Changing the ASTI: The ASTI is now dominated by a well-organised group. Ordinary teachers feel the union no longer represents them, writes former ASTI executive member Joe Coy

Democracy is a great system for organising social activities because it is, in the words of Lincoln: "Government of the people, for the people and by the people". Unfortunately, the recent history of the Association of Secondary Teachers (ASTI) has shown a democratic deficit.

Something unusual has happened to the ASTI in the past few years. In that time ASTI left the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, opted out of a national pay agreement, sought a unilateral pay rise of 30 per cent (though it was tied to the same pay scale as the other teacher unions), threatened to boycott State exams in pursuit of its claim and its general secretary resigned. It also managed to alienate large numbers of parents and students.

United by a passionate belief in their viewpoint, a well-organised cohort of teachers now holds all the main offices in ASTI. The rise of this more assertive leadership has been facilitated by the decline of the branch structure of the association.

All members of ASTI belong to one of 56 branches. These vary in size from 100 to 500 members. The problem is that very few members attend their branch meetings where issues are discussed, votes taken and representatives elected. The average attendance is between 10 per cent and 20 per cent. Consequently the voice of the "silent" majority is never heard, except when there is a national vote of some consequence. When that happened, on at least one occasion in the recent past, the members voted against the wishes of their executive.

The reasons members don't attend branch meetings are many and varied. Distance from the branch venue, family commitments to the young or elderly and other social engagements are three. Some don't attend because they are not interested in union politics. Some would prefer to watch TV. Regardless of their reasons for not attending, they are still members and if they won't go to the branch then the branch should come to them. The argument that I heard at an executive meeting that those who don't attend branch meetings don't deserve to be heard is arrogant nonsense.

An association that wishes to keep in contact with its members and allow the full membership to vote on all issues would change the dated and dying branch structure. The simple solution would be to make the workplace (i.e. school) the basic unit and conduct all business there. However, last year, when a special convention was called to change this rule, the motion was defeated despite getting a majority. This happened because of the need for a two-thirds weighted majority. Fifty-one per cent of the citizens of this State can change the Constitution, but 66 per cent of the ASTI cannot change the rules of their own association. Thus, to misquote Shakespeare, is the will of the living majority curbed by the dead hand of history.

One of the reasons some members defend the traditional branch structure so zealously is the hierarchical chain. They argue that members need to be "informed" about issues by the branch officers before they vote. The implication of this is that the majority of members are stupid and need the guidance of those in the know if they are to vote correctly.

Democratic organisations such as the ASTI are set up to serve the interests of their members. They are meant to be servants, not masters. Unfortunately, as happens with so many other organisations - whether it is Fianna Fáil or the GAA - they can take on a life of their own and become more important than their members. Instead of the organisation being there to carry out the wishes of its members, members are expected to be totally loyal regardless of the activities of the organisation.

There is widespread disillusionment among people like myself who perceive, rightly or wrongly, that the ASTI no longer represents them. We disagreed with many of the activities carried out in our names over the past four years.

We disliked some of the tactics used to fight a futile pay battle at a time when the Government had made, and was obliged to defend, a national pay agreement with all the other unions. We regretted that other trade unions, including the other teacher unions, were indifferent to our plight. We cringed at conventions and executive meetings when speakers with legitimate points of view were shouted down or jeered at. We deplored the disrespect shown to visiting speakers such as the Minister for Education, our own general secretary and at least two union presidents. We were saddened to see our traditional support among the public draining away.

Trade unions are there to protect the interests of their members. However, for teachers there is more at stake than pay rates. We depend on the co-operation of our students and their parents. We can't afford to alienate successive ministers for education. We need to retain the respect and status on which all good teaching depends. To do these things we need to behave in a rational and reasonable manner. In that respect we could learn a lot from the INTO which, through diplomacy and clever tactics, gained a lot more for its members than the ASTI did.

Nevertheless, the ultimate blame for our demoralised association lies not with the activists, who are using the association to further their strongly held beliefs, but with the silent 80 per cent who fail to take part in the democratic process. That this should happen in a trade union with such a proud tradition is worrying.

All human institutions need to be reformed from time to time, lest they become self-serving elites remote from their origins. The ASTI is now in that position. Those who are currently in positions of influence need to recognise that the association is not their possession but belongs to the 17,000 teachers who pay €300 every year for their membership.

One of the reasons the ASTI has had such poor public support over the past few years was the tactics that were used to fight a lost cause. The public doesn't like to be hectored. People don't like to see a Government minister shouted down as Michael Woods was in Bundoran a few years ago. They don't like to be blackmailed. They don't like students being used as pawns. They don't like maverick trade unions that break away from a national consensus and then expect to be treated more favourably than those who negotiate.

Teachers have been demonised over the past few years and, to a certain extent, we are partly responsible ourselves. Our official voice often comes across as being negative, reactionary and insensitive. The Minister has clearly decided to teach us a lesson and, whether we like it or not, he has widespread support.

What is sad is that the public perception of teachers and the reality of their working lives are so different. Cynics might say that the three best things about teaching are June, July and August. However the reality is that those who are attracted to teaching are driven by a desire to make a difference and, for that reason, most teachers see their job as more than their contracted hours. There is a huge amount of goodwill in the teaching profession and when properly managed and appreciated, teachers give generously of their time and energy.

I am constantly amazed by the dedication of my colleagues, the hours of voluntary work, their daily concern for their students, the generosity of spirit and the sheer professionalism they bring to their work.

Unfortunately, the present minister, like a bad teacher, can only see the disruptive ones while ignoring the majority who are purposeful and constructive.

Something positive can happen at this week's conference. The union could use the occasion to get its house in order so that ASTI ceases to be a cold house for so many of its members.

• Joe Coy is a former member of the Central Executive Committee of the ASTI