Talk:NASUWT

Untitled
Neutrality disputed - Re: Agreement, 'Raising Standards and Tackling Workload' The final paragraph attempts to document some of the controversy over the signing of the above agreement in 2003 which looked at teachers' workload. However, sources are not cited and it is arguably written from a pretty partisan perspective (possibly in favour of the NUT). It needs re-writing or deleting altogether - and perhaps a seperate wiki page created to document this agreement. --Steelson80 22:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The only TUC-affiliated union?
The second sentence stated that: "The NASUWT is the only TUC-affiliated teachers' union to represent teachers in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales." While this is factually correct (the NUT does not represent teachers in NI and Scotland), it can also be very misleading, suggesting that the NASUWT were the only CUT-affiliated teachers' union in England, the only one in Scotland, and the only one in Wales etc. The significant fact that the exclusivity implied relates only to NI and Scotland is not made clear. 86.179.8.189 (talk) 07:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree with the above comment but moreover the entry is also factually incorrect. The ATL have membership in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales and have been TUC affiliated since 1999 - see http://www.atl.org.uk/about/who-we-are.asp. Afgy (talk) 00:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

UWT
The section on the merger with the UWT is factually incorrect. It confuses the UWT that merged with the NAS with the previous National Union of Women Teachers. The latters origins began with in 1904 as the Equal Pay League, part of the National Union of Teachers, in 1906 this organisation was re-named the National Federation of Women Teachers. In 1920 it it broke away to form an independent union, the National Union of Women Teachers. Its main aim was to obtain equal pay. In 1961, when equal pay had been achieved, the Union wound up. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_union_of_women_teachers&action=edit

Stubbed
Due to concerns over accuracy and WP:OTRS Ticket#: 2007041710015772, I have removed all unsourced material from this article. Do not, I repeat, DO NOT add any material the does not conform with wikipedia's policies includeing (but not limited to) WP:ATT, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Last sentence
Saying that someone's comments "have caused outrage" (note the present tense) strikes me as highly emotive, the language of tabloid newspapers rather than an encyclopedia. We have a one sentence summary of what was said. We have a summary of the outcome of the comments (they "caused controversy"). Two sentences is more than enough weight to place on this extremely minor event in the Union's history. Please note also "lead" - a type of metal; "led" - the past tense of the verb "to lead". --Lo2u (T • C) 19:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)