Amazon.com Widgets
  • I think so.

    Now is not the time to be cracking down on teachers "for the sake of the children." They are already underpaid, underappreciated, and overworked. I do not like the idea of our children missing their lessons, but I don't believe restricting their educators' rights is the best solution. However, if finals are approaching, then I think they too should be considerate.

  • Students Never listen to the teacher

    Students believe they dont have to listen to the teacher because they think they are invincible to everything but they should just be struck in the head they said anything stupid because what dont realize is that what they say is both ignorant and offensive to other people who are there to learn and not be annoyed by outbursts from people who clearly dont know anything at all.

  • Fjuoirwu4ioerhouwaerh0;waepirjfiawi deiudqwe wiqdq

    E e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e ee e e e e e e ee e e e ee e ee e ee ee ee ee e e e ee e e e e e ee e e e

  • Absolutelu yes yes

    My dick is already hard enough, dont need kids to be on it. Let Us Hit!! Let us hit!!! LeT Us Hit!!!!!!! We need to be allowe to hit just like we need to not have a minimun requirement of words bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch. Sincerely Mr Hardon

  • Of Course They Should

    Teachers are the ones who build up our society. We owe them everything! They are the ones teaching our children, and they deserve the right to stand up together and strike. Strikes aren't about stealing valuable time from the students. Most of the time teachers strike for better pay and working conditions. We already value plumbers more than teachers. We pay teachers so little for educating our youth. The least we could do is allow them their constitutional right to speak up when they are being treated unfair.

  • This is a matter of opinion

    Teachers help us learn and provide resources to learn from but they are not payed as much as they should. They pay for resources with their own money when their income may not even cover half. Therefore, they don't earn any money and lose it in the end. This is why they should be allowed to strike. Seriously though, in the end, it's just someone's opinion.

  • Yes and No.

    So I voted yes because in our constitution, we have a freedom of speech, making strikes fall under that. So in that sense, yes, teachers should be ALLOWED to strike. However, a teacher should also e reminded of the fact that they chose this career themselves. No one forced them to become a teacher. And they chose this career knowing full on what the salaries are, the pros and cons of this job. Yet with all that in mind, they still went through with it and took the job. Isn't it just plain rediculous to be complaining and whining like a child because you are too ignorant and blind to accept what is fairly given? Also, at a moral basis, teachers striking effects not only the union, the economy, the government, but most importantly, people somehow tend to not be as concerned, the children. Now I don't know why this isn't enough to make someone double think before starting such "negotiations" and strikes because a teacher's job is perhaps the most important career out there. It is a building block for a child's growth, and prepares them for life, the most fundamental factor of any human being. Teachers are there to guide them, teach, love the children. If kids are seeing their teachers out there picketing and not in classrooms doing their job, it projects as an act of betrayal, immortality, and makes a child feel confused to all that has been taught to them. Even by just looking at this reason, how can a teacher still morally be able to strike even they they should be allowed to? As a student going into the 12th grade but unable to because if the strike, there is an indescribable pain of hurt and betrayal, and anger towards all this. What makes it worse is how our voice is not valued in the whole dispute. Whether it is because we are minors or what I don't know, but if only they hear and actually think about how WE feel towards all this, I'm sure it'd mean so much.

  • You know what?

    Screw this, I'm getting sick and tired of this debate going on longer than it should. They should've settled it with one, if not two court meetings and this should all be over. It could seriously affect the children and education. Cutting of school early and kids lose even more knowledge over the prolonged summer. It's like Asian parents debating who should pay but with people debating that the other pays up. It keeps going on and on.

    Here's what I think: They should just give the money they're proposing to the parents for the teachers. Problem solved. Teachers get their money, kids get education. Everyone=happy. Besides, they did mention having left over money from not paying the teachers. Just take that leftover money, add it to teachers' usual pay rates and problem solved. Or if not could they please just come to an agreement?

  • The right to a teaching

    Teachers are striking for many reasons including the working conditions and to fight back against the planned longer hours for the same pay. Teachers have the right to strike and this is a form of protest and there should not be any enforcement to stop this. Unless you are fine with what is going on you don't need to strike, but the strike is what is better for them.

  • Teachers should be allowed to strike

    Having been a former teacher myself, I am strongly in favor of unionized teachers, and consequently, the ability of them to strike. Far too often teachers are unnecessarily held hostage by parents, administrators, and students, putting them in a professional straitjacket that impedes their ability to teach. Therefore, there must be some type of process that allows them to redress their grievances, and forming a union with the option to strike is in my opinion one of them.

  • They should not be able to strike.

    They basically signed up for teaching and they chose their career and if they didn't want to teach they shouldn't have signed their contract.
    And I hope teachers read their contract before agreeing to it, and if they did not agree with the contract then they shouldn't have signed it.

  • Who is standing for our kids?

    Why is the essential right to education for our kids not protected? Why Ontario teachers, who are public servants, use our kids to negotiate their own benefits? The right to education has to be protected on the constitutional, federal level and never be allowed to be a subject to any negotiations.

  • They are an essential service.

    If teachers hope for support from the public, they are doing a terrible job by holding children's education hostage to get it. When I was in school I could look to teachers as a positive influence, and never heard of a strike. Now it's almost as predictable as the season spring itself.

  • They are an essential service.

    Anyone who wants my compassion to support their needs should in turn support the needs of those they serve. Holding the education of children hostage is a low blow. They should become an essential service as hospital, police, fire department and so forth are. It was never this bad twenty years ago, it's become a forced pay raise year after year.

  • Teachers and their union need a reality check

    -look at the rest of the world or the majority of the workforce who make less and now have to shell out more money to care for our kids.
    -stop the blame game and how teachers don't make that good of salary for the hours they work. This is life.
    -Teachers who have kids and now waiting tables are getting the reality check. They are the ones that are now realizing "hey I actually have it really good"

  • No. Strikes do more damage than good.

    Each teacher strike brings the U.K to a grinding halt for a day. The economic impacts of this cannot be overstated and also the educational impacts, if teachers want more from the governments pot of money how does emptying the pot assist? Secondly the power of such unions can be regarded as monopoly power, this whilst usually thought to be damaging to the economy, is in this instance deemed perfectly acceptable, but why? Thirdly the common argument that 'we all have the right to strike' is a blatant lie. The police force, is completely banned from such actions because they 'it is required by society' and the military also has massive restrictions, therefore some have been denied this right so it is not a basic right. Lastly, the recession has hit all of us, there's no point denying it, all of us want better pay, pensions etc but we do not have the power to get this (unless we happen to be the leader of the national teachers union and grant ourselves a 10% pay rise), yet the teachers complain the most, so let's take this together, not attack the U.K to achieve a rise, how can that possible be considered fair?

  • No they shouldn't

    The unions are disrupting people's lives and innocent children's education, which they themselves have admitted is partly their goal to get people's attention. It is unfair that a bunch of malcontents can force their opinions on the rest of us by threatening to strike if we don't give them what they want. Furthermore I fail to see what their actual goal is here, other than to let everyone know they're still stamping their feet in the background while the rest of us are actually trying to get some work done. You knew when you took the job the salaries weren't going to be huge, but you would get a longer holiday than anyone else in working life, and you know that given the recent climate the country cannot afford to provide the same pensions that it could 30 years ago. We've all felt the pinch, get over it.

  • Read the fine print.

    Teachers ought to read the fine print when it comes to benefits and wages. I have been a public servant for 20 years and have always known what my job responsibilities and benefits would be when I got a new job. Teaching is still a respected profession, but the unions give teachers a bad name. The unions are the problem, not the teachers. Unions protect those who are less than stellar performers simply because they pay a monthly fee to the union. Many teachers go on strike simply because the union majority says to. A union looks at a 51% vote to strike as a 100% vote to strike. This is not fair to the 49% who are unsure, undecided, or satisfied with current working conditions. It is unfair to the rest of the teachers to strike.

  • PATCO STRIKE 1980s

    Air Traffic Controllers work for the people. Their job is so critical to the nation that the option to strike is illegal. When they went on strike they were given one warning to return to work. They didn't, and they were fired. If education is a right, then those who work for schools do not have the ability to deny us that right.

  • No public servants should be allowed to strike

    Teachers can hold hostage an essential government service, the schools, for more pay than their value suggests by striking. It's different when private sector workers strike for pay. The market dictates what the revenue of a company's products are, and what its workers should be paid. It polices itself to a fair wage. Public sector workers have a monopoly. And they have a bottomless stream of taxpayer money they can siphon from until a community bankrupts itself, as many are now seeing.

    Also, only public sector employees like teachers have a say and can vote in their bosses. No other workforce can or should be able to dictate who their bosses are. It leads to abuse and corruption as we've all seen when a union of public sector workers can manipulate and donate huge sums of money to a candidate to get them elected and do their bidding.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.