When members of the Association of Secondary Teachers, Ireland vote on the Labour Court clarifications I know which way I will be voting. Mine will be a Yes vote, not in the belief that this is a wonderful settlement, certainly not in the belief that what is on offer qualifies as a settlement of our just claim for a substantial pay increase, but as a means of extricating ourselves from a dispute which is causing immense hurt to our students and incalculable harm to the reputation of the teaching profession.
Last October I was one of the 89 per cent who voted in favour of the package of industrial action put forward by the Standing Committee. At the time I believed that, faced by this threat, the Government would deal with teachers as it had dealt with other public servants, particularly the gardai and the nurses.
Events proved me wrong.
One measure of industrial action not included in the package was the ban on substitution and supervision, the infamous work-to-rule.
Had it been included, I would have resolutely opposed it, as it would move the spotlight on to the issues of supervision and substitution, where the legal position was far from clear, rather than the pay issue which was central to the dispute. Instead, it was added on subsequent to the ballot and, in the event, totally undermined our campaign.
The resulting closure of schools by management, while teachers sat in classrooms, "available to teach", drew public odium on the ASTI and led to a huge rift in relations with parents, where a moderate leadership was replaced by a group whose actions and public utterances will be remembered long after this dispute has been settled.
It led to the first independent actions by students who in a few instances forced their way into schools against the wishes of boards of management, and defied principals who had requested them to leave.
The inflammatory response of the Minister for Education in deducting pay the week before Christmas, just as discussions were to begin under the auspices of Tom Pomphrett, led to a worsening of relations.
In early February the exam ban was imposed. This was the ultimate weapon in our arsenal, the so-called nuclear option. However, the Government stood firm, bolstered by massive support from parents, the public and the media. Students grew frustrated with the stalemate and walked out of classes in protest, which led to public disorder in the streets.
At last all sides realised that the situation was rapidly spinning out of control. The talks at the Labour Court and the suspension of all industrial action came as a welcome relief.
I attended information meetings in the week before Easter at which the clarifications of the Labour Court were explained. The reaction of teachers was muted. Nobody argued that what was contained in the clarifications came close to what we were demanding. Indeed, many called them derisory.
The key question now was whether we could expect to get any improvement by continuing or escalating the industrial action. In the view of many teachers, myself included, the resulting damage to the education system would be far too great a price to pay for any cosmetic improvements which might be gained.
There have been suggestions that the campaign of industrial action could be renewed in the autumn, leading to all-out strike. I doubt if this would receive much support from teachers. The Leaving Certificate is a two-year programme; next year's students have already lost 15 days' teaching and they would be doubly disadvantaged if the dispute spread into the next academic year.
The pertinent factor in the minds of teachers is the fact that the day of benchmarking is drawing closer. A long-drawn-out action would come up against the decision date of July 2002, while 25 per cent of the award will be backdated to December 2001. These dates were far away last October when we voted for action; they are nearer now and, come September, one would have to ask whether it is really worth the disruption of more industrial unrest for the sake of a few months.
There is still a way in which the ASTI claim of a 30 per cent salary increase can be addressed. By engaging in the benchmarking process, greatly clarified as a result of our industrial action, its payment dates brought forward, and any negative elements such as performance-related pay removed, we can make our case, a valid case according to the Labour Court, and which the Department has said it will not be contesting.
Going into benchmarking will unite us with the other teacher unions in a common strategy against a common opponent. Our go-it-alone campaign has not been successful, and the lessons of past campaigns show that a united front is essential when we face the Government head-on.
Benchmarking will take place and both the Teachers' Union of Ireland and the Irish National Teachers' Organisation will participate. Staying out of bench marking is not an option for the ASTI.
The Government, in its submission, has tabled major changes in our conditions of service as a quid pro quo for a rise in salary. These must be resisted at the negotiating table. Some of our policies differ from those of the other unions and we cannot afford to sit back and remain aloof while they negotiate on our pay and conditions.
There is a view that it would be sufficient to vote No and take no further action, or possibly vote for measures such as a ban on co-operation with new courses and programmes. This might appeal to wounded pride but it will not advance our salary claim.
We have expressed our opposition to benchmarking in the past, but we must now re-evaluate where we stand in the light of our failure to move the Government from its position, despite six months of industrial action.
John Mulcahy is a former president of the ASTI.