The wrong way to strike

The decision of teachers at Francis Patton Primary School to call in “sick” today was wrong, unnecessary, self-indulgent and foolish.

Wrong, because regardless of the validity of their grievances, 21 days notice is required for strike action. Unnecessary, because such notice was given by the Bermuda Union of Teachers yesterday. Self-indulgent, because the teachers have apparently decided that they shouldn’t have to wait until September to make their feelings known. And foolish, because such precipitous action is unlikely to win them much sympathy from the public. In particular, those parents who were turned away from the school this morning are unlikely to appreciate having to make last-minute arrangements for the care of their children.

The Government needs to send a message that such wildcat strikes will not be tolerated. At a minimum, I would hope that the Ministry of Education has told every “sick” teacher to get a doctor’s note. Any teacher who cannot produce such a note when they return to work should receive no pay for today and have a written warning placed on their file.

Much of what the teachers are saying about the Ministry of Education may be right. However, that does not entitle them to abuse their right to strike.

Comments

[SmokingGun on 14.06.06 at 13:55]

"The decision of teachers at Francis Patton Primary School to call in “sick” today was wrong, unnecessary, self-indulgent and foolish."

Amen.

[silencedogood on 14.06.06 at 14:43]

This wildcat strike does teach the students something:

1) People only look out for number one, all others including kids trying to learn be damned,

3) Instant gratification trumps planning for the future, and

4) The unlikelihood of any repurcussions for striking teachers not providing notice will teach them that they can bend or break rules with impunity.

All in a days work.

It is no wonder the public educaton system is in such a sorry state of affairs.

[Onion on 14.06.06 at 15:00]

That's right silencedogood, blame the teachers. Nice to see you've got everything summed up so neatly.

[SmokingGun on 14.06.06 at 15:26]

Onion - there is no one else to blame. If they say they are giving 21 days notice then they should wait until then. Simple as that.
If they want to arrange a luncheon with government on the steps of Parliament then start planning for Friday July 7th. Heck, why not get the kids involved and have them draw up the banners.

I can certainly empathize with our teachers but this act shows no class.

[Boogie on 14.06.06 at 15:30]

Frankly, I think they ought to cease spending their own money to decorate their respective classrooms and refuse to work outside of an eight hour shift. After about a year or so, Government and the people of Bermuda will be on their knees begging teachers to return to sacrificing themselves for our young people.

[wyrdsister on 14.06.06 at 15:38]

"teachers to return to sacrificing themselves for our young people."

ha ha ha ha ha , you have got to be kidding me.

[Sleepy on 14.06.06 at 15:40]

The teachers get a bum rap. Sure, there's some bad ones but they are generally well-intentioned, pretty hard working and dig into their own pockets due to lack of funds.

The Ministry of Education is an abomination. It's an exercise is nepotism, incompetence and arrogance.

You'd call in sick too.

[silencedogood on 14.06.06 at 15:46]

Onion,

Whom then does the blame fall on if not the teachers? I suppose we should figure out what exactly blame is being laid for shouldn't we?

Let's focus on blame for striking in an inappropriate manner shall we. These things contribute to the poor quality of education but that's a much larger issue for a different thread.

Before striking the teachers are supposed to provide 21 days notice, agreed?

They did not provide that notice, agreed?

Unless you believe that a requirement that teachers provide a notice period before striking is unjust, or that 21 days is an unjust length for such period, the teachers have automatically broken not only the rule, but the trust placed in them by every parent and student affected.

If you do feel either of the two above are unjust please explain.

The BUT said, according to the BDA Sun, that they didn't give notice because they would be allowed to strike in september without notice.

This is wrong for soooo many reasons. Let me name a few. This dispute began in 2004! They have had plenty of time to plan and conduct a strike and still provide notice.

Nothing has been sprung on them where they have to rush to call a strike at the end of the year.

Providing notice now would not prejudice parents and teachers in september--they would have all damn summer to plan around it, assuming the issue was not resolved by the time the agreement expires in August.

If they are soooo concerned they could post a reminder of the strike in the gazette a week or two before the school year. Seriously, who are they fooling?

What providing notice now of a September strike would do, and what the BUT fails to mention and wants to avoid, is advance notice reducing their bargaining power.

How? Because striking now inconveniences parents and students. It would not in September. Striking now means kids are not learning, which may not be of concern to you, but is to most parents. Because parents could make alternate arrangements for September learning would be unaffected.

That inconvenience and fear of kids falling behind in their studies exerts pressure to resolve the dispute in favour of the BUT. That's all they care about or they would have gone about their strike in the appropriate manner, provided notice, made their case, and let the chips fall where they may.

I'm not commenting on the merits of their dispute over pro-rated pay. I'm commenting on their methods which use students as pawns in a power struggle. It is shameful politicking and if you or the teachers don't like me saying so, tough. It's the BUT that stinks, I'm only commenting on the smell. (couldn't resist the pun)

Nice to see you've got everything summed up so neatly.

Posted by Onion on 14.06.06 at 15:00

Thanks, I knew you'd see it my way.

[Onion on 14.06.06 at 17:03]

It is no wonder the public educaton system is in such a sorry state of affairs.

Posted by silencedogood on 14.06.06 at 14:43

This is the comment that I was directing my cynicism at. The teachers are not the reason for the sorry state of affairs.

[Two Cents on 14.06.06 at 17:06]

To quote Rudy (from Fat Albert)

This situation is like school during the holidays

....NO CLASS

[Zooooom on 14.06.06 at 17:14]

While I'm not a fan of wildcat strikes and sickouts, my understanding of the situation is that Gov made an agreement in 2004 out of political expediency and has been trying to avoid delivering on that commitment.
It's got to be hard for the teachers to take when they see Cabinet giving themselves a huge pay increase with a swish and a big not-gay group hug. Gov keeps spending money with no sense of accountability. This will haunt us.

[SmokingGun on 14.06.06 at 17:21]

Onion - I accept your point however I also would stress that our teachers and their representatives have known for a good long time that our Government is as lame as the day is long. Whilst they spend way too much time worrying about who's going to be the next King & Queen they have pushed our schools to the bottom of the trash heap. This only leads to worse and worse conditions in the school system. The teachers should have recognised a long time ago that the people of Bermuda are on the side of fair and proper compensation for them. It does them no good to act in a manner that lowers the standard to that of how our own Ministry of Education operates. The message they should be sending is simple: Do one's homework, prepare properly and present purposefully.

Again, I fully empathize with the teachers on this issue. If we can spend all sorts of money expanding government and increasing ministerial and civil servant wages then we can damn well pay our teachers properly.

[Denis Pitcher on 14.06.06 at 17:36]

If the students were going to miss a day of school I would have rathered the teachers use it to their advantage rather then make it a disadvantage to the education of their students.

Would it have been a poor idea had the teachers all worked together to organize an island wide "field trip" to parliament hill?

Perhaps make it an educational session for students about how government works (or doesn't work), so teachers could both accomplish their goals of protest, yet still teach the students something valueable?

[Martin on 14.06.06 at 18:10]

Sick notes?

Sorry Phil - I disagree. The only sick notes I would have accepted are those that are continuous from at least the day prior to the action.

If you take action which is in breach of the agreed procedures, you pay.

One day's loss of pay for the lot - irrespective of the empathy I might have for their grievance.

[Adjustah on 14.06.06 at 19:32]

Two Cents

It's refreshing to see a Fat Albert quote. Outstanding!

In the meantime, didn't striking go out with the 70's? Hasn't anyone figured out that all it does is generate public disgust and intolerance for those that are on strike?

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 14.06.06 at 20:23]

Onion,

"This is the comment that I was directing my cynicism at. The teachers are not the reason for the sorry state of affairs."

I couldn't agree with you more. The effect of teachers is only as good as the parents involvement in the child's education.There are many parents who will show no interest in parent teachers meetings to find out how thier child is/is not progressing but let the child of that parent be punished by the teacher, they will be in the classroom without hesitation.

I tire of hearing the school system is lousy, the Ministry of Education is doing a terrible job. No scool or school system will begin to be a success unless and until the parents treat the education of their children as priority number 1.

Many look down their noses at the Caribbean because of some of the economic conditions, yet nobody admits or wannts to even begin to admit that educational standards in the Caribbean are significantly gretaer. It is not because of the school as generally the same curriculum is taught. The difference is the involvement of the parents.

I can always tell which children have parents that are initmately involved in the education of their children, it is always the children who do very well. What the teacher teaches in the classroom must be reinforced in the home.

I fully agree that the teachers should never have to go into their own pockets for projects the are directly related to the schools and in that instances the Ministry must be held accountable. To give credit to the teachers, from what I have experienced, they do not allow this to interfere with there responsibility of teaching the children.

Many have blamed the school system for the failure rate of the children, that is not the fault of the system, it is the fault of the parents for not making sure their children do the work that is necessary in order to excel.

Education of children is a joint venture between the parents and the teachers.

I thank my parents for their involvement in my education because had they not been constantly behind me and extremely involved in what I was doing at school I would not have gone to university because I did not want to go at the time but they did all they could do to make certain that I went and that I graduated because they knew the importance of a sound education.

Wildcat strikes may not be prety but in order to get drastic change sometimes you have to take drastic measures. By doing this they may get their demands met. If they had waited until the summer holidays the Ministry could have prolonged any discussion. Hope now it is been treated with urgency.

[SmokingGun on 14.06.06 at 20:34]

"yet nobody admits or wannts to even begin to admit that educational standards in the Caribbean are significantly gretaer."

Guilden you'd better come back to Bermuda for a refresher in spelling my friend. ;-)

Actually I couldn't agree with you more that the parents are highly responsible for getting involved. I therefore suggest "they" get their behinds behind the teachers when they show up at the gates of bureaucracy.

And as far as the teachers having to reach into their pockets for supplies to jazz up their rooms that's a global issue. I never could figure out why they have to do that. I find all sorts of things to give my friend's kids to take to class and share with other kids for class projects.

[Jamaican Q on 14.06.06 at 22:03]

I believe that Governments worldwide do not take teachers seriously. While i am not a teacher, I totally agree with teachers that they should strike when necessary, wildcat or not. This is a capitalist world and you get what you pay for. What teachers need to do is work out how much worth of teaching they should offer kids in the government's schools and then if you want to learn some more, that is a private cost. While my apprach may appear selfish, I feel that for far too long, teachers have taken a battering. In my research, what keeps coming up in the litreature is the fact that teachers are not there to just impart knowledge, but also to deal with spoilt rotten kids, most of whom have no home training. The teacher becomes a parent, nurse, counsellor and let's not leave out the most important one...punching bag, for students. After all that is said and done, I agree with them to strike. Who cares what parents think about the strike!

[silencedogood on 14.06.06 at 23:06]

Onion,

I'll cop to being cynical and I'll even agree with Guilden that parents often skate on their role in education, but the teachers are on the front lines. I can think of at least three really good teachers who made a difference for me, even when I didn't want them to do so. I can also think of many who were wastes of space content to leech off the system's protections. This isn't the place for it, but if we get a thread on that I'm sure I'll comment. But to be clear, my intent is not to beat up on teachers, but I'm not going to shy away from criticism I feel is legitimate either.

I think the BDA system would be well served by sending a message to kids that everyone will be held to a high standard and held accountable. I'm not sure that message is being sent now. Docking the pay of the teachers on the wildcat strike like Limey suggests might send that message. If there are no consequences for rules, we have anarchy.

[Bill Cook on 15.06.06 at 06:48]

It is not easy to quantify a teachers worth or value but what puzzles older folk like myself is how pupils can be advanced upwards without first passing grade tests to do so.
In my PES we were held back if we did not pass so we did not have anyone leaving the system unable to read or write to an acceptable standard as happens here.
Who is to blame for that ?

I have on various occasions spent consiberable time with Jamaicans mostly those who have had a good education and in my opinion were better educated than Bermudians generally speaking and most had the ability to debate on a variety of matters very well.
Maybe because things are more competitive there and life is tougher but the sad reality is that the greatest export is no longer Bauxite but people esp nurses teachers policemen and the professionals.

We here tend to throw money at every problem because we have so much but the problems are much deeper than that with complacency in the family structure and the feeling that life is soft and easy here so we will always be ok.

Accountability ? one would need to organise a search party to find it as its been long gone.

[Phil on 15.06.06 at 09:07]

It seems that teachers at Francis Patton - and quite possibly other public schools too - are now working to rule.

Well, at least that's better than a wildcat strike. Can't say my wife (who is the music teacher there) was particularly impressed when told that a concert she was organising for tonight (and has been preparing for for weeks) should no longer go ahead, though. What is to be gained by the union insisting that she should cancel that too?

[silencedogood on 15.06.06 at 09:40]

On topic: I hear that several schools are closed today. I know people in my office are vexed. I'm bracing for the influx of kids to disrupt the day.

[Lisa on 15.06.06 at 09:42]

Apparently all the schools are on strike today...

As a therapist who works at a school I'm pretty happy because it means I have the day off work but I'm not sure what I think to the strike since don't understand why the teachers decided to do it without notice. I'll be talking to them tomorrrow and will let you guys here know if I find out anything interesting.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 15.06.06 at 10:02]

Limey,

As far as the wildcat strike in Bermuda, your wife is a part of the bargaining unit and the unit makes the decisions. I do not think the value of teachers is truly appreciated even in this day and age it is very much a thankless profession and it takes a special person to be able to do it and be happy.

Bill,

I agree with you about making students repeat a year if they have not met the standards. No child should leave school without having met a certain standard. If I am not mistaken this "holding back" of students was removed due to pressure from parents. I could be mistaken.

One of the reasons I was so against the restructuring of the school system is because not every child learns at the same rate and those that learn quickly should not be hindered by those that do not and on the flip side those that do not learn quickly should not feel pressured to "keep up" with those that do.

The very thing that the restructuring tried to rid the system of, elitism, is exactly what it has produced. Those who can afford it have their kids in private schools receiving a better education because if a parent is going to be spending $12,000 a year that parent will be actively involved in the child's education. Also I believe that the private schools tend to have lower teacher student ratios, which provides for a better learning environment.

[Good Grief on 15.06.06 at 11:40]

Lisa....

You are happy because you have a day off!!! Good grief if that is the attitude you have I truly hope it is not shared by many other teachers. Also I hope you made a mistake saying:

'I am not sure what I think to the strike'

Please tell me you meant 'of the strike.' A strike is not about a day off - it is not a reason to kick back and say oh, well great - I can chill out. The strike is about persons employed in an institution that is chronically underpaid and under-appreciated taking a stance when they feel mistreated.

While I do understand that there might be formalities that have not been complied with the kind of attitude you display by saying you are happy for the day off - undermines the efforts of those teachers who actually believe in our youth and teach because they are passionate about learning!

I am not a teacher but my mother has been teacher for some 30 years and I can attest to the fact that the Ministry of Education is pathetic to say the very least. The quality of public education has been going downhill for years and now the Government want to give themselves a pay increase - for what!!!!!!!!!!!!

[charles on 15.06.06 at 11:45]

I don't know about Bermuda but in the states the reason children were passed on to the next grade whether or not they were ready was to protect their SELF ESTEEM. What a load of bullshit!!!!!!!! Now we have a whole bunch of illiterate individuals unable to cope with the modern world.

[SmokingGun on 15.06.06 at 11:54]

Seeing as it appears to be a "formal" strike now then I hope it's up to the BUT to pay the striking teachers. BTW when is school out for the holidays? Is this the reason for the wildcat? No-one's going to show up for a union meeting during summer vacation I imagine.

[save d cut on 15.06.06 at 13:42]

I had a child return home from school today with the most dissapointed look. Their end of year class field trip was planned for today. The money was returned and at this point it is not certain if it will ever happen.

Is anyone thinking of the children?

[save d cut on 15.06.06 at 13:45]

Government want to give themselves a pay increase - for what!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by Good Grief on 15.06.06 at 11:40

I guess the same could be said for the teachers.

[SmokingGun on 15.06.06 at 13:56]

"I guess the same could be said for the teachers." - save d cut

I imagine that's just your frustration talking. Teachers do deserve better treatment in many ways but your comment is a good example of why a wildcat strike does them a disservice.

[Trebliso on 15.06.06 at 15:14]

Is anyone thinking of the children?

Posted by save d cut on 15.06.06 at 13:42

You'll have to ask Ned Flanders.

[Lisa on 15.06.06 at 15:17]

Good Grief - LOL - I am not a teacher and the strike has nothing to do with me.

I am a therapist employed by a family - who WERE going to give an UNPAID day off - in the end we took the kids to Windreach so I worked for 4 hours.

Anyway - you've no need to worry about my appalling lack of grammar - b/c I'm a behavioural therapist not a teacher.

I love people like you who jump to conclusions and get all steamed up over nothing.

It gives me something to laugh about.

I heard from the head of the school I work at that this strike may go on for quite some time!

I feel really bad for those kids who are missing out on fun trips but I just saw a bunch of smiley faces cycling to the beach on my way home ;-)

Still - I am waiting to form an opinion about the strike since I haven't heard the teachers' side.

Did you like my appropriate usage of the apostrophe there Good Grief? Did ya?

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 15.06.06 at 15:26]

Save d Cut,

"Is anyone thinking of the children?"

Are you implying that the teachers are not thinking of the children? What would you have the teachers do if commitments that were made in 2004 still have not been implemented, continue to stay on the job in the hopes that there commitments will be honoured? How can you expect disgruntled teachers to be effective in teaching the kids?

Sometime we need to put ourselves in the shoes of the the persons who are taking industrial action rather than continuously condemn them.

What would you do if your employer made certain promises based on demands you made and two years later the employer has not honoured those commitment? Would you simply sit back and accept that the commitments are not being honoured, or would you continue to fight and protest to have them honoured?

Teachers are not in the same situation as employees in the private sector because most are committed to education and resigning does not accommplish much because it is the same employer not matter at what school a teacher teaches, unless they go to the private schools and positions within the private schools are limited due to space.

I think the value of teachers has always been taken for granted and I say provide a package that is attractive enough to keep the teachers in the classroom rather than disrupt school. The teachers demands appear to be reasonable.

[SmokingGun on 15.06.06 at 15:35]

Guilden, you are not wrong but why in the world would they go about saying they are giving 21 days notice only be calling for a walk out the very next day? Liar liar pants on fire keeps drumming in my head.

[silencedogood on 15.06.06 at 15:55]

No one is questioning their right to industrial action. People are questioning the manner in which they are conducting the industrial action--there is a difference.

The way they are going about it causes unecessary harm to parents and students (see my 2nd post). The cumulative effects of these kinds of political strong arm tactics which hold the island hostage are detrimental to Bermuda. Of course the the kids don't know this which is why they are smiling--ignorance is bliss.

And really guilden, making the question an all or nothing proposition is about the oldest debating trick in the book. "Either you're for this new law or you're for crime", "either you're for this security law or you're for terrorism", "either you're for this social entitlement or you're for starving babies and forcing the elderly into homelessness", "either you support the teachers method of striking or you are against any and all types of industrial action".

[save d cut on 15.06.06 at 16:05]

I know my post may have upset some, and yes....it is my frustration speaking, however I feel it was real bad timing. This is the end of a school year. Students are trying to test, some are using this last few weeks to pull up their grades. This is an important time to children. In my opinion, more so than the beginning of the school year, which may not pose the same threats.
Again, just bad timing.

[Fifi on 15.06.06 at 16:29]

The teachers are dealing with a Labour Government. Prior to 1998, the PLP would have approved such action by the teachers. It is unfortunate that the students end up being the losers in this fiasco, but having dealt with this Government in another labour movement, it appears that strike and disruption is the only thing that spurs them to action. I hope the teachers stand pat on this one.

[SmokingGun on 15.06.06 at 16:36]

save d cut - that's what I was wondering. So the teachers say they are giving 21 days notice and then the math teachers did their homework and realized 21 days was well into their summer vacation. So realizing that the only teachers that would be affected would be the summer tutors (trust me I've known a summer tutor or two and believe you me they were as pissed off as I was) so they put on their a class action suits and like any good road scholar would do, they hit the highway.

See you in September boys and girls. Enjoy the summer.

Anyone need a summer tutor? My rates are reasonable....

[J Starling on 15.06.06 at 17:56]

Government has had two years to enact the 2004 agreements, and are still dragging their feet, even going backwards and trying to renegotiate by apparently strongarm tactics some of the terms of that agreement (and not in the favour of the teachers). If this had involved any other group than the highly dedicated and largely professional workforce that are the teachers we would have seen strike action a long time before this. Teachers are on average (it is always easy to find and amplify the exception) highly dedicated to their profession and their students, the decision to strike would not have come lightly and without reservations. I am of the understanding that the teachers had made arrangements with the admin staff and 'management' to supervise the children, and it would appear to be the MoEducation that has ordered the sending of kids back home - a classic example of union-busting tactics by shifting the perception or burden of blame onto the workers who have legitimate demands. Yes, different tactics by the teachers may have been better, and we may still see them, like the suggestions by Denis above, as well as skeleton crews to supervise while others picket, rolling short duration strikes, the (now in process) work-to-rule, etcetera. The official strike may very well see a march on Parliament or the Ministry. Other unions may well see fit to call sympathy strikes (which also have the advantage of letting workers look after their kids). The 21-day strike notice is unfair - can we put a 21-day notice on capital flight? Its easy to see which way the legislation is balanced. We should be calling the BUT and finding out what the issues are, what the actions of both sides are without the distortion of media and the rumour-mill, and perhaps even offering our solidarity and assistance to the teachers.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 15.06.06 at 18:19]

Silence,

"And really guilden, making the question an all or nothing proposition is about the oldest debating trick in the book."

Please show me where I made the question an all or nothing proposition. All I asked was that you put yourself in a similar situation to the teachers and tell us what action you would take. How is that all or nothing?

J. Starling,

Very well said.

[SmokingGun on 15.06.06 at 18:26]

"The 21-day strike notice is unfair - can we put a 21-day notice on capital flight?"

Why? So the government and unions can get their greedy little paws on it?

J Starling - I think you miss the whole point of why there is a 21 day notice. It is to give government a relatively short time-frame to get their house in order and follow through with promises made. If after 21 days they have still not done so then go ahead and strike. Personally I'm not a big fan of this kind of action, especially in such a small place as Bermuda, but I'm also not a big fan of how our government gets things done, or to be more precise, fails to get things done.

Knee-jerk reactions are the play of the day and the teachers know this of our government. The trouble is our government is the so called Progressive Labour Party yet there is nothing "Progressive" about them and there is very little "Labour" about them. All they want to do is "Party" at the tax-payer's expense. And teachers are tax payers just like the rest of us. The fact that they also pay union dues makes it just that much worse.

If the teachers want to work to rule through the end of the school year that's fine. Just make sure the kids get their class-room time in and if they have to add a few days to help make up then they would gain a lot of support from the island even if it's a pain in the you know what.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 15.06.06 at 18:29]

SmokingGun,

"I think you miss the whole point of why there is a 21 day notice. It is to give government a relatively short time-frame to get their house in order and follow through with promises made."

But its been 2 years, surely this action could have been predicted and the fact that it has been two years should make the 21 day notice period null and void.

[SmokingGun on 15.06.06 at 18:39]

Exactly Guilden. Surely the teacher's union could have declared a 21 days notice a long time ago and then set things in motion. Once the government showed bad faith then the union would simply call a full on strike and everyone in Bermuda would have been fully warned. They could have been giving 21 day notices over and over just to force their point. Eventually the people of Bermuda would see how the government has been treating the teachers. I bet you a lot of parents were clueless as to how long this issue has been going on until they read it in the papers yesterday.

[silencedogood on 15.06.06 at 20:15]

Please show me where I made the question an all or nothing proposition. All I asked was that you put yourself in a similar situation to the teachers and tell us what action you would take. How is that all or nothing?

Posted by Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 15.06.06 at 18:19

Guilden,

This is what I'm referring to:

What would you do if your employer made certain promises based on demands you made and two years later the employer has not honoured those commitment? Would you simply sit back and accept that the commitments are not being honoured, or would you continue to fight and protest to have them honoured?

This statement implies that if you don't agree with the current methods of the BUT you expect them to "simply sit back and accept that the committments are not being honoured."

I don't know enough about the underlying issue to know whether I agree with the teachers or not. It's not really relevant to the issue being discussed either. The issue is their methods.

If I was in their shoes and felt there was a need for industrial action and was truly committed to the welfare of students I would have either called a strike sooner and provided the notice, or give notice now and strike at the beginning of next year if the issue is not resolved.

The fact is that the teachers and the BUT could have called a strike at any time in the past two years. The current, unexpected disruption in the school year is at a time which the BUT knows will cause maximum disruption for students.

That doesn't sound like a committment to their welfare to me.

JStarling,

I would also like to know why you feel the 21 day notice period is unfair or unjust, particularly in response to Smoking Gun's very accurate point that the BUT has had two years to provide this notice. That's 730 days, or 36.8 notice periods which have passed.

Do you not believe they chose to do so now to inflict the most pain and discomfort on the public to try and pressure the government?

Why does it matter if the BUT is correct? Do the ends justify the means?

[loki on 15.06.06 at 21:11]

Actually, if one looks back at the development of employment law, particularly that arising from the UK in the 1960's to the 1980's, we can see what the real basis of 21-day strike notice provisions and why wild-cat strikes are unethical in principle: as the employer has an inherently more powerful position than that of his employees, and far greater inherent bargaining power, the common law has historically protected the workers' right to withdraw their labour as a means of redressing the imbalance in power between employer and employee. What I am saying is nothing novel, I think you'll agree.

The requirement for notice provisions actually developed because the ability of employees to strike without notice gives employees too much power and effectively allows employees to hold employers to ransom and cause massive damage to economies and communities. This is why we have notice provisions, pure and simple.

If any of those teachers were fired in contravention of the Human Rights Act or the Employment Act, they would be the first ones to start screaming bloody murder about their legal rights having been trampled on. I have a lot of sympathy for the teachers on the underlying issue here, but it is unconscionable for them to act in a blatantly illegal manner at such a sensitive time of the year. It's all about the rule of law........

[Phil on 15.06.06 at 21:49]

There still seems to be some confusion as to precisely why the teachers are striking.

According to today's Royal Gazette, "Mr. Charles said the final straw in the failed negotiations was the fact that the Ministry wanted to pay pre-school administrators on a pro rata basis, so they would not receive a salary for the two-month summer break."

In addition, the following reasons were given to the teachers at Francis Patton this morning:

• No job descriptions.

• The decision to require teachers to have to have a major reason for taking a personal day next year (there is a suspicion that this is to avoid people taking off for some major sporting event that’s happening next year).

• The decision not to renew the contract of music teacher Bim Bademosi because of his failure to get certified. The teachers are angry that the Ministry allegedly told him that the course he chose to do was enough to get him accredited, then (after he completed it) told him that it wasn't.

• The decision to deny a woman on maternity leave the part of her pay that she earned by being the school's Math co-ordinator.

• The decision to fire teacher Carlton Johnson after 26 years. Some teachers believe that this was because of a personal problem between him and someone at the Ministry of Education.

This is not about what teachers themselves are being paid.

[Bermudacop on 15.06.06 at 22:17]

I have been working without a contract from Govt for several months now. I do not have the right to strike and would not strike illegally anyway. I get less than a teacher and work in harsher conditions.I have some sympathy as I worked in the scholls in Bermuda for several years. What I see here is selfishness on their part not a cry for help.
This was particularly brought home to me by my 6 yr old daughter who had been promised a day at the beach today as a reward for her whole class for good behaviour.This had been marked on a chart over a period of several months with the carrot being this trip.
Everyday this week they had been given more info and told what a fantastic day they would have as a reward for their months of effort. she learnt today that promises are made to be broken by authority figures, that she was lied to by her teacher yesterday when the teacher clearly knew they weren't going to go anywhere and that effort is for nothing if it doesn't suit the teacher. How much effort do you think she will be putting in for this teacher now? I would love to be in the classroom tomorrow when the teacher explains why they lost their reward. Play by the rules she will be told, but I don't have to............

[J Starling on 15.06.06 at 22:17]

Silencedogood, can you not concieve that perhaps the teachers operated in good faith that the terms of the agreement would be implemtend next week and so on for the last two years, as management led them on to believe? Can you not concieve that perhaps the teachers were busy educating our youth for the last two years, distracted by the daily tedium of working life? Can you not conceive that perhaps the burden got to great, the straw piled on their backs eventually broke the camels backs at a critical point, leading to the feeling that they have been to soft on the MoEducation, and that perhaps government only responds to industrial action deeds and not words spoken in good faith? Perhaps the rampant inflation, the rental bills, the black hole of corruption and cronyism that sucks away the money set aside for education resources eventually got to much to bear? All this you will have to speak to the BUT and the MoEducation to hear their respective stories and judge for yourself rather than passively accepting rumours and selective media. Within 21 days of the agreement being signed between the BUT and Government, if government has taken no action on said agreement, the government can be said to have broken the agreement, to be in breach of said agreement. At this point the teachers have no need to give notice of strike action - the government has already served this notice by breaking the agreement. One may not entirely agree with the particular tactics taken by the BUT, one might say certain decisions were short-sighted in that they failed to anticipate the tactics of the government in reaction, and failed to manage the public relations war (which is certainly key to the dispute), but this does not change the objective facts that the teachers are in the right and government in the wrong. Additionaly, the teachers ahve not been silent on this issue, they have voiced their concerns numerous times in the press, and no doubt more in private to the Ministry over the last two years. And what do they have to show for mere talk? Nothing - and so they are driven to action, and for this you blame them and not the government?

I would ask that all union workers who might read this summon a local meeting to discuss the teachers dispute and there position on it - hearing both sides of the story, and decide whether or not (and how) to support it. I would ask that all non-unionised workers do the same and form workers councils (office workers are workers too) and take a position on it. Expand the discussion to the role and function of the education system, how can it be improved, why must the teachers pick up the pieces of our failing socioeconomic system? What can we do better? People marched for the sexual orientation amendment and the paltry example of democracy exhibited by parliamentarians, can we not march for adequate education and a fair deal as well? Sure, there are a lot of important social and economic issues to act on, but that shouldn't mean we passively do nothing at all instead? Email the BUT. Phone the BUT (292-6515). Stop by seventy-two Teachers Place (72 Church Street, opposite M&Ms). Get the information from them rather than passively relying on hearsay. Do the same for the MoEducation. (Dundonald Place, 14 Dundonald Street - 278-330)
You ask me if the ends justify the means. I don't know. I know that the decision was made by a democratic vote on the basis of approximate consensus and democratic centralism, not by executive decree. I know that the teachers have been forced into action by governments inaction. Whether the tactics employed or correct or not, I can't say. Either way the teachers learn from it and will adapt their tactics in future. I think they would welcome all constructive criticism, but not blind acceptance of the government line, and acceptance that the teachers are in the wrong, are being unnecessarily disruptive.

Loki, you come across here as an employee apologist. The workers have to much power? The bosses need protected from the workers? While I accept that in most part the bosses are little more than parasites surviving off the surplus labour of the workers, and that the workers have the latent potential to overcome the bosses and manage society and the economy by autonmous worker councils, historically the bosses have (so far) been better organised, better armed, and have the aid of the state (in both legal and physical terms). And so the bosses dominate by both social hegemony (dominance over the media, culture, etc) and State dominance (coercive force), rather than the workers having the advantage. All the gains we today take for granted were won not through any 'petitions' a la the Gapon of 22/01/05 in St. Petersburg, but through mass action, be it the mass strike or other. Even Gandhi only succeeded through the objective fact of increasing militancy amongst the Indian nationalist revolutionaries, and the threat they posed rather than any pacifist action by Gandhi. The rule of law? Who writes the law? The bosses, not the workers. The whole capitalist system is all about legalised gambling, piracy and plunder on a grand scale, and you cite the rule of law, a mere figleaf to cover up and 'legitimise' the objective fact of capitalist exploitation!

[loki on 15.06.06 at 22:30]

J Starling,

I don't disagree with you with regard to the nature of the capitalist system. However, I am neither an apologist for employers nor employees: I am simply explaining the historical basis for notice provisions. In the same way that an employer must give reasonable notice od dismissal to an employee (save for such serious offensives that summary dismissal is warranted), it is proper that employees give reasonable notice of withdrawal of labour. Look at the labour disputes in the UK during the 60's and 70's and you will see that, yes, the ability of workers to carry out organized industrial action at will and without notices does give them too much power. Let's take our local hospital, for example: can you imagine the unjustified power that nurses and doctors would have if they could simply walk off the job with no notice, leaving patients without care or treatment? I very much side with the teachers in the current dispute, but I have to recognise that there must be reasonable restraints on the right to withdraw labour.

[It Does Matter on 15.06.06 at 23:00]

Loki was absolutely right when he laid out the reasons for the necessary strike periods. Employment law is strewn with all sorts of notice periods. These notice periods do have a purpose, and they should not be assaulted by employees or employers.

Plain and simple, what the teachers did was unlawful and should be treated as such by the Ministry.