Teachers carry out a huge amount of voluntary work. Think of the debates, the concerts, the plays, the under-age games, the school tours and the computer clubs.
These activities play an invaluable part in the rounded development of young people.
Benchmarking provides an opportunity to have these activities recognised for pay purposes, according to Senator Joe O'Toole in a recent article in The Irish Times.
The Irish Congress of Trade Unions has circulated the agreed terms of reference of the Public Service Benchmarking Body to unions in the recent past. This sets out the approach and the criteria to be used by the body in evaluating jobs. There is no mention in the document of voluntary work.
A benchmark used to evaluate a job or portion of a job must have a number of characteristics. It must be an objective measure or an objective reference point. It must have a degree of stability over time.
From a trade union viewpoint, it should not be amenable to change at the whim of a government.
Voluntary work by its very nature varies from school to school, from class to class and from year to year. It is particularly unsuitable for benchmarking. This is just one reason why the bench marking process is unsuitable for dealing with teachers' pay. The benchmarking body, in its terms of reference, is enjoined to carry out research on the pay levels of identifiable groups in the private sector such as graduate recruits. Perhaps it is under this heading that Senator O'Toole hopes to establish the CAO entry point minimum to the B.Ed degree as a crucial benchmark. But would this be feasible or even wise? Entry points are set by the balance between the demand for courses and the supply of places. If the points level of 455 was to drop substantially due to the provision of much-needed extra places in education colleges, would this be an argument for holding down teachers' pay?
Teachers at first and second level are paid on a common basic scale. There is a large variation in the points level for entry into the various degree courses and these levels change from year to year and are affected by governmental decisions on the funding of places. Would the use of entry points as a benchmark call into question the common basic scale, which is supported by all three teacher unions?
Criteria
While pro-teacher arguments can only be advanced with some difficulty under the criteria agreed by ICTU, pro-employer arguments can be backed by explicit provisions of the terms of reference of the benchmarking body.
The agreed document states: "the results of the role review and pay research should have regard to differences between the public service and the private sector, in working conditions, the organisation of work, perquisites, conditions of employment and other relevant benefits including security of tenure and superannuation benefits."
The failure of Senator O'Toole to mention any of these criteria in his article is surprising because they raise fundamental questions. How much of any pay increase claimed by teachers will be disallowed in public service pension arrangements, teachers' holidays, and immunity from redundancy due to business failure or other causes?
How can the vast amount of work carried out by teachers at home and the stress levels in teaching be reckoned under these inappropriate criteria?
How can the dedication and commitment undertaken by teachers in dealing with the problems of society as presented in the classroom be "deconstructed into its components" as advocated by Senator O'Toole?
As there is no guaranteed pay award under the benchmarking process, will teachers come under pressure to trade conditions of service appropriate to education for conditions of employment prevalent in industry, commerce and administration to secure a pay rise?
Would this be the inevitable consequence over time even if there was an initial pay rise?
Performance-Related Pay
Another agreed criterion, unmentioned in the article, is "the way reward systems are structured in the private sector". This is the means by which the Department of Finance policy of introducing performance-related pay, including non-pensionable pay, is to be advanced in the public sector.
No serious evidence has been advanced to show that performance-related pay would enhance the education process.
On the contrary, there is growing evidence that such an approach could seriously damage education systems. To attempt to introduce a complete revolution in education through the industrial relations system, without a deep educational discussion, is an irresponsible gamble with the future of our young people.
Pensions
In the Fitzpatrick Report to the Taoiseach on performance-related pay, it is recommended that non-core or non-pensionable pay be introduced in the public service at national, sectoral, employment and individual levels. The 1 per cent lump sum in the recent national deal is an example of such a payment.
There is a widespread apprehension among teachers and other public servants that the pay pressures of those working will be increasingly met by non-pensionable payments, to the detriment of existing pensioners and of future pensioners. This arises because public service pensions are linked to the salary scales of their serving colleagues. The terms of reference of the benchmarking body provide a basis for the progressive introduction of non-core pay.
Past Productivity
While an understanding has been reached that unions may raise past productivity in their submissions and negotiations, there is no such criterion in the terms of reference. Indeed, it is difficult to see how any credible benchmarking process could proceed while all the public service unions claimed pay rises for past productivity.
Payment for future productivity is heavily restricted by the terms of the PPF, which have been incorporated into the terms of reference of the benchmarking body.
Under these, unions are committed to "full and ongoing co-operation with change" without further increase in pay and "it is accepted that change is not, in itself, a basis for claims for improvements in pay and conditions".
Conclusion
The terms of reference of the benchmarking body constitute a most hostile environment for pay bargaining for teachers. To secure pay increases under this system, teachers will be required to bargain away hard-won conditions of service. Above all, the teaching process will inevitably be driven into modes of operation appropriate to industry, commerce and administration. In my view, this will result in serious damage to our education system.
Paddy Healy, a former national honorary secretary of the Teachers' Union of Ireland, is an academic staff representative on the governing body of the Dublin Institute of Technology and a lecturer in the school of physics at the Dublin Institute of Technology