Democracy as a 'one-way' interpretation

As I was watching the news tonight, at the bottom they were scrolling some of the other news of the day.  To my surprise, one of these were the following: KZN teachers will go on strike to demand the reimbursement of money deducted during 2010 strike (the heading might not be 100% correct, but it certainly represents the sentiment in total).

Well, lets give some history to this matter.  Firstly, all workers, including teachers, have a right to strike as a last resort, in order to 'force the hand of the employers' to come to some settlement on matters pertaining to their conditions of service.  This right is enshrined in the Constitution of this country, as well as in the Labour Relations Act.  So, teachers have the right to strike BUT, that same right goes with a responsibility that the employer has the right to withhold payment for the duration of the strike, since no service has been rendered.  This second part of this previous sentence gives or creates the balance between the right of the teachers (employees) and the right of the provincial departments of education (employers), since they are the 'pay masters' and not the national education department.

The pattern in South Africa is - teachers will go on strike, some negotiations will go on to end the strike, and when teachers are back at school the department will inform them of the necessary clause that gives them the right to deduct their pay for no service rendered during the striking days.  Teachers will get upset that they will loose money, and will threaten to go on strike again, if the provincial department dares to deduct their salaries.  Most of the provincial departments will be influenced by this threat, and will then find some LOGISTICAL reasons why it is impossible to process this deduction.  Those provincial departments who have some sort of control systems will go ahead with the deductions, and will then be blamed that the 'EMPLOYER', which will be in this case the National Education Department, for not implementing the regulations in a consistent way.  From a legal point of view, this is an absolute correct approach from teacher representatives.  They are not arguing that the deductions are unlawful, but rather will focus on the 'flawed process' on the side of the employer.

How long will we see this uneven implementation of the right to strike, and the right not to be paid when services were not rendered.  And remember - when we talk about the "non rendering of service", it is in real terms that our teachers are not teaching of students for that period.  So the ones who are suffering are the children, not the adults.  Therefore, if the balance is not restored, then the right to strike is not a SACRIFICE (taking up a principle position, no matter what the personal material/financial implication), but rather a tool to force the hand of the opposition at any given time.  The 'employer of teachers', whether it is the National Education Department, or the collective of the nine Provincial Education Departments, must get their act together in order to restore the balance of power, otherwise the 'Elephant in the room' will continue with its current action pattern.