Although making more conciliatory noises since the Association of Secondary Teachers, Ireland agreed to go back to the Labour Court, during the week we saw the Minister for Education and the Taoiseach attacking teachers for their attitude to examination candidates with special needs. Remember, this is a Government which is challenging in court the right of a young autistic man, Jamie Sinnott, to education after 18.
Not only that, it is challenging his mother Kathryn's right to receive a paltry £55,000 in compensation for years of official State neglect of her son's needs (although the State has acknowledged that, whatever the outcome, Kathryn will be able to keep £15,000 of the £55,000 she has already received). But somehow, concern for people with special needs was cranked up to an entirely different level when it provided a convenient stick with which to beat teachers.
I am not trying to equate the suffering of people with disabilities with what is happening to teachers. Likewise, the ASTI should be well able to think through the consequences of the worst-case scenario. In this instance, it was that the Government would cynically manoeuvre teachers so that they would appear to be using their pupils as a bargaining chip.
Instead, culpably, the ASTI seemed to continue to believe that the Government would make some concession. So it finds itself trapped in a situation with which many rank-and-file teachers are deeply uneasy.
Teachers have been accused of everything from wanting to wreck the social partnership model to being utterly uncaring about the needs of pupils. Very few have asked the pertinent question - why has a group of fundamentally decent, hardworking professionals been forced into this kind of action?
One of the most important findings of the Labour Court was that the teachers have a sustainable case for a substantial rise in pay. Nobody knew that better than the Government. But just as it fought Jamie Sinnott's mother every step of the way, and continues to do so, and just as it forced the nurses into industrial action, it goaded the ASTI into more extreme behaviour.
In justification, Bertie Ahern has cited the necessity to preserve the partnership model. There is no doubt that partnership has served this State well. This does not mean that it is without flaws. It has not resulted in a narrowing of the gap between the rich and poor in this State; rather, it has seen it increase. The cosy building of consensus has seen profits rise for shareholders and employers without a corresponding rise in wages. Perhaps more seriously, there is a danger of democratic deficit as interest groups dominate decisions which were once taken by elected representatives.
Despite this, the preservation and improvement of partnership deals so that they become ever more inclusive is indeed a worthy aim. But Bertie Ahern appears to forget that it is he and his Government who have the primary responsibility for such preservation.
Centralised bargaining arrangements are bound to come under pressure when the earnings of some groups fall unfairly behind others. Mechanisms have to be found whereby a central agreement can be maintained, while allowing for a certain degree of flexibility. The Government would say benchmarking is that process.
Yet, until forced to clarify what the term meant, benchmarking was left so vague and would come into effect so far into the future that it was almost meaningless to people who felt they already had legitimate claims which were long overdue.
If the Government was so worried about preserving social partnership, why did it not take seriously one of the most obvious threats to it which was signalled by a major group like the ASTI leaving it? Why did it not work to prevent that happening, instead of threatening dire consequences for the ASTI?
The fuzziness of benchmarking is amply demonstrated by some of its greatest advocates, for example, Senator Joe O'Toole writing in this newspaper. He asked: How many judgments does this teacher make every hour? How many strategies are implemented each day? How many different situations require a calculated response from the teacher each week? What other occupations demand such a range of skills and judgment calls in one day? These are the measures we will want benchmarked against other professional groups, and their rewards will also guide us towards the goal of claiming greater monetary compensation.
UNDER this reasoning, why not benchmark against social care workers who stay overnight to care for troubled children? Every night of their working lives brings countless judgment calls, calculated responses and implemented strategies for the princely sum of £26.90 for eight hours.
Benchmarking is not an honest solution, but a mechanism which is delaying the kind of flexibility which social partnership needs. Teachers deserve recognition for that which they do which is unique, not for what is superficially similar to other groups. Benchmarking arose out of an industrial model and is fundamentally unsuited to a profession which is so oriented towards people and communication.
If the Government was really serious about preserving partnership, it would have been working flat out to achieve twin goals - acting in a just way towards groups such as teachers and at the same time maintaining the consensus necessary for partnership.
When coercion replaces consent, partnership no longer exists. Teachers in the ASTI withdrew their consent from the partnership process because they felt unheard within it. They cannot be browbeaten back into it without substantial damage to the whole idea of what partnership is supposed to be about.
Rory O'Donnell of the ESRI, a major supporter of the partnership process, writing in the current issue of Studies, says partnership, in order to survive, needs reconsideration in three key areas: wage bargaining, public sector pay and social inclusion.
The reality is that, in order to maintain partnership, restructuring is required right across the board. Much more is needed than the tacking on of a mechanism like benchmarking. The Government would have been better off analysing and planning for how the partnership model could adapt in order to be a genuine mechanism of fairness. Instead, it chose to demonise the ASTI as partnership wreckers. An easier option, but one which shows an absolute failure to understand that consent and fairness is essential to partnership.
bobrien@irish-times.ie