Views from Lewisham

Last April, the morale of trade unionists across England and Wales was lifted when tens of thousands of teachers took strike action to oppose the years of below-inflation pay awards being imposed on them by New Labour. Seven months on, despite all the doubts sown by both economic crisis and the failure of its leaders to follow up April’s action for so long, members of the NUT have concluded a new ballot again giving a majority of votes for further strike action.

However, the NUT’s National Executive has decided that the margin was too narrow to call further action. This will be a bitter disappointment to many active NUT members as well as to other trade unionists, particularly civil servants in the PCS union, who have been seeking to build united public sector strikes.

The news will be greeted with relief by Ministers who will be only too pleased to reinforce their message that trade unionists should act ‘responsibly’ in times of economic crisis. Of course, while teachers and other workers are left to struggle to make ends meet, the top bankers and greedy speculators who are really at fault will continue to pile up their wealth.

The NUT Executive says that ‘the campaign continues’, as it must. But for now, action – or the lack of it – will speaker louder than yet more words. The School Teachers’ Review Body reports in January on the pay award to be imposed for September 2009. There is nothing now to stop them recommending a fifth successive real-terms pay cut.

Of course, a call for action based on this tight ballot result would not have been without risk. Many of the officials and the right-wing on the Executive, worried about members opposed to action leaving to join other unions, will have been only too happy to ditch the campaign. However, the decision to retreat risks demoralising the most active members and local reps who are so vital for any union.

But most of the Left – now nominally a majority on the Executive – also decided that only a minority of members would respond to a strike call. Unfortunately, if the call had been made with the same lack of clarity that was apparent in many of the official ballot materials, they may well have been right. Facts explaining how prices are outstripping pay rises are not enough on their own. To win wide support for action, the NUT needed to convince teachers that taking strike action could stop the robbery.

Letters that explained to teachers on a tight budget that ‘unsustained action’ meant going without pay, but which then failed to spell out the NUT’s strategy to defeat the Government, were unlikely to convince many teachers that the sacrifice was worth it.

In school meetings, classroom teachers often demonstrated a far more considered analysis of what was needed to achieve victory than their leaders. The apparent contradiction of teachers saying that, “I can’t afford to strike, but if we have to, it needs to be for three days” was reported in several areas.

A determined battle needed to be prepared, including collecting for hardship funds to sustain the hardest-hit colleagues through extended action. For example, Lewisham NUT collected over £1,000 from members in April and had set a target of £2,000 to be raised if the action planned for November had gone ahead after all.

April’s strike showed that, once action is called, more members will respond than those who voted for it, including some who voted against. Widespread action could have been built, even with this slim majority, but only if the NUT leadership had gone out to convince members that their union was serious about winning this dispute. Unfortunately, the prevarication since April had sent out the opposite message.

The delay was created by the NUT Executive’s initial decision to ballot for just a one-day strike, meaning that a further strike ballot then had to be organised if the campaign was to be continued after April. The correct policy – of balloting for ongoing ‘discontinuous’ action – was dropped, in order to win the backing of right-wing faint-hearts. But, in doing so, a mechanism for fatally losing momentum was built into the strategy from the start.

This isn’t just being ‘wise after the event’. At the NUT’s Annual Conference last Easter, I tabled an amendment calling for the April action to be quickly followed by a ballot for further strikes in order to maintain vital momentum. However, most of the Left voted to close the debate just before the amendment was reached. This meant that the possibility of striking alongside UNISON in July, uniting teachers and school support staff, was lost.

Fortunately, Conference did vote for a further strategy that Lewisham NUT had put forward to strengthen the campaign. Even the right-wing was forced to withdraw their opposition in the face of overwhelming support from delegates. Our amendment called for national action to embrace teachers’ grievances over both pay and workload. But this agreed policy was mistakenly dropped by the National Executive without any real explanation.

Widening the scope of our national ballot to include the NUT’s pay, workload and class size demands would have significantly deepened support for action, uniting staff who see pay as their greatest grievance with others that see ending teachers’ unbearable workload as an even greater necessity. It is a policy that must now be put into practice.

Critically, such an approach could also force the hand of the leadership of the other main teacher union, the NASUWT, who, while pretending to fight on workload, have shamefully entered into ‘social partnership’ with New Labour and refused to take action on pay. The prospect of a joint struggle would enormously raise the confidence of teachers to fight in schools where the NASUWT is still the dominant union.

A bold program of escalating national strike action, co-ordinated with other unions wherever possible, could force this embattled Government to make concessions. After all, by threatening strike action, the PCS has just forced the Government to offer negotiations over civil servants’ pay.

Teachers need to be reminded of their potential strength, demonstrated in the wide publicity that the April 24th strike generated. That’s because, as the British Chambers of Commerce has calculated, the strike cost businesses up to £68 million in lost working hours because parents had to take time off work or pay for extra child care.

The continual barrage of news about the gathering recession during the ballot period undoubtedly had an effect. Teachers voiced fears as to what the reaction of low-paid parents might be, and how the media would have falsely tried to portray strikers as ‘greedy’. The NUT leaders were too slow to explain that, unless we defend ourselves through action, workers will be made to pay the price for the bosses’ crisis. By stepping back, teachers will not have helped a single friend or neighbour save their job. On the contrary, taking action would have been the best way of raising the sights of other workers to stand firm to defend their livelihoods as well.

If these lessons are learned, the present retreat needs only to be a temporary setback. As New Labour looks to find savings to help pay for their banking bailouts, teachers’ pay, pensions and conditions will come under further attack. Teachers will be forced to struggle. With a clear strategy, next time those struggles can win.

Martin Powell-Davies

This was a response sent to the Inner London NUT executive member, Alex Kenny:
I don't understand why the Executive met and took decisions within hours of the ballot results being published, without any consultation with their members.
You write "Unfortunately there was no possibility to consult more widely with Divisions before reaching the decision". Balderdash! With time scales known well in advance, there was plenty of time to reschedule the Executive meeting by, say, a week. This would have given executive members time to consult with local associations - in London, for example, there is a Regional Council meeting on Monday 10th - a mere 5 days after the results. Rules allow 28 days for decisions to be taken.
Furthermore, the Executives insistence on parliamentary-like privilege disenfranchises us from meaningful debate. "The vote in inner London was significantly better" you tell us, but not by how much. You tell us that some areas returned overall "No" votes, but not if other areas came out clearly in of support for action.
In short, for a union that prides itself on a grass roots structure, I feel sold out by a process that means key decisions were taken hurriedly and without consultation with colleagues.
Incidentally, I reluctantly concur with your decision, but can I say "told you so"? I believe we would have got a very different result if the ballot had included workload, as we in Lewisham have argued for ages. I suspect that the major thrust of renewed campaigning will be around - oh, yeah, workload.

Alison Long

Where do we go from here?

The ballot result is disappointing for so many
teachers that want to continue the fight for fair pay
but I think it shows two main things.

That the campaign lost so much momentum when teachers
were not balloted to go on strike alongside UNISON in
the summer term and that with the changing economic
situation it was difficult to persuade teachers to
continue with strike action.

That the leadership has not really outlined a strategy
for success and teachers were not convinced that
forcing the government to back down was possible. I
think the UNISON leadership should also be held to
account for the lack of a combined campaign with a
genuine will to win.

Where do we go from here?
I believe to be successful the campaign must bring
workload in and push for national action on workload
first with pay as a secondary demand. Surely the logic follows that to reduce workload will
mean more teachers are needed, how do we recruit more
teachers? Pay them more.

Phil Clarke

Lewes, Eastbourne and Wealden NUT Secretary

Executive chose inertia of safety

We have a new President-elect of the USA on the basis of 52%. This is celebrated the world over as a great democratic triumph and the arrival of a new era. The turnout was impressive, but when turnouts are low presidents still assume office. Every eligible NUT member had the opportunity to vote. Those who sat on their hands have won. How many of those would have taken action ? Democracy has spoken. A majority wants action. To move on the basis of a low turnout and a small margin entails risk, but to withdraw is to admit defeat. How do we now persuade members we can change the government's mind ? 

Action might have led to membership turbulence but now we have peace with passivity. The ship is ready to sail but the ocean may be choppy so we stay in port. The government will interpret this as a victory. They will not listen. They will not move. The only honest thing to say to members now is that they must put up with below-inflation pay settlements. And this, some say, is the wrong time to act. Crisis. Fear. Recession. When is the right time to act ? Action is called for when there is injustice. If you wait for perfect conditions for action, you will see the world end first. Democarcy delivered a victory for action. We have been defeated by the pusillanimity of the executive. On 28th April some 100,000 teachers took action. Enough to give the government a real headache. Could we have turned out 50,000 next time ? Wouldn't that be enough to make the goverment nervous ? Wouldn't it say we are active, we will not give in, we are tenacious, we will bite the governement's ankles till they treat us with respect ? Instead,we have rolled over like obedient puppies. This is a defeat. It would have been better to have no ballot. Majorities are always likely to be slim but democracy doesn't demand huge victories. The majority who failed to vote have handed the decision to the minority who did and they have chosen action. The executive has retreated from that decision. The momentum is lost. Put away your banners. It will be a long time before we take strike action nationally over pay again and the government will cut our pay by refusing to match inflation year in year out. The executive must explain to the membership that it has no radical strategy to prevent that. Anything else is dishonest. To avoid the risk of loss of membership the executive has led us to loss of pay. This is, apparently, a place of safety. We live to fight another day. When will that day arrive ? Radicalism requires momentum. The executive has chosen instead the inertia of safety. We carry on looking after our members but we tell them honestly, this pay battle is lost.

Alan Dent

Momentum

I am disappointed by the ballot result, after campaigning for a "yes" vote in my secondary school, along with many other members of staff. I have attended several general meetings where the focus was on galvanising the NUT members, and strategies about how we could win. However, I had the distinct feeling that once the executive committee decided not to strike again in the previous academic year, the momentum was lost, and so was the rationale for why we were striking in the first place. Because, if we went on strike, as we did back in April, and the government did not even acknowledge our strike, let alone start to listen to our demands, then surely the logical course of action was to hold a further strike until we got what we wanted. Even myself, who is a relatively young trade unionist, can understand the underlying aim of a strike.

I feel a growing sense of cynicism towards to the executive committee as to why they called a strike in the first place: perhaps they planned to have just a one day strike to appease the left trade unionists in the organisation, who were pressurising for a ballot, and giving them a day was a sort of concession. One can not help but speculate, when the general mood of the grassroots union members was for industrial action, until we got a better deal offered to us. No, instead we have been betrayed by those who are leading us, for the desperately bad decision of stalling (or perhaps deliberately stopping) any future action.

I was overwhelmed with a feeling of solidarity with my fellow young teachers, who were at the electric rally in Westminster hall, which was attended by a very vocal three thousand teachers packed into the hall, giving the place a wonderful glow of purpose. The majority of the executive committee must have been at the same rally that I was at, so how come they did not listen to the young teachers who were on the platform speaking about the tough financial decisions they were having to make, all because they followed their hearts and took up teaching as a profession. I too have had to make sacrifices: I live in a shared house with others, and I have many financial burdens around my neck which need to be lifted before I can even think about rustling up the money for a deposit on a house. How can I go forward in my teaching career knowing that I have been losing out on thousands of pounds of pay, due to the below inflationary pay deal which was offered.

Lastly, I just wanted to comment on the fact that the government has been using the CPI index to gauge what the future pay settlement should be, when in the governments own literature it states that RPI should be used. Funnily enough, my student loan is going up at the RPI rate, when the government PROMISED that my student loan would match inflation, and therefore reassured many graduates that the interest would be in line with future pay settlements. NOT IF YOU ARE A TEACHER. Disgrace.

Mike Brooks.

Waltham Forest NUT

More comments on the NUT pay ballot result

In an ideal world trade unions would win all their demands. When employers attempt to ignore trade unions, in an ideal world, emphatic votes for strike action followed by solid strikes would force their hand.

We are not in an ideal world. The tight strike ballot outcome we have just had is a reminder of that. There is no shame, in my opinion, in a trade union asking its members whether they want to strike against years of pay cuts at a time of rising inflation. However, we did not get the outcome we wanted and the best we can do now is learn the lessons and move on.

Activists in St. Helens were divided over whether strike action was the correct step to take. Some school groups were clearly in support of strike action. Other groups, including groups that have been militant over other issues in the past, were not. This, despite the fact that the strike day in the last academic year was well supported. I think there are three factors that undermined support for the strike.

1. St. Helens has a high NASUWT membership. It is not easy to envisage a victorious strike when you know that only a minority of teachers in the borough will be balloted. Nobody likes to take strike if they think the strike will not be effective. You are just losing pay without any gain. People will only support strikes they think will win. I suspect this fact lies behind the significant regional differences in the ballot. While we have what is essentially a yellow union in the NASUWT unity with other public sector unions is absolutely essential if our members are to have confidence in victory. Linking our action to action taken by other Unions is extremely important.

2. Personally, I think that our tactic of balloting for a one day action last academic year was a tactical error. A one day strike was never going to shift the government. By not balloting for discontinuous strike action, we signalled a lack of resolve to the government. In a local school dispute, we would never just ballot for one day for that very reason. When the ballot for one day was announced I predicted that the government would not shift and we would not get the same support when we reballoted. Unfortunately, that prediction has turned out to be correct. Our members were left thinking, well the last strike did not work, why would this one, instead of seeing the whole thing as a longer term campaign.

3. We failed to link the pay issue with the other issue that really matters to our members - workload (and the related issues of performance management and class sizes). The strategy of linking the issues was rejected by the Union's leadership at Harrogate. One year on it was accepted by the leadership at Manchester, but not acted upon. The workload issue goes right to the heart of all our members' lives. So many of our members are going part-time just so they can cope. Effectively, they are accepting part-time wages for what is still a full-time job. I believe that if the Union leadership had listened to the arguments put forward by some of us now involved in the Classroom Teacher, and linked workload and pay from the off, we would still have a strong campaign.

Why did the leadership reject the idea of linking the issues at the Harrogate conference? I think it was simply because they had not thought of it. CDFU and STA faction leaders agreed the text of what the conference would decide in advance with Sinnott and the Broadly Speaking National Executive members. Once agreed, no alterations were permitted. Although around 40% of the conference voted in favour of linking the campaigns, enough delegates followed their faction leaders in voting with the right wing to stop it happening. This left the Union with what has turned out to be a losing strategy.

The unity policy of the CDFU and STA may now come under pressure in as much as STA members and CDFU members will be asking what the strategy has brought for teachers. However, the faction leaders themselves will continue with the policy. This means that there is an important role for Classroom Teacher to play in influencing the future course of the Union. The issues of pay and workload will not go away. On the contrary, teachers' pay is likely to be kept down as ex-teachers flood back into classrooms to escape the downturn in other sectors. There are no real plans to reduce teachers' workload and the pressures that increase workload are, if anything, intensifying. The debate will be rejoined within the Union and when it is we will hear the argument that our members will not take action on pay. We have to be ready to mobilise the aspirations of teachers who are desperate to reclaim some control of their lives and still look to their Union to help them do so.

Robin Pye, St.Helens NUT

I am disappointed although not surprised that the Executive have decided to 'avert' the strike. The message I received from teachers in meetings was 'when people are losing their jobs and others are finding it difficult to survive financially teachers will be crucified in the press for being greedy.' I disagree with this perspective however it would appear from the information available that as a Union we have been unable to persuade our members at grass root level.

It is vital that we listen to our members, but that we analyse the result carefully and learn from mistakes made. It would be interesting to do a demographic analysis of the votes against action to see if they came form particular areas or if they are across the board.

My thoughts are, that the Executive were mistaken when they dismissed the argument that Workload was an equally pressing issue for teachers. Had this been linked to the pay issue I believe we would have had a far easier time persuading members to take decisive action.

Young teachers who had been energised by the 24th April Strike said to me on several occasions 'why were we not taking all out action?' I think that as a tactic we should have voted for discontinuous action in the first instance. However we must not be despondent teachers are persuaded the argument is just, but the timing is not right, we must not lose this mood and be prepared to reinvigorate the campaign as soon as the mood for action is detected. This can only be achieved if we continue to keep the pay issue on the boil and link it to other issues like workload, inspection and teacher stress.

Tim Woodcock, Greenwich NUT

Learning the lessons - more views

What a disaster! Teachers set to lose pay in the order of £2000 to £4000; some possibly to lose homes in the repossessions frenzy; all to suffer skyrocketing prices - and now no national strike to even register a protest. The government must be well satisfied that the most radical teachers’ union leadership has pulled back.

Undoubtedly the financial bombshell that fell during the balloting period had a huge effect. With the prospect of millions of workers, including professionals expected to face the dole over the next few years at least, many teachers hesitated, calculating that better a job on current pay than no job at all, even though, in the longer term, the public sector will be no safe haven. The squeeze will reach schools as well as car factories.

Lots of teachers feared that they would be portrayed as greedy, in comparison to some of the rates of pay of parents in their community. This is, for sure, the case that the employers and media would have played on. However any campaign means winning hearts and minds by vigorous, fast rebuttals, getting the message out actively. If such a stance was adopted it might have turned out that other workers might have recognised the necessity to fight for pay and, rather than condemning teachers, they might have tried to emulate, even applauded teachers for setting the tone. If all those teachers who had the foresight and the bottle to vote in favour could have been mobilised to explain and defend our action they might well have become the new active layer that the union so badly needs.

What could follow now is teachers feeling generally less able to take on the very real issues of workload, class size etc, and the idea that we can’t change things is reinforced. This will not last for long, like after the SATs ballot, but there is likely to be some repercussions of this nature for a time.

While it is useful to discuss what might have been in the minds of teachers when they came to cast their vote, the other side of the equation has to be what the leadership had in mind as a strategy to win. And here teachers have identified shortcomings.

April 24th was a watershed. All noted the ebullient mood of striking teachers. Young teachers in particular offered the leadership a fund of goodwill. Uncritically they calculated that ‘If my union calls me out, I must respond. They have my best interests at heart”. Even the more conservative layer of union leaders were pleasantly surprised by the upbeat character of the response. And even though it was not a solid 100% strike it marked a really favourable beginning. But by delaying any further action by a full six months, which sent out messages that this was not a serious fight, a wave of enthusiasm has been squandered. It is not simply organising action that can win benefits, but the whole strategy to win must be apparent and understood. With the failure to follow up quickly after April 24th, then to reject the opportunity to strike alongside Unison in July, many were bound to question whether further action had any realistic chance of winning.

If further action had been undertaken in the summer term it could have meant that, rather than going into withdrawal mode, teachers would be facing the terrible financial crisis from a more organised, collective and optimistic position.

So, what was the cause of this delay? Some on the Left, now in a majority on the national Executive, have undoubtedly worked hard to get to the stage of calling a ballot for discontinuous action on pay. But the shortcomings of the STA have been to try to appear united when both the right around Broadly Speaking and the left in the CDFU have stood their ground - and got their way. The STA have in effect provided cover for those more faint-hearted forces on the Executive who sought to delay further action, and so are, therefore, subject to the same criticisms.

The Executive, including all on the Left have now made their decision and teachers have to live with it. But that does not mean we do not discuss how the strategy went wrong and how we can avoid this situation again in future. On the contrary never was it more important to debate the issues, the strategy and the tactics, and how they are implemented, and learn the lessons for the next battle. Alongside such an appraisal must be a political dimension. Teachers had high hopes when Labour came to power. Now they realise the government will not fix things for them. This unfortunate, but temporary set-back on pay will undermine their belief in the ability of their union to protect their living standards. It is therefore even more urgent that teachers, and other workers come together to create a new mass workers party that can act as a pole of attraction for millions of workers looking for a way out of the crisis. The old parties and attitudes have had their day. Time for change!

Linda Taaffe, Waltham Forest NUT

NUT Ballot Result - Post your views!

NUT ballot won – but NUT Executive decides it was too narrow a margin to call action
Despite some teachers’ doubts - reflecting both the economic recession and the lack of a clear strategy for winning the dispute – the result of the NUT’s pay ballot has shown that a majority of NUT members still voted in favour of discontinuous strike action.

The result was, however, only a narrow victory – 52% YES to 48% NO. (Turnout 30%). There were apparently some significant regional variations. It is reported, for example, that there was a much higher YES vote in London.

The NUT National Executive meeting on November 5th felt that the result was too divided to call action. There was a proposal to call a one-day strike in late November but this only received three votes. Most of the Executive argued that members would not support the action in sufficient numbers.

The outcome will obviously be a disappointment to many active NUT members, colleagues in the PCS and others looking to develop action, and an encouragement to Ministers and all those who want to say that trade unionists should be ‘responsible’ in times of economic crisis.

Classroom Teacher’s arguments that the Union should have kept up the momentum after April 24 by calling a further ballot before the end of term, linking up with UNISON and others, as well as arguing that the dispute should be widened to include workload and class size issues, need to be taken on board.

The Union needs to learn lessons from what has happened – and make sure that it is only a temporary setback. What do Classroom Teacher contributors think were the key factors behind the result? What do you think the Executive should have done – and what should be done now? Send in your comments to Classroom Teacher.

Martin Powell-Davies for Classroom Teacher

Your comments:

I notice that the government is keen for trade unionists to be "responsible" because of the crisis. They gave no such lectures to the bankers whose greed led to them being bailed out with billions of public money. They are not being urged to exercise "discipline". I can understand some members have been reluctant to strike because of the economic situation and the fact parents may face the loss of their jobs and not support us. I believe their concern is being cynically exploited by those who want to talk the government to death when industrial action is the only thing that makes them sit up and take notice.
Derek McMillan, West Sussex NUT

The NUT News says that we will ‘continue to work together with other unions but what must the PCS leadership and their members think of the NUT! They say we will continue to take the pay campaign to government but how? What do I say to my young members who can't afford to live in London but can't find jobs back in their own more rural parts of the country .........sign another petition, put your coffee cup (if you've time for a break) on an NUT fair pay coaster, email the MP who didn't stick up for you yet again. The NUT is becoming a union that spends thousands on publicising Words, Words, Words when its history and current events show that only Action, Action, Action can win anything.
Louise Cuffaro, Newham NUT

This is terrible news. Teachers are angry at year on year pay cuts, bullying management, privatisation and attacks on both us as workers and the education service we provide. A union should be the collective strength of its membership. We have voted for strike action. That is the official decision of the union membership. The executive - or a majority of them -are clearly out of touch, unrepresentative and ignoring union democracy.
Jason Travis, Bolton NUT

Not suprised by the Executive decision, but encouraged by the fact that a majority of those voting wanted industrial action, which means we are still in business! Undoubtedly, the economic situation influenced a lot of teachers. It has been called the middle class recession and true to form, a lot of middle class teachers decided to put their heads down and run for cover.
Roger Mackay, Ipswich NUT

I think it was clear from the divisional secretaries briefing that the right wing were preparing to climb down irrespective of the result. I think that the decision of Unison to go to ACAS was probably the decisive factor together with fear of loss of members who did not support the strike. I get the impression that the union is obsessed with the NASUWT's growth and is desperate to do nothing that might be "unpopular" and therefore lose members.
We need to be aware of the nature of the period we are entering and what impact that will have on our members. We are at the start of a process that will lead to the radicalisation of the unions but it will not be an even process. Some members will seek sanctuary in a passive approach and for some it will mean joining other unions. However we should base ourselves on the newer layer of activists who are emerging as a result of the pay campaign and the general situation in education and society as a whole. Hull in many ways reflects this process. We had a very successful reps council that attracted 16 reps. This might not seem much to some divisions but this is by far the biggest internal NUT meeting we have had for a decade and there is a feeling that the division is turning itself round.
I think that we should look to carry on the propaganda campaign on pay but link it to workload action. In Hull, I think we would have got a better response on workload than pay.
Mike Whale, Hull NUT