UPDATE AFTER TODAY'S NUT EXECUTIVE:
Confirming what I posted this morning, Gove has already made quite clear today that his latest attack on 'non-pay conditions' is about a lot more than the 'extra photocopying' that this morning's newspapers were suggesting. Now those same journalists are reporting that, in a conference speech today, Gove has made clear that he wants to lengthen teachers' working days and shorten school holidays.
This is a fundamental attack designed to worsen and deregulate teachers' working conditions. It is part and parcel of this Government's agenda to break collective trade union organisation and to drive down the costs of education and public services for their privatising friends. This is nothing to do with improving education*, as Gove claims, but just an attempt to turn schools into a cheap child-minding service and a source of profit for privately-run education businesses.
This attack is one more reason why the school reps' briefings being organised in May in every NUT Association are so important. These will be vital to prepare for escalating strike action to defeat the attacks on both pay and conditions. They will also brief reps on the model NUT/NASUWT pay policy that will, by then, be available following ongoing discussions after this week's NUT and NASUWT National Executive meetings. Immediately, a joint NUT/NASUWT Pay Policy checklist should be finalised and released very shortly.
* Gove likes 'facts', so here they are: http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/facts_and_figures/school_calendar_EN.pdf Thanks to a faebook colleague for pointing out that these figures show that, while Finland has one of the best records for
student achievement in Europe, the summer holiday there is 10 weeks. England and Wales
already have one of the shortest summer holidays in the whole of Europe.
Sweden has 9 weeks, France 8 weeks, Austria 8 weeks, Germany 7 weeks, The Netherlands 7 weeks, Denmark 7 weeks, Switzerland 7 weeks ...
***
Yesterday, 17 April 2014, Michael Gove released a letter to the School Teachers Review Body (STRB) opening up another attack on teachers and education.
He has already announced attacks on our pay. Now he wants to attack our 'non-pay conditions' too. In other words, the limited workload protections written into teachers' contracts could also be about to be thrown aside - unless we act!
These protections are already very limited - that's why so many teachers work 50 hours a week and more. But, instead of introducing contracts that properly limit overall working hours as demanded by NUT Annual Conference, Gove wants to even remove those limited workload protections that we can still rely upon.
This morning's press coverage has emphasised the fact that Gove might want to remove the list of 'administrative and clerical tasks' that teachers can refuse to carry out. However, these attacks are likely to be far more fundamental, possibly even removing, for example, the 1265 hour annual limit on directed hours, limits on covering for absence and/or our guarantee to at least 10% PPA (preparation, planning and assessment) time.
Gove's letter - as well as suggesting he wants to make further attacks on safeguarding, TLRs, and SEN Allowances and also making changes to leadership pay - states that:
"The STRB also said it would welcome a future remit on non-pay terms and conditions. I believe there is a need to review the framework for non-pay conditions to ensure that is suited to a high status profession and gives primacy to teaching and learning. I would like to be sure that it does not place unnecessary burdens on teachers, and that it gives schools the flexibilities they need to deliver outstanding education provision".
Gove makes these recommendations to the STRB:
a) how to provide a simplified and flexible framework for ensuring school leaders' pay is appropriate to the challenge of the post and their contribution to their school or schools;
b) how the current detailed provisions for allowances, other pay flexibilities and safeguarding could be reformed to allow a simpler and more flexible STPCD; and
c) how the framework for teachers' non-pay conditions of service could be reformed to raise the status of the profession and support the recruitment and retention of high quality teachers, and raise standards of education for all children
In some ways the new attack is not a surprise - but the speed of its implementation might be. Gove concludes that "in order to allow schools sufficient time in which to implement any reforms that result from this remit I should be grateful if the STRB could aim to provide a report on these matters before 10th January 2014".
The last Review Body Report announcing the performance-pay plans made clear that the STRB “would welcome a further remit to examine 'non-pay conditions' ". However, Gove's reply suggested this "second stage of reform" would be delayed while the first attacks on performance-pay were pushed through. But now Gove is pushing ahead on conditions too.
I'm afraid that Gove is accelerating his attacks because unions have not acted sharply and firmly enough in opposing his performance-pay proposals. He has seen our delay as a sign of weakness. We must prove him wrong.
These threats must be publicised as one more reason why we have to build and escalate our plans for regional and national strike action to defend teachers and education.
The full letter to the STRB can be read on: http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/s/strb%20remit%20letter%2017%20april%202013_001.pdf
Thursday, 18 April 2013
Wednesday, 17 April 2013
Thatcher's real legacy
An estimated £10 million was spent today on a funeral that, as Owen Jones has just written in the Independent, amounted to a "taxpayer-funded political broadcast".
The BBC spent hours giving air-time to supporters of Thatcher's divisive legacy but hardly ever allowed those of us who object to what she stood for to express our views.
So it was with pleasure that I was able to give an interview to the main Flemish TV station in Belgium, VRT, aired on their news coverage of the funeral tonight, saying:
"Thatcher 'saved the country' only for those with wealth. The reality is that she destroyed maunfacturing industry, the mines - what was left was a financial bubble that may have appeared to have 'saved' Britain but it's a bubble that's burst - and Thatcher helped create that finacial chaos which has not just hit Britain but the whole world".
A link to the video can be found on: http://youtu.be/MZf208_4Jns
Tuesday, 16 April 2013
New STPCD and Toolkit confirm Gove's attacks on teachers' pay and education
Gove’s new Pay and Conditions Document and Toolkit confirm worst fears on Performance Pay
A new 2013 School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Document (STPCD), confirming Gove’s divisive performance-pay plans, has been released on the Department for Education website, along with a ‘Toolkit’ of dangerous advice encouraging schools to set teacher against teacher.
A new introductory section to the new STPCD summarises all of the new attacks on teachers – which are also attacks on education - being introduced by Michael Gove.
These include the following key changes:
(1) “the ending of annual incremental pay progression for all pay progression after the September 2013 pay award”
(2) “the introduction of pay progression linked to performance for all pay progression from September 2013 onwards”
(3) “the replacement of the current threshold test for progression from the main to the upper pay range with new ‘simpler’ criteria”
(4) “to remove any obligation on schools when recruiting to match a teacher’s existing salary on either the main, the upper or the unqualified pay scale”
(5) and, although not spelt out in the introduction , the removal of fixed pay points on the main and upper pay scales so that even where pay progression is awarded, schools could choose to award just a few hundred pounds rather than a full pay increment.
Let’s look at those points in more detail:
An end to incremental progression
At present, newer teachers are nearly always able to rely on yearly progression up the pay scale - at least up to M6. Since the 1920s, Governments have agreed, even if only now for those early years of a teacher's career, that a year’s extra teaching experience should be recognised with an extra pay increment – but not this Government.
The new STPCD confirms (paragraph 7) that “pay awards made in September 2013 will be based on the 2012 pay system of incremental pay”. So teachers can at least still expect to progress up the main pay scale this September. However, unless we strike together to make sure this legislation is repealed, all annual pay progression will depend on judgements of ‘performance’ by September 2014.
All pay progression will be linked to performance
Paragraph 21 spells out what schools have to do under the new legislation, including:
“ a. The decision whether or not to award pay progression must be related to the teacher’s performance, as assessed through the school or authority’s appraisal arrangements”
“d. Pay decisions must be clearly attributable to the performance of the teacher in question”
“e. Continued good performance as defined by an individual school’s pay policy should give a classroom or unqualified teacher an expectation of progression to the top of their respective pay range” (but see below for what being considered ‘good’ might require)
“f. A decision may be made not to award progression whether or not the teacher is subject to capability proceeding”
In other words, anything short of “continued good performance” will mean losing out on a pay rise. Even being held back for one year on the main scale could cost a teacher thousands of pounds in lost salary over just a few years – and a loss in pension as well.
What kind of performance does the DfE recommend deserves a pay rise?
Take a look at the model pay policy included in the DfE’s toolkit and you’ll see exactly how divisive Gove’s plans are. It recommends that ‘performance’ is assessed through a range of evidence including, as you might expect, ‘pupil progress’ and ‘lesson observations’ but also adds as a suggestion ‘the views of pupils and parents’ ! It then suggests that Governors draw up precise criteria and link achievement towards them to differentiated pay rises.
For example, “Teachers will be eligible for a pay increase of £x if e.g. they meet all their objectives, are assessed as fully meeting the relevant standards and all teaching is assessed as at least good with some teaching being assessed as outstanding”. But that “teachers may be eligible for £y if e.g. they meet all their objectives and all teaching is assessed as at least good”. There’s a clear implication that if teaching isn’t at least ‘good’, then that’s no pay rise for you!
Even more divisively, an alternative approach recommends looking at ‘relative performance’ so that “Teachers will be eligible for a pay increase of £x if e.g. they are judged as being within the top 20/15/x% of teachers in their school” but “eligible for £y if e.g. they are judged as being within the top 40/30/ y% of teachers in their school”. Again, there’s a clear implication that if you’re not in the ‘top 40%’ of teachers, then there’s no pay rise for you!
Making it harder to progress onto the Upper Pay Range
Paragraph 17 of the STPCD says that to be paid on the upper pay range, you have to show:
a) that the teacher is highly competent in all elements of the relevant standards; and
b) that the teacher’s achievements and contribution to a school are substantial and sustained.
Again, take a look at the model pay policy included in the DfE’s toolkit and it’s clear that Gove’s real intention is to make it harder to ‘cross the threshold’ – and demand more from you if you’re there.
The DfE pay policy suggests that ‘highly competent’ is defined as “e.g. performance which is not only good but also good enough to provide coaching and mentoring to other teachers, give advice to them and demonstrate to them effective teaching practice and how to make a wider contribution to the work of the school”. Similarly, It suggests that ‘substantial’ might mean “e.g. of real importance, validity or value to the school; play a critical role in the life of the school; provide a role model for teaching and learning; make a distinctive contribution to the raising of pupil standards”. In short, the new STPCD is extending the kind of demands that have been used to define UPS3 – and often to block progression to the top of the upper pay spine – to apply across the whole of the upper pay range.
The DfE model pay policy also ambiguously suggests that ‘sustained’ might mean “e.g. maintained continuously over a long period e.g. X number of school year(s)” In other words, perhaps that ‘sustained’ performance might have to be for more than the current two years?
No protection of salary when you leave your post
Even if you manage to haul yourself over ‘the threshold’ in one school, you have no guarantee of being put on the same pay range - or on the same pay point on either the main or upper pay range - when you move to a new school. This could mean that a teacher moving to a new school from a U3 post – whether by choice, career break, or under duress - could have their pay cut by as much as £15,000.
Paragraph 14.3 spells out that “any pay increase awarded to a teacher on the main pay range ... must be permanent for as long as the teacher remains employed within the same school or employer ... but is not otherwise to be deemed to be permanent by operation of the terms of this Document”. Paragraph 17.5 is even clearer “Any decision made [about being on the upper pay range] applies only to employment in that same school”.
Just to make it absolutely clear that this is all about a ‘race to the bottom’ to make teachers compete for jobs by selling themselves at the lowest possible cost, the Toolkit suggests that one of the factors that governors need to consider in offering a starting salary is, of course, “market conditions”. In case the message wasn’t clear, it adds that “there is no assumption that a teacher will be paid at the same rate as they were being paid in a previous school”.
No more fixed pay points
Paragraphs 15 for the Main pay range – and paragraph 16 for the Upper pay range – don’t contain a fixed range of pay points anymore. Instead, the STPCD is only going to legislate for a minimum and maximum salary level for the main and upper pay ranges.
The Toolkit spells out what it wants Governors to consider: “Do you want to use the discretionary reference points between the statutory minimum and maximum on the main pay range? Would you prefer a longer range, with more points on it, or a shorter one with fewer points?”. In other words, different schools could apply different pay scales.
Worse, the clear implication of the advice in the Toolkit referred to above is that the amount you move up those scales would depend on your ‘absolute’ or ‘relative’ performance. So, even if it’s agreed that you should move up your pay range, the amount of pay progression awarded may be different for different teachers. This will be a threat held over teachers to bully them into taking on even more workload or risk facing only partial progression up the pay scale, or perhaps none at all.
Bullied into line by Ofsted – and by budget pressures
The Toolkit asks Heads and Governors to consider “How much do you want to spend on performance-related pay?” and “How can you ensure that you are using performance related pay to get the best value for money?” – a clear invitation to cut costs by cutting salaries.
The Toolkit is also blatant in making clear that Ofsted will be used as a ‘big stick’ to try and bully Governing Bodies into adopting the harsh approach recommended by the DfE. It emphasises that “the Ofsted school inspection handbook ... makes clear that there should be a strong link between appraisal and salary progression and that this should be considered as part of the judgement on the quality of leadership and management of the school”.
It also states that “When they inspect your school Ofsted will ask for anonymised information from the last three years, which shows the proportions of teachers who have progressed along the main pay scale ... to, and through, the upper pay scale ... and ... include information about patterns of progression through the different salary scale points, and comparisons between subject departments and/or teachers deployed in different key stages”.
Get informed, get ready for action, demand your school/Authority adopts Union policies
The new STPCD document is still officially a ‘draft’ but only because it can’t finally be made law until a further decision is made by Gove later this term “regarding the application of the 1 per cent pay uplift for 2013”. In other words, regardless of pay progression, we don’t yet know whether every teacher will get a 1% annual increase in September or if the increase will only be awarded to some teachers. Otherwise, the new legislation is now crystal clear.
There’s no time to wait. The STPCD may have put off the blocking of pay progression for another year but teachers moving post could be hit be the ending of ‘pay portability’ between posts well before that.
What’s also clear is that there is now an immediate task facing every school group and Local Association. That’s because the Toolkit suggests schools revise and agree new pay and appraisal policies in THIS summer term 2013.
The Toolkit makes clear that schools need to “review and revise pay and appraisal policies and/or any supporting policy/practice on objective setting - to ensure that school is clear about what it wants to reward, how that is reflected in teachers’ objectives, how performance against the relevant standards will be assessed and how appraisal will be linked to pay progression” and for the “Governing Body to agree and adopt the policies ... and to determine what provision should be made in the school’s budget for discretionary pay awards and pay progression”.
So, while we prepare for regional and national strike action in the months ahead, we also need to urgently negotiate with schools, Local Authorities and academy chains to seek adoption of the model pay policy currently being finalised by the NUT and NASUWT which will seek to at least protect teachers from the worst of these attacks.
Conference policy made clear that, “where agreement cannot be reached on a pay policy” action could include “moving to sustained strike action in those schools where members support it”.
Monday, 8 April 2013
Scrap Iron Lady
"Whether it is
the face of Thatcher or the seemingly more ‘acceptable’ visage of
Cameron, implacable opposition to them and their system, combined with
intransigent criticism of those at the summits of the labour movement –
who are not prepared to oppose them, root and branch, as the miners,
Liverpool and the poll tax protesters did – must be the cardinal
principles of a revitalised labour movement" http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/6244
Mr Nellist, Coventry South East's MP between 1983 and 1992, said: "The people I have sympathy for today are those working class people whose lives have been blighted by her policies. The real tragedy is that while she may be dead herself her ideas are still alive and well in the form of the ConDem coalition and New Labour." http://www.coventryobserver.co.uk/2013/04/08/news-Dave-Nellist-Socialist-MP-sympathy-working-class-Lady-Margaret-Thatcher-death-67663.html
Mr Nellist, Coventry South East's MP between 1983 and 1992, said: "The people I have sympathy for today are those working class people whose lives have been blighted by her policies. The real tragedy is that while she may be dead herself her ideas are still alive and well in the form of the ConDem coalition and New Labour." http://www.coventryobserver.co.uk/2013/04/08/news-Dave-Nellist-Socialist-MP-sympathy-working-class-Lady-Margaret-Thatcher-death-67663.html
Saturday, 30 March 2013
Call to start campaign with national strike narrowly defeated at NUT Conference
NUT Conference in Liverpool today voted overwhelmingly to back the priority motion on "Protecting Teachers, Defending Education", thus endorsing the plan of action agreed with the NASUWT. This means that, at long last, a calendar of strike action, starting with a regional strike in the North-West on June 27th, is now set to begin. However, the main debate was over an amendment proposing that we start our action with a national NUT strike on June 26th.
After an impassioned debate, in which the evenly-divided applause for respective speakers left everyone guessing as to the final outcome, the amendment calling for this initial one-day strike was eventually narrowly defeated on a show of hands.
As proposer of this strengthening amendment, I am clearly disappointed that Conference rejected this opportunity to urgently engage and involve the whole membership through national strike action next term. However, we will now have to make sure that we build the joint action that has been agreed as strongly as we can, despite it meaning that some areas will have to wait a further six months before they take part even in regional strike action. With Gove out to divide schools and to steal thousands of pounds from teachers' incomes through his pay and pensions attacks, we have no choice but to act - and to act as boldly as we can.
The text of the amendment, seconded by fellow NUT Executive member, Anne Lemon, had been agreed at a packed meeting of the Local Associations National Action Campaign (LANAC) meeting on Friday evening, with nearly 200 delegates in attendance.
LANAC will be meeting again on Monday evening to discuss how we can make the best of the plan that has been agreed. That has to include the urgent production of campaign materials, joint union meetings in schools and collections for hardship funds - initially to support colleagues striking in the North-West.
To confidently build that regional action, details of the proposed calendar of action after the summer break also urgently need to be announced by the NUT and NASUWT leaderships.
The LANAC amendment took nothing away from the jointly agreed plan. However, it sought to add two key points. Firstly, it sought to make clear that "the objectives of our campaign are to reverse these significant attacks on teachers’ pensions, pay and working conditions and, in doing so, to defend education".
In other words, we wanted members and Ministers alike to recognise that the NUT was engaged in a serious campaign with serious aims. We are not trying just to persuade Gove to sit down and talk to the unions in the hope of gaining some limited concessions. We should be serving notice that we will continue and escalate our campaign until he has withdrawn these attacks altogether.
The other clause of our amendment stated that "in order to increase the pressure on the Secretary of State for Education to meet our demands, Conference instructs the Executive to strengthen our campaign of action by calling a one-day national strike on 26 June and to seek to co-ordinate that action with other trade unions facing attacks on pensions, pay and working conditions".
Why would that national strike have been such an important start to the campaign?
1) Because Gove has, already, rejected our demands for even just a suspension of his performance-pay plans out of hand. Osborne had announced that he planned to make 'substantial savings' from blocking pay progression. As I asked Conference from the rostrum, "are we simply going to accept such a slap in the face?" If only Conference had responded by upping the ante - and voting to call national strike action next term!
2) Because we urgently need to engage and involve every member, in every region, next term. Next month, take-home pay will be cut again through higher pensions contributions. In just a fortnight from today, the performance-pay regulations will be legislated for in Gove's new School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Document. If we are not just going to get caught in a quagmire of isolated battles over school pay policies, but are instead to make clear to teachers that we are also battling to reverse these regulations, we need to raise members' sights and confidence to oppose these attacks. Stunts and rallies alone are not enough. A campaign for a national strike could have achieved that involvement.
3) Because we don't want to be just hitting the headlines in the North-West in June, we want to be hitting the national headlines - as really only a national strike can achieve. If we had voted to start the campaign with a national strike on June 26, we could also have hit the headlines tomorrow by making this bold statement that we were responding to Gove's arrogant rejection of Union demands by announcing a national strike next term.
Regrettably, that strategy was narrowly defeated at Conference. The main argument - indeed really the only argument - used to oppose the amendment was to frighten delegates with the prospect that the NASUWT might walk away from the joint plan altogether if the NUT were to announce that we were going to also strike nationally on June 26. Yet would the NASUWT really have been able to get away with pulling out of the joint plan in the face of such severe attacks on teachers and education? Just because the NUT had called for an additional day of national strike action? Surely both unions are more serious about fighting to defend teachers and education than that?
Given the factors outlined above, I would have hoped that the NASUWT could have also been persuaded to participate in an additional national strike in June. Even if they had only felt able to stick to the previously agreed plan, the NUT would not have been acting alone on June 26. We could have sought to co-ordinate the action with other unions, not least the PCS.
Unfortunately, and in an intervention that may have played some part in the eventual outcome, PCS General Secretary Mark Serwotka did not call on the NUT to join with other unions in taking co-ordinated strike action on June 26. Instead, at a fringe meeting following the LANAC meeting, he intimated his support for the joint NUT/NASUWT plan of action and cautioned against Conference taking any decisions that might jeopardise that plan. Regrettably, those arguments were taken up by the National Executive speakers opposing the LANAC amendment today to help argue against joint action with the PCS.
So, barring any significant change of circumstances - for example if Gove's new Pay and Conditions Document is even worse than feared - it is now unlikely that national NUT/NASUWT strike action will take place until November 2013. The North-West regional strike on June 27th will, however, still see a start to at least some kind of calendar of action, with further regions taking action in September and October. We must make absolutely sure that this is, indeed, just the start of an ongoing and escalating campaign, continuing until our objectives are achieved.
Those on the NUT Executive who cautioned against an initial one day national strike have a particular responsibility to make sure that this joint plan is fully rolled out - and continued - as promised. In truth, it will be those of us in LANAC who called for this strengthening amendment who, while being narrowly defeated at Conference today, will now work as hard as anyone for the agreed plan of action to succeed.
With the new legislation shortly to be on the statute books, the battle will have to start locally with efforts to secure acceptable pay policies in schools, Academy chains and Local Authorities - policies that at least go some way to neutralise the worst of Gove's performance-pay plans. Despite the lack of the national strike action in June which would have helped involve and unite members in preparing for struggle, LANAC can play an important role in encouraging Local Associations and school reps to engage in that battle, and to seek to co-ordinate local strikes across schools and Associations where employers try to impose unacceptable policies.
After an impassioned debate, in which the evenly-divided applause for respective speakers left everyone guessing as to the final outcome, the amendment calling for this initial one-day strike was eventually narrowly defeated on a show of hands.
As proposer of this strengthening amendment, I am clearly disappointed that Conference rejected this opportunity to urgently engage and involve the whole membership through national strike action next term. However, we will now have to make sure that we build the joint action that has been agreed as strongly as we can, despite it meaning that some areas will have to wait a further six months before they take part even in regional strike action. With Gove out to divide schools and to steal thousands of pounds from teachers' incomes through his pay and pensions attacks, we have no choice but to act - and to act as boldly as we can.
 |
| LANAC meeting starts to fill on Friday evening |
LANAC will be meeting again on Monday evening to discuss how we can make the best of the plan that has been agreed. That has to include the urgent production of campaign materials, joint union meetings in schools and collections for hardship funds - initially to support colleagues striking in the North-West.
To confidently build that regional action, details of the proposed calendar of action after the summer break also urgently need to be announced by the NUT and NASUWT leaderships.
The LANAC amendment took nothing away from the jointly agreed plan. However, it sought to add two key points. Firstly, it sought to make clear that "the objectives of our campaign are to reverse these significant attacks on teachers’ pensions, pay and working conditions and, in doing so, to defend education".
In other words, we wanted members and Ministers alike to recognise that the NUT was engaged in a serious campaign with serious aims. We are not trying just to persuade Gove to sit down and talk to the unions in the hope of gaining some limited concessions. We should be serving notice that we will continue and escalate our campaign until he has withdrawn these attacks altogether.
The other clause of our amendment stated that "in order to increase the pressure on the Secretary of State for Education to meet our demands, Conference instructs the Executive to strengthen our campaign of action by calling a one-day national strike on 26 June and to seek to co-ordinate that action with other trade unions facing attacks on pensions, pay and working conditions".
Why would that national strike have been such an important start to the campaign?
1) Because Gove has, already, rejected our demands for even just a suspension of his performance-pay plans out of hand. Osborne had announced that he planned to make 'substantial savings' from blocking pay progression. As I asked Conference from the rostrum, "are we simply going to accept such a slap in the face?" If only Conference had responded by upping the ante - and voting to call national strike action next term!
2) Because we urgently need to engage and involve every member, in every region, next term. Next month, take-home pay will be cut again through higher pensions contributions. In just a fortnight from today, the performance-pay regulations will be legislated for in Gove's new School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Document. If we are not just going to get caught in a quagmire of isolated battles over school pay policies, but are instead to make clear to teachers that we are also battling to reverse these regulations, we need to raise members' sights and confidence to oppose these attacks. Stunts and rallies alone are not enough. A campaign for a national strike could have achieved that involvement.
3) Because we don't want to be just hitting the headlines in the North-West in June, we want to be hitting the national headlines - as really only a national strike can achieve. If we had voted to start the campaign with a national strike on June 26, we could also have hit the headlines tomorrow by making this bold statement that we were responding to Gove's arrogant rejection of Union demands by announcing a national strike next term.
Regrettably, that strategy was narrowly defeated at Conference. The main argument - indeed really the only argument - used to oppose the amendment was to frighten delegates with the prospect that the NASUWT might walk away from the joint plan altogether if the NUT were to announce that we were going to also strike nationally on June 26. Yet would the NASUWT really have been able to get away with pulling out of the joint plan in the face of such severe attacks on teachers and education? Just because the NUT had called for an additional day of national strike action? Surely both unions are more serious about fighting to defend teachers and education than that?
Given the factors outlined above, I would have hoped that the NASUWT could have also been persuaded to participate in an additional national strike in June. Even if they had only felt able to stick to the previously agreed plan, the NUT would not have been acting alone on June 26. We could have sought to co-ordinate the action with other unions, not least the PCS.
Unfortunately, and in an intervention that may have played some part in the eventual outcome, PCS General Secretary Mark Serwotka did not call on the NUT to join with other unions in taking co-ordinated strike action on June 26. Instead, at a fringe meeting following the LANAC meeting, he intimated his support for the joint NUT/NASUWT plan of action and cautioned against Conference taking any decisions that might jeopardise that plan. Regrettably, those arguments were taken up by the National Executive speakers opposing the LANAC amendment today to help argue against joint action with the PCS.
So, barring any significant change of circumstances - for example if Gove's new Pay and Conditions Document is even worse than feared - it is now unlikely that national NUT/NASUWT strike action will take place until November 2013. The North-West regional strike on June 27th will, however, still see a start to at least some kind of calendar of action, with further regions taking action in September and October. We must make absolutely sure that this is, indeed, just the start of an ongoing and escalating campaign, continuing until our objectives are achieved.
Those on the NUT Executive who cautioned against an initial one day national strike have a particular responsibility to make sure that this joint plan is fully rolled out - and continued - as promised. In truth, it will be those of us in LANAC who called for this strengthening amendment who, while being narrowly defeated at Conference today, will now work as hard as anyone for the agreed plan of action to succeed.
With the new legislation shortly to be on the statute books, the battle will have to start locally with efforts to secure acceptable pay policies in schools, Academy chains and Local Authorities - policies that at least go some way to neutralise the worst of Gove's performance-pay plans. Despite the lack of the national strike action in June which would have helped involve and unite members in preparing for struggle, LANAC can play an important role in encouraging Local Associations and school reps to engage in that battle, and to seek to co-ordinate local strikes across schools and Associations where employers try to impose unacceptable policies.
Tuesday, 26 March 2013
Conference 2013 - serious attacks require serious action
NUT Conference 2013 meets to debate how best to defend teachers at a time when our members, and education as a whole, are under fierce attack.
As the best organised teaching union, the NUT has a huge responsibility to use our strength to push back a Government determined to drive through its agenda of cuts and privatisation.
If teachers go out and explain how the ConDems' attacks on pensions, pay and conditions are part of a broader attack on education, large sections of the public can be won to support our action, just as they were when unions took national action in 2011. If we organise effectively and mobilise around a clear programme of action, then we can force them to retreat.
Gove has talked of declaring 'war' on the teaching unions because he knows our potential strength. When we take action, thousands of schools are closed, working lives and the economy widely disrupted, trade union opposition to cuts clearly displayed in every community.
This Government is not confident that it can push through its plans. It knows that, beneath the surface, there is massive discontent at the banksters and the super-rich that they represent. With its cuts packages threatening a 'triple-dip' recession, they are struggling to show that they have any solution to the continuing economic crisis.
Yet throughout 2012, the Con-Dems must hardly have been able to believe their luck. The retreat by unions like UNISON and ATL over pensions left other unions isolated and significant joint national action was not repeated again after November 2011. That retreat also left some in the NUT seemingly struggling with a crisis of confidence.
Instead of leading the way as the NUT had done in June 2011, last year saw only a London regional strike which, although confirming that teachers would take action when a lead is given, wasn’t then followed by further major action. For over three months after Gove announced his performance-pay attacks in early December, no strike plans were announced.
Even the publicity for members seemed strangely muted with leaflets having to be produced by Local Associations, ‘Classroom Teacher’ and others, from below.
The conclusion was drawn that the NUT can’t act alone - it has to make sure the NASUWT acts with us too. Of course unions acting together adds strength - that’s why the Socialist Party has been to the fore in campaigning for the TUC to discuss and build generalised strike action. However, there’s a balance to be struck at each stage between the benefits of taking joint action and the risks of having to go at the speed of the slowest partner.
The NASUWT remains a difficult partner to negotiate with - certainly at the top. Hopefully, out of joint action, links can be strengthened from below that can also put pressure on the NASUWT tops to maintain action.
The joint NASUWT/NUT 'action short of strike action' has won some gains and helped build union organisation in some schools. However, school-by-school action asks a lot of local union organisation and has inevitably been 'patchy'. Localised battles are no substitute for national strike action to win our demands.
On pensions, we need to reverse the increased pension ages and win a pay rise that gives us back what we have lost to inflation and contribution increases. On workload we need to win the 35 hour limit on working hours, with a maximum of 20 hours pupil contact time, listed in Motion 55. Immediately, we have to fight to reverse the severe attacks on pay that will soon be legislated for in the Pay and Conditions Document.
Those are very serious demands to make - and they will need a serious struggle to achieve them. That struggle is having to be fought without a ‘political arm’. If elected, Labour promises to be little different to the Tories. For now, we have to rely largely on our trade union strength and on support in our communities.
Immediately, we have to build and escalate action on PRP. The NUT/NASUWT program marks, at last, a return to action, but it needs strengthening. It should start with national action, linking with unions like PCS in June. The plans for Autumn Term need to be announced and dates set for further escalating action in 2014.
As the best organised teaching union, the NUT has a huge responsibility to use our strength to push back a Government determined to drive through its agenda of cuts and privatisation.
If teachers go out and explain how the ConDems' attacks on pensions, pay and conditions are part of a broader attack on education, large sections of the public can be won to support our action, just as they were when unions took national action in 2011. If we organise effectively and mobilise around a clear programme of action, then we can force them to retreat.
Gove has talked of declaring 'war' on the teaching unions because he knows our potential strength. When we take action, thousands of schools are closed, working lives and the economy widely disrupted, trade union opposition to cuts clearly displayed in every community.
This Government is not confident that it can push through its plans. It knows that, beneath the surface, there is massive discontent at the banksters and the super-rich that they represent. With its cuts packages threatening a 'triple-dip' recession, they are struggling to show that they have any solution to the continuing economic crisis.
Yet throughout 2012, the Con-Dems must hardly have been able to believe their luck. The retreat by unions like UNISON and ATL over pensions left other unions isolated and significant joint national action was not repeated again after November 2011. That retreat also left some in the NUT seemingly struggling with a crisis of confidence.
Instead of leading the way as the NUT had done in June 2011, last year saw only a London regional strike which, although confirming that teachers would take action when a lead is given, wasn’t then followed by further major action. For over three months after Gove announced his performance-pay attacks in early December, no strike plans were announced.
Even the publicity for members seemed strangely muted with leaflets having to be produced by Local Associations, ‘Classroom Teacher’ and others, from below.
The conclusion was drawn that the NUT can’t act alone - it has to make sure the NASUWT acts with us too. Of course unions acting together adds strength - that’s why the Socialist Party has been to the fore in campaigning for the TUC to discuss and build generalised strike action. However, there’s a balance to be struck at each stage between the benefits of taking joint action and the risks of having to go at the speed of the slowest partner.
The NASUWT remains a difficult partner to negotiate with - certainly at the top. Hopefully, out of joint action, links can be strengthened from below that can also put pressure on the NASUWT tops to maintain action.
The joint NASUWT/NUT 'action short of strike action' has won some gains and helped build union organisation in some schools. However, school-by-school action asks a lot of local union organisation and has inevitably been 'patchy'. Localised battles are no substitute for national strike action to win our demands.
On pensions, we need to reverse the increased pension ages and win a pay rise that gives us back what we have lost to inflation and contribution increases. On workload we need to win the 35 hour limit on working hours, with a maximum of 20 hours pupil contact time, listed in Motion 55. Immediately, we have to fight to reverse the severe attacks on pay that will soon be legislated for in the Pay and Conditions Document.
Those are very serious demands to make - and they will need a serious struggle to achieve them. That struggle is having to be fought without a ‘political arm’. If elected, Labour promises to be little different to the Tories. For now, we have to rely largely on our trade union strength and on support in our communities.
Immediately, we have to build and escalate action on PRP. The NUT/NASUWT program marks, at last, a return to action, but it needs strengthening. It should start with national action, linking with unions like PCS in June. The plans for Autumn Term need to be announced and dates set for further escalating action in 2014.
Monday, 25 March 2013
Vigil for Lucy Meadows outside the Daily Mail offices
Lucy, a teacher in Accrington, Lancashire, was becoming active in the Union and many thousands of NUT members across the country will have wanted to send their solidarity and condolences tonight - as we will also hope to at NUT Conference as well.
A petition on http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/the-daily-mail-fire-richard-littlejohn-for-victimizing-lucy-meadows-leading-to-her-possible-suicide explains the background to the protest:
"Nathan Upton was a teacher at St Mary Magdalen's School in Accrington. Before the Christmas break the parents of children at the school were informed that after the break she was would be coming back to work after the holiday as Lucy Meadows.
It started out as confusion from parents, who simply didn't know what do think of it all, but most seemed to be simply concerned about the adjustment children would have to face rather than actively malicious. However, the more bigoted members of the community then went to the Daily Mail, where she was attacked by Richard Littlejohn who decided to single her out in the national paper.
No one deserves to have their lives turned upside down because of their gender identity being thrown into the national spotlight. The reason the parents who had a problem went to the Daily Mail is that there was no way to get her fired under equal opportunity law. So they tried to give the school bad press by saying how terrible it is that she is allowed to live her life freely. While little is known about the amount of abuse she ended up getting, the result is the same no matter what;
Lucy Meadows was found dead this week. If it was suicide, it was brought on from the hounding she received from Daily Mail readers. The possibility of this happening was enough for the daily mail to take down his original article without comment.
We, the undersigned, want a formal apology for the stress and pain that Richard Littlejohn and the Daily Mail caused Lucy Meadows and for Richard Littlejohn to be fired or resign from his post".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)