Now that the dust has settled on one side of the recent teachers’ pay dispute, the mysterious business guru known only as the Fool says it is interesting to survey "the crater strewn landscape that exists after the union achieved what they have termed a ‘nil-nil draw’ with the States Employment Board.|"
"The National Education Union has acknowledged that there have been ‘no real winners’ from the dispute, however that might be a little disingenuous, given that their main representative has been quoted as boasting that it has proved the NEU are ‘not to be messed with’.
That’s Mourinho-level triumphalism for a no score draw isn’t it? Unbelievable Geoff.
But what of the fallout for the other players involved? Who else is sick as parrots at having born the cost of the NEU proving their tough-guy credentials?
Despite the union having acknowledged that they have paid teachers’ salaries during the strike (of which more later), a much larger financial cost has been born by parents, their employers, and their customers.
Pictured: "Business were disrupted as parents took leave to look after their little darlings."
Business were disrupted as parents took leave (either paid or unpaid) to look after their little darlings when they were cast into uncaring dark streets, not to mention that taxpayers are also now on the hook for the higher wage deals which have been negotiated.
Parents with children at fee-paying schools have also suffered the ignominy, in addition to their income tax funding a supposed education, of paying more for lessons their children haven’t received.
Whilst that will no doubt tick an extra box in the twisted class bating union manual, let’s hope, for taxpayers’ sake, that there are no children at these schools with parents who are lawyers who might fancy a legal tussle over their fees with the States.
Pictured: Students will have also born a cost during the strikes the Fool says.
Students, many of whom have had the run up to examinations disrupted, will have also born a cost, and we should all hope that none have failed essential GCSE’s, or had their university entries compromised by poor A Levels results, because of the teachers’ actions.
As a parent, I’m sure I would look past the teachers’ actions and blame myself, or little Johnny, if he hadn’t achieved the expected results. For. Ever.
And what of the teaching profession? Whilst they might have achieved a small percentage increase in their (as it turns out, already generous) wages, it is they who may have paid the highest price, in terms of reputation, from the dispute, given their willingness to jeopardise their students futures in pursuit of money. (The very same reason for which parents were previously scolded for daring to take their children out of school a few days early to save money on holiday travel?)
Pictured: Teachers must now face parents for years to come and explain how their children's interests are paramount.
It is these same teachers, rather than their union officials, who must now face parents for years to come, and explain how their children’s interests are paramount, when their actions during the dispute have demonstrated they are patently not.
If anything positive has come out of the dispute however, it has once again served to expose the ultimate purpose of a Public Sector union, which, when it comes to wage bargaining, is to inconvenience the public sufficient to secure the highest amount of money for the least possible number of hours worked by their members.
Whilst their ‘not to be messed with’ boast is merely cheap triumphalism, one other idiotic comment by their union representative should send a shiver through the hearts of their members, as it could ultimately sound the death knell for these types of organisation.
Pictured: "Apparently, the dispute has cost the union £400,000," says the Fool.
Apparently, the dispute has cost the union £400,000, most of which went towards paying teachers’ (and presumably union officials) salaries.
Given that unions are largely financed by the subscriptions of their members, is there any greater demonstration of the unions’ willingness to manipulate their members than to pretend that GIVING THEM THEIR OWN MONEY BACK, and pretending it is replacement wages, is some sort of compassionate action?
Not only has the union continued to sow the seeds of its own demise through once again seriously inconveniencing the public, they have also, albeit inadvertently, shown their members that they are willing to use them for their own political ends, and then allow them to suffer the consequences.
There’s a lesson in there somewhere."
Comments on this story express the views of the commentator only, not Bailiwick Publishing. We are unable to guarantee the accuracy of any of those comments.
Once your comment has been submitted, it won’t appear immediately. There is no need to submit it more than once. Comments are published at the discretion of Bailiwick Publishing, and will include your username.
There are no comments for this article.