It is clear from last night's Labour Court statement that "major differences continue to exist" between the Government and the ASTI. Despite the early optimism in the media, the talks appear to be seriously deadlocked. There are still very formidable hurdles to be cleared before the most bitter teachers' dispute in the history of the State is settled.
At least the ASTI has clawed its way a little out of the bunker. At 11 a.m. yesterday it began long and arduous discussions on a Labour Court recommendation which it had summarily dismissed after its publication two weeks ago.
In the Dail last week, the Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, said he knew - but would not say - how long the ASTI had "studied" the Labour Court recommendation before rubbishing it.
The embarrassing truth is that the ASTI set its face against the court's complex and subtle ruling in a matter of minutes. The reason was very simple and very crude. The ASTI had expected an "upfront payment" to satisfy its troops. When there was no mention of this, the ASTI - or at least some of its "unofficial" spokespersons - dumped on the Labour Court.
If the court was exasperated by the manner in which its carefully crafted recommendation was thrown aside, the Government was furious. The Labour Court has an outstanding record as an honest broker in industrial relations. For the Taoiseach, the Minister for Education, Dr Woods, and their senior officials, the ASTI's behaviour was reckless and breathtakingly arrogant.
One official said this weekend: "Just who precisely do these people think they are? They have chosen to take on the entire industrial relations machinery of this State. They cannot, and will not, win."
It was the Government's anger at the union's curt dismissal of the Labour Court proposals which provoked both Mr Ahern and Dr Woods to put the boot in when they addressed the Dail last week. Mr Ahern accused the union of abandoning its students. Dr Woods spoke of its "ruthless intent".
Despite the strident words, disputes must be settled, and the ASTI is, at least, back at the negotiating table. But it would be a mistake to underestimate the bitterness on the Government side. Few people are in the mood for doing the ASTI any favours.
The bitterness is particularly acute in the Department of Finance. The Department takes some pride in the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness, which was painstakingly put together - against all the odds - last year. It has little patience with a group like the ASTI, which is seen as a wrecker. In Government circles - notwithstanding the personal regard for Charlie Lennon - the ASTI is seen as a dangerous cabal controlled by a group of malcontents.
The Department of Education holds a similar view but, since it must deal with the ASTI, it is perhaps more anxious to frame a settlement. On the Government side, there has been some tension between Finance and Education about the ASTI dispute. But both Departments now appear to be singing from the same hymn sheet: there will be no special deal for the union.
It has burnt is bridges - not just with the Government, but also with the wider trade union movement. In a very significant statement last week, a key public service trade unionist laid down a clear marker: the ASTI cannot be rewarded for cutting up rough. Dan Murphy, general secretary of the Public Service Executive Union and secretary of the powerful public services committee of the ICTU, threatened to withdraw from national agreements and benchmarking if teachers won pay increases outside the PPF.
His views reflect the general mood among the public service unions, representing over 200,000 workers. For the wider trade union movement, the ASTI has placed itself beyond the Pale. The last thing it wants - or needs - is for the ASTI to emerge from the Labour Court with some kind of special deal.
THIS is also the view of the other teaching unions, the INTO and the TUI, which between them represent more than 30,000 teachers in the Republic. Any concession to the ASTI, outside the PPF, could unleash an angry backlash from their own members.
The speculation has been that the court would seek to square this circle by offering all teachers money for supervision, for which they are now unpaid. Since this is a teaching-specific problem, there would - the argument goes - be no problem with the PPF and with the other unions.
But the whole idea has now been punctured by the Government. A payment of £2,000 per teacher for supervision would cost it £80 million - a considerable sum at a time when the prospects for the economy are less buoyant.
There is another problem. Although payment for supervision would be made to all three teaching unions, it could be portrayed by the ASTI as some kind of special victory for the union. And victory for the ASTI is something that will not be tolerated by the Government, the trade union movement and the two other teaching unions.
The Labour Court talks adjourned yesterday evening. The optimism of recent days has now faded. The ASTI's behaviour over the past year means that the Labour Court this morning now has very little room for manoeuvre.
