Part II
IN OUR first submission, we highlighted the plight currently being faced by teachers as they fight for what is rightfully due to them.
The response to their actions surrounding the negotiations point to a retrograde mode under the disguise of responsible fiscal and economic management. The economic pundits are convinced that the only way the economy will prosper is via the economic deprivation of teachers. The position of the employer inadvertently serves to undermine the moral authority of teachers.
Without any analysis or assessment of the contribution of teachers to the gross domestic product of the country to inform priority areas of expenditure, the Government has unilaterally decided that teachers must abandon the use of an external labour market survey approach and accept an arbitrary salary increase that bears absolutely no correlation to the prevailing economic circumstances.
The position adopted by the employer is tantamount to a blatant disregard for the process of collective bargaining. Its take-it-or leave-it position, while not new to the teachers of this nation, is archaic and reflects a new level of contempt and condescension. With soaring food, transport and energy prices, teachers are challenged to maintain their social parity.
They are thus forced, after exercising more than eight years of patience and understanding, to express their discontent and disgust with the latest position of the employer. A vow of poverty cannot be the basis of the social covenant between the teacher and the society. The 'labour of love' cannot by itself purchase groceries or pay utility bills, but must be translated into a monetary commodity that ensures a certain social standing for the teacher.
Unfortunately, the strategy of prolonging salary negotiations over several bargaining periods and then claiming that the country can ill-afford retroactive remuneration is nothing new. This is the ideal scenario for the declaration of a breakdown in the negotiation process and referral of the matter to the special tribunal where a settlement is imposed for a minimum period of five years, as obtained in the eighties when similar economic arguments were advanced by the government.
TTUTA was always ready and willing to ensure that salary negotiations remained current, mindful of the 'can't pay arrears' argument.
Having insisted on the completion of the scientifically sound external labour market survey which unsurprisingly revealed a huge disparity between teachers and other positions that require similar qualifications/skills/competencies, TTUTA is/was prepared to negotiate the closure of the gap as was done in the past, through a hard, tough exchange of arguments.
But 'negotiations' assume two or more parties are willing to sit and talk in an atmosphere of mutual respect. The current predetermined position of the Government regarding salary negotiations for public workers precludes any notion of 'negotiations' and is rather an imposition, a posture of master and the governed.
This is a social cli
