Peter Wilson's article regarding the Industrial Relations Commission and our salaries campaign, Education 1 September 2003, links to the societal considerations the IRC will make in its determination.
Peter illuminates that the IRC must take into account the governments statements regarding its ability to pay in the context of the current state of the economy. He quotes that the IRC is bound by the Industrial relations act to promote the efficiency and productivity in the economy of the State.

Peter rightly argues that the commission should see that education gives a broader return than just dollar measures, for example social cohesion.
He finishes with the statement "The task before us is to break the nexus in the mind of the Industrial Relations Commission that purely equates an improvement in the state of the economy with the delivery of a surplus State Budget".
This statement, along with our continuing campaign of promoting the value of teachers in the community mind, reflects both the strength and weakness of the generally altruistic idealism imbued in the ethos of teachers.

Our strength is that we recognise our efforts go beyond a straight monetary contract. The community increasingly knows this as reported in the same edition of Education. Our promotion of the ideals of public education through the Vinson report and paid advertising has aided this.

However the IRC is not the independent body of wise, bearded, even handed tribal elders that the courts may like to portray. Courts have a long history of bringing determinations favoring employers and governments. However they do take into account the combativeness of unionists - our decision of 2000 to ban ELLA tests saw a fine of over $30,000 levied against us. But the unity of membership in banning the test at that time saw no attempt to knock on Fed's door for a cheque. Victorian AMWU State Secretary Martin Kingham was triumphant over the Federal government's Cole commission kangaroo court victimisation attempts largely due to thousand of unionists rallying outside the court determinations.

We will not sway the IRC through reasoned argument as much as through might - union mobilisation with strikes and rallies including outside the IRC itself if need be.
Similarly community spirit is an important measure for the government, but temporary unpopularity with some section of the population will be easily weathered by Carr's massive majority. Less navigable will be increasing industrial action measured initially by days but of whatever increase is needed to win the significant portion our claim.

Chances are the IRC will make a determination somewhere between our claim and the governments current offer. Perhaps the government will increase its offer to position for greater community support. It is likely the IRC determination will contain some component funded from treasury but also some component funded by efficiency savings, as per its charter.
We should be willing to challenge any such determination with our industrial strength. If that means challenging the legitimacy of the IRC itself we will stand in company with not only others such as the AMWU, but our own recent history.

This challenge will be all the stronger if our central mobilisation around salaries is strengthened by opposition to the current restructuring plan and TAFE fee rises. After all these issues expose the falsity of the government's “cry poor strategy.

John Moris, October 2003