um pahars

Just think they are trying to limit the number who go and perhaps more importantly who goes. Think the Club may have pushed OB to allow a select few non STH regaular travellers to go (probably in response to pressure from fans), but OB don't want "general" fans just going along for this one game. There's still just undcer three weeks to the game, so why stop making tickets available if they're not sold out??

As I said a while back don't think they will open it up to a general sale. They've relaxed it a bit to allow "non STH regular away fans", but I reckon that will be about it.

Best quote of the day from me (and very insightful journalism from my former employers at Meridian). "I don't agree with the strike, I've never had a pay rise in 20 years". Now either: a) He was on a mega wedge in 1990 and it's been slowly "decreasing in worth" ever since, or b) He has a really crap job, or c) He has a really horrible employer, or d) He has terrible negotiating skills, or e) He was making it up

It's not about the Unions not being forthcoming, it's about the sancity of a secret ballot enshrined in Law (early 80's under Thatcher). It is the legal right in a secret ballot that you, and you alone know how you voted. There are a number of reasons why secret ballots were brought in, one being to stop any attempts of intimidation from either fellow workers or employers. The headteacher would only know after the event, never before. Even then, there are limitations and protection for both those who either went on strike or who continued to work.

And as I have pointed out for someone so interested in the nuances of whys and hows regarding keeping a school open it is somewhat alarming that they are not even aware of the most basic issues regarding a secret ballot and calling lawful strikes. The biggest problem for Heads is that unless staff volunteer whether or not they are going on strike then they are in an absolute nightmare of a position of not knowing how many staff will not turn up on the day. As our Head did, they may have infomarlly tried to canvass anticipated numbers, but she was never going to be in a position of knowing one way or the other until 8:30 this morning. Of course they are going to assess potential problems, local and national Government advice, assessing whether they could open some Year Groups, whether they could provide some alternative would suggest that this head didn't take this decision lightly and went about it in a conscientious manner. Given your ignorant, somewhat "busy body" and second guessing I actually think the reply was rather pleasant. The results of all the ballots are published in line with the current employment law. Any further analysis of that and you start to undermine the sanctity of a secret ballot.

They might be valid questions, but they were questions that the Head was never going to be in a position to answer and given your interest, you really should have been aware of that. I certainly wouldn't want someone so ignorant of these basic details to be second guessing a senior teaching professional as to whether or not they shoud take the serious and wide reaching decision of closing a school. If you still feel that strongly, then you might need to write another letter, but this time address it to Chris Grayling seeking changes to employment law, secret ballots and how industrial disputes are regulated so that your questions might have a chance of being answered next time around.

Let's not let thsi ridiculous thread descend in to any serious exchange of opinion.

Because the Head was not involved in organinsing the various ballots. Because the Head would not be informed of the result of the various ballots (other that at a national level). Because the dispute is not with the school. Beacuse teachers, support staff and administrative staff have no obligation to tell anyone whether or not they voted. Because teachers, support staff and administrative staff have no obligation to tell anyone how they voted. because teachers, support staff and administrative staff have no obligation to inform the school whether or not they were withdrawing their labour. Given your ignorance of these obvious facts, I struggle to understand your motivation or intention with regards posing these questions.

Because it should be patently obvious that the Headteacher would not be privy to that information.

STH mate of mine rang up a few days ago and was told he needed 4 aways, which is not correct as far as I was aware. Seems like we're doing all we can not to shift these tickets!!!!

Is this one of my three questions?

I didn't read the reply as being "arsey" and reading it again, I still can't see that. Having said that, given the absurd, second guessing and ignorant questions, i think the reply received was actually quite polite. i would have been minded to either ignore the fishing or told him it had nothing to do with him (in a nice polite way of course).

Trouser's a,b and c questions all relate to the vote and the Head will never have that information. As for d), while I certainly wouldn't be sharing that with someone who would at best be second guessing from a position of ignorance.

Not until I get my three questions (specialist subject, #fanontheboard)

the Head did prefix their response with "I am afraid that I am not able to comment on many of your questions as that information is not available to me."

Harsh, but fair.

To be fair there is a enough employent legislation out there that has to complied with that I'm amazed they even gave you the time of day with a response. The Head would simply not have the data for a), b) and c) (this is a national dispute, with a national vote and the teachers are not in dispute with the school). As for d), well I'd be happier to leave such a decision to the professional involved, rather than a second guessing "interested observer". I think that the Headteacher would have a much better feel for the security, safety and operations of her school.

I think that's somewhat unfair. I was always more than willing to accept national pay deals, including pay freezes, and other minor alterations to my terms and conditions, but such a substantial adjustment to the terms of my pension has a massive impact on me. In many of the private sector pension schemes, defined benefit promises were honoured to existing incumbents, but were then withdrawn over time to new entrants. There is a bigger picture regarding the attractiveness to aspiring teachers in the future, but I just don't think it is fair to unilaterally withdraw and substantially alter my terms of employment

I'm still waiting for my three subsequent questions. i fear this thread has shortchanged me.

Of course it will (although I accept to what extent is up for debate). The salary, pension, holidays, working conditions, status of profession etc are all factors when considering going in to the profession. I certainly believed that a decent pension was a part of the fair trade off for the lower salary I would be earning when I changed careers.

Well we're currently going through an effective 4 year pay freeze (cutting teaching salaries by up to 20%) so how that readjusts itself will be interesting. I fear that that pay cut combined with a pension contributions increase, having to teach longer and lower end pension may mean the teaching profession will struggle to attract high calibre candidates, which may in turn impact on the future prosperity of future generations. It just seems to be policy on the hoof, with little or no regard to what the impact might be.

How would this affect recruitment of teachers going forward?? Should pay be increased to attract them, more Golden Hellos???? How do we manage staff doing same jobs for differing rewards??? All not unassailable, but in need of a proper review and debate, not Danny Alexander saying here's what the Goverment are implementing in order to meet a short term deficit reduction target (which they have now accepted they won't meet)

Have to say I saw that and scratched my head as it certainly didn't feel that way.

Can we stop cluttering this worthy thread and let Dune pose the next three questions I'm entitled to. Thanx

I think some of what Hutton said was pertinent and thought provoking. However, I also think it is fair to say that both sides are able to pull selected parts from the report, repackage them and produce something to support their stance. Hutton certainly didn't suggest what is being presented by the Government in their current offer, nor did he back the Union's current position.