The ASTI convention in Galway called on all teachers to reject the Labour Court document in the ballot this week.
Many of the public may wonder why. Teachers should reject this deal because they do not see it or benchmarking improving the education system for students or for teachers.
Teachers know the education system in a way the public never can. Teachers should vote No to the Labour Court document because the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness and benchmarking represent a new system of determining pay and conditions of service. Others outside of education will determine our working conditions; little wonder the politicians get themselves taken out of benchmarking.
The Department of Education, in its submission to the Bench marking Body, sets out a long list of demands. These include a new contract for teachers, making voluntary activities compulsory; co-operation with Whole School Evaluation; use of continuous assessment at Junior Certificate level; provision for school planning; and parent-teacher meetings outside school time.
These changes have been sought by the Department of Education for years and indeed some of them may be necessary, but what is surprising is that they should be sought as a quid pro quo for pay increases by trading conditions and introducing performance-related pay and non-pensionable service.
Pay is crucially important but it is not the only factor in maintaining a contented and committed teaching force. In fact a reduction in weekly teaching hours is an urgent necessity to enable teachers to cope with the rapidly growing burdens and in many cases to protect the quality of their health and consequently the quality of their teaching.
In benchmarking, the Labour Court's recommendation does not say teachers have a "sustainable" case for a pay rise. The Labour Court clarification says past productivity could be addressed in benchmarking.
The Government as employer, in its submission to the Bench marking Body, makes it clear that past productivity cannot be the basis for a pay rise.
How can the Taoiseach and Dr Woods tell us we can get a substantial pay increase from bench marking?
Is the Benchmarking Body really independent or subservient to Government? How do other public unions feel about teachers being guaranteed a pay rise?
Would lawyers and doctors allow an outside group to determine their professional roles and yet if teachers go into benchmarking that is essentially what they are doing.
The terms of reference set out for the Benchmarking Body in paragraph 7-1 make it clear that this body will be required to "examine existing roles, duties, responsibilities etc in the public service and across the economy, and not just pay rates applicable in the private sector to jobs with similar titles".
Not one of the seven people on the Benchmarking Body comes from an educational background. Most of them are from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions or a business background.
Unlike the Conciliation and Arbitration scheme, teachers cannot negotiate, all we can do is make our submission and put our case. We cannot dispute their findings.
One has to ask can teachers be fairly judged in benchmarking given the scapegoating of teachers that has gone on in the media re ASTI teachers in the past year. What are we doing that led to such vigorous scapegoating? The major weakness in national wage agreements is the failure of the partners to build flexibility into them to enable employers and workers to deal with issues that are unique to a particular group and it is these 15 years of failure that have made teachers angry.
Benchmarking simply masks the failure of the public service unions, while affording the Government a mechanism to reduce further its liability in terms of public service pensions.
Mr Joe O'Toole, general secretary of the Irish National Teachers' Organisation, naively compares the benefit of benchmarking to that of simply walking up to an ATM machine and getting money out.
If it is going to be that good why did Joe and his fellow politicians through the Buckley Report get themselves taken out of benchmarking? Were they afraid performance-related pay might significantly change their working conditions?
Why is the ICTU agreeing to a phasing-in of payments from benchmarking with no definite final payment date secured? This suggests any monies paid from benchmarking will be phased into another national wage agreement, unlike the politicians' increase.
The Fitzpatrick Report of 1998 and the recent report of the Public Services Commission on Pensions shows it is the Government's aim to break pension parity and introduce lump sum payments into public service pay.
ASTI, in questioning benchmarking, has focused public workers' minds on the small print. It has shown up trade union leaders signing a potential blank cheque to Government on behalf of public service workers.
It is thanks to the ASTI that benchmarking is now improved but serious questions remain as to its suitability for the education sector.
Noel Buckley is chairman of the Co Tipperary branch of the ASTI. He is also a member of the union's central executive council