The annual ASTI Easter strike threat

Do teachers unions just not care about public support?

Absolutely disgusting language from these unions, ".Demands that the Govt re-instates education staff as a priority group."

If they get bumped up the list , someone else gets bumped down. The question they need to answer is who they want to see wait so that some of their members in their 20's and 30's get a jab first. My Aunt in her 60's with all her problems? My brother in his 40's with diabetes?

meeeeh

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

So basically they want to be vaccinated in priority ahead older at risk people for their holidays? WTF?

No union reps are pretending they are fighting for the cause and actually doing something for their members who are paying them. Everyone knows it's a pointless motion unless something goes seriously wrong with vaccination.

**** em. Let them strike.

Does a “home school community liaison teacher” work in a packed classroom?

MrMusician18

For Forks Sake wrote: »

"Demands that"? Arrogance personifed. No consideration for what would benefit society as a whole.

https://twitter.com/newschambers/status/1379742099072024578?s=19

But teachers will, along with the rest of the population hopefully be vaccinated before September. Are they really going to strike after the issue is effectively resolved?

Looks like they've realised they've embarrassed themselves and greatly overestimated the amount of public support they have for their stance and will hope this will be quietly forgotten.

Locotastic

For Forks Sake wrote: »

"Demands that"? Arrogance personifed. No consideration for what would benefit society as a whole.

https://twitter.com/newschambers/status/1379742099072024578?s=19

Absolutely, like I said they can't see beyond the end of their nose. No consideration for the fact that an age based roll out benefits the entire country.

I sincerely hope that behaving like spoilt children doesn't result in them getting their way.

Let them strike and see how they get on, they're giving government until end of the school year, how nice that they are starting to backtrack now that they realise how little support they have.

lulublue22

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

**** em. Let them strike.

Does a “home school community liaison teacher” work in a packed classroom?

No but they do go into homes daily / weekly whether this is still happening due to covid I don’t know.

Finty Lemon

That's settled then. Teachers will be vaccinated over the summer based on age and be ready for the new school term in September.

Mrsmum

Is it not a case of what the Government have decided and what the teachers want will naturally merge over the summer anyway ?

KaneToad

B_ecke_r wrote: »

There's more deserving workers that need to be vaccined. What about all the retail workers ? Guards?

Teachers looking to go on holidays is it ?

What about retail workers that are not public facing? What about guards that never interact with the public?

There is a problem with doing it by 'interest groups'. Age is the best way forward.

Beasty

They really must be a totally clueless organisation. I would have thought this particular union would at least be able to put forward someone with a semblance of common sense, but apparently not.

A case of sod everyone else, we only care about ourselves. Totally selfish organisation. I know Unions represent their members, but to the exclusion of everyone else's interests?

I've had two kids who've educations have come to an abrupt end due to this pandemic. I lay no blame whatsoever at the feet of their teachers. It's a case of them being born at the wrong time. I will continue to help them further their lives, but I'm not going to call out the government, the teaching profession, the kids themselves, for any of this. They have simply been unlucky

ASTI though? Really? How can their officers hold their heads up. They should be totally ashamed of themselves

Bicyclette

Why should a 25 year old who will be off for three months of the summer take priority over my 62 year old husband who has a heart condition?

Any of the vulnerable teachers will be prioritised as part of the "reaction to need" approach anyhow.

We ALL deserve the vaccine. Lets get the most vulnerable vaccinated first.

I really hope that the government stay strong in this. I would hate to see them bow to the pressure from teachers unions, not least because my own union would then jump on the bandwagon!

Cluedo Monopoly

I am surprised all 3 unions voted for industrial action.
Surely there was internal agitation within their members to prevent this embarrassment? Was there internal resistance and were they simply ignored?

jamesbondings

Bicyclette wrote: »

Why should a 25 year old who will be off for three months of the summer take priority over my 62 year old husband who has a heart condition?

Any of the vulnerable teachers will be prioritised as part of the "reaction to need" approach anyhow.

We ALL deserve the vaccine. Lets get the most vulnerable vaccinated first.

They shouldn't. But not all teachers are 25. Not all teachers have 3 months holidays. I'm not a teacher (my partner is) we live with her high risk mother. Most of her colleagues live with their mothers and fathers all elderly. The teachers who have their own homes have their own kids some are high risk some are not.

Point is, the cocooning elderly dont interact directly with 30 or more children, who interact with their families everyday. The teachers and their families need to be protected. My partner is a special needs teacher where social distancing is impossible, as she is expecting and has underlying health conditions she cannot go back to work as it is too risky.

If I am totally honest about it, I'm actually shocked that more blame hasn't been laid at the foot of the government. The entire population should be vaccinated at this stage, yet here we are again discussing teachers.

I do agree we all deserve the vaccine, but I think (if we aren't closing schools) that ANYONE (including shop workers, essential tradesmen etc not just teachers BTW) who interacts with people as part of their essential job, should be first. Then the most vulnerable. Then the rest of us.

awec

jamesbondings wrote: »

They shouldn't. But not all teachers are 25. Not all teachers have 3 months holidays. I'm not a teacher (my partner is) we live with her high risk mother. Most of her colleagues live with their mothers and fathers all elderly. The teachers who have their own homes have their own kids some are high risk some are not.

Point is, the cocooning elderly dont interact directly with 30 or more children, who interact with their families everyday. The teachers and their families need to be protected. My partner is a special needs teacher where social distancing is impossible, as she is expecting and has underlying health conditions she cannot go back to work as it is too risky.

If I am totally honest about it, I'm actually shocked that more blame hasn't been laid at the foot of the government. The entire population should be vaccinated at this stage, yet here we are again discussing teachers.

I do agree we all deserve the vaccine, but I think (if we aren't closing schools) that ANYONE (including shop workers, essential tradesmen etc not just teachers BTW) who interacts with people as part of their essential job, should be first. Then the most vulnerable. Then the rest of us.

It would be a bit silly to vaccinate those at extremely low risk of complication and death over those who are at high risk of complication and death.

It has been shown that age is the most important factor in relation to how serious covid will be.

jamesbondings

jamesbondings wrote: »

They shouldn't. But not all teachers are 25. Not all teachers have 3 months holidays. I'm not a teacher (my partner is) we live with her high risk mother. Most of her colleagues live with their mothers and fathers all elderly. The teachers who have their own homes have their own kids some are high risk some are not.

Point is, the cocooning elderly dont interact directly with 30 or more children, who interact with their families everyday. The teachers and their families need to be protected. My partner is a special needs teacher where social distancing is impossible, as she is expecting and has underlying health conditions she cannot go back to work as it is too risky.

If I am totally honest about it, I'm actually shocked that more blame hasn't been laid at the foot of the government. The entire population should be vaccinated at this stage, yet here we are again discussing teachers.

I do agree we all deserve the vaccine, but I think (if we aren't closing schools) that ANYONE (including shop workers, essential tradesmen etc not just teachers BTW) who interacts with people as part of their essential job, should be first. Then the most vulnerable. Then the rest of us.

High risk people live with everyone.
High risk people should be vaccinated first.
Doesn't matter who teachers live with.

MrMusician18

Beasty wrote: »

They really must be a totally clueless organisation. I would have thought this particular union would at least be able to put forward someone with a semblance of common sense, but apparently not.

A case of sod everyone else, we only care about ourselves. Totally selfish organisation. I know Unions represent their members, but to the exclusion of everyone else's interests?

I've had two kids who've educations have come to an abrupt end due to this pandemic. I lay no blame whatsoever at the feet of their teachers. It's a case of them being born at the wrong time. I will continue to help them further their lives, but I'm not going to call out the government, the teaching profession, the kids themselves, for any of this. They have simply been unlucky

ASTI though? Really? How can their officers hold their heads up. They should be totally ashamed of themselves

This has always been the case, and the unions can be incredibly short sighted in pursuit of this. Remember, unions had the option of burden sharing the cuts during the financial crisis but they chose to end load the most severe cuts on future hires. Same unions are now whining about equal pay for NQTs.

I used to be opposed to LC reform as I thought the end of year exam was a good bookend to secondary school, a rite of passage and a worthwhile test under pressure. Abandoning the exam in favour of a different approach takes away the unions sword of Damocles that they always dangle over the exams every Easter. We might finally see real reform in education then.

jamesbondings

awec wrote: »

It would be a bit silly to vaccinate those at extremely low risk of complication and death over those who are at high risk of complication and death.

It has been shown that age is the most important factor in relation to how serious covid will be.

Yes it would. But who do they go home to? It's a bit narrow minded to see one person who is not at any risk yet not consider the wider implications of where they live and who they live with.

Lillyfae

jamesbondings wrote: »

They shouldn't. But not all teachers are 25. Not all teachers have 3 months holidays. I'm not a teacher (my partner is) we live with her high risk mother. Most of her colleagues live with their mothers and fathers all elderly. The teachers who have their own homes have their own kids some are high risk some are not.

Point is, the cocooning elderly dont interact directly with 30 or more children, who interact with their families everyday. The teachers and their families need to be protected. My partner is a special needs teacher where social distancing is impossible, as she is expecting and has underlying health conditions she cannot go back to work as it is too risky.

If I am totally honest about it, I'm actually shocked that more blame hasn't been laid at the foot of the government. The entire population should be vaccinated at this stage, yet here we are again discussing teachers.

I do agree we all deserve the vaccine, but I think (if we aren't closing schools) that ANYONE (including shop workers, essential tradesmen etc not just teachers BTW) who interacts with people as part of their essential job, should be first. Then the most vulnerable. Then the rest of us.

Her high risk mother is not being put at more risk by your partner who is not at work.

blanch152

jamesbondings wrote: »

They shouldn't. But not all teachers are 25. Not all teachers have 3 months holidays. I'm not a teacher (my partner is) we live with her high risk mother. Most of her colleagues live with their mothers and fathers all elderly. The teachers who have their own homes have their own kids some are high risk some are not.

Point is, the cocooning elderly dont interact directly with 30 or more children, who interact with their families everyday. The teachers and their families need to be protected. My partner is a special needs teacher where social distancing is impossible, as she is expecting and has underlying health conditions she cannot go back to work as it is too risky.

If I am totally honest about it, I'm actually shocked that more blame hasn't been laid at the foot of the government. The entire population should be vaccinated at this stage, yet here we are again discussing teachers.

I do agree we all deserve the vaccine, but I think (if we aren't closing schools) that ANYONE (including shop workers, essential tradesmen etc not just teachers BTW) who interacts with people as part of their essential job, should be first. Then the most vulnerable. Then the rest of us.

Ok, some teachers have 8 weeks holidays rather than three months.

jamesbondings

bubblypop wrote: »

High risk people live with everyone.
High risk people should be vaccinated first.
Doesn't matter who teachers live with.

Exactly. So it makes sense to minimise any risk by vaccinating those who could bring it into the house!

Being honest again, this should have been done months ago and this shouldn't even be an issue but it is. I'd be inclined to vaccinate those who can spread it, to stop the spread after that vaccinate those at risk.

blanch152

jamesbondings wrote: »

Yes it would. But who do they go home to? It's a bit narrow minded to see one person who is not at any risk yet not consider the wider implications of where they live and who they live with.

That is why we are vaccinating the people at risk.

The 25-year old teacher with a 52-year old mother with mild diabetes (and therefore not on the very high-risk list), will see her mother vaccinated first, thanks to the new policy, and that will result in the mother gaining freedom to stop cocooning.

Very selfish of the 25-year old teacher to be seeking vaccination ahead of her sick mother.

jamesbondings

Lillyfae wrote: »

Her high risk mother is not being put at more risk by your partner who is not at work.

Great point. She was though up up until my partner became pregnant . Was that your entire point?

MrMusician18

jamesbondings wrote: »

They shouldn't. But not all teachers are 25. Not all teachers have 3 months holidays. I'm not a teacher (my partner is) we live with her high risk mother. Most of her colleagues live with their mothers and fathers all elderly. The teachers who have their own homes have their own kids some are high risk some are not.

Point is, the cocooning elderly dont interact directly with 30 or more children, who interact with their families everyday. The teachers and their families need to be protected. My partner is a special needs teacher where social distancing is impossible, as she is expecting and has underlying health conditions she cannot go back to work as it is too risky.

If I am totally honest about it, I'm actually shocked that more blame hasn't been laid at the foot of the government. The entire population should be vaccinated at this stage, yet here we are again discussing teachers.

I do agree we all deserve the vaccine, but I think (if we aren't closing schools) that ANYONE (including shop workers, essential tradesmen etc not just teachers BTW) who interacts with people as part of their essential job, should be first. Then the most vulnerable. Then the rest of us.

How long are you willing to delay the rollout to take this risk of exposure based approach?

awec

jamesbondings wrote: »

Yes it would. But who do they go home to? It's a bit narrow minded to see one person who is not at any risk yet not consider the wider implications of where they live and who they live with.

It is infinitely more beneficial to vaccinate the vulnerable as it is then of no consequence whether or not they live with a teacher or an office worker or nobody.

Getting vulnerable people vaccinated as quickly as possible makes it a total non issue.

StupidLikeAFox

jamesbondings wrote: »

I do agree we all deserve the vaccine, but I think (if we aren't closing schools) that ANYONE (including shop workers, essential tradesmen etc not just teachers BTW) who interacts with people as part of their essential job, should be first. Then the most vulnerable. Then the rest of us.

In theory this is a great idea. In practice it would be a disaster. The organisation required to define the groups would be massive, and impossible to police correctly. Corner shops would triple their employment to jump the queue. Some 60 year old dies while 30 year old teachers are vaccinated - tabloids would unearth tons of stories like this, it would be chaos. And every additional measure added to mitigate would only slow down the actual rollout

So the question comes back to whether you want the entire population with a vaccine in their arm in 3 months, or everybody put into boxes and vaccinated over 6/7/8 months?

Lillyfae

jamesbondings wrote: »

Exactly. So it makes sense to minimise any risk by vaccinating those who could bring it into the house!

Your partner can't do that, because she's not at work.

jamesbondings wrote: »

Being honest again, this should have been done months ago and this shouldn't even be an issue but it is. I'd be inclined to vaccinate those who can spread it, to stop the spread after that vaccinate those at risk.

That's exactly what's happening right now. Your high risk mother in law and the people that are working with her will be vaccinated before anyone else.

blanch152

jamesbondings wrote: »

Exactly. So it makes sense to minimise any risk by vaccinating those who could bring it into the house!

Being honest again, this should have been done months ago and this shouldn't even be an issue but it is. I'd be inclined to vaccinate those who can spread it, to stop the spread after that vaccinate those at risk.

No, it doesn't. It makes sense to vaccinate those at risk of getting ill and dying.

You are also forgetting that it has not yet been established that being vaccinated prevents you from being a vector for the disease. So you could vaccinate all the teachers and they could still bring it home to the unvaccinated sick people they jumped ahead of in the queue.

jamesbondings

jamesbondings wrote: »

Exactly. So it makes sense to minimise any risk by vaccinating those who could bring it into the house!

Being honest again, this should have been done months ago and this shouldn't even be an issue but it is. I'd be inclined to vaccinate those who can spread it, to stop the spread after that vaccinate those at risk.

No, it makes sense to vaccinate high risk people?
Obvs