The rejection of the teachers' pay deal by the members of the ASTI and the TUI is a debacle for the unions themselves. For the first time in decades the three teachers' unions are divided on a major pay issue, with the INTO alone accepting the package. The powerful united front which the unions had forged through the Council of Teachers Unions is now in disarray. It was this front which won so many pay advances for teachers over the years and made them the pace setters of the public sector. Often, during those years, Ministers for Education wished that they could drive a wedge between the three unions. Now the teachers have done it themselves. The outcome leaves the teachers' conciliation service in confusion. The unions negotiate together in conciliation and normally a deal must be agreed by all three in order to be implemented. But the INTO will now be pushing to have the package implemented unilaterally.
But above all, the rejection represents a vote of no confidence by teachers in their union officers. The officers failed to convince their members about the merits of a complex agreement; a lengthy and technical document lent itself to misinterpretation and misunderstanding. And, apart from the INTO, the union leaderships did not do enough to clarify the deal and get the salient points across to their members. Myths flourished in the vacuum. Because of an executive council decision, ASTI officers found themselves unable to campaign in support of the package they had negotiated. The unions failed, too, to get across to their members the changed nature of the bargaining processes under the PCW which make it impossible to secure any improvements without conceding productivity.
But the rejection is also a debacle for the Government, for the PCW and for the other public service unions. The Minister for Education, Ms Bhreathnach, had against all expectations, managed to secure £67.5 million for the teachers in spite of the constraints of the PCW. The possibility of the Government now providing more money seems remote - if only because of the implications for other public service workers, not least the nurses. And if teachers are to reject productivity deals under the PCW, will other unions follow their lead?
Renegotiation of the package would be difficult. Many secondary teachers seem to have objected to losing automatic rights to promotion on seniority alone, but this is such an anachronism that they could hardly have expected it to continue much longer. Others found the early retirement provisions inadequate. But the irony is that second level teachers got a better deal than primary teachers, having their retirement age reduced from 60 years on 40 years service to 55 years on 35, a situation which INTO members already enjoyed before the deal. While few secondary teachers will have 35 years service at 55, it still represents a five year improvement on their previous situation.
On the eve of the Easter conferences, the rejection of the pay deal is bound to lead to increased militancy among the two second level unions. But it is doubtful if there will be much public support for a renewed campaign of industrial action. The teachers may have voted themselves into a cul de sac.