The dire straits of entrenchment - money for nothing
Posted by: Cynic
on 02, Dec, 2010 
Tagged in: unions , teachers , STCA , secondary schools , salary , PPTA , pay , NZEI , negotiations , MOE , Ministry of Education , industrial action , Entrenchment , Employment Relations Act , education spending , education politics , conditions , collective agreement , bargaining
Entrenchment refers to a clause in the NZEI primary teachers' collective agreement. This clause is an agreement between NZEI and the MoE, it means that any increases in pay made to PPTA members will also be offered to NZEI members.
If NZEI members accept the offer, being taken out to them by their executive, they will receive an immediate pay-rise.
PPTA members have rejected the miserly mixed up offers of the Ministry - and have said they will continue to fight for improved teaching and learning conditions in secondary schools.
If PPTA members win, through the efforts, hardship and struggle of secondary school communities, an improved offer from the MoE, the payment components will automatically be given to NZEI members - to top up what they have already received.
If PPTA were to be offered less than NZEI? Well ... the entrenchment clause doesn't work the other way.
It is the belief of NZEI that this clause ensures pay parity.
It is the belief of PPTA that this clause does not meet the requirements of good faith nor does it meet the definition of pay parity.
Comments (5)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Bronwyn Cross
said:
|
Little Red Hens... Wow - there's some really smug and dishonest self-justification going on here! Selling out another union (or person, or army, or country) can never be justifed as either "smart or "principled". It's shabby - no two ways about it. Like the story of the little red hen - where everyone wanted a piece of the cake but no one was prepared to contribute to the making of it - NZEI members are trying to claim victory in a battle they didn't have the courage to fight! The fact that there is a remotely acceptable available is because PPTA members have been bravely taking industrial action (and losing pay for it) and by so doing, driving up the offer for both unions. The only thing NZEI had to sell was its capacity for surrender - and they sold it so cheaply! If NZEI is as ethical as the writers above would have us believe, prove it. Ratify the pathetic settlement (technically a pay cut of 4%)and reject the parasitic entrenchment clause. By so doing, NZEI members could show PPTA members that the do have some courage and some sense of principle. |
|
Dave Kennedy
said:
|
NZEI/PPTA It will always be difficult when NZEI and PPTA operate as separate unions and many of the views expressed here do not portray the real complexities of the current situation. NZEI has major battles with the funding cuts to Early Childhood and the flawed National Standards and these are essentially professional issues that cannot be progressed through an employment agreement. NZEI members provided very clear direction as regards the priorities for the Primary Teacher negotiations and after the initial threatened clawbacks the final offer saw a considerable movement with many gains in allowances and a pay increase above many expectations. Not to accept this offer would go against members' wishes and if negotiations extended into the following year then fighting both industrial and professional battles would have stretched resources. Our NZEI members have every sympathy for the PPTA situation but unless we co-operate to a larger degree we have to put our own members' needs first. I don't think NZEI settling should be seen as sabotaging the efforts of PPTA, it just reflects a different focus to meet the needs of members who are suffering much larger attacks on job security and conditions than PPTA members are experiencing. Many of our Early Childhood Teachers are losing their jobs as funding cuts bite and centres close and Primary Teachers are experiencing huge frustrations with National Standards to a greater degree than the initial difficulties with implementing NCEA. Why can't we take some deep breaths and just recognize that we share the same frustration of trying to work with a Minister who makes no apparent effort to listen to those she should be serving and dictating to a profession as if they are civil servants of the lowest order. We have to operate in different ways because the circumstances of our respective sectors are different despite our shared passion to protect quality public education in New Zealand. |
|
Vinny Ridgway
said:
|
Entrenched but not forgotten I'm frankly a little peeved at the Korero being suggested to PPTA members regarding the entrenchment clause. As a long time member of the union F.O.L and C.T.U) movement, and previous member of NZEI's National Executive, I can assure you that the rationale to implementing an Entrenchment clause in the NZEI primary teachers' collective agreement was not to get "money for nothing" but to create a unified teaching profession, by establishing equity of pay (Pay parity and relativities) relative to equal or similar work, as teachers move from one field to another(secondary to Primary to ECE and vice versa as well as area schools to name examples) which PPTA originally appeared to support. Politically, the Entrenchment clause is a brilliant piece of industrial bargaining. In terms of precedence this was already set from the last round of negotiations so the comment regarding this is moot. I now sit on a very different side of the fence. Entrenched but I have not forgotten how it got there. It appears that Crying "Foul" because one has been outsmarted, simply sounds like sour grapes and such bleating doesn't cut it in the modern industrial world. Negotiate a similar clause so one can "go back the other way".... seems a little too easy ? Not rocket science is it. I believe the National Executive have seriously dropped the ball .This is a very different industrial landscape from our tupuna's day and we need to respond differently. Pay and conditions are always up for negotiation, It happens each pay round, defend claw backs certainly, but class sizes ? There is room for doubt here. 5.9.1 says it all !!! This is a policy decision which appears to require site by site negotiation to remedy ! Hmm mm Site bargaining ? Do we want to go there ? Do PPTA Executive believe there is the expertise on the ground to negotiate this should it become necessary ? We certainly dont have the field staff to cover this. I think its time for a more pragmatic approach to bargaining and reject some of the non-commonsensical suggestions being put forward by the Executive with regard to refusal to complete designated tasks. We risk our members employment by refusing to comply with legitimate instructions from their employers. Its time to grow up and stop throwing our toys out of the sand pit and work more constructively towards a realistic and achievable settlement.  |
|
johnC
said:
|
NZEI PPTA Thanks for the comments Paul. I am scared to think of the anger NZEI is causing in PPTA. Its good to hear someone talking sense about working together. NZEI ratification will mean its definitely more difficult for PPTA, and if we roll over then a precedence will have been set. all for 2.something% and 300 bucks. Cheap as chips to bring down 2 unions. Cheap as chips. |
|
Paul
said:
|
NZEI At my Principals meeting (NZEI)a large majority wanted to support the PPTA and to take action in line with that been undertaken by the PPTA. We urged our NZEI guy to go back to Wgtn and tell them this - it's not the first time that the NZEI has done what they want. I feel embarrassed by their actions - my apologies (I won't be voting to ratify). One thing, both the unions need to grow up a bit and work together - get on the phone both of you! |
|
Write comment
Show/hide comment form
