um pahars

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of the private sector pension schemes, defined benefit promises were honoured to existing incumbents, but were then withdrawn over time to new entrants.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.

I think you'll find I never suggested you were a Daily Mail reader, merely that your puerile, knee jerk and sensastionalist contributions to the debate were akin to those found in the Daily Mail.

As with most DB schemes, I do think there has to be a review with regards new entrants. Am I right in saying new entrants on already on a different scheme (lower accrual rate??). However, this has to be carefully thought out to ensure that the Teaching Profession can still attract good quality graduates. I'm not sure anyone is arguing against some negotiation and change, it's more to do with the fact that this change has been brought in a rather cavalier fashion and probably for idealogical reasons, not financial.

I don't think many teachers took this decision lightly and I think many have gone on strike with a really heavy heart. The overwhleming majority of teachers have their students wellbeing at the centre of all they do. Some will have to put their love, support and responsibility to these students to one side for a day to think about their own families, whilst others are thinking long term and are concerned how these pay cuts and erosion of benefits will affect the teaching profession (it's ability to recruit and retain staff, morale and ultimately the service provided to future generations of students). Ultimately it is individual choice whether or not to express their individual right to withdraw their labour and you won't find me criticsing colleagues one way or the other. So I'm afraid I do find it somewhat disappointing that a member of a school's senior leadership team feels the need to berate colleagues and subordinates and label them hypocritical.

Talking of a race to the bottom, I think claims like this are leading to a race to the bottom with regards quality of argument. That's something the Daily Mail would come up with. Puerile.

Don't be so ridiculous, I think you'll find the Law is rather strict on strike ballots and if there were any irregularities then the Employers/Government would have been quick to highlight this (irregularities are quickly seized upon e.g. BA challenged Unite successfuly recently). There are many issues open for debate without taking a Daily Mail scare approach to the argument I'm being deadly serious, in the isolated occasions where bullies exist I do believe the individual has to stand up to them. Additionally they need the support of the management and therefore questions need to be asked of the Senior leadership team at this school.

Pah, what a way to ruin a good champagne.

Oh come on, it's the truth, don't get all upset on me:twisted: Now back to important things, where are my three subsequent questions (and presuming they're all going to be 5 points each) - can't wait for the picture round!!!!!

I've seen them split and not conclusive either way. This one had the piublic down as supporting the strike (61%). http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15910621

I'm not really sure I would use one or two anecdotes to come to such generalisations, but each to their own. Same advice to Jackanory really, I think she needs to stand up for herself and someone needs to get a grip with the Senior Leadership Team to stamp out these ugly and isolated cases.

You need a d) as it was Nick I who then stuck my name on it. So I think I should get an extra bouns point to make that starter worth 11, so now give me three more questions at 5 points each (I presume I playing for the Union team??). I'm not going to give you any questions on Rhodesia or Churchill though as understand that's what your HND is in.

To be honest I was disappointed with the size of the crowd itself. 22,000 was less than I had expected. Whilst not condoning the going over the top slagging off and booing, I don't think there is anything wrong with recognising we were below par (and still won) last night. And whilst I'm all up for undying support & praise, Guly was terrible for large spells last night!!!

A worker on the board/cabinet and none of this would have materialised. We could also have lowered the heat in this confrontation by organising a sort of Union/Whitehall Challenge quizzy thing. David Starkey in the chair. And here's your starter for ten.

I'm going to be like one of my naughty kids and refuse to comply with your request and then follow that up with "You're having a bubble", "whatever" and "OMG". BTW Isn't it wasteful to be posting during the working day?