Report comment

Are you hypocrites or just ignorant. To take teachers as an example: Heads (who have often aimed at the position from the start, as with other controlling positions) began to have more imperious powers after the Thatcher reforms and would use them against teachers who challenged their judgements. When a teacher was threatened with dismissal if they didn't back down, the normal route was to seek the assistance of their Union, and the Union's solicitor appointed to represent the claimant seemed (in the 30 years that these stories passed around the profession) normally to advise fighting for the highest settlement and agreeing to an NDA, which sometimes left them in tears at the injustice. Fighting and winning, in the sense of the Head being 'put down', and a much larger sum (with a non-committal reference provided) being awarded (who would actually want to continue under such a Head?), would depend on sympathetic colleagues agreeing to testify, to their own detriment (do you want that?), and would anyway probably result in the winner never getting another teaching job. So, now, are you guys still defending a basically dishonest NDA, which is clearly there to pressure the weaker party?