The Instigator
londontour2009
Pro (for)
Winning
16 Points
The Contender
RationalMadman
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points

Should teachers be able to strike?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
londontour2009
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/1/2012 Category: Education
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,533 times Debate No: 25940
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (5)

 

londontour2009

Pro

I believe teachers have every right to strike since strikes are necessary for compromise between teachers and their bosses.
RationalMadman

Con

I shall firstly define 'teachers' 'be able to' and 'strike'

Teachers: Those who professionally educate others on a subject of interest.
Be able to: Have legal permission to, without restriction.
Strike[1]: A refusal to work organized by a body of employees as a form of protest, typically in an attempt to gain a concession or concessions from their employer.

C1: If all teachers went on strike, there would be no learning done. Speaks for itself.

C2: If all teachers went on strike, they could literally force the employer to do anything possible. This is essentially gang-based blackmail.

C3: If no learning is done, future generation of that society shall be less educated and less capable at their job. This will be definitely stupid to allow

These three contentions are the reason why there have to be restrictions on teachers' ability to strike.

Sources:
[1] http://oxforddictionaries.com...
Debate Round No. 1
londontour2009

Pro

Now now, you said there would be no learning done. I have two objections to this claim. First, teachers cannot go a long time without payment. By striking, teachers are sacrificing their paycheck in order to show their objection to something. They can only strike as long as they can live without the money. Thus strikes are on constrained by time. My second objection to C1: all the time that is lost must be made up at the end of the year [1].

My objection to C2 is as follows: employers are not forced to do anything possible to get the teachers to start working again. They can just fire the teachers (if it has to get to that point) and get new replacements.

C3 objection - you said "If no learning is done, future generation of that society shall be less educated and less capable at their job." This is not true since there are no significant results from teacher strikes[2].

1 - http://www.washingtonpost.com...
2 - http://sersanea.org...'%20Strikes%20and%20Academic%20Performance%20Final%20.pdf
RationalMadman

Con

Your rebuttals are all wrong.

Your rebuttal to C1 states that teachers will eventually fail to influence employers as they will revert to old conditions out of desperation. My definition of strike is a refusal to work organized by a body of employees as a form of protest, typically in an attempt to gain a concession or concessions from their employer. If they are desperate and will give up, this renders the strike futile and thus proves that they can not, and thus are unable to (and hence 'should' not be able to) strike in a situation.

Your rebuttal to C2 is that employers are not force to do anything as they can get replacements. However, if all teachers went on strike, there would be no replacements so I do not see how your rebuttal is correct.

Your rebuttal to C3 is that is that teacher strikes have, in the past, had positive results... This does not rebut the point that if no learning is done, future generations of that society shall be less educated and less capable at their job.
Debate Round No. 2
londontour2009

Pro

C1 Rebuttal - as I said before, you teachers can only strike as long as they can live without the money. When teachers go on a strike, they do not get paid[1]. Thus, you have to ask yourself the question: how long can you live without pay? Strikes hurt both the teachers and the bosses. Thus learning is is not completely hurt due to the fact that the strikes will not be too long and also all the time lost will be made up at the end of the year as I already stated before.

Also, define "all teachers", please. All teachers in a school, region, state, etc.?

My rebuttal for C3 was not intended to show that teacher strikes have, in the past, had positive results. It was meant to show that there is evidence to show that strikes do not adversely affect students. There is not sufficient evidence to show that strikes negatively impact students. Also you said "no learning is done". There will definitely never be a time when there will be no learning at all. There will be substitute teachers who will carry through some learning, not as much as the full time teachers, but definitely some. Also, all of that time and learning lost will be made up at the end of the year.

1 - http://stand.org...
RationalMadman

Con

All Teachers: Every single teacher in society where law is applied

If they striked then it would be futile.
Debate Round No. 3
londontour2009

Pro

You have to realize that the situation you are writing about is extremely improbable. There are hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of teachers. For something of this gigantic scale to occur is simply not possible.
RationalMadman

Con

If striking was legalised it would occur. Legal restrictions must be in place to allow riot police to step in. PRotests are too much hassle for orderly societies.
Debate Round No. 4
londontour2009

Pro

In orderly societies, protests and peaceful strikes occur most of the time. The strike rarely breaks out into a riot. Most teacher strikes occur as a result of some conflict betwixt the teachers and their employers. Teachers leave their normal routine of working to strike against the wrong doings of their employers. Riots or violent protests are not only unnecessary on the teachers' part, but can also work in shifting the public's view on teachers. The public would definitely not want their kids to be taught by teachers involved in violent protests which makes the parent hesitant to submit their children under the oversight of teachers who are capable of violent acts (if a riot were to occur).

Thus, striking should be a right that teachers can and should possess. Without the right to strike, teachers would have no say in the decisions made by the "boys upstairs" and would be out of the loop on several issues that may end up potentially harming the teachers. Work demands the complete cooperation between the employers and their employees!
RationalMadman

Con

Nonetheless, striking without legal restriction causes chaos.

That is it.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by londontour2009 4 years ago
londontour2009
I am sorry, the nature of my opponents rebuttal's forced me to reply in a short concise way. Read my conclusive rebuttal, hopefully it met your needs :)
Posted by ishallannoyyo 4 years ago
ishallannoyyo
Started OK, went downhill from there...

Just look at the length of the rebuttals!
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Shifter 4 years ago
Shifter
londontour2009RationalMadmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: My parents are both teachers so biased perhaps, but as everyone stated that last insult was unnecessary, and I agree that it is unlikely to get a strike to the size Rational is predicting.
Vote Placed by famer 4 years ago
famer
londontour2009RationalMadmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Extremely weak arguments (not even sure if I'd consider them arguments) by CON at the end. Conduct because of his insult "Your rebuttals are all wrong".
Vote Placed by danjr10 4 years ago
danjr10
londontour2009RationalMadmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: con
Vote Placed by emospongebob527 4 years ago
emospongebob527
londontour2009RationalMadmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was very abusive, Claiming "Your rebuttals are all wrong" And for his last few rounds, he had one sentence arguments.............
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
londontour2009RationalMadmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither side had brilliant arguments, but I really find it unlikely that every single teacher ever would strike, which negates Con's biggest point. Conduct to Pro because Con said "Your rebuttals are all wrong.", which is gratuitously insulting.