samvines: I came upon the "Contact the EIS" email, so I sent them a message telling them about my colleagues in supply who lost their houses because of their wage cut, and teachers in their forties having to live in digs or with old parents who weren't expecting this outcome 20 years after their darlings left home. The idea that this was to protect full-time posts is rubbish. Mr Russell's department has told me that the number of posts lost is in the thousands. So why should supply teachers still be asked to work for half-wages?
CanuckGrrl: Simple. That's what the EIS membership wanted.
airy: I don't think it was an active desire - many were just too slow, too lazy, too uncaring or stupid to think about what was happening and use their votes.
socrates82: It still is a disgrace that a union allowed its most vulnerable members to suffer an unprecedented 47 per cent wage cut.
CanuckGrrl: The simple maths was that more members chose to screw their supply colleagues than support them.
socrates82: It's never too late to right a wrong. The more supply staff who refuse to work for the derisory rate, the more likely that pressure will build. The EIS needs to play its part, though.
CanuckGrrl: This could work if supply staff had any power, which they don't. Many supply staff simply can't afford to turn down work at any price.
socrates82: It should be remembered that all teachers are perhaps only a health issue or a family circumstance away from being a supply teacher.