The Malta Union of Teachers (MUT) has accused the MCAST management of arrogance because the latter has published advertisements for the recruitment of ICT lecturers with a salary package of Lm11,900.
Since when does an employer have to seek the permission of a trade union to issue calls for application for certain positions? Is the salary package offered to ICT lecturers not higher than the current lecturer scale? So what is the problem? Why should the management at MCAST wait for the convenience of the MUT to fill badly needed vacancies at the ICT Institute? Is it true that during the summer holidays some members of the MUT council were not available for negotiations on the collective agreement?
The MUT is fully aware that the education authorities are trying to make Malta a centre of excellence, and the field of Information and Communication Technology is one of the targeted sectors. As the academic year has started, why is the union resorting to industrial action? Is this action in the interests of the lecturers and the students concerned?
When the "secondary education for all" policy was implemented in 1970 without proper planning and preparation, the MUT did not resort to industrial action. At that time it took advantage of the Nationalist Party in government that was trying to cope with the teething troubles of a newly independent country.
A disproportionate number of teachers who were teaching in primary schools in June, found themselves teaching in secondary schools in October without proper training or higher qualifications. The education authorities were not accused of arrogance then because that policy suited the union.
As a result of the influx of ex-primary school teachers in secondary schools (including some glorified "primary schools"), the graduate masters - as graduate secondary school teachers were known at the time - found themselves in a minority. The MUT quickly showed its arrogance in the course of the reorganisation exercise of 1974, and pressured the Labour government to make a mess out of the secondary school teaching profession.
The graduate master salary scale was abolished, the summer holidays of the secondary schools were reduced, while the summer holidays of the primary schools were increased. Teachers with six years' experience were graded Teacher II independently of whether they had a first degree or not, and independently of whether they taught in a primary or a secondary school. As a result of the MUT's arrogance, graduate masters were absorbed into the Teacher II category, and the nomenclature was suppressed.
It was strange that the late erstwhile Labour finance minister was persuaded that the secondary school teachers were going to fare well as a result of the reorganisation exercise. A number of qualified graduate secondary school teachers did, eventually, bid farewell (pun intended) to the teaching profession as a result of the MUT's arrogance.
The Labour government of the time presumably meant well, but it was misguided. As a result of the MUT's arrogance, secondary schools moved in the direction of mediocrity rather than excellence. It was evident that not all children of secondary school age could make the grade in a grammar school or a secondary technical school, and there was a shortage of teachers with the appropriate academic or technical qualifications.
The introduction of the trade schools was a step in the right direction, but the implementation of the policy was partly flawed. The school curriculum was never adequately supported with basic academic subjects, and as far as it is known, trade school students never graduated with an International Baccalaureate as was initially promised.
As a result of the MUT's arrogance, the system of progression within the teaching profession was messed up. The incentive for primary school teachers to move to secondary schools and enrich their own knowledge through further academic studies was stifled. Subsequently, the absorption of the teacher training colleges into the University partly mitigated the harm that was done. But the incentive to teachers to higher studies was removed when six years' service replaced the need for a higher degree or further specialisation.
The MUT, through its arrogance, gained a monopoly of representation in the teaching profession. It is hoped that it will not make a mess of the teaching profession at the institutions of higher learning. It is no use pretending to be a professional educational organisation, if it resorts to industrial action for ulterior motives, and deprives its own members and the students under their care of an uninterrupted service.
If the MCAST management succeeds to attract highly qualified and experienced lecturers of ICT, the students under their care are likely to become qualified citizens for their and the country's benefit.
The MUT needs to act professionally and avoid the mistakes of the past. It also needs to be careful because given its monopolistic representation, teachers need not necessarily be members to enjoy some of the benefits that it succeeds to gain for its members.