Striking before the iron is hot?

Surveys suggest 49% of people were opposed to the strikes today. That's a figure which will only get higher the more people find themselves put out by a strike - and few strikes impact on the public more than teacher strikes.

Before going on strike, the trade unions involved need to had explained to the public why they are on strike and try and make people understand the issues at stake. The NUT teaching union and the PCS public sector union are both trigger happy when it comes to strikes and their decision to strike before negotiations are complete with government suggests this strike is more about being seen to be doing something by members than actually winning.

The ATL teaching union is a bit more reserved. Mary Bousted, its leader, has been on TV at various points today insisting she called for a strike because the government wouldn't give her information to prove that pensions needed reforming. Block out the shouting-over-the-opposing-view comments when being interviewed, and you find a key point: A union on strike not because it's opposed to reform of pensions, not because members have been told there will be no talks, but because the union hasn't got all the information it wanted.

That, to me, is a sign of failure for a union. If the government magics up the information needed, what then? Strike again if they don't like what they see?

On Granada Reports today, one cheery local union rep described today as 'wonderful', adding 'I've done more demos and protests than ever before this year.' Is that something to be pleased about? No.

No-one wins with a strike. Strikers lose pay, the public generally loses out. Strikes can only go on for so long before any public support fades. To have that public support in the first place, the unions need to have explained the issues. They have to show they have had no choice.

In this case, to the public, there was a choice. Talks are ongoing. The bizarre sight of the head of the TUC leaving talks with the government on Monday and having defend unions which hadn't yet voted for strike action and then defending those which had summed it all up.

If the unions want to win a battle with the government, they need to be united and they need the public on their side. The unions aren't united, and the public argument is far from won.

Part of the job of the unions have to do is make sure their members are sending out the right message too. The number of times I've heard the 'We didn't bring down the banks' argument rises by the hour - but won't win over anyone, because the majority of us didn't play a part in that either.

When asked what if the public didn't support teachers, more than one teacher I've heard on the TV has replied by saying 'Well, in that case they don't understand what we do.'

I remember covering the fire strikes. Working overnight, I'd tour the picket lines in my area and catch up with the firemen. On more than one occasion, I was with firefighters when they saw a Green Goddess army fire engine groan past, siren wailing, on the way to a job the firefighters wanted to be on.

These were men and women who were genuinely had exhausted all their options before walking out. Their strike forced the government back to the table. That's what strikes are for - when all options are exhausted.

As it is, the government hasn't even left the table yet.

So what should the unions be doing if not striking? Well, working more closely with each other would be a start. Why is the PCS on strike but not Unison? Why not the NASUWT when NUT and the ATL are? A strike which threatens to shut down the public sector but which then fails to do so is just that - a failure.

Work to rule would be an alternative which I think would find more favour with the public. It may be more disruptive, but cancelling after school clubs, cancelling school trips and refusing to work overtime will be preferred by parents to having to lose a day's pay so someone else can fight an employment battle.

And finally, work on your message to the public. Forget the public v private sector argument, forget the 'we didn't make the banks collapse' argument. Come up with a compelling case for a strike - and prove to the public you have no alternative.

At the moment, there are too many union figures only too happy to evoke memories of the 70s and 80s as though their careers depend on it. Sadly, that could also be the case.