-
but the question remains: what do instructors want now?
Most just want to be paid fairly and have decent(ish) conditions to work in. It ultimately doesn't take much for most instructors to be happy. The situation with coronavirus is going to exasperate everything as a workforce that could easily have been furloughed is going to be decimated by months of hardship. Who knows who will be left after and which issues will be the most prevalent.
The question of employment status(and the protections it can afford) only really come up when someone has royally taken the piss. To different instructors this will mean different things but it's getting to the point enough are ticking enough boxes of ways training providers have taken the piss it's something the majority can see value in.
You are reading a single comment by @Clockwise and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
Clockwise
I'm familiar with the sad demise of CTUK, a severe blow to the overall diversity of the industry, (not to mention the individuals directly impacted by the closure). However, I didn't realise all CTUK staff were employed.
But getting back to your wondering if worker status could apply to cycle Instructors, the answer is, absolutely yes! Three years ago when some of us first met with IWGB, they were pretty adamant that worker status would apply to instructors. Not only that, they were pretty keen on going for it, through the courts. But there was a problem, about ⅔ of Instructors at that time wanted to be self-employed, or didn't want to take the likely hit to their hourly rate l, inevitable with worker status. The other ⅓ were a mixture in favour of worker/employed status. Ultimately, that's why we went down the association route rather than the union route. Academic because it came to nothing at that time.
Personally, I think a better balance of all three employment status would be best for Instructors and the industry, but the question remains: what do instructors want now?