<B>By Santosh Kumar MAHADEO</B>

Private Secondary Schools have been spared of a feckless strike that, if maintained, would have demonstrated our impotence in the teeth of strong political opposition. The outcome is not more brilliant because the layman has a feeling that much ado has been stirred about nothing.

At the outset there was an impression of a repetition of May 75 with all heard and unheard voices castigating the minister of Education for a crime he never committed. The leader of UPSEE, then, raised the spectre of an agreement made between parties, whose partnership has breathed its last with the disappearance of the MMM-MSM government from the political landscape. The wording of the agreement was slippery enough to reassure teachers of substandard schools threatened with closure that their jobs were guaranteed with an indelible seal moulded by the theory of preservation of acquired rights. In agriculture, we profess adaptation to the threats of an economy that has to undergo transformation. In the textile industry, we offer new opportunities of reskilling to workers who have been victims of compression. In other sectors, specially the world of finance and Information Technology, there are no acquired rights to permanent employment. Only a week ago ten employees were dismissed on the grounds of poor performance and lowering productivity. Why can?t teachers who are still in their ripe 40?s accept redeployment in other sectors of employment? The UPSEE has refused the redeployment of teachers from closed substandard schools as cleaners, ushers with salaries of Education Officers. What can be the impact of employing jobless teachers on ?favourable conditions?, that is as Education Officer State Schools? The load of work of PSC ? recruited substantively employed Education Officers will considerably decrease, with the result that they will take a timetable of 10, 15, 16 periods per week as yet another acquired right.

The upshot of UPSEE?s threat gave the impression of an imminent blow to the minister?s credibility. SPSTU, the federation of managers of Private Secondary Schools promised to support UPSEE, each one for different reasons and they maintained their last word with utmost secrecy. The suspense lasted till after the new agreement with the main aggrieved union. No denouement of a drama would be more surprising than the posture of the Secondary and Preparatory School Teachers and other Staff Union and of the Federation of Managers. Both declared, post facto, a total absence of affiliation to and affinity with UPSEE. The SPSTU confessed:

«Pour faire une grève, il faut dèclarer litige. Ce que nous n?avons pas fait.»

Nor did UPSEE. SPSTU proclaimed that they were totally foreign to the motivations of UPSEE. In other words, the threat of a strike did not concern them.

The secretary of the Federation of Managers said:

«Il n?était pas question que nous participions à leur mouvement.»

And yet the few managers under the Federation?s umbrella were in favour of UPSEE?s move.

This is tantamount to saying: " I do not have anything to do with you. However, I want to associate myself with your victory, if ever there is any. I reserve my right to disengage myself if your threat fails to frighten the Ministry."

For the time being, UPSEE still enjoys the eclectic and conditional support of the two pseudo-partners. It is true that in politics there is no authentic friendship; there are only authentic interests.

But then what has happened to the major adversary, the target of attack ? the Ministry? I have an insidious yet nagging feeling that the Ministry does not recognise how weak its adversaries are as a group. Only money and the preservation of one?s life can unite the worst adversaries into a knot. The agreement which has received the blessing of the Ministry acts as a wedge for the overhauling of jobstructure in the civil service. We shall go on remaining hostages of workers who hide behind a moribond theory of job security to waste public funds. How can we accept transformation of employment ethics for everyone else other than the teaching community?

Will the nation accept to be prisoners of a system, a mindset characterised by a singular imperviousness to change? Why should change be for the others and not for us?

Possibly a few would say that one cannot afford to be adamant in an atmosphere of political upheaval and insecurity preceding 1st May primary elections, because attendance in the political rallies is being invested with a premium they do not deserve.

Another important fallout of this threat has been a new deal of the wider partnership to take decisions concerning new substandard schools which will be closed. The Ministry, the PSSA and UPSEE will henceforth determine the conditions of closure. No doubt the 2008 April agreement will be a precedent that should guide future negotiations making redeployment of redundant staff in other sectors impossible. It is not strange why fee paying private schools are mushrooming for an elite that can pay.

The UPSEE has reduced itself to ridicule by not having followed the conventional rules of declaring a strike and yet it has been salvaged by the Ministry. In any case, a strike would have been illegal. The whole question is ? Why was UPSEE allowed to raise expectations of a heroic role when the agreement reached could have materialized earlier? Today UPSEE is not viewed as a union seeking political mileage from disturbance in the education sector, but as a defender of the weak and oppressed by an ?arrogant? Ministry. One has had an eloquent example of the weakness of our unions, but also of a total absence of proactive problem-solving skills in our system.

To all intents and purposes, the leader of UPSEE has meritoriously won a ticket for forthcoming elections in 2010. This is a reward for his pyrrhic victory.