trousers

Ok, hands up....fair assessment (especially the last bit!) My intentions were genuine. I still think knowing how likely your child's school is to close next time (if there is a next time) is useful information to know. But I'll concede I should have asked the questions in a less direct manner. Heading into town for a beer so over and out.

As I mentioned above, my questions were in response to the head writing to parents to advise: "We have now had time to assess the impact of the national industrial action on our staffing and we cannot guarantee a safe site on that day". I assumed from that statement that the head was in possession of the at least the basic facts regarding staff numbers. What else would they be "assessing" other than staff numbers based on the ballot results? If the closure was a fait acomplis ordered from above then there would be no need to "assess" the situation, surely? Even if the head was ignorant of the facts that could have answered my questions, the professional thing to have done would have to pointed me in the right direction: "Dear Mr Trousers, Thank you for your valid questions about your son's school. Unfortunately I'm not in a position to provide you with the information you've requested, however, if you contact blah at blah I'm sure they will be able to help you. Yours...." It wasn't my intention to use the stats to "second guess a senior teaching professsional". I was simply interested to know whether it was a close call or not. Fair point. I do indeed intend following it up with "the powers that be". As I've said all along, I still don't understand why anyone would want to keep the high level percentage stats a secret in the first place. Surely having acccess to facts in any debate is a good thing?

Thanks for the reply. I think we'll have to agree to differ as I think they were valid questions. I was simply interested in how close the school had come to staying open. But, as I say, the nature of the response I received indirectly told me much more than I had asked for.

It doesn't say where they got the money from....

The questions I posed were in response to a 'school closed' announcement email from the headmistress which included this sentence: "We have now had time to assess the impact of the national industrial action on our staffing and we cannot guarantee a safe site on that day." Why would it be wrong from that to assume that she knew percentages of staff that had decided not to turn up for work? What had they been assessing if not staff numbers...?

How was it obvious?

So, as a head, you'd be happy to share a "private and confidential" email from a parent around the staff room having just extolled the virtues of privacy and confidentiality to them...? ;-)

I've always admired the insightful wit of staff rooms

I beg to differ

The answer I got told me all I needed to know.

What was "ignorant" about the questions? I was genuinely interested to know what percentage of teachers at my son's school had decided to go on strike. Plain and simple curiosity. I still don't see why people apparently don't have any desire to be candid or transaparent with the situation. I don't see how that helps build their case and garner more sympathy from parents etc. Yours ignorantly....

If they're that easily pleased I might just take to the stage. Money for old ropethis making people chuckle malarkey. Sigh.

Why do you want to know why I want to know? Your go...

All fair enough but I don't see why anyone involved would want to cover up the stats? In a general election I don't need to know who voted for which party but I still get an overview of how many peopele voted for who. Why the closed shop? Edit: I'm sure if the figures had been really good they'd be shouting them from the rooftops... ;-)

How would she be able to make an informed decision on whether to close the school if she had no idea of how many of her staff were not turning up for work? Unless that decision is taken for her by a higher authority? Whether it's her decision to conceal the figures or the union's (?) I still don't understand what anyone has to hide.

Ah. When did they start that? I'd "work from home" more often if I'd known!

Here's an extract of an email I sent to my son's school 2 days ago: Please could you provide me with the following figures: a) the percentage of school staff that voted in the strike ballot b) the percentage of school staff that voted to strike (including those who didn't vote in the ballot) c) the percentage of school staff who, in light of the strike vote, have decided to go on strike on Wednesday (including those who originally voted against strike action and those that didn't vote) d) how many staff you are short of in order to provide a "safe site" And here's the reply I just received from the headmistress: Thank you for your email. I am afraid that I am not able to comment on many of your questions as that information is not available to me. Here are my responses in the order you posed your questions: a.) Private and confidential – not able to comment b.) Private and confidential- not able to comment. c.) Private and confidential- not able to comment. d.) Private and confidential as it is not just teaching unions which have been balloted to take industrial action. Releasing this information would break confidentiality. Erm....what's to hide? I wasn't asking for names of who voted and who didn't, just percentages. I thought they'd be really keen to share the figures in order to highlight the high level of support for the strikes. How is hiding under the convenient "Private and Confidential" unbrella going to engender support from the general public?

I've just noticed that the BBC have replaced their usual schedule with a double bill of 'Only Fools and Horses' this afternoon. Someone at the beeb has a wry sense of humour (not that I'm sitting at home watching TV when I should be working of course....)

The main contributors to public sector wages are the top 1% who pay 27% of all taxes collected by the exchequer. Just think how much they would contribute if they weren't so busy avoiding tax...

I was led to believe that the Royal Wedding (and other such events) had a net positive effect on the UK economy (not just on the day but over a period of time)? I don't have the stats to hand so can't substantiate that (feel free to correct me via provision of said stats). To compare something that is also an income generator with something that is purely destructive (in economical terms) is "comparing apples with oranges" terriotory. Just an opinion mind you.

Yep. None of those things would ever have happened without the unions.

"I can't see how the club can be deducted points. There's no football debts," he told BBC Radio Solent. That's a good sign. He's following the 'Mark Fry guide to Administration' to the letter thus far.... ;-)

We've all known for years, nay decades, that people are living longer, so we've always had the knowledge that pensions would have to be reformed at some stage. Some might say that to assume the pension you originally signed up for at the time wouldn't need to evolve at some point in the future to accomodate the changes in human life expectancy was avoiding looking at the big picture. Some might say that, some might not. But we didn't need to be an economist 10 - 20 years ago to foresee what would need to happen to pensions in the future. Successive governments (red and blue) simply put off the inevitable until it could be put off no more.

http://www.publicservice.co.uk/feature_story.asp?id=18198 Union pension spin ignores the big picture 30 November 2011 David Davison feels ''immensely sad'' that the leaders of the trade union movement and successive governments have failed to get to grips with the unsustainable cost of public sector pension provision The trade union Unite has published a 'Dossier of hypocrisy' which rightly highlights a disconnect between the government's desire to reduce the level of public sector pensions and the rather generous pensions payable to the very cabinet ministers proposing the change. Few would argue that MPs benefits are excessive and not having made any pre-emptive moves to reduce their value could undermine the strength of the arguments the government are putting forward to address the long term issue over public sector pensions. The document points out how 'Unite supports good pensions for all workers including MPs, what we don't support is a cabinet of millionaires attacking the very modest pensions of the men and women who care for our sick, teach our children and keep our streets safe.' This statement raises some interesting points. Is it purely the fact that the proposals are being made by 'millionaires' that make them unsupportable? I somehow doubt that all the cabinet ministers mentioned would fit in to this category. It also ignores the crucial point that the steps being taken to make public sector pensions sustainable are based squarely upon independent proposals made by the former Labour pensions minister John Hutton. Hutton's proposals sought to put in place a sustainable framework to protect the value of pensions for a very significant proportion of the people highlighted as being at risk. While I agree there should be a major reduction in the pensions offered to MPs, the impact of even a significant reduction on 600 people will not have the same financial impact as a more modest reduction for hundreds of thousands of public sector workers across the nation. Another problem is the term 'gold-plated' when used to refer to pensions. The focus here seems to be based upon the amount payable rather than on the fact that no matter what the state of the scheme or the wider financial environment the pension will be paid in full and the implicit funding risk this entails. It would be interesting if the same people were asked if they considered a pension fund to the value of £150,000-£200,000, with two thirds of this provided by the state was considered excessive in comparison to those provided in the private sector. This is, by the way, the equivalent fund value required to produce a £6,000 pension, index linked with spouses protection in a private scheme. The surveyor may have received a slightly different answer. The government has already yielded significant ground on this issue, possibly too much ground. If we see little or no change on public sector pensions where does this leave us? The government were seeking something sustainable for the future but a continual watering down of the proposals just means we're likely to be back in the same place in a few years, shoring up huge problems which will be left to future generations to sort out. Ultimately the money has to be found from somewhere – it will mean further reductions in education, police, health budgets or higher taxes. How many public sector workers will be happy if they keep their pension but lose their job? The Unison document suggests that the government must 'stop trying to turn people against their neighbours' but isn't that the very thing they are doing through their stance on pension reform? Failure to compromise on this issue risks further alienation and disconnection between the public sector and their private sector counterparts, many of whom can only dream of having such generous pension provision. For the unions to deny that change is necessary to create sustainable pensions for the future, seems totally divorced from the environment we are faced with. This is a generational, not class, issue. It's about how much we're prepared to mortgage our children's future to maintain current levels of pension benefits. I look at my young sons and their friends and I feel immensely sad that the leaders of the trade union movement and successive governments have failed to get to grips with the unsustainable cost of pension provision. Continued failure to address this issue will saddle future generations with a legacy of debt. While I would hope that reason may prevail and we will avoid this situation, unfortunately I'm not hopeful. David Davison is head of public sector, charity and not for profit practice at Spence and Partners