Teachers have - for the third year in a row - pay at the top of their convention agenda. Instead of celebrating a conclusion, we have a package before us which is an insult to ordinary teachers, especially given last week's Labour Court recommendation to Aer Lingus workers. Then, a SIPTU spokesperson was able to claim that the court had given workers 90 per cent of what they were looking for.
Conference delegates will be doing some critical reflection on the handling of this dispute by our union - and on the attitude of the Government to teachers. The big questions will be: what are the lessons to be learned and where do we go from here? Do we say to the Government that they have not only defeated us, but also demoralised us as a profession and as a union?
The ordinary teacher may well conclude that they have a union that can't ensure that they have decent pay and conditions. Their only option then will be to suffer further or leave the profession. If we want to prevent this, we need to take a stand on the principle of justice in this dispute. Teachers should know that you don't fight for justice on the basis of popularity, but on the basis of principle.
The Government and the media would like us to believe that we have lost the battle, but teachers should realise that winning the war is the crucial issue - and that will take more than one battle.
The 1990s was the decade of debate about reforms in education and this decade will see the implementation of those reforms. Do we want to be the professionals who will implement these reforms according to the agendas of various outside agencies, not to mention a Government that will try to further exploit us by doing it "on the cheap".
If we decide to accept this Labour Court document, we should do so fully knowing what we are buying in to. Voting "yes" will mean we are agreeing to benchmarking.
Last week, we saw the public service employers and the Department of Finance argue, in their submissions to the benchmarking body, that benchmarking may not be used to compensate for past productivity and flexibility. Where does this leave the Labour Court clarification on past productivity?
Voting "yes" will also mean going back into the PPF and teachers need to know that 4 per cent of the PPF payment is on the basis of schools engaging in the "whole school" plans. This is the gateway through which major changes will be implemented, again without adequate resources or back-up.
Teachers are not primarily motivated by money. It is because we value the nurturing, vocational aspect of our job so highly that we have tolerated the Government exploiting our generosity thus far. The Government's handling of the dispute shows they will continue to exploit us unless we learn to say "no".
The public service employers and Department of Finance submissions to the benchmarking body point out that pay developments must have regard to international and domestic events. This would suggest that the predicted downturn in the economy would mean the Government could plead inability to pay.
Teachers cannot trust this Government, even though they acknowledge, through the Labour Court, we have a sustainable case.
In it's duty of care to children, the Government is ignoring the seepage of public service employees. Will we, by accepting this package, make it impossible for young graduates to go into teaching? Will we allow the Government to create the same crisis in teaching that exists in the health service? The Department of Education and Science, in its submission on benchmarking last week, made it quite clear it wants a lot more productivity from us in terms of a longer school year and so on before they will agree to any pay increase.
Many in the media and within our union may feel we have no alternative but to accept. However, the Government, IBEC, ICTU and parents would do well to remember that we are the gatekeepers of change. Change is the fuel a "knowledge economy" needs. If you don't value the gatekeepers of that change, the knowledge economy may become starved of fuel - and therein lies our most potent weapon. More powerful than any strike is the view that economists acknowledge that the pace of change is doubling every three years.
Finally, in the light of recent Labour Court settlements, one has to ask: if we were a commercial group would they be offering us a zero per cent increase? But we must not forget that we belong to the caring professions and, in this State, even judges have to threaten Ministers with court proceedings in order to get funding for essential services. A Minister only increases staff pay when faced with a staffing shortage. Will we as a union be happy to stand idly by and wait for that scenario?
Noel Buckley is a teacher in Presentation Secondary School, Clonmel, Co Tipperary, and a member of CEC.
