What Bertie Ahern was doing in his article in The Irish Times this week on the Association of Secondary Teachers, Ireland pay claim is an example of a classic political ploy and distraction technique.
By erroneously referring to a so-called power struggle within the union he is hoping to distract readers from his inept handling of this dispute and it is a further attempt to demoralise ASTI members. The tactic of going on the attack when under pressure is the oldest trick in the book and the timing of the article is remarkable.
This is not a crusade against the Government or against social partnership. It is not, as Mr Ahern suggests, a crusade "designed to achieve dominance for particular groups" within the ASTI. In the ASTI, motions are debated and if passed are then required to be supported by the president and paid officials of the union. This is called democracy.
Having been portrayed as a bete noir because vested interests did not like decisions taken when I chaired meetings of the ASTI, I would like to state that despite many requests I am not going for re-election to the standing committee. This is hardly the action of a person seeking dominance within the union. My sole agenda is the education system in this country.
The word "crusade" in relation to our pay claim was first used by a Dail Deputy outside the Dail on December 14th, 2000. After listening to a group of teachers he said, "So you're on a crusade." The reply was in the affirmative that this was a crusade for the future of the teaching profession and therefore of Irish education.
Indeed, when I was doorstepped by Charlie Bird on January 6th I replied to his question in regard to the leadership by stating that it had strengthened the hand of our negotiators and we were serious about our claim.
As reported in The Irish Times of January 8th, I then used the word crusade about the whole future of education and teaching. The Government and much of the media insist that the resistance to the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness and the rejection of benchmarking is being orchestrated by a faction within the union. This is wishful thinking, as the following are the facts:
Two-thirds of our central executive committee voted to leave the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, having seen our salary levels depressed under successive agreements. They also had grave reservations about the proposed new way of looking at public service pay in the soon to be concluded agreement. The ASTI had been model members of congress.
The average weekly earnings of a secondary teacher dropped from 92 per cent of a Garda's in 1996 to 86 per cent in 1999. The gardai do a very important job and are entitled to their salary levels.
Having exhausted the conciliation and arbitration system and the Arbitration Board - which our general secretary said did not arbitrate on our claims - 90 per cent of the unprecedented turnout of 70 per cent of our 17,000 members voted for industrial action. This included strike action and non-co-operation with State exams.
On November 14th, 2000, the standing committee of the ASTI passed the following motion on benchmarking: "That standing committee restates its position on the benchmarking process by categorically rejecting it as irrelevant."
On December 9th the CEC passed a motion in relation to negotiating principles which included the words "an absolute rejection of benchmarking".
In his article, Mr Ahern states that "the Government agreed with the public service unions to establish a benchmarking body". If some unions agree with the terms of reference of benchmarking, we recognise the right to do so and do not wish to bring down social partnership.
It is important to remember that the majority of teachers in the three teacher unions did not wish to enter the PPF. One of the reasons the ASTI left ICTU was because the new agreement seemed to impose an industrial framework which was inappropriate to the education process.
The Teachers Union of Ireland voted against the PPF and it was only narrowly passed by the Irish National Teachers Association. What is proposed under PPF and benchmarking is a complete transformation of the education system with the imposition of productivity models that are unsuitable to the education process.
The Buckley Report which recommends substantial increases for TDs, senators, hospital consultants, and higher civil servants is outside benchmarking.
For Mr Ahern to suggest that there were no conditions attached to the refund of the money which was docked for the work-to-rule days is simply quite disingenuous. If terms of reference were agreed between the parties it was to be refunded and stay refunded.
Mr Ahern asked the question, "Why was this strike happening?" After serving the longest notice ever of industrial action, an ASTI Dail rally of 12,000 members, and constant media exposure, the elected leader still does not know!
Does the Taoiseach care about our young people if he is asking this question at this late stage? Most teachers are parents and share the concerns of all students and parents at this time.
However, our teachers recognise that teaching as a profession and the future education of our young people is at stake. Our young teachers are not being retained within the system. Many of them love teaching but leave because they cannot afford it. Males are not entering the profession.
If we ignore the general tone of Mr Ahern's article and do not rise to the implied charges of conspiracy and attempts to undermine the Government, the simple answer to his question is the strike is happening because of the failure of his Minister and his Government to address the legitimate grievances of 17,000 secondary school teachers.
Bernadine O'Sullivan is a former president of the Association of Secondary Teachers, Ireland