Sir, - I would like to express my absolute agreement with the letter from Joe Coy (March 16th). I too am a member of the ASTI and while I fully endorse my union's demand for a just and substantial pay rise, I have great reservations about the manner in which the ASTI is pursuing this claim.
The Labour Court has already conceded that we have a sustainable case so there is no need to go through the history of all the attempts by the union to get a fair hearing. We all know only too well that we have an inalienable right to pursue our claims outside the PPF and benchmarking, but some things just do not make sense. I have raised the following points at ASTI meetings and with members of the ASTI executive, but have not so far received any coherent response.
From the beginning of this dispute, the ASTI has made it very clear to members that our claim is for a 30 per cent special payment outside the PPF and any budgetary tax-cuts. Although we claim that we do not acknowledge the PPF, we are nevertheless willing to accept its pay awards. It is not enough to say that we did not ask for the award to be paid to us; the fact remains that we accepted it, as we will accept any award made to teachers under the benchmarking process. When the benchmarking body examines the submissions of the other teaching unions, any award it makes will automatically be applied to ASTI members. The fact that the ASTI will not agree to in benchmarking seems irrelevant when it comes to accepting the increases. There is an absence of logic here, which is not being addressed by the ASTI.
Much of the hostility to benchmarking was based on the fact that the time-scale was too long, that teaching could not be subjected to the same criteria as industry and that performance-related pay would not be acceptable. The time-scale has now been shortened. We have been assured that performance-related factors will not be part of the process and we are armed with a Labour Court recommendation that we have a sustainable case for a substantial rise in salary. So what is the problem with benchmarking?
It seems to me to be offering everything that the union is demanding - a process to address our pay claim and an assurance that a special forum will be set up to address all other matters related to teaching. In addition, the fact that the recent awards to politicians under the Buckley Review Body (which is analogous in many ways to the benchmarking process) makes it clear that awards are not conditional on increased productivity or altered conditions of service. This strengthens our hand at the negotiating table.
Supervising and marking public examinations are not part of the contract of secondary teachers. They therefore have nothing to do with the present dispute, which is about salary. Why, then, is the ASTI using the examinations as a "nuclear option"? It is true that the examinations depend for their integrity on teachers - particularly in the marking of scripts - but the examinations should be outside the parameters of this industrial action. The end does not justify the means when we are dealing with the futures of young people.
Given the potential for some common ground between the parties to this dispute, surely it would make sense for the Taoiseach to agree to meet the ASTI to achieve a compromise that would satisfy both sides without forcing either to concede defeat. Mr Woods, Mr Ahern and Mr McCreevy have shown little flexibility and vision in allowing the escalation of this dispute and the hardening of attitudes by the illegal docking of pay, the contravention of the laws governing data protection and contempt for public concern by going abroad for St Patrick's day celebrations in the midst of such a crisis.
They may think they are showing good leadership by down facing the teachers, but they are actually revealing themselves as incompetent and incapable of compromise. It is also true that contributions by some parent representatives - comparing teachers to "terrorists", etc. - do not help lower the temperature in a dispute which has exceeded boiling point. The time has come for common sense, realism and integrity to prevail. Saving face is not the important issue here, when the dignity of teaching and the education and future of our students are at stake. Both the Government and the ASTI need to cut out the posturing and brinkmanship and direct their energies to resolving this impasse immediately. - Yours, etc.,
Patricia O'Shea, Kilnaglory, Ovens, Co Cork.