Members First Platform

Introduction

The question has to be asked: Why is the teaching profession treated so differently to other professions? Why are we under constant media scrutiny? Why are our salary negotiations in the public domain? Why are our salaries and conditions openly discussed when other professions would consider this an invasion of privacy? Why do we work in conditions that other professions would find intolerable? League tables, continuous external testing and articles about student behavior are all premised on the underlying assumption that teachers and schools are not to be trusted to do a good job. Why is teaching not afforded the same level of respect as other professions?

For some time now, there has been a groundswell of opinion amongst teachers and administrators that things need to change. It is time for a new paradigm, a new set of rules if you like. At the heart of this is our Union, the SSTUWA. It is the only body which negotiates our conditions. It is the sole protector of our professionalism. It is a lone voice against a chorus of voices which seeks to belittle what we do. The current leadership group appears bereft of ideas on how to rebrand teaching and regain lost respect.

In 2007, members voted for a different group of teachers to represent them on Executive. Until then, the Unity group of Brian Lindberg, Pat Byrne, Mike Keely, David Kelly and Anne Gisborne had been at the helm. That election result gave Members First a unique opportunity to witness first hand how our Union operates and what needs to be changed in order to deliver to members the very best service possible with dignity and mutual respect.  The following is a summary of our assessment of how the SSTUWA functions, how MF would change this and some of our policies for implementation if elected. We thank you for taking the time to listen to us.

The Problem

The SSTUWA is caught in a rut. This is largely due to a deep-rooted culture of defeatism and compliance perpetuated by recent leaders. It was extremely frustrating for Members First to find that our biggest struggle was not against our employer, a belligerent government or a hostile media, but our own Senior Officers.  A prime example of this was the 2008 EBA negotiations where Executive had to publicly contradict its President, Vice President and General Secretary in order to prevent a substandard EBA, which included trading in conditions, from being accepted by the members. Fortunately the membership agreed with MF and we now have the best EBA for over 15 years. But why should the Executive of our Union have to fight its own elected leaders to get a better deal for members who pay their salaries?

Because of our determination and desire to do things differently, some wish to portray MF as militant. Nothing could be further from the truth. We believe that although industrial action is an essential weapon in our armory, it is no substitute for intelligent, determined and on-going negotiating. At present, our employer treats us with contempt like a cowardly bully who is confident his victim will not fight back. We have allowed ourselves to become the junior partner in any negotiations. The power sharing in educational industrial relations is heavily lop-sided in favour of the employer due to our reluctance to hold them to the Agreement. We have given them that power through weak leadership.

For the last 15 years, the decision-making process and hence the capacity for change has been concentrated in one or two Senior Officers. Information is withheld until a decision has been made. Executive are used as a rubber stamp and State Council is carefully managed in order to ratify already made decisions. In these days of instant and widespread communication, it is unbelievable that a slim majority of hand picked delegates can determine Union policy. The way the structures of our Union are used is, at times, cynical and undemocratic. Anyone who has been to State Council will have witnessed the stage managed performances and the hijacking of the agenda. Members First will change this if elected. More detail is provided later in this document.

Our Union’s communication system is archaic. In a world where internet banking is used by over 90% of people, the SSTUWA is the little old lady who queues up in the bank clutching her passbook. Keeping communication in the dark ages disconnects the leaders from the members. Feedback on issues is only sought in controlled surveys with deadlines and pre-determined questions. This limits participation and gives the collectors of the information control over its use as those who complete the survey are unaware of what others have said. Why do it this way when we have a website with a huge capacity to deliver on-going, open and more representative feedback to our leaders and other branches? The answer is simple. The current leadership style concentrates all power in the Senior Officers in a top down system rather than empower the members through true consultation. The fact that the current leaders have no recent experience of working in schools means the disconnection is almost complete. Bad decisions made undemocratically by people who will not suffer their impact. This is not a recipe for success.

Our Union is becoming increasingly splintered. The existence of sub groups is not, in itself, problematic as long as the individual groups accept and can trust that final decisions are made under the greater Union umbrella based on the sound Union principles of democracy, inclusivity and equity. Members First saw the potential for further splintering of our Union with the AIP where Level 3s and above were severely disadvantaged compared to other members. This is not sound unionism and plays into the hands of our detractors. We corrected this in EBA 3. If we are concerned about groups breaking away from the main body, we should not be advocating agreements like the AIP which clearly discriminated against certain classifications of members.

The Solution

The solution begins with electing Members First in October otherwise nothing will change. If elected, Members First will immediately instigate a comprehensive external and independent review and audit of the SSTUWA’s internal and external structures, administration, financial planning, communication, organization and service provision. From this we will develop a Strategic Plan with specific objectives, mechanisms for achieving those objectives, timelines and targets. We will review this on a yearly basis and report back to members. You will be our line managers. Our Union belongs to the members, not the hierarchy.

The key to any democratic organization is communication. At present, recommendations from branches for State Council are forwarded to central office. They are compiled into a document which is distributed to branches a week before State Council. This allows little or no feedback from other branches and the success or failure of those motions depends mostly on the opinions of the delegates attending Council. This is unnecessarily open to manipulation and asks delegates to vote on issues without consulting the other members in their District. Our website has the capacity to instantly display any Branch motion for all to see and comment on. Each Branch could have an allocated area on the website where they record activity in their school. All meetings would commence by logging on. Motions could be recorded along with minutes of meetings. These motions could then be attached to a master board in the sealed Members Only section. Other branches could then read those motions at their meetings and endorse, reject or suggest amendments. By the time State Council sits, this information would be available for consideration. If delegates could see how hundreds of other branches feel about certain issues, it would make them less susceptible to a particular line of thought being forcefully presented at Council. Instant accountability, grassroots democratic Unionism.

In negotiations, Members First will insist on equal status with our employer. We are both signatories to the current Agreement. Both parties are bound by its content, not just teachers. Neither party is allowed to break the agreement. We will initiate as well as respond to suggestions. This will be the basis of any discussions in EREC or formal EBA negotiations. No diminution of conditions or increase in workload will be considered between EBAs. No diminution of conditions or increase in workload will be considered in formal negotiations without specifically stated financial compensation on top of salary increases due to increases in CPI. Any attempt to alter the Agreement between negotiating periods will be rejected out of hand and we will use the WAIRC to prosecute our case. An agreement is an agreement. If we allow our employer to deviate from the agreement, we lay ourselves open to further erosion of conditions. We can not expect members in schools to follow the Agreement if we, the elected leaders, do not.

Our Policies

Violence in schools.

MF will adopt a zero tolerance approach. This would not be punitive. It would be based on the recognition that bad student behavior is a consequence of other factors beyond our control. Our classrooms must be safe learning environments which nurture children. No student has the right to disrupt the education of others or introduce violence into this safe environment.  More money must be provided for programs for disaffected students without taking funds away from others. MF will not hesitate in using the OSH guidelines to the full extent to protect members in unsafe workplaces. They are a fire extinguisher. It is absurd not to use them in case of a fire.

Career advancement.

The current L3CT and ST requirements are obstacles to career advancement. This again, is an absurd situation where a pathway to encourage teachers to stay in the classroom is blocked by bureaucratic debris. Members First will seek to remove the arduous and humiliating application process. We do not believe that teachers need to apply for a job they already perform. How can a teacher fail an application which states what they do? Are they not to be believed? It is the application process they fail rather than the criteria for being an exemplary classroom practitioner.

Class sizes-reduction.

Our ability to deliver a quality educational product is enhanced by reducing the number of recipients. This is simple mathematics. It is also simple mathematics to appreciate that instant large scale reductions in class sizes are unfeasible. We neither have the teachers nor the resources. What is achievable is a steady reduction of 1 student per year until class sizes reach the recommended numbers in the current EBA.

Primary DOTT.

MF are committed to increasing Primary DOTT to bring it in line with Secondary.

SIS.

This computer program is user unfriendly and must change. It must be accessible from home as school systems are frequently overloaded when all teachers are trying to complete reports at the same time. MF will conduct a thorough review of SIS through our members to provide specific adjustments which are urgently needed.

Reporting requirements.

No Interim Reports on top of the current requirements. This is in breach of the Agreement and will be rejected automatically.

Devolution.

MF completely opposes devolution of responsibility to schools. We acknowledge that some aspects are simplistically appealing, but taken as a whole and studying the negative impact of its introduction overseas and interstate, we can not allow it to be introduced in WA. We can achieve better outcomes for schools without applying market economics to an essential service.

More policies will be added as the campaign progresses.