Jump to content

Are you a member of a union?


Dmacca

Recommended Posts

Please don't mistake my comments as being in any way supportive of Unions.

I agree with the principle of them, just unfortunate that they are lead (from Shop Steward level upwards) by self serving egotistical ******** with more interest in **** stirring and making a name for themselves than they are with looking after it's individual members. When you have an personal issue they can't be found anywhere, when they see the opportunity to do some hell-raising then they're all over you like a bad rash and you can't get rid of them.

In my experience the reason that you get those type of people in the positions they are in is because no-one else steps up to the plate to do the work, a little like the situation I have been reading about regarding getting volunteers for odd jobs around the stadium, then those who would like things done differently complain about it when they have representation or (action/inaction) they do not agree with. I do realise that through this website you (CaleyD) are known for your activities within the club, just using this as an example of lethargy close to home which is inherant in society.

Most union ballots are very poorly turned out, the strikes back in June had a 30% turn out for the ballot but had high majority in favour of action, people need to use their votes if they feel strongly about something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the principle of them, just unfortunate that they are lead (from Shop Steward level upwards) by self serving egotistical ******** with more interest in **** stirring and making a name for themselves than they are with looking after it's individual members.

That's exactly how i feel about Supporters' Trusts.

  • Agree 1
  • Disagree 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the principle of them, just unfortunate that they are lead (from Shop Steward level upwards) by self serving egotistical ******** with more interest in **** stirring and making a name for themselves than they are with looking after it's individual members.

That's exactly how i feel about Supporters' Trusts.

:clapoverhead::twothumbsup::clapoverhead:

  • Agree 1
  • Disagree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please don't mistake my comments as being in any way supportive of Unions.

I agree with the principle of them, just unfortunate that they are lead (from Shop Steward level upwards) by self serving egotistical ******** with more interest in **** stirring and making a name for themselves than they are with looking after it's individual members. When you have an personal issue they can't be found anywhere, when they see the opportunity to do some hell-raising then they're all over you like a bad rash and you can't get rid of them.

In my experience the reason that you get those type of people in the positions they are in is because no-one else steps up to the plate to do the work, a little like the situation I have been reading about regarding getting volunteers for odd jobs around the stadium, then those who would like things done differently complain about it when they have representation or (action/inaction) they do not agree with. I do realise that through this website you (CaleyD) are known for your activities within the club, just using this as an example of lethargy close to home which is inherant in society.

Most union ballots are very poorly turned out, the strikes back in June had a 30% turn out for the ballot but had high majority in favour of action, people need to use their votes if they feel strongly about something.

Probably a lot of truth in that, and admittedly my own personal experiences with being left high and dry by a Union does little to endear me to them.

As I said, agree with the principle of Unions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the principle of them, just unfortunate that they are lead (from Shop Steward level upwards) by self serving egotistical ******** with more interest in **** stirring and making a name for themselves than they are with looking after it's individual members.

That's exactly how i feel about Supporters' Trusts.

I long ago gave up worrying about the opinions of those who do no more than sit at home and mouth off via a keyboard.

If my willingness to step up to the plate and do more than mouth off sets me apart from those people and brings me in for a bit of criticism...so be it, I would rather be criticised for doing something than criticised for doing nothing at all.

People are entitled to their opinion, but I rest easy knowing that the Supporters Trust are at least trying, instead of expecting everyone else to do the work for them.

  • Agree 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trust officials and members are not drawing a wage. Still a good comparison though. :)

Not that great a comparison.

A Supporters Trust is a community benefit organisation as opposed to a member benefit organisation. We have never, and will never turn away anyone who we are able to assist, regardless of whether they are a member or not. In fact, we've probably assisted more non-members with things over the course of the Trusts existence than we have members.

I would say that sets us miles apart from the self-serving nature of unions and other "Member Benefit" clubs and organisations such as Unions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In supporters trusts as with unions there will be those individuals whose motives are not purely selfless, be it the influence they can exert to achieve particular outcomes or purely to share their own opinions. Unions are a necessary evil as without them the gap between rich and poor would be far wider and there never would have been the collective funds to underwrite a political party. It is this which I personally grudge with union membership, a political levy now would just fund more of the same policies which has gotten this country to where it is now. Not good.

Please note this is not a slight on the ICT Supporters Trust but a general comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably a lot of truth in that, and admittedly my own personal experiences with being left high and dry by a Union does little to endear me to them.

That's a bit like saying "I am not endeared to Indian food because I got the runs from a Tikka Masala once." Unions are only as good as their elected representatives, any member can put their name forward to become a rep and force a ballot if the current rep does not come up to standard. I have seen many excellent reps in my time and many self serving egotists.

As for the supporters' trust thing I know many people who find our trust to be lacking in certain areas, frankly I believe they are doing okay fund raising and getting the community together are particular strengths but incidents like when they pushed the club, through the press, to take action over Brewster I thought was over stepping their remit. I may not agree with everything about them, but as said, they are doing okay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without a doubt such people exist and do find their way into organisations, institutions and even (especially?) religion, so it's not unique to Unions & Trusts and is weak argument for direct comparison.

I've already admitted that my view on Unions is heavily swayed by personal experience and it was probably a little unwise of me to make such a wide sweeping statement of Unions on that basis....you could say that I set myself up for the retort about Supporters Trusts. I live and learn.

I could spend all day defending the Supporters Trust movement and telling you what I think sets them apart from Unions etc, but I suspect one or two people would be more interested in picking holes in that discussion because of who they were having the discussion with, as opposed to giving fair appraisal of the organisation itself, so I'll maybe leave that for another time and allow this thread to return to the original point.

As Edmund Burke never once said...or wrote..."All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing". (I know, it's a lazy substitute for original thought, but if you can't beat them...join them!!!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are correct in that the thread is being dragged off topic but the comparison between STs and Unions is a good one.

Both are bodies elected to represent people in situations where they would not normally have a voice with respect to the organisations which they negotiate with.

Both unions and STs will never have 100% agreement amongst their membership over any issue which they represent.

Both Unions and STs representatives believe that their ideas are the best way forwards for the groups they represent and can become blinkered in those views, losing touch with the real reasons behind their existence.

There are differences though, a Union will hold meetings of all the membership regularly whereas most supporters trusts will only have an AGM open to people outwith the committee. Unions also post minutes of commitee meetings for the membership to have access to, trusts claim to be run for the whole support yet I do not see anywhere posted online or otherwise where I can view the minutes of commitee meetings. I also have an issue with having to have paid subscriptions for supporters trusts, if they are representing the fans then surely all fans should be members by default especially as supporters trusts usually have a very low membership to fan ratio.

I believe STs are a "necessary evil" as someone said about unions, sometimes their views can get in the way of progress but they have a lot to offer in other ways.

What is the procedure for forcing a ballot on ST commitee members? Eg if you were to feel that a commitee member was dragging the trust in the wrong direction, are the membership able to oust someone through democratic means?

IMO STs are more unbalanced than unions due to the fact that they are a minority group with a very very big voice and leverage, unions are more democratic and open with those they represent and ultimately more answerable to their peers.

I'll finish off by repeating, I realise that a lot of people work very hard for the trust but that can be said of unions too. You must get frustrated that some people look at the trust

with a great deal of mistrust and in another comparison with unions I feel the same way about people's mistrust of unions. Fans reap the benefit of the work STs do yet slate them when they disagree with their policies on other issues, especially those fans without membership of the trust. Workers will reap the benefits of a union, take the pay rises which reps have given up their time to negotiate (sometimes over months), enjoy a safer working environment because the union have a trained safety rep in place, take places on the training courses organised and provided for free, there are many many benefits to work unions have done which can be enjoyed by non-members and your membership will buy you even more.

STs are just unions for football fans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the principle of them, just unfortunate that they are lead (from Shop Steward level upwards) by self serving egotistical ******** with more interest in **** stirring and making a name for themselves than they are with looking after it's individual members.

That's exactly how i feel about Supporters' Trusts.

I long ago gave up worrying about the opinions of those who do no more than sit at home and mouth off via a keyboard.

If my willingness to step up to the plate and do more than mouth off sets me apart from those people and brings me in for a bit of criticism...so be it, I would rather be criticised for doing something than criticised for doing nothing at all.

People are entitled to their opinion, but I rest easy knowing that the Supporters Trust are at least trying, instead of expecting everyone else to do the work for them.

I wasn't really criticising - just couldn't resist the comparison in the face of your vitriolic attack on union leaders . I agree with every word of your response, but think that the points you make about union leaders probably apply to leaders of all sorts. It takes a certain type of personality to become a leader, and very often large egos with personal ambition tend to have the drive to take on those roles.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the principle of them, just unfortunate that they are lead (from Shop Steward level upwards) by self serving egotistical ******** with more interest in **** stirring and making a name for themselves than they are with looking after it's individual members.

That's exactly how i feel about Supporters' Trusts.

I long ago gave up worrying about the opinions of those who do no more than sit at home and mouth off via a keyboard.

If my willingness to step up to the plate and do more than mouth off sets me apart from those people and brings me in for a bit of criticism...so be it, I would rather be criticised for doing something than criticised for doing nothing at all.

People are entitled to their opinion, but I rest easy knowing that the Supporters Trust are at least trying, instead of expecting everyone else to do the work for them.

I wasn't really criticising - just couldn't resist the comparison in the face of your vitriolic attack on union leaders . I agree with every word of your response, but think that the points you make about union leaders probably apply to leaders of all sorts. It takes a certain type of personality to become a leader, and very often large egos with personal ambition tend to have the drive to take on those roles.

Green dot for managing to say in 4 lines what it took me half a page.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are correct in that the thread is being dragged off topic but the comparison between STs and Unions is a good one.

Both are bodies elected to represent people in situations where they would not normally have a voice with respect to the organisations which they negotiate with.

Both unions and STs will never have 100% agreement amongst their membership over any issue which they represent.

Both Unions and STs representatives believe that their ideas are the best way forwards for the groups they represent and can become blinkered in those views, losing touch with the real reasons behind their existence.

There are differences though, a Union will hold meetings of all the membership regularly whereas most supporters trusts will only have an AGM open to people outwith the committee. Unions also post minutes of commitee meetings for the membership to have access to, trusts claim to be run for the whole support yet I do not see anywhere posted online or otherwise where I can view the minutes of commitee meetings. I also have an issue with having to have paid subscriptions for supporters trusts, if they are representing the fans then surely all fans should be members by default especially as supporters trusts usually have a very low membership to fan ratio.

The Supporters Trust have a Board, not a committee. Trusts are organisations registered as Industrial and Provident Societies (falling under the legislative eye of the Financial Services Authority) and, as such, we have to follow many (and more) of the legislative practices laid down for any other company. The societies articles have very clearly defined roles/powers/responsibilities for the Board and the members sitting thereon. Not sure what, if any, controls are in place for the operation of Unions (as a group, not in terms of the rights they seek to enforce)...are they even registered companies?

Meetings for meetings sake don't make sense, so the Trust tend to only call meetings of the membership when necessary..or upon request of the members, as happened with the Brewster situation. The Trust have been criticised for their action on that occasion, but it should be noted that the Board were only carrying out the wishes of it's members....action which was in contrast to the views of some of the Board at that time.

Any member can request copies of the minutes of any meeting of the Trust Board whenever they like. Whilst I can't speak for the Board as a whole, I personally see no reason with issuing same to any fan who requested them, be they member or not.

If you'd ever been to a Supporters Trust AGM I've attended then you would know that you'll get no argument from me on the issue of membership fees. I have constantly campaigned for it to be free, but the proposal has always been rejected by the members at AGM. I was even accused of being tight fisted on one occasion and told that if I was not happy paying a membership then I should be given my money back and sent packing!!!

Member to fan ratios tend to come at one or other end of the spectrum. Those Trusts with large memberships are the ones where fans have only come to appreciate the work they do when real problems arise (the biggest one being administration). It would be great if we could get a large membership and work to avoid these kinds of situations in the first place...but it seems people's minds don't work like that!!!

I believe STs are a "necessary evil" as someone said about unions, sometimes their views can get in the way of progress but they have a lot to offer in other ways.

What is the procedure for forcing a ballot on ST commitee members? Eg if you were to feel that a commitee member was dragging the trust in the wrong direction, are the membership able to oust someone through democratic means?

Procedures are the same as they are for any other public company/organisation and the members can "oust" a Board member by democratic means. As a "One Member, One Vote" organisation it doesn't get any more democratic.

IMO STs are more unbalanced than unions due to the fact that they are a minority group with a very very big voice and leverage, unions are more democratic and open with those they represent and ultimately more answerable to their peers.

Trust are only as powerful as the membership makes them. For years fans complained about the old Members Club being a closed shop and why so few should carry so much weight. The Trust came in to being as a vehicle to move that voice to an organisation which was open to all. What more do people want? They complain about the "voice" not being representative, but they are willing to do nothing to become a part of it and make it more representative...and then knock the efforts of those who do.

I'll finish off by repeating, I realise that a lot of people work very hard for the trust but that can be said of unions too. You must get frustrated that some people look at the trust with a great deal of mistrust and in another comparison with unions I feel the same way about people's mistrust of unions. Fans reap the benefit of the work STs do yet slate them when they disagree with their policies on other issues, especially those fans without membership of the trust. Workers will reap the benefits of a union, take the pay rises which reps have given up their time to negotiate (sometimes over months), enjoy a safer working environment because the union have a trained safety rep in place, take places on the training courses organised and provided for free, there are many many benefits to work unions have done which can be enjoyed by non-members and your membership will buy you even more.

STs are just unions for football fans.

I used to get frustrated, but I tend more towards trying to educate people instead these days.

The Trust don't always get things right and I fully appreciate the views of some that there's more we should be doing. However, there's only so much that can be done when people are not willing to roll up their sleeves and get involved. In one statement they will slate us for not doing enough, and in the next question our authority to be doing anything!!!

Maybe I should be more accepting of the comparison with Unions...it might be a good "selling point". Union action may provide benefits for all, but that's a side effect of the organisations principles instead of it being their mandate. I think the fact that Supporters Trusts are mandated to operate for community benefit instead of member benefit is enough to set them aside from Unions. Happy to agree to disagree on how "alike" they are as it makes little/no difference one way or the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the principle of them, just unfortunate that they are lead (from Shop Steward level upwards) by self serving egotistical ******** with more interest in **** stirring and making a name for themselves than they are with looking after it's individual members.

That's exactly how i feel about Supporters' Trusts.

I long ago gave up worrying about the opinions of those who do no more than sit at home and mouth off via a keyboard.

If my willingness to step up to the plate and do more than mouth off sets me apart from those people and brings me in for a bit of criticism...so be it, I would rather be criticised for doing something than criticised for doing nothing at all.

People are entitled to their opinion, but I rest easy knowing that the Supporters Trust are at least trying, instead of expecting everyone else to do the work for them.

I wasn't really criticising - just couldn't resist the comparison in the face of your vitriolic attack on union leaders . I agree with every word of your response, but think that the points you make about union leaders probably apply to leaders of all sorts. It takes a certain type of personality to become a leader, and very often large egos with personal ambition tend to have the drive to take on those roles.

As I acknowledged above, an attack that was heavily fuelled by personal experience and the resultant red mist generated by the thought that my earlier factual comment on Unions was being misconstrued or twisted in to one that showed support for them.

Nothing wrong with a bit of ego and personal ambition, so long as it's not to the detriment of the cause/larger picture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good post, you have educated me a little on the trust's purpose. I am happy to think that my posts may have loosened your thoughts about the role of unions although I have to disagree with your thoughts that union benefits enjoyed by non members are a side effect of principles rather than a mandate, any union worth it's salt will have a mandate to do what is best for the workforce and to protect them from bearing the brunt of cut backs eg losing out on pension rights.

I will concede that there are differences between the two types of organisation but their principles are the same, to represent a group of people who would otherwise struggle to have their voices heard.

Would it be okay to PM you later with some questions about the trust which I cannot find answers to on the trust's website? It wont be immediately, things to do.I thionk we may have strayed a little too far from the thread's purpose now.

Edited by marks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also have a son in 6th year with a heavy year in front of him subject/exam wise so really hope the teachers dont strike anytime soon.

I also really, really hope this doesn't happen. It has been threatened a few times in recent years, but thankfully hasn't come to anything.

I am a member of a union and fully believe in the principle of unions, but I would hate to be put in a position where I had to decide whther or not to strike. I wouldn't want to be seen as a scab, but at the same time I would find it incredibly difficult to live with myself if any of my pupils' exam results suffered as a consequence of my being on strike.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also have a son in 6th year with a heavy year in front of him subject/exam wise so really hope the teachers dont strike anytime soon.

I also really, really hope this doesn't happen. It has been threatened a few times in recent years, but thankfully hasn't come to anything.

I am a member of a union and fully believe in the principle of unions, but I would hate to be put in a position where I had to decide whther or not to strike. I wouldn't want to be seen as a scab, but at the same time I would find it incredibly difficult to live with myself if any of my pupils' exam results suffered as a consequence of my being on strike.

You have a hard decision ahead of you, one which I do not envy. I believe that if strike action is justified then intellegent union members will have weighed up the pros and cons of any action and will make a decision based on sense, I trust teachers to be more sensible and better prepared to make those sort of choices with a cool head. I really don't know the ins and outs of why they are talking about balloting teachers, I assume it's pensions, but I do feel that if your collegues vote to strike and you are against it then you should trust them the most important thing is to make sure that as many people as possible let their feelings be known by voting, it's been touched upon before but lethergy is the reason that would influence a vote in the wrong direction.

If there is a strike then "scabs", I hate that term and all of it's associations, can find themselves in a horrible position and not just during and immediately after action, I can remember being in one job where I was told not to get too close to certain people because they crossed picket lines and this was years after the fact. I also remember working in a fabrication yard where apprentices cars were vandalised due to them going into work, totally out of order especially as apprentices should never be forced to strike they are protected by law and unions should also protect them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also have a son in 6th year with a heavy year in front of him subject/exam wise so really hope the teachers dont strike anytime soon.

I also really, really hope this doesn't happen. It has been threatened a few times in recent years, but thankfully hasn't come to anything.

I am a member of a union and fully believe in the principle of unions, but I would hate to be put in a position where I had to decide whther or not to strike. I wouldn't want to be seen as a scab, but at the same time I would find it incredibly difficult to live with myself if any of my pupils' exam results suffered as a consequence of my being on strike.

I think it is probably more than likely that some strike action will take place in schools but I would be surprised if it was at all extensive and even more surprised if it was extensive enough to mess up exam prospects.

To be honest, and I'm definitely not saying we will but I think you could have at least five days of strikes without affecting Higher or Advanced Higher results and ten without affecting the two year courses in third and fourth year. That's because if you have a number of days with no education for anyone it's not actually too difficult to speed up a little bit to compensate for the lost time.

In my view, a far bigger problem in terms of missed classes is already inflicted within schools themselves when pupils are taken out of classes in penny numbers for this "jolly" and that, to the extent that schools are shooting themselves in the foot. University visits are a particular pain in the bakcside. What happens here is that the education of those who are still in school has to go on and those who are out here and there come back and have stuff they have missed which often doesn't get caught up.

Having everybody off at once is far less damaging.

I know it's sometimes difficult for teachers to get a lot of sympathy given the hours which some are PERCEIVED to work but the situation at the moment is that it's been one thing after another with threats to salaries, pensions and MULTIPLE threats to conditions of service. COSLA in particular seem determined to undermine teachers' situations as much as they can. What I think may happen is that teachers will get more and more scunnered, will do less and less above what they have to and will become seriously demotivated.

That, in my view, is a far greater threat than any strikes.

Also in my view, one of the best ways of putting the wind up employers would be for teachers to take all possible action (within their contracts) to mess up the Curriculum for Excellence which I think is a bit of a joke anyway. The Powers that Be get seriously wound up, pupils don't lose out because the whole thing is pretty tacky anyway - a win - win situation!

But to return to the general question, this discussion simply wouldn't have happened in its present form before the 1980s since the default position was that so many people were in unions and indeed in many cases union membership was an absolute necessity because many workplaces were closed shops. Legislation has changed all that but that was legislation which was completely predictable given the way that many unions had behaved for decades before that.

Edited by Charles Bannerman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my view, a far bigger problem in terms of missed classes is already inflicted within schools themselves when pupils are taken out of classes in penny numbers for this "jolly" and that, to the extent that schools are shooting themselves in the foot. University visits are a particular pain in the bakcside. What happens here is that the education of those who are still in school has to go on and those who are out here and there come back and have stuff they have missed which often doesn't get caught up.

Having everybody off at once is far less damaging.

I agree with this: unfortunately, however, this is already such an issue at the school I work at that any more lost days would be a worry. As well as the University and field trips, we also have these residential spiritual retreats that the majority (but not all) of the kids go to every year. I appreciate that these are an important part of the school's life, but it does put additional pressure on teaching time: we've been back little more than a month and I've already lost six teaching periods with about 70% of my fourth year class. If strikes did occur, then my Advanced Higher kids are such a conscientious bunch that I'm pretty sure I could continue classes with them remotely via Moodle; but I'm not sure I could say the same about most of my fourth years, or even my Higher pupils, bright kids though they are

Also in my view, one of the best ways of putting the wind up employers would be for teachers to take all possible action (within their contracts) to mess up the Curriculum for Excellence which I think is a bit of a joke anyway. The Powers that Be get seriously wound up, pupils don't lose out because the whole thing is pretty tacky anyway - a win - win situation!

Absolutely. The amount of time and money that must have been put into packaging this and delivering CPD on it and so on, and it still just looks like a bunch of nebulous platitudes being pedalled as some great innovation, and pretty patronising to teachers who have long recognised the value of making lessons relevant to the pupils' experiences in society and in varying teaching approaches and getting the kids working together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

we've been back little more than a month and I've already lost six teaching periods with about 70% of my fourth year class.

a bunch of nebulous platitudes being pedalled as some great innovation, and pretty patronising to teachers who have long recognised the value of making lessons relevant to the pupils' experiences in society and in varying teaching approaches and getting the kids working together.

On the first part of the above quote, your place seems to be a lot worse than mine, which seems bad enough! On the second part, agreed totally but at least there is one thing of which we can be sure - the Curriculum for Excellence is simply another transient bandwagon like all its predecessors. So before long it too will be consigned to fester in that great bandwagon graveyard in the sky as the next set of shiny juggernauts forge their way along the educational super highway.

As Macbeth said of the Curriculum for Excellence in his Act V soliloquy: "out, out brief candle.....a poor player who struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot - full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." :biggrin:

However I am in danger of dragging this discussion on Trades Unions off topic so let me return to the original theme of Unions by stating that I am uncertain whether to vote "Yes" for strike action or to abstain in the forthcoming EIS vote because I will not be striking myself should the vote be in favour.

I have three reasons.

1) I am well within my pensionable period so going on strike would not only cost me pay like everyone else, I would also lose cash from my lump sum and my pension would be diminished, albeit slightly, for the rest of my life.

2) To a large extent the EIS would be closing the door after the horse had bolted if it goes for strikes. They have already sold out a whole raft of conditions of service to COSLA back in the spring when they recommended to members to accept the loss of a number of elements and wimped out of action following an inconclusive vote. Now the pension threat emerges and Professor McCormac has come calling and looking for more concessions on conditions.

3) The EIS owe me one from way back in 1987 when, along with many others, I was still manning the barricades and John Pollock suddenly made calling off the action a resignation issue because his chums in the Labour Party (back in the days when they were Socialists :laugh: ) told him to pull the troops out because they had delusions that Neil Kinnock had a chance of reaching Number 10 in the election of that year.

Edited by Charles Bannerman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alternative Maryhill using Moodle? Who'd have thunk it! I've not had a look on this thread for a while but found it interesting that this thread (inevitably) has turned to teachers. If, and it is a big if, teachers do strike, I won't be too surprised. Morale isn't too high among teschers at the moment and the relentless attacks by the meeja isn't really contructive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

You don't need to be in a Union till you need to be in a Union.

I was aquainted with a head teacher, who gave the names of her parents to the PTA -

Who circulated the parents about an all weather pitch

She was taken to court under the Data protection act -

She got off because she was represented by a barrister paid for by the teachers union.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. : Terms of Use : Guidelines : Privacy Policy