We're not going to debate the merits or otherwise of the revised offer which was placed in front of the PPTA; we're not sufficiently au fait with the situation. However we do suspect that the PPTA was never going to agree to settle.
The Herald reported yesterday on the breakdown of negotiations and the resumption of the rolling strikes. In particular this comment caught our eye (our emphasis added):
PPTA president Kate Gainsford said that after three days of negotiations there had been no substantial shift since the Government's initial offer in June.
Teachers were offered a half-per cent pay increase in the first year, a 1.9 per cent increase in the second year, a one-off payment of $1000 and an additional 3000 middle management allowances worth $1000 each
That compared with an earlier offer of no increase in the first year, a 1.8 per cent increase in the second, and the one-off payment.
A claw-back in teacher conditions was still on the table, and a previous offer of preparation time for part-time teachers had been taken away, Ms Gainsford said.
The offer did not go far enough and fell flat with the PPTA national executive, she said.
So are we reading this right. Was it the PPTA EXECUTIVE who decided to resume strike action, which will have an adverse effect on students preparing for NCEA exams? If that is indeed the case, why was the revised offer not taken back to the members?
We smell a rat. We have a sneaking suspicion that there will be many secondary teachers who have major reservations over the refusal by their union to teach groups of students in this most critical time of the school year. So have they actually had a say in this latest decision? Or has the decision been made on their behalf by the PPTA executive, traditionally no friend of National governments?
The cynic in us suggests that the latter applies, and we don't find that particularly comforting. The success of our students at exam time is too important to be playing political games with, in our humble opinion. We would value feedback from secondary teachers, be they PPTA members or not. Feel free to have your say here.
18 comments:
Anne Tolley and her department must not back down on this one.
you're talking out of yr arse Invention, could you throw in any more paranoid assumptions if you tried??
Do you know what was offered no? Do you know what teachers dedided was a minimum offer and what constituted an automatic 'no'. Do you know anything?
"Anne Tolley must not back down" shows the mentality of you dicks when faced with reality over ideology.
Have you heard of the pedagogy of listening? Should check it out.
the ghost of Robert Guyton
Did you read the quote from the Herald? That outlined EXACTLY what was offered, both last time and this.
Reality?
What part of "there isn't enough money" don't the PPTA understand?
PDM, I agree whole heartedly.
The cuboard is bare.
I2, I suspect this post will generate a bit of troll activity.
That being the case tin hats on boys!
I'd anticipated that Alex. That's why I have written a post which is NOT an attack on teachers, whom I generally admire; I could NOT do their job! I'm less charitable towards the PPTA however.
What seems to be happening is a union power-play. The unions seem poised to recapture the Labour Party, and as is typical when National governs, the unions flex their collective muscle. The next twelve months (i.e. the period up to the election) will be very interesting.
I2, Can't say the PPTA light my fire either. Or unions for that matter
Unions have a role to play Alex, and as recently as five years ago, I was a card-carrying member of the EPMU at my then-workplace.
I am very cyncial however at the timing of this issue. The PPTA has kept going to and withdrawing from the negotiating table right up until the "money term" for secondary schools. It's hard to escape the conclusion that the PPTA is playing a political game, and that the pawns in the game are students who will shortly sit internal then external NCEA exams. On this occasion though, it seems to be backfiring on them, and public opinion I've heard to date is more critical of the PPTA than supportive.
Even the dimmest supporter of the PPTA must be able to see that this current confrontation has zero to do with education, standards,professionalism or the poor bloody students as the union leaders play "Russian Roulette" with all the chambers loaded as the class of 2010 come to their ultimate or penultimate challenge for their years at school.
It is all about a powerplay between the idealogues at union HQ aided and abetted by the failed teachers at Labour HQ and the elected government of the nation.
Anne Tooley, the woman charged with introducing a set of standards that have been openly criticised by all manner of academics, parents, principals and teachers - and now she has to deal with secondary teachers who actually care enough to make a stand against this destructive government. Good on the PPTA, only with the PSA had more balls!
@ Ian - just a small point of debate; the only parents I've heard openly criticising the National Standards are parents who are either teachers, or NZEI Communications Directors like Stephanie Mills. All the evidence I have seen is that parents strongly SUPPORT Anne Tolley.
The PPTA executive ARE teachers, elected by TEACHERS, and REPRESENT other TEACHERS. As an executive member and teacher of some 14 years, I know I have done the right thing, because I talk to my colleagues, and we all want a BETTER public education system, where STUDENTS have access to learning by professionals who can AFFORD to stay teaching. Ask Minister Tolley about RATS, she read the story about RILEY THE RAT to the PPTA executive this year. Teachers are having their say.
Appreciate your comments Anon. Would you care to enlighten us on how big the gap is between what the Minsitry is offering and what PPTA is seeking?
Do you expect your MP to come back every time there is a vote? PPTA exec have their finger on the pulse and are correctly representing their constituents, if only MPs were as in touch. As for anti nat feelings, the last time this action was called was in 2002/3 against a Labour government so please get your facts straight. It was the Dame Bazely lead Alternative Dispute Resolution panel who awarded teachers their last big increases because they were so far behind much to the chagrin of Trvor Mallard who last time I looked was still in the Labour Party
Of course teachers have a say in their union. In fact secondary teachers have more say in the PPTA than most political parties allow their members to have in the policies they promote. Membership figures for the PPTA are up (already in the 90% area) and rising in support of this wage round. Democratic and secret ballots have been held several times and support for the executive actions has been in the 90% range every time.
BTW: No one has acknowledged on this blog that the Government is seeking withdrawal of a number of conditions included in the present contract, including all controls on class sizes (meaning less time for a teacher to spend with each student). It's not all about the money.
Ron Elder
Anne Tolley and her department need to get their facts rights before appearing on national television and spouting a lot of incorrect facts to the public. She and her department have no idea of what a teacher does in a day.
As for 'no more money' then get rid of the pay parity agreement to stop the flow on effect.
@ Ron - thanks for sharing. I may not agree with the PPTA's action, but I appreciate your input and backgrounding.
@ Annon - somehow, I don;t think that the NZEI would be too keen to see pay parity abandoned ...
Post a Comment