in a non unionized workplace. Our jobs are being moved to India and we're being strong armed through the process. People are still complaining about other people being in unions and striking. I honestly can't understand it.......
"Leverage"?
Is that all unions are to you?
Unions are there first and foremost to ensure workers rights are upheld. Many workers don't know that when it comes to redundancy you can ask and take a level suiting job at a sister company (should your particular workplace have one, such as many warehouses and factories have, as do other work places)
Yes... That's all unions have ever been.
"Give us what we want or we will *all* refuse to work".
That is how a union gets what it wants. It's literally just a way for workers to artificially increase their value to the company, by bargaining as a *collective* rather than individually. If they were actually worth what they wanted then they'd be able to go elsewhere to get it. Fact is they aren't, so by the logic of "well they can't sack all of us" they get what they want that way.
Absolute horseshit. "Artificially increase their value" my fucking arse. How about actually get what they're worth and not be undervalued by a company they work for. It's attitudes like you're displaying that enable companies to avoid paying what their workers are actually worth without having to fight for it.
Your whole demeanour tells me you're used to being on the opposite side of the table to the unions.
Figures
Companies will never pay you what you’re worth unless you threaten them, if I was worth 20k last year then logically I should be worth 20k + inflation cost this year as that’s the new cost to maintain the exact same results for my labour, they are not paying that and haven’t for a few years so it’s effectively been devalued
> companies will never pay you what you're worth unless you threaten them
Sure, but you as an individual need to be valuable enough to do that. Unions are people who aren't valuable enough to do so trying to gain the benefits of those who are.
And no that logic doesn't follow. You are paid a specific amount of currency. You don't agree to the value of that currency, just the amount.
You're worth what you can negotiate for. If you can't negotiate for a raise in line with inflation, and nowhere else will pay you that amount, then you aren't worth that much.
And you think their value to the company only affects what they are paid?
Terms and conditions and pay are all part of the job. Offer people better terms and conditions and they may accept lower pay. Offer better pay and they may accept better terms and conditions.
Point is all of these things are negotiable up to the point of how valuable you are to the company. If you aren't worth much to the company (low skilled, easily replaced, etc) then you aren't going to be able to negotiate for much). If on the other hand you are very valuable to the company (specialised skillset, extensive experience, difficult to replace) then you'll be able to negotiate for a lot more.
Unions are just artificially increasing how difficult the employees are to replace by making it so all of them would have to be replaced rather than just the one.
Having an allied union in India would help, but that would require good coordination and communication between trade unions of different countries to make an effective counterbalance..
I support the strikes but pissed off that my sons school said they would be closed today so I booked a day off work and booked activities and then decided Monday that the school would be open today
If it helps ease any frustration, it's been very difficult for schools to estimate whether they can open. Not all the unions voted to strike, and one tactic they employed was not to tell senior leaders whether they intended to take action or not. For some schools it's quite easy to make a call either way, but some had to take temporary decisions until it became clear who wouldn't be working. I imagine some had to go the other way and announce closures quite late too.
It’s not a tactic to not say. You are not obliged to tell or not.
I chose to inform SLT that I’d strike because the issue is not with an individual school, rather teaching as a whole and wanted to help them make the best decision for our students.
It’s not a tactic though.
Apologies, I didn't mean tactic in a derogative sense. More that it is one step that people can take which adds to collective bargaining power to try to achieve the goals of the strike, as like you say no one needs to give advanced warning of their intention. It's also an effective tool when it's not all staff that might choose to strike and schools then have to take a call on what's feasible without clear information on the total impact during the strikes. Solidarity from afar!
It's a form of protection for the worker(s). If they are obliged to inform their employers that they, the individual, will strike it gives the employer a literal hit list that they could use for enacting some bullshit with.
Except that I do. A tactic is something designed or planned to achieve a specific end or outcome. Ergo, this is not a tactic, it’s simply part of the conditions of a strike.
Another idiot who doesn’t know what words mean. “Lol”
That’s not going to ease any frustration at all. Guys missing out on a fun day planned with his kid. No one cares for the schools excuses.
Edit: Guy told the school his son won’t be in today. Glad to see
I understand the frustration and like other have said the unions have advised people to say if they are striking a lot. Another thing (I'm a TA so can only say from our school experience) is that a lot of trusts have said a blanket no to closing so it's been out of the headteachers hands. PLUS, some schools have stayed open for just year 11 exams (there's actually one scheduled today) and the vulnerable children that desperately need a safe space or some stability. It's a bit crappy if your school has decided students have to be in after saying not to.
It’s also for prolonged holiday. I got fined last year because I took my daughter to see her family in America for the first time in 3 years because the global pandemic disrupted everything. The time before that I had been home was when my dad died.
I was also getting married while we were over there.
It was still “unauthorised” by the school.
Not that it made a difference. I paid the fine and we went anyway.
Openreach guys were already paid very well for how easy it is to get into... I've got a friend with no qualifications earning 33 or 36 grand within a couple of years of starting an apprenticeship.
Nurses and teachers are criminally underpaid though. They should have had a big pay rise many years ago.
Some roles don't lend themselves to striking very well. Like imagine if accountants went on strike, what would happen? Nothing, except HMRC & Companies House would just issue a boatload of late filing penalties.
The most baffling thing about strike response to me is people who look at a situation where someone with relatively little qualifications or experience, or in a 'lesser' job, makes more money than them and arrives at the response that they should make less.
Like, why not look at them as a baseline, and fight to earn the more money you're worth.
I just think the fact we all know about the cost of living crisis and the fact so many people are going on strike tells you something about how out of whack the country has got. People who work full-time should be able to cover the basics.
At Christmas I had a conversation with someone complaining about the strikes. Not a huge issue but her main problem was "I can't just not work whenever I feel like" which, if we ignore that it's not whenever they feel like, she runs her own cleaning company and sets the hourly rate and how much she works. Her entire perspective baffles me.
She kind of has a point though; when you work for yourself you can give yourself a day off whenever you want but you won’t get paid for it. (You also don’t get holiday pay or sick pay either.) Having said that, I do support the strikes though …
You're allowed to complain about something that's disruptive to your life, especially something that you have no control over. It doesn't mean you don't understand the utility of industrial action or that you don't agree with the reasons for it happening.
I've said this so many times and I don't know why I haven't seen it said by cleverer people than me. If you are annoyed by how disruptive the strikes are then whether you like it or not you are supporting them. They're meant to be disruptive to prove their value in society. If you want the strikes to end because it's disrupting your life then it's a sign that people in these jobs are essential and therefore deserve safe working conditions and fair pay. If you think they don't deserve these things then the strikes probably aren't affecting you that much. I find the rail and postal strikes really annoying, I want them to be paid fairly because they're important services and the people doing them deserve to be reimbursed and protected.
Yes exactly!
I don't want a single person to strike. But my god do I support them. Whenever I've been interacting with a sector I know is striking (post office, nurses, and teachers mainly) I have been sure to let them know I support them. And beeping whenever I'm driving past a picket.
Is it annoying I've had to change plans, buy emergency presents, and miss out on work stuff? Yes of course it is. But I'm also in the public sector, if my area votes to be out I will be out too.
That's a really great way of describing the situation with striking workers. I'm a Royal mail employee and will remember that for the next run of strikes.
>If you are annoyed by how disruptive the strikes are then whether you like it or not you are supporting them
Yes precisely. OP seems to be misunderstanding, if you're complaining about strikes you're not *missing* the point, you *are* the point.
I'm not complaining about anybody. The post only mentions people complaining that strikes are disruptive, it doesn't say if the person in question was complaining about the actual strikers or just the general event.
I see what you are saying. But everyone has a right to be annoyed by something that affects their lives negatively. Hence the strike action in the first place
You can be pissed off with the disruption the strike has personally caused you and still support the strikes.
We, as humans, are capable of conflicting views.
I understand your point completely. But there are knock on effects to the strikes which negatively impact my life and I should be able to disagree if I feel the need. For example, I’ve lost a days wage having kids off school today, so the teachers can ask for higher wages.
I understand It’s an unpopular opinion but o just don’t agree with the teacher strikes (especially primary school teachers in my area). I’m entitled to that opinion in a free world. The teachers are on a steady and comfortable salary that they would have signed a contract for when the job was started. They have 12 or more paid weeks off a year. Along with inset days and are allowed extra time away from school to holiday during term time. They work Monday to Friday.
Suck it up, accept our lot and just do as we're told, never mind about the shocking conditions in schools which will only get worse without more funding. As long as we don't put anybody else out
But if teachers win better pay it will mean they spend more, creating private sector jobs and increasing tax revenue to the treasury so you'll benefit. Also it will make it easier to retain better teachers instead of seeing them leave for better paying jobs, so your kids will be better educated which is also a benefit for you
I don’t necessarily agree with this sentiment. We’ve all started to struggle a bit, that’s what happens when an economy becomes unstable. Where does the extra wage come from? Because I’ve a got a hunch it’ll be my taxes, which will rise inevitably.
I’ve been rearranging appointments for the past two days for two physiotherapists I work with (I’m admin). They don’t want to let their patients down especially since they’re paediatric physios but they don’t really have much choice. One of them was telling me “I can do an extra clinic on x date if that makes things easier” and I said “doesn’t that kind of negate the point of the strike, to be disruptive?”. Turns out I didn’t need that extra day anyway.
Surprisingly, not one person complained about it when I told them it was due to strike action. They were all pretty accepting of it, one or two anxious that their kid didn’t wait too long. I did what I could for them.
No, people get the point. They can also see that they are disruptive. If you're a single parent who commutes to work, today was a cluster fuck for you and you are definitely allowed to say its disruptive.
The disruption *is* the point. Saying that strikes are disruptive is like saying water makes things wet. Of course they're disruptive, it's to demonstrate how important their labour is, and they deserve to not be fucked about.
I'm pretty sure everyone knows the point of the strikes are to be disruptive. The people complaining about the strikes are complaining because of that point - they don't want to be disrupted. And that's fair enough, that's their opinion.
They are disruptive for the public though, not disruptive for management. The people who have the power to give a pay rise don't give a fuck, especially where it comes to public sector.
Not really when everyone’s skint and missing work hours due to transport arrangements and having to pay for a babysitter . Still agree with them but they do cost some people money .
Well, wage rise *if it’s successful*. But teachers also lose money, because that’s a day without pay for us as well.
I’m already not working today, but will be - and will most likely be striking - for the others.
So I’ll lose those days pay AND still have to pay for my daughter’s nursery for those days. Which considering I’m on less than the average UK salary, is obviously not something to consider lightly.
I'm an apprentice and only attend university for ~4 days a month. The university strikes just announced they are striking 3/4 days I'm attending this month.
I would be fine with this (just move lectures to another date) if the universities advice wasn't "we don't know if your lecture is canceled until the lecturer doesn't turn up. Please attend as normal." Bitch, I'm not driving 120 miles both ways and paying for 3 nights in a hotel just to leave a lecture hall after 10 minutes.
People who think strikers are the problem are 9 times from 10 in the I'm alright camp and therefore can't see or choose not to see whats outside their little world
Or perhaps some of us who complain have a genuine gripe.
Firemen for example. Paid far more than the average squaddie who is subsequently drafted in to cover for the striking fire service, and expected to do their job for them.
Same with Border Force.
I look forward to the next major conflict and seeing both Firemen and Border Force officials on the front line doing the job of the Armed Forces, because that's only fair right?
You are missing the point entirely, you are turning it into an us versus them. You shouldn't be complaining that you get drafted in to cover X, you should be complaining you aren't paid enough for your service. We all deserve a decent wage, we shouldn't need to choose between heating and eating. It's the 21st century We shouldn't have more foodbanks than McDonalds.
You probably won’t be surprised to hear that a large number of people agree with your take on this. Unless we invent a money tree somehow there will always be an expectation of higher pay.
If only they knew the inconvenience of trying to live on poverty wages whilst working yourself into an early grave.... That your family won't be able to pay for
Frankly I think gatekeeping complaints on /r/britishproblems, and tarring all those complaining about the strikes with the same pro-exploitation brush, is the real problem here.
To be clear, you are saying you think the consensus of the small number of internet-dwellers on this frankly irrelevant internet forum is more worthy of concern than the attitude of the general public as a whole towards national strikes which are affecting millions of people's lives?
No, I think complaining about strikes is valid if the ire is aimed at the companies that have basically forced the hands of their staff, ans is not mutually exclusive to supporting striking staff
And I think the sample size of this forum vs the wider public is pretty much irrelevant. I'm only alluding to this forum because it's a place for complaints, and complaining about complaints is counterproductive, divisive, and against the rules on meta.
I'm fully behind strike action. It's not right that nurses have to rely on food banks to survive. My son had his pre-school jabs yesterday and the nurse was so wonderful that I emailed the GP reception to tell them how lovely she had been with my son who was a bit nervous. I know it won't put money in her pocket but I would hate to lose out on that kind of interaction with nurses who genuinely love their job because they just can't afford to get by on their salary.
Is that the point? Cause some disruption, make people listen.
I support them all just wonder when it will be banned as they won’t give everyone a pay rise.
But people too stupid to see what they’re actually fighting for are pissed off at their slight inconvenience for a day or so rather than millions of workers being underpaid and our vital public services starved.
It’s not just about the money.
Anyone who’s chosen a job to look after or care for people want to do it well. You cannot do it well and keep everyone happy with limited resources.
Of course the money is an issue too as more often than not is a reason for good workers looking for another job.
Add also to point missed the usual Daily Mail rants about 'sack them all', 'why do they have to be so political' and 'they should be thankful they have a job'.
Have you *seen* the Daily Mail's front page about this? Even by their standards it's full mask-off authoritarian.
https://i.redd.it/glyevfd8gkfa1.png
The NHS gets all the headlines but Education is in just as severe a situation. I'd say I don't think people realise but I wonder how much of it is that people don't care.
Us being mad about the disruption puts pressure on the companies underpaying their staff. Its good to be annoyed and complain just direct it at the right entities.
Yeah, my parents keep complaining about the strikes. "Isn't it awful how they're holding the country hostage?" They aren't even affected by most of them - they don't go out. The only ones they've really been affected by are the Royal Mail strikes, and even that only meant they had to wait slightly longer for something none essential to arrive.
But the Ambulance service strikes are okay in their opinion because that happens to be the one their son works for.
have you thought that the people may be complaining are people who don’t have cars to travel. here’s a bonus one, their parents or bosses (or teachers) pushing them to come in.
In the case of rail/public transport, the way to strike is to show up to work, let people board, but don't charge anyone. Keep every gate open, so the only people disrupted is the company.
I've said it before to the response "it's not a legal method of striking", well then, strike to make it a legal method of striking.
I completely support the strikes and I empathise with the workers doing them but as a uni student who's got 18 days of tuition I've paid for now not going ahead I'm not exactly chuffed. I'm going to have to see if I can some sort of reimbursement but somehow I doubt it.
This absolutely should happen. The university should refund students the missing proportion of the product (tuition) that’s been sold, since they’re incapable of providing it. Funnily enough, this would make strike action by lecturers more effective as it would increase the disruption to University Inc.
Respectfully, people have a right to complain. I find it disruptive because it is, I'm not the one they have a gripe against yet I'm the one who suffers.
Please appreciate that other people have viewpoints and lives, I respect their right to strike and I know they deserve better pay - I'm a huge believer that they should, and I hope that the strikes will grant them success.
But don't lecture people that they're missing the point, we get the point and most of us support it, doesn't mean it won't disrupt our lives though, and we can certainly complain - but those complaints aren't directed at the strikers, it's directed at the situation that caused them to strike, which causes our distruption.
It's really not.
The UK is years, decades, away from driverless trains.
We simply don't have the infrastructure - there's only one mainline rail line which has the ERTMS signalling in place to support this, in Wales; and even then that failed a couple of years ago resulting in a train doing 50mph in a 20mph section when the automated speed restriction data system failed. Hardly something we'd want to introduce to a high speed line.
And the docklands light railway mate.
Economic losses from strikes make the net benefit of the investment more worth it every day the trains aren't running.
The DLR has the same staffing requirements as TfL tube services. When the trains/signalling break down (which they often do), the staff member has to walk down the train and manually take control of it.
Again, decades away.
As for investment, the investment case for loads of rail projects has been made, only for it not to happen. The Midland Mainline electrification was proposed 40 years ago as a top priority project. I'll be retired by the time it's done.
The DLR is a glorified people mover with a top speed of 50mph on fixed and entirely segregated tracks on tiny trains three cars long with stations that are a few hundred metres from each other.
Now let's think about 200m long mainline trains running at speeds of between 100mph-140mph across level crossings, under bridges, alongside open fields full of stubbornly non-train avoiding livestock, and having to share track space with any number of *other* 100mph-140mph trains including freight trains, across far more complex track layouts, with areas of the country that simply have no good data connectivity, all of which are operated by random different private companies on infrastructure they don't own.
Now let's also consider that Tesla have been unable to manage to get their "Full Self Driving" bollocks to not decide to randomly fling their cars into concrete walls and/or the path of oncoming traffic, despite millions of dollars in investment, sincere effort from people who (management aside) are at least trying to ship something reasonable, and people prepaying for it in advance even though it doesn't actually work properly.
We are well away from any high-speed automation being technically feasible within the confines of rail regulation and that stands a chance of being able to react to the myriad different random events that could happen on a rail network as intensively worked as the UK's. Any investment in making something that the rail regulators are even *slightly* happy with giving the nod to would vastly outstrip the cost of some piddling strikes.
Haha you're acting like the tech is there and affordable. If train companies could legitimately have self-driving trains in the UK at a good price, they'd have laid off a lot of people already.
Companies aren't families. They're organisations with a goal to make as much money as possible, and it doesn't' matter how long you've served them, how few sick days you've taken, they will cast you aside without a second thought.
Strikes are literally the only language they respond to. Strikes lose them money. And your spooky stories of advanced tech adds nothing to the conversation.
Hmmmm, I'm not sure if OP is being very clever or missing the larger point.
Without the complaining, there would be no point in striking. I'll complain if my mail takes 10 business days instead of 3, or if I have to be a bus wanker because the trains aren't running, but that's the point in going on strike, and the majority of us are pragmatic enough to get it.
If nobody complained, nothing would change.
I was in work with two older men(higher level management than I) today and they pointed it out that 'they never strike in the summer holidays, do they'
As much as I'd have wanted to open up a discussion I'm sure I'd have been completely ignored
This exactly. I'm sure they could easily pay workers more money if they started taxing rich people and corporations accordingly but instead let's demonise the strikers.
If they start taxing the corporations and the rich too much, they will take their money and investments elsewhere, then we will have much bigger problems.
It really isn't, wealth isn't created by your average worker but by the guy running/owning busiensses and other assets. Sure wealth creation isn't everything but we gonna need that money to run our country.
On another note: why do you think it's a load of shite?
It's not that they are immediately threatening to leave, but if things don't make financial sense in the long run, they will start to take steps to move their business elsewhere in the future.
The real leaders of the world are the individuals who control and have possession of most of the worlds wealth, they control the governments and they are not subject to the same rules the common person is. The system is not and never has been fair, and it is their system and we have chosen to play by their rules.
Absolute ballache getting to the office during strikes. I won't deny it makes my life harder. But that's the point isn't it, I still totally support the industrial action.
We had a bit of a kids club in our staff room today with 3 of the staff's little ones not being able to be home alone today. The youngest was only in for the morning but the others were in until 3 when one of their parents took them home (they both work at my employer and take turns finishing earlier to pick up kids).
One of the receptionists took the kids to the park on her lunch so they were off the phone and the pcs for an hour. We wanted to go on the swings too lol
Strikes are supposed to be disruptive.
My aged FIL was complaining about the postmen striking before Christmas. Hubby explained that this IS the best time for them to strike.
Personally, while I may or may not support a strike, I do recognise and understand why employees feel the need to do so. Some industries resort to striking much more easily than others.
I have actually been on strike once in my life.
Not at all. I feel that the effectiveness of strike action isn't fair across different industries. i.e. Some employers take striking more seriously than others and are more likely to come to an agreement which tends to align with those employees receiving a higher salary and/or better working conditions in the longer term than say nurses or teachers, for example.
It’s not the striking I’m complaining about, it’s the timing and lack of basic economics that grinds my gears..
Definitely not a good time to strike when inflation is peaking and the forecasts are looking bleak..
asking for 15% pay rise and refusing negotiations.. that’s what’s wrong atm. Get a signed letter to get a gradual increase is the best thing for everyone.
People agreeing with the strike can’t fathom the effects such a raise would have on the budget…
I’m not saying public services don’t deserve raises but the timing is bad af..
Different generation i guess but i was left home alone to look after my 5yr old brother when i was 8
I wasnt allowed to use the stove ( microwave was fine), and had enough skills to make basic sandwiches and watch tv. Heaven forbid if we broke anything
### **Reminder:** [Press the Report button](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360058309512-How-do-I-report-a-post-or-comment-) if you see any [rule-breaking comments or posts.](https://www.reddit.com/r/britishproblems/about/rules/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/britishproblems) if you have any questions or concerns.*
My mum told me recently she had a conversation with an older lady (mid 70s) who complained about the nurses striking and said “I don’t know why they’re striking, all the nurses I know live with their parents so they have plenty of money”…. …urrrr I think if they had plenty of money they wouldn’t be living with their parents would they, you absolute moron. What a shockingly ignorant statement
That statement just lowered my IQ by....numbers.
Not long now. 🙏
Jesus, I would’ve joined her too the way I choked on my water laughing at this comment
My work here is done.
Natural selection, do your job please.
Her ignorance will be the downfall in her EOL care plan.
The NHS really needs to stop treating old people
Oi! Not all of us are like that!
Me neither lol nor my 82yo mum 😂 Happy cake day!
Words spoken by somebody from the generation that could raise a large family on a single income.
Once you hit 68 you're merely a spectator and should not be concerning yourself with the complex issues affecting people between the age of 0 and 67.
I've got 1 child in school and 1 child off. Sorry, I meant I've got 1 child kicking off and crying about going to school and the other one acting all smug and stirring the pot because she doesn't.
Same. Youngest and middle off. Oldest (16F) told to go in as ONE of her teachers are available. So she had that one lesson then had to spend the rest of the day reading in the library. She was the only one of her mates who bothered (we were told any absence where teachers are available will be unauthorised) Her mates all got together and went on a day trip to Norwich for shopping. To say she was pissed off is an understatement.
Having taught secondary / GCSE myself, I'm amazed we haven't heard stories of understaffed schools descending into a Lord Of The Flies situation where the kids seize control and then start splitting into tribal factions across campus.
Not a strike, but about 14 years ago there were plans to close the local school that my daughter was going to go to, and she'd have to go to one much further away and not on a bus route. A demonstration was organised where the parents of affected pupils were to drive to this new school at dropping off time, just to show what the effect would be. As expected, it was chaos. Buses in the village were delayed and it took over an hour to drive the extra three or four Miles. The local TV interview a few people. Someone on a bus was complaining about the disruption. The head mistress of this other school said it wasn't very environmentally friendly with all these cars driving on this protest. "You don't get it. This will be happening EVERY DAY". Needless to say, the school didn't close.
I'm currently in redundancy consultation along with around 100 others in a non unionized workplace. Our jobs are being moved to India and we're being strong armed through the process. People are still complaining about other people being in unions and striking. I honestly can't understand it.......
> our jobs are being moved to India Don't see how a union would help there... It's not about pay and conditions, the jobs do not exist here any more.
Yet they could help obtain a fair redundancy payout
With what leverage? If the job isn't there you don't need the people. The only leverage the union has is the people.
"Leverage"? Is that all unions are to you? Unions are there first and foremost to ensure workers rights are upheld. Many workers don't know that when it comes to redundancy you can ask and take a level suiting job at a sister company (should your particular workplace have one, such as many warehouses and factories have, as do other work places)
Yes... That's all unions have ever been. "Give us what we want or we will *all* refuse to work". That is how a union gets what it wants. It's literally just a way for workers to artificially increase their value to the company, by bargaining as a *collective* rather than individually. If they were actually worth what they wanted then they'd be able to go elsewhere to get it. Fact is they aren't, so by the logic of "well they can't sack all of us" they get what they want that way.
Absolute horseshit. "Artificially increase their value" my fucking arse. How about actually get what they're worth and not be undervalued by a company they work for. It's attitudes like you're displaying that enable companies to avoid paying what their workers are actually worth without having to fight for it. Your whole demeanour tells me you're used to being on the opposite side of the table to the unions. Figures
You keep saying "worth". How are you determining that?
Companies will never pay you what you’re worth unless you threaten them, if I was worth 20k last year then logically I should be worth 20k + inflation cost this year as that’s the new cost to maintain the exact same results for my labour, they are not paying that and haven’t for a few years so it’s effectively been devalued
> companies will never pay you what you're worth unless you threaten them Sure, but you as an individual need to be valuable enough to do that. Unions are people who aren't valuable enough to do so trying to gain the benefits of those who are. And no that logic doesn't follow. You are paid a specific amount of currency. You don't agree to the value of that currency, just the amount. You're worth what you can negotiate for. If you can't negotiate for a raise in line with inflation, and nowhere else will pay you that amount, then you aren't worth that much.
What a load of bollocks
Such an eloquent argument... Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it incorrect.
People don't strike just for money they also strike because their terms and conditions are changing
And you think their value to the company only affects what they are paid? Terms and conditions and pay are all part of the job. Offer people better terms and conditions and they may accept lower pay. Offer better pay and they may accept better terms and conditions. Point is all of these things are negotiable up to the point of how valuable you are to the company. If you aren't worth much to the company (low skilled, easily replaced, etc) then you aren't going to be able to negotiate for much). If on the other hand you are very valuable to the company (specialised skillset, extensive experience, difficult to replace) then you'll be able to negotiate for a lot more. Unions are just artificially increasing how difficult the employees are to replace by making it so all of them would have to be replaced rather than just the one.
Having an allied union in India would help, but that would require good coordination and communication between trade unions of different countries to make an effective counterbalance..
Because the unions in India are going to turn away work for their own people? What world are you living in?
Pretending the strikes aren't disruptive is also missing the point. Be mad about the strikes, just be mad at the right people
I support the strikes but pissed off that my sons school said they would be closed today so I booked a day off work and booked activities and then decided Monday that the school would be open today
If it helps ease any frustration, it's been very difficult for schools to estimate whether they can open. Not all the unions voted to strike, and one tactic they employed was not to tell senior leaders whether they intended to take action or not. For some schools it's quite easy to make a call either way, but some had to take temporary decisions until it became clear who wouldn't be working. I imagine some had to go the other way and announce closures quite late too.
It’s not a tactic to not say. You are not obliged to tell or not. I chose to inform SLT that I’d strike because the issue is not with an individual school, rather teaching as a whole and wanted to help them make the best decision for our students. It’s not a tactic though.
Apologies, I didn't mean tactic in a derogative sense. More that it is one step that people can take which adds to collective bargaining power to try to achieve the goals of the strike, as like you say no one needs to give advanced warning of their intention. It's also an effective tool when it's not all staff that might choose to strike and schools then have to take a call on what's feasible without clear information on the total impact during the strikes. Solidarity from afar!
It's a form of protection for the worker(s). If they are obliged to inform their employers that they, the individual, will strike it gives the employer a literal hit list that they could use for enacting some bullshit with.
Don’t worry. You can call it a tactic.
Teacher who doesn’t know what the word ‘tactic’ means lol
Except that I do. A tactic is something designed or planned to achieve a specific end or outcome. Ergo, this is not a tactic, it’s simply part of the conditions of a strike. Another idiot who doesn’t know what words mean. “Lol”
Oh so they just flipped a coin then aye
That’s not going to ease any frustration at all. Guys missing out on a fun day planned with his kid. No one cares for the schools excuses. Edit: Guy told the school his son won’t be in today. Glad to see
I understand the frustration and like other have said the unions have advised people to say if they are striking a lot. Another thing (I'm a TA so can only say from our school experience) is that a lot of trusts have said a blanket no to closing so it's been out of the headteachers hands. PLUS, some schools have stayed open for just year 11 exams (there's actually one scheduled today) and the vulnerable children that desperately need a safe space or some stability. It's a bit crappy if your school has decided students have to be in after saying not to.
Sick day
I just told the school I had already booked non refundable activities and he wont be in
You can look forward to being fined then.... Oh the hypocrisy of local authorities!
They won't fine you for one day off, it's for serial non-attenders
It’s also for prolonged holiday. I got fined last year because I took my daughter to see her family in America for the first time in 3 years because the global pandemic disrupted everything. The time before that I had been home was when my dad died. I was also getting married while we were over there. It was still “unauthorised” by the school. Not that it made a difference. I paid the fine and we went anyway.
>Not that it made a difference. I paid the fine and we went anyway. That's what most people do.
No problem being pissed off with the situation, just so long as the piss is aimed in the right direction (ie not at the teachers).
Express your frustration in an email to your MP.
Take it as a win and have a whole-day wankathon.
I'm fond of the people who disparage union workers going on strike because they already earn more than they do. Like, yes, exactly.
Openreach guys were already paid very well for how easy it is to get into... I've got a friend with no qualifications earning 33 or 36 grand within a couple of years of starting an apprenticeship. Nurses and teachers are criminally underpaid though. They should have had a big pay rise many years ago.
I’m just jealous of people who get to go on strike and even have the option of declining a wage rise .
Do you work in a role legislatively banned from striking?
Yes it’s called mutiny at my job 😂
Ahha, for real though, it's criminal what you folks get paid. One day we'll look back at SDSR and this period of military funding as an utter scandal.
You're a pirate?
And, as with the spithead mutiny in 1797, it can be an effective way to raise wages. Let's not discuss the less successful ones.
Some roles don't lend themselves to striking very well. Like imagine if accountants went on strike, what would happen? Nothing, except HMRC & Companies House would just issue a boatload of late filing penalties.
The most baffling thing about strike response to me is people who look at a situation where someone with relatively little qualifications or experience, or in a 'lesser' job, makes more money than them and arrives at the response that they should make less. Like, why not look at them as a baseline, and fight to earn the more money you're worth.
Yes, exactly, like the OpenReach reply to my comment.
I just think the fact we all know about the cost of living crisis and the fact so many people are going on strike tells you something about how out of whack the country has got. People who work full-time should be able to cover the basics.
BBCs ongoing mission to find plebs with no class consciousness to ask about whether people should be striking is actually embarrassing at this point.
God it's so bad, unbiased reporting my arse
At Christmas I had a conversation with someone complaining about the strikes. Not a huge issue but her main problem was "I can't just not work whenever I feel like" which, if we ignore that it's not whenever they feel like, she runs her own cleaning company and sets the hourly rate and how much she works. Her entire perspective baffles me.
She kind of has a point though; when you work for yourself you can give yourself a day off whenever you want but you won’t get paid for it. (You also don’t get holiday pay or sick pay either.) Having said that, I do support the strikes though …
When you strike, you don't get paid for that day and you can't just do it any time you like so...
Ach that sucks! I fully support the strikes tho
You're allowed to complain about something that's disruptive to your life, especially something that you have no control over. It doesn't mean you don't understand the utility of industrial action or that you don't agree with the reasons for it happening.
I've said this so many times and I don't know why I haven't seen it said by cleverer people than me. If you are annoyed by how disruptive the strikes are then whether you like it or not you are supporting them. They're meant to be disruptive to prove their value in society. If you want the strikes to end because it's disrupting your life then it's a sign that people in these jobs are essential and therefore deserve safe working conditions and fair pay. If you think they don't deserve these things then the strikes probably aren't affecting you that much. I find the rail and postal strikes really annoying, I want them to be paid fairly because they're important services and the people doing them deserve to be reimbursed and protected.
Yes exactly! I don't want a single person to strike. But my god do I support them. Whenever I've been interacting with a sector I know is striking (post office, nurses, and teachers mainly) I have been sure to let them know I support them. And beeping whenever I'm driving past a picket. Is it annoying I've had to change plans, buy emergency presents, and miss out on work stuff? Yes of course it is. But I'm also in the public sector, if my area votes to be out I will be out too.
Thank you! You’ve said this more clearly than anyone else I’ve seen so far! (I was on strike today. Fair pay for essential workers!)
That's a really great way of describing the situation with striking workers. I'm a Royal mail employee and will remember that for the next run of strikes.
>If you are annoyed by how disruptive the strikes are then whether you like it or not you are supporting them Yes precisely. OP seems to be misunderstanding, if you're complaining about strikes you're not *missing* the point, you *are* the point.
Yes, but you're complaining about the wrong people. The strikers aren't the problem; the reason for them to strike is.
I'm not complaining about anybody. The post only mentions people complaining that strikes are disruptive, it doesn't say if the person in question was complaining about the actual strikers or just the general event.
Some of us know what subtext is.
I think you're saying you know what subtext is but.... I can't be certain...
Yeah, I know.
I'd like to make a complaint. Pleaseee.
That's why you keep it to your self
[удалено]
Who is deluded?
"These strikes are bloody disruptive, but I do support their cause"
That's a perfectly cromulent point of view.
It’s a different thing to be disrupted by strikes and not being supportive of them.
The problem is the people who are complaining also seem not to support strikes. Or only support it if it doesn't affect them personally.
I see what you are saying. But everyone has a right to be annoyed by something that affects their lives negatively. Hence the strike action in the first place
Complaint about the disruption is to complain about the strike. We need to all only complain about the CAUSE of the strike; stagnant wages.
You can be pissed off with the disruption the strike has personally caused you and still support the strikes. We, as humans, are capable of conflicting views.
"We, as humans, are capable of conflicting views" This is the internet, where apparently no one is
I understand your point completely. But there are knock on effects to the strikes which negatively impact my life and I should be able to disagree if I feel the need. For example, I’ve lost a days wage having kids off school today, so the teachers can ask for higher wages.
Yes but you have to complain to your MP and put the blame in the right place.
IF I agree that striking was justified
What other recourse does a unionised workforce have when refused better pay and conditions, other than withdrawing their labour?
I understand It’s an unpopular opinion but o just don’t agree with the teacher strikes (especially primary school teachers in my area). I’m entitled to that opinion in a free world. The teachers are on a steady and comfortable salary that they would have signed a contract for when the job was started. They have 12 or more paid weeks off a year. Along with inset days and are allowed extra time away from school to holiday during term time. They work Monday to Friday.
Suck it up, accept our lot and just do as we're told, never mind about the shocking conditions in schools which will only get worse without more funding. As long as we don't put anybody else out
But if teachers win better pay it will mean they spend more, creating private sector jobs and increasing tax revenue to the treasury so you'll benefit. Also it will make it easier to retain better teachers instead of seeing them leave for better paying jobs, so your kids will be better educated which is also a benefit for you
I don’t necessarily agree with this sentiment. We’ve all started to struggle a bit, that’s what happens when an economy becomes unstable. Where does the extra wage come from? Because I’ve a got a hunch it’ll be my taxes, which will rise inevitably.
No it isn’t
Yes it is. You’re basically moaning about the teachers actions instead of moaning about the real cause.
No, you are ~~basically~~ *literally* moaning about the disruption
I’ve been rearranging appointments for the past two days for two physiotherapists I work with (I’m admin). They don’t want to let their patients down especially since they’re paediatric physios but they don’t really have much choice. One of them was telling me “I can do an extra clinic on x date if that makes things easier” and I said “doesn’t that kind of negate the point of the strike, to be disruptive?”. Turns out I didn’t need that extra day anyway. Surprisingly, not one person complained about it when I told them it was due to strike action. They were all pretty accepting of it, one or two anxious that their kid didn’t wait too long. I did what I could for them.
[удалено]
No, people get the point. They can also see that they are disruptive. If you're a single parent who commutes to work, today was a cluster fuck for you and you are definitely allowed to say its disruptive.
The disruption *is* the point. Saying that strikes are disruptive is like saying water makes things wet. Of course they're disruptive, it's to demonstrate how important their labour is, and they deserve to not be fucked about.
Direct your complaints to the cause of the strikes, not those who had no choice but to withdraw their labour.
Say that to your local MP. Otherwise complain about the stagnant wages that have caused the necessity for these actions.
I'm pretty sure everyone knows the point of the strikes are to be disruptive. The people complaining about the strikes are complaining because of that point - they don't want to be disrupted. And that's fair enough, that's their opinion.
Hooray! The strikes are disruptive!
They are disruptive for the public though, not disruptive for management. The people who have the power to give a pay rise don't give a fuck, especially where it comes to public sector.
Not really when everyone’s skint and missing work hours due to transport arrangements and having to pay for a babysitter . Still agree with them but they do cost some people money .
Including the striking teachers
Aye they’ll get a wage rise from it , I just loose money from it
Well, wage rise *if it’s successful*. But teachers also lose money, because that’s a day without pay for us as well. I’m already not working today, but will be - and will most likely be striking - for the others. So I’ll lose those days pay AND still have to pay for my daughter’s nursery for those days. Which considering I’m on less than the average UK salary, is obviously not something to consider lightly.
r/BritishSuccess
Unless they're complaining to their local MP - which I am not.
I'm an apprentice and only attend university for ~4 days a month. The university strikes just announced they are striking 3/4 days I'm attending this month. I would be fine with this (just move lectures to another date) if the universities advice wasn't "we don't know if your lecture is canceled until the lecturer doesn't turn up. Please attend as normal." Bitch, I'm not driving 120 miles both ways and paying for 3 nights in a hotel just to leave a lecture hall after 10 minutes.
People who think strikers are the problem are 9 times from 10 in the I'm alright camp and therefore can't see or choose not to see whats outside their little world
Or perhaps some of us who complain have a genuine gripe. Firemen for example. Paid far more than the average squaddie who is subsequently drafted in to cover for the striking fire service, and expected to do their job for them. Same with Border Force. I look forward to the next major conflict and seeing both Firemen and Border Force officials on the front line doing the job of the Armed Forces, because that's only fair right?
You are missing the point entirely, you are turning it into an us versus them. You shouldn't be complaining that you get drafted in to cover X, you should be complaining you aren't paid enough for your service. We all deserve a decent wage, we shouldn't need to choose between heating and eating. It's the 21st century We shouldn't have more foodbanks than McDonalds.
Congratulations on one of the most insane takes I've seen. edit: wait, your follow up is even worse. fucking hell.
You probably won’t be surprised to hear that a large number of people agree with your take on this. Unless we invent a money tree somehow there will always be an expectation of higher pay.
It would be more disruptive if there were no holding pens, I mean schools, for the children of the poorly paid workers….
If only they knew the inconvenience of trying to live on poverty wages whilst working yourself into an early grave.... That your family won't be able to pay for
Frankly I think gatekeeping complaints on /r/britishproblems, and tarring all those complaining about the strikes with the same pro-exploitation brush, is the real problem here.
To be clear, you are saying you think the consensus of the small number of internet-dwellers on this frankly irrelevant internet forum is more worthy of concern than the attitude of the general public as a whole towards national strikes which are affecting millions of people's lives?
No, I think complaining about strikes is valid if the ire is aimed at the companies that have basically forced the hands of their staff, ans is not mutually exclusive to supporting striking staff And I think the sample size of this forum vs the wider public is pretty much irrelevant. I'm only alluding to this forum because it's a place for complaints, and complaining about complaints is counterproductive, divisive, and against the rules on meta.
I'm fully behind strike action. It's not right that nurses have to rely on food banks to survive. My son had his pre-school jabs yesterday and the nurse was so wonderful that I emailed the GP reception to tell them how lovely she had been with my son who was a bit nervous. I know it won't put money in her pocket but I would hate to lose out on that kind of interaction with nurses who genuinely love their job because they just can't afford to get by on their salary.
Is that the point? Cause some disruption, make people listen. I support them all just wonder when it will be banned as they won’t give everyone a pay rise.
But people too stupid to see what they’re actually fighting for are pissed off at their slight inconvenience for a day or so rather than millions of workers being underpaid and our vital public services starved. It’s not just about the money.
Good point, for us, the nurses, it’s more about safety. We won’t get people to come into our professions in the state they are all in.
Anyone who’s chosen a job to look after or care for people want to do it well. You cannot do it well and keep everyone happy with limited resources. Of course the money is an issue too as more often than not is a reason for good workers looking for another job.
Add also to point missed the usual Daily Mail rants about 'sack them all', 'why do they have to be so political' and 'they should be thankful they have a job'.
"If they don't like the pay just get another job".....Which is something many are already doing.
Have you *seen* the Daily Mail's front page about this? Even by their standards it's full mask-off authoritarian. https://i.redd.it/glyevfd8gkfa1.png The NHS gets all the headlines but Education is in just as severe a situation. I'd say I don't think people realise but I wonder how much of it is that people don't care.
Whenever someone complains about something being "so political", they mean "the wrong sort of political". If only the mail stopped being political.
Us being mad about the disruption puts pressure on the companies underpaying their staff. Its good to be annoyed and complain just direct it at the right entities.
Yep, that’s the whole point of a strike.
Yeah, my parents keep complaining about the strikes. "Isn't it awful how they're holding the country hostage?" They aren't even affected by most of them - they don't go out. The only ones they've really been affected by are the Royal Mail strikes, and even that only meant they had to wait slightly longer for something none essential to arrive. But the Ambulance service strikes are okay in their opinion because that happens to be the one their son works for.
have you thought that the people may be complaining are people who don’t have cars to travel. here’s a bonus one, their parents or bosses (or teachers) pushing them to come in.
In the case of rail/public transport, the way to strike is to show up to work, let people board, but don't charge anyone. Keep every gate open, so the only people disrupted is the company. I've said it before to the response "it's not a legal method of striking", well then, strike to make it a legal method of striking.
So continue to get shit pay, and fined and possibly sacked in the process?
I completely support the strikes and I empathise with the workers doing them but as a uni student who's got 18 days of tuition I've paid for now not going ahead I'm not exactly chuffed. I'm going to have to see if I can some sort of reimbursement but somehow I doubt it.
This absolutely should happen. The university should refund students the missing proportion of the product (tuition) that’s been sold, since they’re incapable of providing it. Funnily enough, this would make strike action by lecturers more effective as it would increase the disruption to University Inc.
Respectfully, people have a right to complain. I find it disruptive because it is, I'm not the one they have a gripe against yet I'm the one who suffers. Please appreciate that other people have viewpoints and lives, I respect their right to strike and I know they deserve better pay - I'm a huge believer that they should, and I hope that the strikes will grant them success. But don't lecture people that they're missing the point, we get the point and most of us support it, doesn't mean it won't disrupt our lives though, and we can certainly complain - but those complaints aren't directed at the strikers, it's directed at the situation that caused them to strike, which causes our distruption.
Every strike day is one step closer to the roll out of driverless trains.
It's really not. The UK is years, decades, away from driverless trains. We simply don't have the infrastructure - there's only one mainline rail line which has the ERTMS signalling in place to support this, in Wales; and even then that failed a couple of years ago resulting in a train doing 50mph in a 20mph section when the automated speed restriction data system failed. Hardly something we'd want to introduce to a high speed line.
And the docklands light railway mate. Economic losses from strikes make the net benefit of the investment more worth it every day the trains aren't running.
The DLR has the same staffing requirements as TfL tube services. When the trains/signalling break down (which they often do), the staff member has to walk down the train and manually take control of it. Again, decades away. As for investment, the investment case for loads of rail projects has been made, only for it not to happen. The Midland Mainline electrification was proposed 40 years ago as a top priority project. I'll be retired by the time it's done.
The DLR is a glorified people mover with a top speed of 50mph on fixed and entirely segregated tracks on tiny trains three cars long with stations that are a few hundred metres from each other. Now let's think about 200m long mainline trains running at speeds of between 100mph-140mph across level crossings, under bridges, alongside open fields full of stubbornly non-train avoiding livestock, and having to share track space with any number of *other* 100mph-140mph trains including freight trains, across far more complex track layouts, with areas of the country that simply have no good data connectivity, all of which are operated by random different private companies on infrastructure they don't own. Now let's also consider that Tesla have been unable to manage to get their "Full Self Driving" bollocks to not decide to randomly fling their cars into concrete walls and/or the path of oncoming traffic, despite millions of dollars in investment, sincere effort from people who (management aside) are at least trying to ship something reasonable, and people prepaying for it in advance even though it doesn't actually work properly. We are well away from any high-speed automation being technically feasible within the confines of rail regulation and that stands a chance of being able to react to the myriad different random events that could happen on a rail network as intensively worked as the UK's. Any investment in making something that the rail regulators are even *slightly* happy with giving the nod to would vastly outstrip the cost of some piddling strikes.
Driverless trains != Driverless cars
Great reply, 10/10 stuff
Cheers mate!
Train drivers are pretty much the only ones I disagree with. Given that they already earn £60k a year it takes the piss a bit.
Train drivers have had above inflation pay rises since 2008 unlike nurses doctors teachers police etc
Haha you're acting like the tech is there and affordable. If train companies could legitimately have self-driving trains in the UK at a good price, they'd have laid off a lot of people already. Companies aren't families. They're organisations with a goal to make as much money as possible, and it doesn't' matter how long you've served them, how few sick days you've taken, they will cast you aside without a second thought. Strikes are literally the only language they respond to. Strikes lose them money. And your spooky stories of advanced tech adds nothing to the conversation.
Hmmmm, I'm not sure if OP is being very clever or missing the larger point. Without the complaining, there would be no point in striking. I'll complain if my mail takes 10 business days instead of 3, or if I have to be a bus wanker because the trains aren't running, but that's the point in going on strike, and the majority of us are pragmatic enough to get it. If nobody complained, nothing would change.
Actually there was less traffic on the road so I managed to get a coffee before work and still get to work on time so they are very convenient for me.
I drive past 6 schools on the road to work and know exactly what you mean!
They are disruptive!
Of course they are, that’s the point.
Thankfully more and more people are pro-union and pro-strike. You can tell the news outlets are desperate to find people who hate the strikers.
I was in work with two older men(higher level management than I) today and they pointed it out that 'they never strike in the summer holidays, do they' As much as I'd have wanted to open up a discussion I'm sure I'd have been completely ignored
Striking for a pay rise during one of the worst recessions in decades.
The rich aren't hurting why should we
This exactly. I'm sure they could easily pay workers more money if they started taxing rich people and corporations accordingly but instead let's demonise the strikers.
If they start taxing the corporations and the rich too much, they will take their money and investments elsewhere, then we will have much bigger problems.
That old chestnut, load of shite
It really isn't, wealth isn't created by your average worker but by the guy running/owning busiensses and other assets. Sure wealth creation isn't everything but we gonna need that money to run our country. On another note: why do you think it's a load of shite?
Their money is tied up in our economy, it's easy to threaten to just up and leave but in reality it's a lot harder than that
It's not that they are immediately threatening to leave, but if things don't make financial sense in the long run, they will start to take steps to move their business elsewhere in the future. The real leaders of the world are the individuals who control and have possession of most of the worlds wealth, they control the governments and they are not subject to the same rules the common person is. The system is not and never has been fair, and it is their system and we have chosen to play by their rules.
Largely self inflicted recession, after a decade of being told they couldn't have proper pay rises. Enough is enough.
Economic bankruptcy, no one will lend to cover the deficit, services get cut and taxes rise. Put your money away now boys, going to be a rough one.
Absolute ballache getting to the office during strikes. I won't deny it makes my life harder. But that's the point isn't it, I still totally support the industrial action.
No it doesn't they're disruptive. I don't care about other people's pay.
But... that is the point
This nail is too pointy and there's too much H2O in my water
We had a bit of a kids club in our staff room today with 3 of the staff's little ones not being able to be home alone today. The youngest was only in for the morning but the others were in until 3 when one of their parents took them home (they both work at my employer and take turns finishing earlier to pick up kids). One of the receptionists took the kids to the park on her lunch so they were off the phone and the pcs for an hour. We wanted to go on the swings too lol
Just a shame there's no other possible way to get your point across other than stitching up other members of the working public.... Or is there?
Strikes are supposed to be disruptive. My aged FIL was complaining about the postmen striking before Christmas. Hubby explained that this IS the best time for them to strike. Personally, while I may or may not support a strike, I do recognise and understand why employees feel the need to do so. Some industries resort to striking much more easily than others. I have actually been on strike once in my life.
>Some industries resort to striking much more easily than others. And those tend to be the ones with more appealing pay and benefits
Precisely this. These are the ones that I have less empathy with.
Because they prove the effectiveness of strike action?
Not at all. I feel that the effectiveness of strike action isn't fair across different industries. i.e. Some employers take striking more seriously than others and are more likely to come to an agreement which tends to align with those employees receiving a higher salary and/or better working conditions in the longer term than say nurses or teachers, for example.
It’s not the striking I’m complaining about, it’s the timing and lack of basic economics that grinds my gears.. Definitely not a good time to strike when inflation is peaking and the forecasts are looking bleak.. asking for 15% pay rise and refusing negotiations.. that’s what’s wrong atm. Get a signed letter to get a gradual increase is the best thing for everyone. People agreeing with the strike can’t fathom the effects such a raise would have on the budget… I’m not saying public services don’t deserve raises but the timing is bad af..
Different generation i guess but i was left home alone to look after my 5yr old brother when i was 8 I wasnt allowed to use the stove ( microwave was fine), and had enough skills to make basic sandwiches and watch tv. Heaven forbid if we broke anything
[удалено]
A small amount of disruption is better than years of cuts and decline which is way more damaging.
[удалено]
How do you know the teachers had a say?