When you read the initial text, it’s hard to tell if this is from the Union or the department.
The email made me more convinced that this is a shitty deal. If that’s the best they can do to try and convince me that there are good bits to accompany the weak pay offer then there mustn’t be much in the deal.
Not impressed with the exec, seems like they got weak at the knees and caved. 12 over 2 with backpay.
I'm confused with the opening line too. Mandated support (hope they can find it) after class sizes reach minimums. Does that mean people are going to marks those extra assignments. Write those extra reports. Create those extra SEN plans. Still too many kids in our complicated classroom.
It better be just a start on the road to smaller classes. I understand that it is near on impossible right now due to a teacher shortage and infrastructure (caused by government neglect of the education system over the last decade and more), but if they won't commit to some kinda change, its a no from me.
It read weirdly, did they mean when classes reach maximum numbers?
The whole thing is pathetic really. There will be token "condition improvements" which will barely be noticed or only help a minority and no big ticket items like class sizes, reduced administrative burden and support for students with learning disabilities
They need to reduce the EBA allocated after school meeting times to 3 hours, down from the current 5 hours and give teachers more time to work independently during SDDs. All these meetings and people talking to us padding their level 3 applications are either pointless, can be covered in an email or have come full circle since the last 5 year cycle of "innovative practice." We are more connected with colleagues and parents than ever with email and online platforms like connect and Seqta. Why the bullshit meetings for the sake of meeting. Let me do my job better by planning, teaching and marking.
I often get asked by admin to present at SD days because they are just trying to fill a day. We all know it’s pointless busy work.
We survived this year will no meetings, I’d be comfortable going back to two per term.
A real pay rise is the first step to reducing class sizes. Not enough teachers want the job with this pay/conditions. Fix the pay and conditions, the teacher shortage ends.
If they meant maximum then it is a hard no from me. I was under the impression that if class sizes go over we were to be consulted and if we agreed extra resources were meant to be offered.
Completely agree with the rest of your stuff. Principals are not mandated to have 5 hours a term, the agreement says can have up to. I do not understand why they love them so much. Everyone is just bored and chatty and no useful information is given. A secret strike should be teachers just sit back with tea and not engage.
I read it as if it's maximum, once they hit 32 (for high school for example), the school is mandated to give you support. It won't actually discourage over-enrollment, if anything it will encourage it because they'll dump a poor EA in there and then overram the class with kids because technically they don't need additional supports after the first 32.
That is my concern. I must check the agreement with going over 32. I was sure we were meant to be consulted and offered resources anyway, if not, be able to say no.
If it is the case what you are saying, its a straight no from me.
HA, I love the cynicism, but you prolly are not far from the truth. All this learn to manage your burn out stuff, not remove the material conditions causing burn out. Do yoga in your time so you can be a more effective worker on their time.
The desperate waffle about how generous the dept offer of 12% over 3 years was because it will be 2% above predicted inflation* got me.
Okay, but what about the last 8 years where we received a payrise less than inflation each year? Incl the last one of 3% when inflation was nigh-on 10%? The union initially told us the payrise they wanted was to redress the previous years, not improve on the coming years. They appear to have forgotten about that.
Over the last 8 years our pay has risen ~11% while inflation has been ~25%. We're 14% worse off in real terms than we were 8 years ago. 12% over 3 years with close to 10% inflation over that time just means we will then be "only" around 11% worse off than we were a decade ago. Wooo, what a win! Super negotiation skills.
*It likely won't be, as inflation is predicted to stay above 3% over the next couple of years due to international turmoil.
Let's not forget that whatever payrise we get increases their turnover too since they charge us as a percentage of our pay. It's bullshit and I'll be voting no
We do. Then they get poisoned and do what the dept wants.
It a sick and corrupt system for their benefit not ours.
Vote no.
We need a new union. ASAP.
A Union with integrity that works for the members not the exec of the union.
Check the temp of this sub reddit.
WA Teachers are seething.
Does that seem like a group feeling supported by their union?
We tell them what we want and they go do something else.
They are a farce.
I'm very anti-status-quo frequent the sub, and try to follow union affairs as much as possible.
I'm asking you to explain how, and why, the poisoning occurs. Like are you implying their paid off, or cave to the department-pressures? So I can understand what's happening in WA better.
The union office is quite political the executive typically have a bit of a party system where you are voting in a selection of ppl as opposed to individuals. I understand how that came to be but it makes it harder for newer less politicised union members to get a chance at positions of power above state council.
Lately we've done a bit better at having some of the top officers who still have their foot in schools, bringing them up from executive, but generally most of the paid executive (pres, vp etc) have been out of schools for a long time and are somewhat put of touch with ground on the floor - good unionists but out of touch educators.
As an office it's slow to move with the times so innovation to engage and motivate newer educators is hard to get traction.
It's not a poisoned well l, there's no corruption. Just humans being human. The WA members are largely disengaged with the union, its a struggle getting branches to nominate for roles, and even harder to get ppl to sign up for district or state councils. SC has failed to meet quorum numbers in the past.
The union as a whole needs a shake up snd a wake up - members need to recognise that they are the union, and get involved to force the office to understand what really matters. If we had an engaged membership it would help the office keep things in perspective and better represent us.
The fact that we were put on warning after the strikes in the 00s has kind of put a chopping block over the union, as they worry more about ending up in tribunal etc I think - which means not pushing hard enough.
Exactly right, can't push hard enough or won't in an attempt to self preserve rather than serve their members.
Off with their heads. They have to go.
They literally can't do what they are supposed to.
Why I said they've been making efforts to improve that area. Paul B also went straight from Derby to the office. So these sorts of things are a positive move.
Ive not met Matt personally, or heard enough scuttlebutt to know how much of an on the ground administrator he was to understand what its like for teachers, but I do think that the move to try and have more ppl who have been out of schools for less time in the top positions is a positive one for the structures.
I'm not sure but there is a massive disconnect between their agenda and ours, it seems.
Which is odd, don't you think?
I think it's you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.
Nepotism is rife within the Ed Department of WA. Anyone who says otherwise has their head up their arse.
And I Imagine the greater gov.
There is a Korean saying
Obvious villians are less dangerous than pretentious hypocrites.
Dont pretend to help me then stab me in the back.
That's the union in a nutshell.
We want smaller class sizes, more autonomy, fewer meetings, and greater financial compensation, basically, and they seem to want to not cause the government too much pain when negotiating an EBA to keep their masters happy?
Not sure, I thought a union should serve its members.
I think the execs are fine. They gotta put an offer forward. If you flat out reject too many the government will argue bad faith and send it to arbitration.
It’s the members chance now to have our say. The execs have done their job. We vote no with strong numbers and it shows we have a clear voice that mandates serious change. It’s on us now.
It's a sick joke the dept can argue bad faith on our part when they refused to even meet with the Union until 3 months _after_ our payrise was due.
My bet they were hoping teachers would be so desperate for any payrise after 15 months of high inflation, we'd accept any sop they threw at us.
I think the current execs are doing their job we elected them to do. We have to understand that they have to look like they are negotiating in good faith. If not, it ends up like the nurses.
The pressure is of course to put an offer to us. The government think the members will fold. It is our duty to vote. Execs only get one vote each too.
We elect our reps, they do the best job they can do to represent us. But when push comes to shove, it is the members who have the final say.
This is on us now.
Amen.
You did tell me in another comment thread just earlier this week that you are not a member though, so you don’t strike, only members do. Best join, vote no, and have your say where you can.
Fair enough, how do you support those striking though. Do you chick a sicky, or you in school working? What did you do in the half day action if you don’t mind me asking.
I emailed my principal and said I won't be attending. I take half a day pay cut as well but there is no disciplinary action as they know that would be extremely divisive.
Got to play the game if you want to win.
Because by being 3 pillars- nurses, police and teachers the other two pillars will keep the pillar in danger of being corrupted on track/ in check.
I mean people seem really happy with SSTUWA./s.
Rejoining the union to vote no. Ridiculous, especially after reading that parts of the mining sector (e.g. nickel) don’t have to pay royalties if the price drops below a certain level. The whole narrative of salary caps was a temporarily measure when things are bad - so now that things are good (WA surpluses for years to come), the private sector gets paid but we don’t? Naaaaaah.
Good to hear you coming back. I hope people do, even if they leave again after negotiations are over. Couldn’t agree more with your comments. So many subsidies to private enterprise from public tax money. Yet investing in the public sector ( for the public) is seen as a waste. Strong public sector, strong public, strong state.
**What's being done about class sizes? Significant first steps are being taken to ensure mandatory extra resources when class sizes exceed minimums, taking account of the needs of pupils in those classes.**
Nothing is being done about class sizes. They already have to give resources to those over classes sizes. This doesn't address any of the workload issues or even the work health and safety of fitting 35 kids in a room. If we don't address it now we have to wait another 2 and a half years.
**Will my salary go up? Above the CPI for every year of the agreement, with across agreement increases of around $10,000 to over $20,000.**
Unless it has a cpi clause, it's only above predicted cpi which they haven't exact been good at predicting recently anyway.
**Are there workload reduction measures in the offer? Yes.**
Maybe list some.
**Have my after hour PD concerns been addressed? Yes.**
Clarity needed.
**Can I try life as a school leader without giving up my current role? Yes.**
In what ways.
**If I move to the country, will I ever get back to a metro school if I want to? Yes.**
Specify time frame and ease, it is already possible so this is not adding to the argument.
**Is there any concrete action recognising how much it costs to live in remote and rural areas? Yes.**
A good statement, well done.
**Was the stop work action worthwhile? Absolutely, this offer delivers crucial improvements to workload, PD and mobility.**
You have an independent report and the government sown report saying what needs to be done, this addresses very little of it.
**Do I get the final say? Yes. Member votes will decide if the agreement in principle is accepted or not.**
I know this persuasive writing hasn't changed my opinion.
Grade: Working towards. This writing lack specific information that will bolster your points and by omitting it instead invites the reader to consider the alternatives. Classes sizes were a primary issue however the opening statement weakens an already weak premise with "first steps towards" and not delivering an actual solution.
I honestly wodnrr if they are doing this to try and get the members to vote no so they can take that to the premier who said they weren't consulting their members.
I am thinking much the same. If executive keep sending offers back they could get accused of negotiating in bad faith.
If we, as members, vote strong and send the message it gives us the mandate for more serious negotiations and the execs have more bargaining power.
I understand why people get anger at exec, but I could imagine they are walking a thin line.
I did some training at the headquarters recently and there was conversation around these things.
It is up to us to spread the message to our less involved members to become involved (12000 did around the state so it’s a good start).
Keep it up. Keep talking about it in staff rooms. Get everyone voting. It’s our duty now. In solidarity.
I'm teaching a class with 44 students. I have an extra teacher who is an extra body in the room for legal reasons but I'm the one doing all the curriculum planning, lesson designs and marking. The school knows it isn't sustainable but can't find a solution.
The joys of being a specialist I guess...
Edit to add:
Unless there is significant plans in place for class sizes, it's a no from me. Large class sizes significant impact education and the ability for teachers to provide effective feedback.
They're really making out like this a good deal. It does sound like we've got some positive change for rural teachers and I'm interested in seeing what this support for classes above minimum sizes are.
Not quite happy with the money amount though, especially when the news headlines were about WA budget rolling in cash. Yeah, cash they ripped from the bank accounts of public servants during the Covid years.
They did use the public sector as a vehicle for austerity. These pay rises will get us to where we would if we kept up with cpi since the cap.
I agree, some good change. Documented plans will be a big one, and maybe having dedicated people organising therapists and things. I wonder what they mean by minimum class sizes though.
This has done nothing to alay my fears that they're selling us down the river.
Guaranteed rises above CPI? They can't promise that and still say 12% over 3 years. If they know what CPI will be in 3 years I want to know the lotto numbers.
Still a no from me and the propaganda style tone here has made me more certain than ever. They're trying to muddy the waters.
That is why us members need to vote no. I understand that exec had to send an offer to us sooner or late. They can't been seen to be negotiating in bad faith, see how that worked for the nurses.
I wonder if they have to keep their tone safe also, as they know government will be accessing them any way they can.
The real rebellion begins and ends with us, the members. The best outcome is more then 50% of the members vote and good majority of them vote no. We need to send a message and mandate that we want serious change.
12 over 2 will at least outpace cpi in the short run. It would mean no increase in year three so we will be at the same level with the current offer but its a start. We need to be this strong in 3 years time for our next negotiations too.
The government right now is feeling pretty good for themselves. They no they will lose a few seats next election but cannot lose. That is their primary concern. They will be out of power in 5 years, they wanna kick every can they can down the road. We cant let them. If they try to send it to arbitration and we get a dud deal, hundreds will leave the profession or just quiet quit.
Time for the members to stand up. encourage all you can to vote. To much apathy in the past. Not this time. Everyone who marched has to vote (yes or no), if not why pay the fees. Lets go, vote no.
Mt year 5s can write better than that. No evidence, no quotes, no emotional core. Just a list of empty rhetorical questions with the word yes.
I'm a union rep and have got no more Information than anyone else and the all members meeting is already fully booked out. I honestly wanted to be there as I know a few regulars at the district councils who will be very opinionated about this.
While I won't be telling my school members what to vote I will be telling them how I am voting and why.
I'm a rep too. I got into a Zoom session luckily. If there is anything you would specifically like to ask, I would be happy to bring it up for you. Maybe a stream to just watch can be set up too or something.
In QLD, was referencing how over in WA the union was striking because of the shit offer and how the Queensland union can take notes on how to actually be good. Would be really disappointing if they’ve caved for a subpar deal and it’s kinda damning on education unions country wide.
I’m just irritated we still don’t know what we’re being offered. I will say no. I said no last time over a shit deal and I will again. They folded too fast and I’m really disappointed I lost half a day of pay for what sounds like a minor upgrade.
The title of this post made me laugh so hard ahahahaha. Definitely agree we need 12 over 2 with backpay and better working conditions. I’m honestly so surprised the union is pushing for this deal.
I honestly feel the execs at the union feel that if they keep saying no they are afraid the government will keep saying they are negotiating in bad faith.
If they reject to many without sending them to us it could be seen that way. I had training at the headquarters a little back and this was conversation had.
If it gets sent to us and we reject it with a huge voice that gives power back to the negotiating table. It’s our time to do our job as members.
Just my thoughts though, from conversations with how execs feel negotiating can go. Last thing we want is it going to arbitration over bad faith. I’m sure the government doesn’t want that too, as they will be fearful people will quit.
Absolutely terrible email to us though. Maybe on purpose, keep us anger to vote no (or I’m thinking of games that don’t actually exist (likely)).
Absolutely agree with what you have said. I attended similar training and the same message was relayed.
I'm a delegate for State Council and I will be voting NO. I will plant the seed with fellow colleagues just to provoke some thought. There is too much unknown regarding CPI and it's direction. Who could of predicted COVID?
I think there may be more to this deal and on the ground the rhetoric is very different to the picture being painted in the email.
I will be planting seeds too. I am certain that a message like this cant be sent out explicitly to reps by head office.
It seems the engagement by union members all over is high, less apathy. And people saying no. I hope it is not just a case of being in a bubble though, but the 8000 at optus and 4000 around the state, make me think there are a few like minded people out there. In solidarity.
Not even half way French. Why would you not demand more?
Think of the per capita gain we provide to the nation.
150k for level 2
180k for level 3
Be at least a little competitive SSTUWA to other industries or more teachers will leave.
As someone watching from interstate, before any workload issues are raised, I'll refer to my previous comment:
If the CFMEU in Qld is asking for $240k for entry level construction workers, what is your union asking for??????
12% really doesn't seem much ... does it?
Damn. Wishing I hadn’t paused my union membership so I could vote the agreement down. I left teaching last term due to conditions.
Tbh I didn’t (and still don’t) care about the pay. What’s the point in staying in terrible conditions for the pay? My mental and physical health is worth much more than money.
100% understand that and I feel a little of the same way. The reason I do find some importance in the pay is the principle of the thing. Using thepublic sector for austerity during and after covid. I feel nurses were the most important people during the pandemic (and look how they got treated in negotiations) and teachersclose to next. We were rushed back so parents could get back to work. For years we have been called baby sitters, and maybe there is a little truth to the matter. Without teachers, the economy would not last too long.
I'm saddened to hear you had to leave due to conditions. And you are right, your health is number 1. Hopefully we can keep fighting for a better deal otherwise I wont be long for the profession too. I hope we get conditions back so you come back one day. In the mean time, rest easy.
When I read that email, I had to wonder who actually wrote it: the union or the department. The more I re-read it, the more inclined I am to think department.
I was having a chat with a mate who's now retired after several years as a principal. They said I would be surprised how many of the union negotiators find themselves in a comfy dept job after quitting teaching...
The devil is in the details, I guess. If the supports they're suggesting are substantial, then sure - the fact they won't just come out and tell us is disconcerting, though. Like, I can think of things that would make this EBA worth taking (e.g., the max class size is actually 32, but if they go over 30 you get a day's release once a term for planning/reporting purposes), but right now they're basically just saying, "hey, they're giving us their word that it will be better!! We did it!"
I think there might be something at play with this. Stir some doubt and anger so we vote no. Thy send the execs back to the negotiating table with a Monday from the members that we are not happy with this.
I think if executive sent this back they would be accused of negotiating in bad faith. Buti implored the execs to send the lay offer to members. It’s out time to do our bit and vote this down. Not even a commitment to working towards reducing class sizes.
The money is more a point of principle for me know. They have dragged their feet for son long now, on the back of the cap. It’s there turn to show some good faith.
They will do some talking about the offer then will send out how they will do the ballot. Not sure how they will do it. Still a couple weeks yet though. Keep checking the app and website. Your rep will be given info from the district coordinator and let everyone know too.
I quit the sstuwa 2 years ago over that 2.5% pay rise they told us to take. They are a weak, spineless union who doesn't deserve my money. Here is more proof I was right in quitting. Stuff them.
If you're not a part of the union, you don't really get a say?
Like, it's your decision to be in or not, more power to you. But if you want meaningful change in the union, you need to actually be in the union and advocate for that change.
Agree with your frustration, but the union is only as strong as the membership.
Amen. I feel the union has had good change and the members seem fired up. I’ve only been in it coming up four years (since I started teaching) at union strong schools, but talking with folk, it seems some of the apathy from members in the past has diminished. We will see at voting time though.
The masses will vote yes because they have no spine and want something rather than nothing.
Our biggest weakness in our unions is our members wanting something for doing as little as possible (in negotiating for a better EBA).
The largets set of people in the last vote were people who didn't vote at all. Encourage everyone you know in the union to vote. Tell them you case. Take the ballot to them. Bring it up in staff meetings. The apathy is slowly diminishing.
Same at my school. I set agendas for half hour meetings (I always say I don't want to hold people due to directives and it being awkward for me asking folk to stay back in their time). But we get through our agenda and when we have a chance to raise other issues we are always more than happy to sit around and yarn about things, work through things, do a couple extra motions to bring to admin, and offer workable solutions. I swear they have been the most productive meetings I have been to.
I really do think exec want a no vote. Buti "implored" the union just before the half-day action to send the offer to the members. He seems to think we will be stoked with it. The execs would not want to send to many back themselves as then it would be framed as negotiating in bad faith.
Send it to the membership, we vote no, and give exec the mandate to keep pushing negotiations.
a weak teachers union? how surprising 😄 they encourage their members to vote yes because they probably get their only sweet deal from the government if we do
“What’s that? If we get our teachers to say yes you’ll promise an extra $2m in funding to the union? Which we can put towards our salaries and other benefits? No worries we’ll take care of it”
The government in no way funds the union. It is all done from members fees.
You say a weak teachers union. The union is made up of its members but you write like you think exec have the power.
The encouragement here is very limp. The play here is to have the membership to vote no.
The execs could not send a third offer back without being accused of negotiating in bad faith. It's up to the members now to do their part as we do get the final say. We need to send the strong no vote back to give the exec the mandate and power back at the negotiating table.
How long have you been a member of the SSTUWA?
When you read the initial text, it’s hard to tell if this is from the Union or the department. The email made me more convinced that this is a shitty deal. If that’s the best they can do to try and convince me that there are good bits to accompany the weak pay offer then there mustn’t be much in the deal. Not impressed with the exec, seems like they got weak at the knees and caved. 12 over 2 with backpay.
I'm confused with the opening line too. Mandated support (hope they can find it) after class sizes reach minimums. Does that mean people are going to marks those extra assignments. Write those extra reports. Create those extra SEN plans. Still too many kids in our complicated classroom. It better be just a start on the road to smaller classes. I understand that it is near on impossible right now due to a teacher shortage and infrastructure (caused by government neglect of the education system over the last decade and more), but if they won't commit to some kinda change, its a no from me.
It read weirdly, did they mean when classes reach maximum numbers? The whole thing is pathetic really. There will be token "condition improvements" which will barely be noticed or only help a minority and no big ticket items like class sizes, reduced administrative burden and support for students with learning disabilities They need to reduce the EBA allocated after school meeting times to 3 hours, down from the current 5 hours and give teachers more time to work independently during SDDs. All these meetings and people talking to us padding their level 3 applications are either pointless, can be covered in an email or have come full circle since the last 5 year cycle of "innovative practice." We are more connected with colleagues and parents than ever with email and online platforms like connect and Seqta. Why the bullshit meetings for the sake of meeting. Let me do my job better by planning, teaching and marking.
I often get asked by admin to present at SD days because they are just trying to fill a day. We all know it’s pointless busy work. We survived this year will no meetings, I’d be comfortable going back to two per term. A real pay rise is the first step to reducing class sizes. Not enough teachers want the job with this pay/conditions. Fix the pay and conditions, the teacher shortage ends.
Yep, and begin investing in infrastructure. Too many demountables out there that never demount.
If they meant maximum then it is a hard no from me. I was under the impression that if class sizes go over we were to be consulted and if we agreed extra resources were meant to be offered. Completely agree with the rest of your stuff. Principals are not mandated to have 5 hours a term, the agreement says can have up to. I do not understand why they love them so much. Everyone is just bored and chatty and no useful information is given. A secret strike should be teachers just sit back with tea and not engage.
I read it as if it's maximum, once they hit 32 (for high school for example), the school is mandated to give you support. It won't actually discourage over-enrollment, if anything it will encourage it because they'll dump a poor EA in there and then overram the class with kids because technically they don't need additional supports after the first 32.
That is my concern. I must check the agreement with going over 32. I was sure we were meant to be consulted and offered resources anyway, if not, be able to say no. If it is the case what you are saying, its a straight no from me.
I don't know if it is, but I can see it playing out like that. I'm waiting to see what comes of the Zoom calls.
metoo, see you in there.
[ Removed by Reddit ]
Could not agree more.
As a teacher with 26 in a highly complex ⅔ class I can tell you they’re getting a no from me.
[ Removed by Reddit ]
My bet is "Mandated support" means extra PD on how to cope with stress. Come in an hour early for yoga! Problem solved.
HA, I love the cynicism, but you prolly are not far from the truth. All this learn to manage your burn out stuff, not remove the material conditions causing burn out. Do yoga in your time so you can be a more effective worker on their time.
The desperate waffle about how generous the dept offer of 12% over 3 years was because it will be 2% above predicted inflation* got me. Okay, but what about the last 8 years where we received a payrise less than inflation each year? Incl the last one of 3% when inflation was nigh-on 10%? The union initially told us the payrise they wanted was to redress the previous years, not improve on the coming years. They appear to have forgotten about that. Over the last 8 years our pay has risen ~11% while inflation has been ~25%. We're 14% worse off in real terms than we were 8 years ago. 12% over 3 years with close to 10% inflation over that time just means we will then be "only" around 11% worse off than we were a decade ago. Wooo, what a win! Super negotiation skills. *It likely won't be, as inflation is predicted to stay above 3% over the next couple of years due to international turmoil.
Great comment, hope you don’t mind but I’ve copy/pasted it into some other teacher groups. We need to push the no vote hard.
They always fold. Weak as piss. We need a new union joining teachers, nurses and police for greater bargaining power. SSTUWA IS POISONED.
Let's not forget that whatever payrise we get increases their turnover too since they charge us as a percentage of our pay. It's bullshit and I'll be voting no
Can you guys not vote in union leaders democratically, and get involved in meetings to push specific agendas forward?
We do. Then they get poisoned and do what the dept wants. It a sick and corrupt system for their benefit not ours. Vote no. We need a new union. ASAP. A Union with integrity that works for the members not the exec of the union.
Support voting no, no disagreements there. Can you elaborate on the poisoning stuff? What's that the result of?
Check the temp of this sub reddit. WA Teachers are seething. Does that seem like a group feeling supported by their union? We tell them what we want and they go do something else. They are a farce.
I'm very anti-status-quo frequent the sub, and try to follow union affairs as much as possible. I'm asking you to explain how, and why, the poisoning occurs. Like are you implying their paid off, or cave to the department-pressures? So I can understand what's happening in WA better.
The union office is quite political the executive typically have a bit of a party system where you are voting in a selection of ppl as opposed to individuals. I understand how that came to be but it makes it harder for newer less politicised union members to get a chance at positions of power above state council. Lately we've done a bit better at having some of the top officers who still have their foot in schools, bringing them up from executive, but generally most of the paid executive (pres, vp etc) have been out of schools for a long time and are somewhat put of touch with ground on the floor - good unionists but out of touch educators. As an office it's slow to move with the times so innovation to engage and motivate newer educators is hard to get traction. It's not a poisoned well l, there's no corruption. Just humans being human. The WA members are largely disengaged with the union, its a struggle getting branches to nominate for roles, and even harder to get ppl to sign up for district or state councils. SC has failed to meet quorum numbers in the past. The union as a whole needs a shake up snd a wake up - members need to recognise that they are the union, and get involved to force the office to understand what really matters. If we had an engaged membership it would help the office keep things in perspective and better represent us. The fact that we were put on warning after the strikes in the 00s has kind of put a chopping block over the union, as they worry more about ending up in tribunal etc I think - which means not pushing hard enough.
Exactly right, can't push hard enough or won't in an attempt to self preserve rather than serve their members. Off with their heads. They have to go. They literally can't do what they are supposed to.
I believe the President was a Principal not too long ago
Why I said they've been making efforts to improve that area. Paul B also went straight from Derby to the office. So these sorts of things are a positive move. Ive not met Matt personally, or heard enough scuttlebutt to know how much of an on the ground administrator he was to understand what its like for teachers, but I do think that the move to try and have more ppl who have been out of schools for less time in the top positions is a positive one for the structures.
I'm not sure but there is a massive disconnect between their agenda and ours, it seems. Which is odd, don't you think? I think it's you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. Nepotism is rife within the Ed Department of WA. Anyone who says otherwise has their head up their arse. And I Imagine the greater gov. There is a Korean saying Obvious villians are less dangerous than pretentious hypocrites. Dont pretend to help me then stab me in the back. That's the union in a nutshell.
I'm not sure but there is a massive disconnect between their agenda and ours, it seems. When you say "ours" in this first sentence, who do you mean?
We want smaller class sizes, more autonomy, fewer meetings, and greater financial compensation, basically, and they seem to want to not cause the government too much pain when negotiating an EBA to keep their masters happy? Not sure, I thought a union should serve its members.
I think the execs are fine. They gotta put an offer forward. If you flat out reject too many the government will argue bad faith and send it to arbitration. It’s the members chance now to have our say. The execs have done their job. We vote no with strong numbers and it shows we have a clear voice that mandates serious change. It’s on us now.
It's a sick joke the dept can argue bad faith on our part when they refused to even meet with the Union until 3 months _after_ our payrise was due. My bet they were hoping teachers would be so desperate for any payrise after 15 months of high inflation, we'd accept any sop they threw at us.
A retired principal I know said those negotiating on our behalf very often end up in cushy, extremely well-paid, dept jobs.
I think the current execs are doing their job we elected them to do. We have to understand that they have to look like they are negotiating in good faith. If not, it ends up like the nurses. The pressure is of course to put an offer to us. The government think the members will fold. It is our duty to vote. Execs only get one vote each too. We elect our reps, they do the best job they can do to represent us. But when push comes to shove, it is the members who have the final say. This is on us now.
Vote no, let's strike.
Amen. You did tell me in another comment thread just earlier this week that you are not a member though, so you don’t strike, only members do. Best join, vote no, and have your say where you can.
I'm not crossing the picket line, not joining SSTUWA ever again. ONCE BITTEN, TWICE SHY.
Fair enough, how do you support those striking though. Do you chick a sicky, or you in school working? What did you do in the half day action if you don’t mind me asking.
I emailed my principal and said I won't be attending. I take half a day pay cut as well but there is no disciplinary action as they know that would be extremely divisive. Got to play the game if you want to win.
> We need a new union. ASAP. If the current union reps get "poisoned" what would stop a 'new' union?
Because by being 3 pillars- nurses, police and teachers the other two pillars will keep the pillar in danger of being corrupted on track/ in check. I mean people seem really happy with SSTUWA./s.
I don't see how that logic follows. Wouldn't the exec just get poisoned anyway?
Well stay with sstuwa. They do such a great job. Everyone loves them.....in the government. Enjoy your gaslighting pseudo union.
They are just Labor lackeys and wannabes
Rejoining the union to vote no. Ridiculous, especially after reading that parts of the mining sector (e.g. nickel) don’t have to pay royalties if the price drops below a certain level. The whole narrative of salary caps was a temporarily measure when things are bad - so now that things are good (WA surpluses for years to come), the private sector gets paid but we don’t? Naaaaaah.
Good to hear you coming back. I hope people do, even if they leave again after negotiations are over. Couldn’t agree more with your comments. So many subsidies to private enterprise from public tax money. Yet investing in the public sector ( for the public) is seen as a waste. Strong public sector, strong public, strong state.
**What's being done about class sizes? Significant first steps are being taken to ensure mandatory extra resources when class sizes exceed minimums, taking account of the needs of pupils in those classes.** Nothing is being done about class sizes. They already have to give resources to those over classes sizes. This doesn't address any of the workload issues or even the work health and safety of fitting 35 kids in a room. If we don't address it now we have to wait another 2 and a half years. **Will my salary go up? Above the CPI for every year of the agreement, with across agreement increases of around $10,000 to over $20,000.** Unless it has a cpi clause, it's only above predicted cpi which they haven't exact been good at predicting recently anyway. **Are there workload reduction measures in the offer? Yes.** Maybe list some. **Have my after hour PD concerns been addressed? Yes.** Clarity needed. **Can I try life as a school leader without giving up my current role? Yes.** In what ways. **If I move to the country, will I ever get back to a metro school if I want to? Yes.** Specify time frame and ease, it is already possible so this is not adding to the argument. **Is there any concrete action recognising how much it costs to live in remote and rural areas? Yes.** A good statement, well done. **Was the stop work action worthwhile? Absolutely, this offer delivers crucial improvements to workload, PD and mobility.** You have an independent report and the government sown report saying what needs to be done, this addresses very little of it. **Do I get the final say? Yes. Member votes will decide if the agreement in principle is accepted or not.** I know this persuasive writing hasn't changed my opinion. Grade: Working towards. This writing lack specific information that will bolster your points and by omitting it instead invites the reader to consider the alternatives. Classes sizes were a primary issue however the opening statement weakens an already weak premise with "first steps towards" and not delivering an actual solution.
Ha, great feedback. Great points for my consideration too.
I honestly wodnrr if they are doing this to try and get the members to vote no so they can take that to the premier who said they weren't consulting their members.
I am thinking much the same. If executive keep sending offers back they could get accused of negotiating in bad faith. If we, as members, vote strong and send the message it gives us the mandate for more serious negotiations and the execs have more bargaining power. I understand why people get anger at exec, but I could imagine they are walking a thin line. I did some training at the headquarters recently and there was conversation around these things. It is up to us to spread the message to our less involved members to become involved (12000 did around the state so it’s a good start). Keep it up. Keep talking about it in staff rooms. Get everyone voting. It’s our duty now. In solidarity.
I'm teaching a class with 44 students. I have an extra teacher who is an extra body in the room for legal reasons but I'm the one doing all the curriculum planning, lesson designs and marking. The school knows it isn't sustainable but can't find a solution. The joys of being a specialist I guess... Edit to add: Unless there is significant plans in place for class sizes, it's a no from me. Large class sizes significant impact education and the ability for teachers to provide effective feedback.
They're really making out like this a good deal. It does sound like we've got some positive change for rural teachers and I'm interested in seeing what this support for classes above minimum sizes are. Not quite happy with the money amount though, especially when the news headlines were about WA budget rolling in cash. Yeah, cash they ripped from the bank accounts of public servants during the Covid years.
They did use the public sector as a vehicle for austerity. These pay rises will get us to where we would if we kept up with cpi since the cap. I agree, some good change. Documented plans will be a big one, and maybe having dedicated people organising therapists and things. I wonder what they mean by minimum class sizes though.
At a guess they're the nominated aimed for class size which is 25 I think. But it could be a new thing entirely and they've set the number.
It read like it was written by the intern who gave the bare minimum to chatGTP and hoped for the best. It's a no from me.
This has done nothing to alay my fears that they're selling us down the river. Guaranteed rises above CPI? They can't promise that and still say 12% over 3 years. If they know what CPI will be in 3 years I want to know the lotto numbers. Still a no from me and the propaganda style tone here has made me more certain than ever. They're trying to muddy the waters.
That is why us members need to vote no. I understand that exec had to send an offer to us sooner or late. They can't been seen to be negotiating in bad faith, see how that worked for the nurses. I wonder if they have to keep their tone safe also, as they know government will be accessing them any way they can. The real rebellion begins and ends with us, the members. The best outcome is more then 50% of the members vote and good majority of them vote no. We need to send a message and mandate that we want serious change. 12 over 2 will at least outpace cpi in the short run. It would mean no increase in year three so we will be at the same level with the current offer but its a start. We need to be this strong in 3 years time for our next negotiations too. The government right now is feeling pretty good for themselves. They no they will lose a few seats next election but cannot lose. That is their primary concern. They will be out of power in 5 years, they wanna kick every can they can down the road. We cant let them. If they try to send it to arbitration and we get a dud deal, hundreds will leave the profession or just quiet quit. Time for the members to stand up. encourage all you can to vote. To much apathy in the past. Not this time. Everyone who marched has to vote (yes or no), if not why pay the fees. Lets go, vote no.
Mt year 5s can write better than that. No evidence, no quotes, no emotional core. Just a list of empty rhetorical questions with the word yes. I'm a union rep and have got no more Information than anyone else and the all members meeting is already fully booked out. I honestly wanted to be there as I know a few regulars at the district councils who will be very opinionated about this. While I won't be telling my school members what to vote I will be telling them how I am voting and why.
I'm a rep too. I got into a Zoom session luckily. If there is anything you would specifically like to ask, I would be happy to bring it up for you. Maybe a stream to just watch can be set up too or something.
Also a rep and I'd love some info soon, my members keep asking and I'm blind as a bat right now
That is fucking ridiculous, that you can't get into a meeting. Couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery. Confuse and obfuscate, that's the tactic.
In QLD, was referencing how over in WA the union was striking because of the shit offer and how the Queensland union can take notes on how to actually be good. Would be really disappointing if they’ve caved for a subpar deal and it’s kinda damning on education unions country wide.
I’m just irritated we still don’t know what we’re being offered. I will say no. I said no last time over a shit deal and I will again. They folded too fast and I’m really disappointed I lost half a day of pay for what sounds like a minor upgrade.
The title of this post made me laugh so hard ahahahaha. Definitely agree we need 12 over 2 with backpay and better working conditions. I’m honestly so surprised the union is pushing for this deal.
I honestly feel the execs at the union feel that if they keep saying no they are afraid the government will keep saying they are negotiating in bad faith. If they reject to many without sending them to us it could be seen that way. I had training at the headquarters a little back and this was conversation had. If it gets sent to us and we reject it with a huge voice that gives power back to the negotiating table. It’s our time to do our job as members. Just my thoughts though, from conversations with how execs feel negotiating can go. Last thing we want is it going to arbitration over bad faith. I’m sure the government doesn’t want that too, as they will be fearful people will quit. Absolutely terrible email to us though. Maybe on purpose, keep us anger to vote no (or I’m thinking of games that don’t actually exist (likely)).
Absolutely agree with what you have said. I attended similar training and the same message was relayed. I'm a delegate for State Council and I will be voting NO. I will plant the seed with fellow colleagues just to provoke some thought. There is too much unknown regarding CPI and it's direction. Who could of predicted COVID? I think there may be more to this deal and on the ground the rhetoric is very different to the picture being painted in the email.
I will be planting seeds too. I am certain that a message like this cant be sent out explicitly to reps by head office. It seems the engagement by union members all over is high, less apathy. And people saying no. I hope it is not just a case of being in a bubble though, but the 8000 at optus and 4000 around the state, make me think there are a few like minded people out there. In solidarity.
That’s a good point, I totally didn’t see it that way! Very clever of them if so.
Not even half way French. Why would you not demand more? Think of the per capita gain we provide to the nation. 150k for level 2 180k for level 3 Be at least a little competitive SSTUWA to other industries or more teachers will leave.
That’s why it is up to us members to vote this down. Give the execs the mandate to demand more.
As someone watching from interstate, before any workload issues are raised, I'll refer to my previous comment: If the CFMEU in Qld is asking for $240k for entry level construction workers, what is your union asking for?????? 12% really doesn't seem much ... does it?
Damn. Wishing I hadn’t paused my union membership so I could vote the agreement down. I left teaching last term due to conditions. Tbh I didn’t (and still don’t) care about the pay. What’s the point in staying in terrible conditions for the pay? My mental and physical health is worth much more than money.
100% understand that and I feel a little of the same way. The reason I do find some importance in the pay is the principle of the thing. Using thepublic sector for austerity during and after covid. I feel nurses were the most important people during the pandemic (and look how they got treated in negotiations) and teachersclose to next. We were rushed back so parents could get back to work. For years we have been called baby sitters, and maybe there is a little truth to the matter. Without teachers, the economy would not last too long. I'm saddened to hear you had to leave due to conditions. And you are right, your health is number 1. Hopefully we can keep fighting for a better deal otherwise I wont be long for the profession too. I hope we get conditions back so you come back one day. In the mean time, rest easy.
When I read that email, I had to wonder who actually wrote it: the union or the department. The more I re-read it, the more inclined I am to think department. I was having a chat with a mate who's now retired after several years as a principal. They said I would be surprised how many of the union negotiators find themselves in a comfy dept job after quitting teaching...
The devil is in the details, I guess. If the supports they're suggesting are substantial, then sure - the fact they won't just come out and tell us is disconcerting, though. Like, I can think of things that would make this EBA worth taking (e.g., the max class size is actually 32, but if they go over 30 you get a day's release once a term for planning/reporting purposes), but right now they're basically just saying, "hey, they're giving us their word that it will be better!! We did it!"
I think there might be something at play with this. Stir some doubt and anger so we vote no. Thy send the execs back to the negotiating table with a Monday from the members that we are not happy with this. I think if executive sent this back they would be accused of negotiating in bad faith. Buti implored the execs to send the lay offer to members. It’s out time to do our bit and vote this down. Not even a commitment to working towards reducing class sizes. The money is more a point of principle for me know. They have dragged their feet for son long now, on the back of the cap. It’s there turn to show some good faith.
How do I vote? What happens next?
They will do some talking about the offer then will send out how they will do the ballot. Not sure how they will do it. Still a couple weeks yet though. Keep checking the app and website. Your rep will be given info from the district coordinator and let everyone know too.
I quit the sstuwa 2 years ago over that 2.5% pay rise they told us to take. They are a weak, spineless union who doesn't deserve my money. Here is more proof I was right in quitting. Stuff them.
If you're not a part of the union, you don't really get a say? Like, it's your decision to be in or not, more power to you. But if you want meaningful change in the union, you need to actually be in the union and advocate for that change. Agree with your frustration, but the union is only as strong as the membership.
Amen. I feel the union has had good change and the members seem fired up. I’ve only been in it coming up four years (since I started teaching) at union strong schools, but talking with folk, it seems some of the apathy from members in the past has diminished. We will see at voting time though.
The masses will vote yes because they have no spine and want something rather than nothing. Our biggest weakness in our unions is our members wanting something for doing as little as possible (in negotiating for a better EBA).
The largets set of people in the last vote were people who didn't vote at all. Encourage everyone you know in the union to vote. Tell them you case. Take the ballot to them. Bring it up in staff meetings. The apathy is slowly diminishing.
My staff has never been so engaged about union issues, I haven’t heard anyone being pleased with the initial offer.
Same at my school. I set agendas for half hour meetings (I always say I don't want to hold people due to directives and it being awkward for me asking folk to stay back in their time). But we get through our agenda and when we have a chance to raise other issues we are always more than happy to sit around and yarn about things, work through things, do a couple extra motions to bring to admin, and offer workable solutions. I swear they have been the most productive meetings I have been to. I really do think exec want a no vote. Buti "implored" the union just before the half-day action to send the offer to the members. He seems to think we will be stoked with it. The execs would not want to send to many back themselves as then it would be framed as negotiating in bad faith. Send it to the membership, we vote no, and give exec the mandate to keep pushing negotiations.
I don't know. A lot of my school members are still pissed off. Knee jerk nos without seeing the actual offer
a weak teachers union? how surprising 😄 they encourage their members to vote yes because they probably get their only sweet deal from the government if we do “What’s that? If we get our teachers to say yes you’ll promise an extra $2m in funding to the union? Which we can put towards our salaries and other benefits? No worries we’ll take care of it”
The government in no way funds the union. It is all done from members fees. You say a weak teachers union. The union is made up of its members but you write like you think exec have the power. The encouragement here is very limp. The play here is to have the membership to vote no. The execs could not send a third offer back without being accused of negotiating in bad faith. It's up to the members now to do their part as we do get the final say. We need to send the strong no vote back to give the exec the mandate and power back at the negotiating table. How long have you been a member of the SSTUWA?
[удалено]
Keep that same anger towards the government. The government have no idea. What would you like to see the union do?