Benchmarking - don't put the champagne on ice just yet

Teaching matters:I wonder was I the only one who had the thought that the publication of the Benchmarking Body's report last week just might have been the cause of some celebration in the Department of Finance? Maybe it's just me, but I had this image of some senior politicians and top civil servants in Merrion Square popping the champagne corks.

With their own hefty pay rises safely in the bag, the guardians of the public purse now had a report that stated that the vast majority of ordinary public servants should not get any pay increase. The bottom line was that all they will have to find is less than €50 million which in a country like ours is no big deal. Sure you'd waste more on electronic voting machines and a lot more on a failed computer system for the health service.

It's a win-win situation for the mandarins in Finance, those at the top of the public service and their political masters.

Late last year, the Review Body on Higher Remuneration in the Public Sector reported and awarded significant salary increases to those in the upper levels of the public service. Government Ministers also benefited from this review mechanism, albeit that they will have to wait until it's politically opportune to pocket the cash. In the meantime, ordinary workers in the public service will have their salaries frozen.

A startling example of this twin-track approach to public pay is the Secretary General of the Department of Education and Science, who got a pay rise of €58,000, upping the rate for that job to €270,000. This 27.5 per cent rise stands in stark contrast to the zero per cent awarded to teachers at the chalk-face of the education system. In fact, the annual increase for the Secretary General equates to far more than the annual salary of a young teacher.

Of course education is not a case apart. I am sure there are many public servants who could make the same argument.

In the world of education, the only significant increase went to primary principals and deputy principals. There have been some suggestions that this award is part of the trend to award increases to those who already have higher salaries. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Apart from the fact that even the biggest rises for school principals are but a fraction of those awarded to the higher public service, this round of benchmarking was a case of unfinished business for primary school leaders.

Five years ago the first Benchmarking Body awarded higher increases to second-level principals. This was strongly criticised at the time by the INTO and the intervening years have seen the union make a strong case for this to be reversed. Indeed, on more than one occasion INTO general secretary John Carr staked his reputation on redressing what was seen as totally unfair.

That significant and welcome progress was made by the union in this regard should not be misinterpreted. It should not be seen as a part of the general trend in pubic pay.

A fundamental flaw with the general pay trend is the two-tiered system of public pay determination. There is one process for those on already large salaries and another to take care of the rest. Indeed a line from Christy Moore's song Ordinary Mansums it up well - "There's one law for the rich, one for the poor".

But what are the implications of this? Large pay increases to the few at the top, coupled with wage restraint for those on modest salaries will inevitably fuel disillusionment and a loss of confidence in public pay determination processes. This will surely feed through the system and affect the enthusiasm and commitment of the majority.

There will inevitably be huge pressure on the next national agreement. Living standards are being eroded by inflation and the economic slowdown. Those on modest salaries can not be expected to pay the price while those on already large salaries continue to take large increases.

It could even signal the end of partnership, although rumours of its demise have been forecast before now. Despite obvious limitations the series of national agreements over the past 20 years a degree of fairness and a sharing of prosperity has been achieved. The twin track approach to benchmarking, importing as it does the greed and avarice of the private sector, is now putting this in jeopardy.

Since its inception primary teachers have supported partnership. Under partnership agreements primary teachers could be fairly sure that while they would never get rich in the classroom, at least they would have an income that reflected their responsibility. They could never aspire to owning any of the properties that grace the pages of this newspaper every week yet a family home was a realisable ambition.

In turn, primary education has been transformed by teachers. Large numbers of children with special needs and the large community of newcomer children are now fully integrated in our schools. A completely new curriculum has been introduced, with new subjects and new ways of teaching. ICT is in use in most primary schools despite no Government funding for five years.

Many politicians seem to think that never-ending modernisation is part of the zeitgeist. Others believe it can be successfully imposed from the top down by those on large salaries. I disagree and predict that decreased productivity will be the inevitable result along with poor staff morale and even poorer labour relations.

Recent public pay decisions may yet have long term consequences. Perhaps those in Merrion Square should have kept the champagne on ice for a while.

Aidan Gaughran teaches in Clonmel, Co Tipperary and is a member of the education committeee of the INTO