Unions using members' money wisely, to a good end?
Discussion
The NUT charges a political levy as part of the subscription. Not very well advertised and one a member would have to know about and write to them to opt out of. Now we hear that the teachers' union(s) at their Annual Conference have just organised and held a 'Vote of No Confidence' in Education Secretary Michael Gove.
This will no doubt have taken a good deal of time and organisation both before and during the event - time that could have been spent on more useful issues and time that would have cost. From the subscriptions of members who pay to have their employment and conditions represented, safeguarded etc.
Given the number of permanent and semi-permanent paid members of the Union heirarchy, their salaries and expenses, the venue costs, printing costs, etc. etc. what is the purpose and justification for such a vote? Other than for political capital/bandwagon thumping and the kudos and aggrandisement of the officials organising it?
The vote will have no real outcome and so no real purpose. Gove and the government will be utterly unaffected by it and see it as left wing union leaders engaging in business as usual, it won't affect any policies or changes they have or are set to introduce so, to me it looks like union bosses playing political games for personal gain at the financial cost of their members and the abrogation of their duty to actually do something for their members. Again.
Or don't I understand the purpose of a union any more?
This will no doubt have taken a good deal of time and organisation both before and during the event - time that could have been spent on more useful issues and time that would have cost. From the subscriptions of members who pay to have their employment and conditions represented, safeguarded etc.
Given the number of permanent and semi-permanent paid members of the Union heirarchy, their salaries and expenses, the venue costs, printing costs, etc. etc. what is the purpose and justification for such a vote? Other than for political capital/bandwagon thumping and the kudos and aggrandisement of the officials organising it?
The vote will have no real outcome and so no real purpose. Gove and the government will be utterly unaffected by it and see it as left wing union leaders engaging in business as usual, it won't affect any policies or changes they have or are set to introduce so, to me it looks like union bosses playing political games for personal gain at the financial cost of their members and the abrogation of their duty to actually do something for their members. Again.
Or don't I understand the purpose of a union any more?
Not sure what your gripe is. Of course the NUT is a political animal. Of course it isn't going to be supportive of a Conservative minister in a time of cuts and austerity.
Viewed from within teaching, the union's duty is to lobby for the protection of teachers, to the exclusion of all else.
They might be a monster, but they're the monster the teachers made them to be. It isn't the NUT's job to be balanced, considered and reasonable. It's an attack dog.
Viewed from within teaching, the union's duty is to lobby for the protection of teachers, to the exclusion of all else.
They might be a monster, but they're the monster the teachers made them to be. It isn't the NUT's job to be balanced, considered and reasonable. It's an attack dog.
SpeckledJim said:
Not sure what your gripe is. Of course the NUT is a political animal. Of course it isn't going to be supportive of a Conservative minister in a time of cuts and austerity.
Viewed from within teaching, the union's duty is to lobby for the protection of teachers, to the exclusion of all else.
They might be a monster, but they're the monster the teachers made them to be. It isn't the NUT's job to be balanced, considered and reasonable. It's an attack dog.
My gripe is that the ones in charge of organising conferences, votes etc are wasting their members' money by spending time and funds on an utterly pointless bit of ineffectual public posturing. Probably to make them look good, on the side of the profession etc.Viewed from within teaching, the union's duty is to lobby for the protection of teachers, to the exclusion of all else.
They might be a monster, but they're the monster the teachers made them to be. It isn't the NUT's job to be balanced, considered and reasonable. It's an attack dog.
A Vote of No Confidence in someone who you don't employ and who will care not one jot is not protecting the members as you note should be the duty of the union.
If you think it does please tell how...
SpeckledJim said:
Not sure what your gripe is. Of course the NUT is a political animal. Of course it isn't going to be supportive of a Conservative minister in a time of cuts and austerity.
Viewed from within teaching, the union's duty is to lobby for the protection of teachers, to the exclusion of all else.
They might be a monster, but they're the monster the teachers made them to be. It isn't the NUT's job to be balanced, considered and reasonable. It's an attack dog.
BTW - what "cuts and austerity" are schools/teachers facing?Viewed from within teaching, the union's duty is to lobby for the protection of teachers, to the exclusion of all else.
They might be a monster, but they're the monster the teachers made them to be. It isn't the NUT's job to be balanced, considered and reasonable. It's an attack dog.
Maybe the fee paying union members don't particularly see a conference vote of no-confidence as being a waste of money. Perhaps moreso relative to how union funds could otherwise be spent at conference. I hope you'll be aware this vote won't be the only event at conference on that day and the additonal cost or opportunity cost of holding that vote is likely to be marginal.
Even so, do you really care? Really? I'm guessing you're not a fan of the NUT or maybe even all (left leaning politically active) unions generally? You're not alone in these fora, of course. Honestly, though, does it matter?
Even so, do you really care? Really? I'm guessing you're not a fan of the NUT or maybe even all (left leaning politically active) unions generally? You're not alone in these fora, of course. Honestly, though, does it matter?
scenario8 said:
Maybe the fee paying union members don't particularly see a conference vote of no-confidence as being a waste of money. Perhaps moreso relative to how union funds could otherwise be spent at conference. I hope you'll be aware this vote won't be the only event at conference on that day and the additonal cost or opportunity cost of holding that vote is likely to be marginal.
Even so, do you really care? Really? I'm guessing you're not a fan of the NUT or maybe even all (left leaning politically active) unions generally? You're not alone in these fora, of course. Honestly, though, does it matter?
Of course I do. But this one cost money and time that should be used to pay for representing members' interests. That's the point. Even so, do you really care? Really? I'm guessing you're not a fan of the NUT or maybe even all (left leaning politically active) unions generally? You're not alone in these fora, of course. Honestly, though, does it matter?
So, unless you can convince me that it does help them I think that yes, it does matter. This vote won't represent their interests in any meaningful way - as it will be totally ignored/is meaningless - other than as a public expression of anger and a sound bite version of weeping on sleeves; ineffectual catharsis.
Oh, and btw, I am a member of the NUT having retained membership since I was a teacher two decades ago! So it's my money they are pissing away too...
scenario8 said:
I sincerely hope the entirety of your grumble hasn't been directed at this website then. I can't help feeling your energies spent here could have been better spent complaining in alternative ways.
No it hasn't.As some on here know, I don't restrict my moans or curiosities to PH but do take things that I'm concerned with up with the relevant people. Usually to be patronised and pushed off. But given this is the '...Politics...' bit of the forum I feel that I have some scope for posting about such like on here, as you do on any of your pet peeves.
AnonSpoilSport said:
SpeckledJim said:
Not sure what your gripe is. Of course the NUT is a political animal. Of course it isn't going to be supportive of a Conservative minister in a time of cuts and austerity.
Viewed from within teaching, the union's duty is to lobby for the protection of teachers, to the exclusion of all else.
They might be a monster, but they're the monster the teachers made them to be. It isn't the NUT's job to be balanced, considered and reasonable. It's an attack dog.
My gripe is that the ones in charge of organising conferences, votes etc are wasting their members' money by spending time and funds on an utterly pointless bit of ineffectual public posturing. Probably to make them look good, on the side of the profession etc.Viewed from within teaching, the union's duty is to lobby for the protection of teachers, to the exclusion of all else.
They might be a monster, but they're the monster the teachers made them to be. It isn't the NUT's job to be balanced, considered and reasonable. It's an attack dog.
A Vote of No Confidence in someone who you don't employ and who will care not one jot is not protecting the members as you note should be the duty of the union.
If you think it does please tell how...
AnonSpoilSport said:
BTW - what "cuts and austerity" are schools/teachers facing?
I've absolutely no idea - but if you were the Head of the NUT, don't you think letting Gove know that you're ready to go for his throat if he comes after your members' interests would be a good idea? In fact, isn't that precisely the Head of the NUT's job at the moment?Countdown said:
Plus you can opt out of the political levy.
Apart from "ooooh aren't those lefties Unionistas terrible?" I'm not sure what the purpose of the post is.
FYI - I did opt out of the levy. I retained a membership to do precisely as scenario8 suggested, and be in a position to have some say; some access to the NUT and it's nuttier stewards and to be able to make my voice heard. Apart from "ooooh aren't those lefties Unionistas terrible?" I'm not sure what the purpose of the post is.
Oh, the purpose of your post is?
Edited by AnonSpoilSport on Tuesday 2nd April 21:24
SpeckledJim said:
AnonSpoilSport said:
SpeckledJim said:
Not sure what your gripe is. Of course the NUT is a political animal. Of course it isn't going to be supportive of a Conservative minister in a time of cuts and austerity.
Viewed from within teaching, the union's duty is to lobby for the protection of teachers, to the exclusion of all else.
They might be a monster, but they're the monster the teachers made them to be. It isn't the NUT's job to be balanced, considered and reasonable. It's an attack dog.
My gripe is that the ones in charge of organising conferences, votes etc are wasting their members' money by spending time and funds on an utterly pointless bit of ineffectual public posturing. Probably to make them look good, on the side of the profession etc.Viewed from within teaching, the union's duty is to lobby for the protection of teachers, to the exclusion of all else.
They might be a monster, but they're the monster the teachers made them to be. It isn't the NUT's job to be balanced, considered and reasonable. It's an attack dog.
A Vote of No Confidence in someone who you don't employ and who will care not one jot is not protecting the members as you note should be the duty of the union.
If you think it does please tell how...
AnonSpoilSport said:
BTW - what "cuts and austerity" are schools/teachers facing?
I've absolutely no idea No, you don't. Because it isn't the case. Many schools have never had so much direct funding. Money that some I know seem keen to throw away on unnecessary 'lazy man's crutch' schemes and extortionate 'training' by the suppliers - but if you were the Head of the NUT, don't you think letting Gove know that you're ready to go for his throat if he comes after your members' interests would be a good idea? In fact, isn't that precisely the Head of the NUT's job at the moment? Would this be the Union leaders who are demanding a maximum of 4 hours direct teaching a week? http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2013/apr/02/li... . Twenty hours direct work a week. I wonder how many on here, or elsewhere, would think that just a tad cushy? And expensive.AnonSpoilSport said:
It was predictable that the local PH lefties (coincidentally starting with 'c' as does...) would turn up to defend their idols.
AnonSpoilSport said:
I was awaiting your arrival much earlier, this afternoon.
Sorry I'm late. I was at a ...err conference. AnonSpoilSport said:
FYI - I did opt out of the levy. I retained a membership to do precisely as scenario8 suggested, and be in a position to have some say; some access to the NUT and it's nuttier stewards and to be able to make my voice heard.
You retained membership of an organisation which represents Teachers.Yet, if I understand you correctly you aren't a teacher and haven't been a teacher for 20 years. But for some reason you need to retain access to a "nutty" organisation and its "nuttier" stewards.Mad as a box of frogs.
AnonSpoilSport said:
Oh, the purpose of your post is?
I was trying to figure out why you're complaining. You don't pay the political levy. So why are you bothered about what political stuff the NUT do?Because I care about education. Care about the impact it has on our society and economy. Care not to see it hamstrung and dragged backwards by the self interested unionists and the all too common entitlement brigade in schools, the moaners who think they have it too hard and that they deserve an easier ride than most other professions. Care about the future of children and want to see them helped (better) to achieve their potential - for their sake and ours.
I've been a governor in two schools, contributed to Local Authority and Department processes and resources, and will continue to do work in/for schools and students on a voluntary basis when I retire. What do you do? How much do you care?
I've been a governor in two schools, contributed to Local Authority and Department processes and resources, and will continue to do work in/for schools and students on a voluntary basis when I retire. What do you do? How much do you care?
Countdown said:
AnonSpoilSport said:
It was predictable that the local PH lefties (coincidentally starting with 'c' as does...) would turn up to defend their idols.
AnonSpoilSport said:
I was awaiting your arrival much earlier, this afternoon.
Sorry I'm late. I was at a ...err conference. AnonSpoilSport said:
Because I care about education. Care about the impact it has on our society and economy. Care not to see it hamstrung and dragged backwards by the self interested unionists and the all too common entitlement brigade in schools, the moaners who think they have it too hard and that they deserve an easier ride than most other professions. Care about the future of children and want to see them helped (better) to achieve their potential - for their sake and ours.
I've been a governor in two schools, contributed to Local Authority and Department processes and resources, and will continue to do work in/for schools and students on a voluntary basis when I retire. What do you do? How much do you care?
So why financially support an organisation which puts the interests of its members ahead of everything else? Surely that is counterproductive? Or, to look at it another way, what possible benefit does "access" to NUT shop stewards provide that can't be found elsewhere ?I've been a governor in two schools, contributed to Local Authority and Department processes and resources, and will continue to do work in/for schools and students on a voluntary basis when I retire. What do you do? How much do you care?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff