Preschool teachers to strike as pay talks collapse

Date
    September 24, 2014


Preschool teachers will strike for 24 hours next month after negotiations for a new pay deal broke down.      :-?

The Australian Education Union's Victorian branch expects about 400 preschool teachers and educators to join a rally on October 22. However, the union says more than 1000 teachers and educators are covered by the protected action.

It is not yet clear how many centres might be forced to close for the day.

The union has rejected a pay increase of 2.25 per cent, with issues surrounding workload and employee classification structures also proving to be stumbling blocks in negotiations.


The union's Victorian president, Meredith Peace, accused the major preschool employers of refusing to negotiate in good faith.      :(

Talks with the Early Learning Association Australia and the Municipal Association of Victoria broke down on Tuesday after more than 14 months.      :(

"Victoria's preschool teachers are currently paid between 5 and 9 per cent less than their school colleagues, respectively, at the beginning and top of the salary scale," Ms Peace said.

She said the previous agreement had achieved parity for preschool teachers with their primary school counterparts but that would disappear under the latest offer.

"We don't want to lose that parity. We think it's incredibly important in terms of retaining a highly qualified workforce and attracting people into the profession."

The union is negotiating two separate agreements with the employer groups, although their terms are largely the same, Ms Peace said.

Early Learning Association Australia chief executive Shane Lucas said he was disappointed with the union's withdrawal from negotiations.

"There are many things we can keep discussing with the union over and above the salaries," he said.

In an email to parents, the association said the union's actions demonstrated it was no longer interested in bargaining in good faith.

"Rather, the AEU wants to embark on a politically motivated campaign of protected industrial action to put pressure on the Victorian government – the principal funder of kindergarten services – ahead of the state election in November," the email said.

Municipal Association of Victoria president Bill McArthur said early childcare centres run by 24 councils across Victoria would not be affected by the protected industrial action.

"We are determined to achieve a reasonable outcome which sees a new agreement that meets the genuine needs and expectations of employers and employees," he said.   

Uncertainty surrounded the future of preschool education until the federal government announced this month that it would continue subsidising the program for another 12 months.

The funding ensures four-year-old children will have access to 15 hours of preschool next year. Under the current agreement, the Victorian government funds 10 hours and the Commonwealth five.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/preschool-teachers-to-strike-as-pay-talks-collapse-20140924-10ldbb.html#ixzz3EHPBZ0ys

You know, I've had it up to here with all this pre-school stuff.

People basically want their kids minded so they can work two incomes to compete with the Chinese house buyers.

Instead they have been conned into this notion that what they really need is to have their kids looked after by pre-school "educators".
What are they going to be educated in for chrissake?
How to use facebook and twitter at the age of 6 months?

And will the "educators" change their nappies? No fear they won't. They will have to have "early childhood hygienists" for that and they will have to be fully-paid up members of the Health Services Union.

But pay no attention .. .I hate everybody.

Unions shooting the workers in the foot yet again.

Increase costs will cost jobs.

bogarde73 wrote on Sep 25^th, 2014 at 10:21am:

You know, I've had it up to here with all this pre-school stuff. People basically want their kids minded so they can work two incomes to compete with the Chinese house buyers. Instead they have been conned into this notion that what they really need is to have their kids looked after by pre-school "educators". What are they going to be educated in for chrissake? How to use facebook and twitter at the age of 6 months? And will the "educators" change their nappies? No fear they won't. They will have to have "early childhood hygienists" for that and they will have to be fully-paid up members of the Health Services Union. But pay no attention .. .I hate everybody.

change their nappies?


Actually they do.

What are they going to be educated in for chrissake?


The difference between children with some pre school experience and none is dramatic.

The social skills are miles in front which can be an advantage that some of the others take years to catch up on if ever.

They interact together better make friends cooperate and work together, the children without these skills are often left behind when they reach the school system.

Don't get me wrong I am not a supporter of abandoning children in these environments on a full time basis and would prefer to see a strong level of at home care whenever possible but some exposure to pre school is invaluable.

2.25% is an insulting real money pay cut for people who do good valuable work in our community. The employer has become mean nasty unreasonable and selfish. A fair result for these people at the low end of incomes is affordable and reasonable.

Swagman wrote on Sep 25^th, 2014 at 10:30am:

Unions shooting the workers in the foot yet again. Increase costs will cost jobs.

We know. You just like more for yourself and less for anyone else. ALL your comments are based on that. You are simply selfish.  That's all.  ;D   

Dnarever wrote on Sep 25^th, 2014 at 10:36am:

2.25% is an insulting real money pay cut for people who do good valuable work in our community. The employer has become mean nasty unreasonable and selfish. A fair result for these people at the low end of incomes is affordable and reasonable.

Where is it written that you must always have a real increase in wages?

If the economy is slowing, profitability is down, business is taking a drop in income why not the worker?

Swagman wrote on Sep 25^th, 2014 at 10:52am:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 25th, 2014 at 10:36am: 2.25% is an insulting real money pay cut for people who do good valuable work in our community. The employer has become mean nasty unreasonable and selfish. A fair result for these people at the low end of incomes is affordable and reasonable. Where is it written that you must always have a real increase in wages? If the economy is slowing, profitability is down, business is taking a drop in income why not the worker?

And in pre schools all the places are full, prices are up and the government subsidies are rolling in.

Swagman wrote on Sep 25^th, 2014 at 10:52am:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 25th, 2014 at 10:36am: 2.25% is an insulting real money pay cut for people who do good valuable work in our community. The employer has become mean nasty unreasonable and selfish. A fair result for these people at the low end of incomes is affordable and reasonable. Where is it written that you must always have a real increase in wages? If the economy is slowing, profitability is down, business is taking a drop in income why not the worker?

Where is it written that you must always have a real increase in wages?


Most normal employees don't but it has not been the same in management for decades where most increases have averaged many times the inflation rate. Probably not relevant to this industry but even in this area a modest increase would be easily affordable.

This government is engineering a recession.

St George of the Garden wrote on Sep 25^th, 2014 at 11:54am:

This government is engineering a recession.

Shhh ! Don't mention the 'P' word.

Swagman wrote on Sep 25^th, 2014 at 10:30am:

Unions shooting the workers in the foot yet again. Increase costs will cost jobs.

This isn't automatically true. The relationship between pay and jobs is not a simple linear one.

It's just one factor, businesses can't just get rid of employees if they are fulfilling demand because they will no longer be able to do so which can cause considerable problems for them.

If the price of of labour is increased too much then it can impact the ability of a business to grow, but not all price increases are bad things and there must be some to al least ensure wages don't fall in real terms.

Swagman wrote on Sep 25^th, 2014 at 10:52am:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 25th, 2014 at 10:36am: 2.25% is an insulting real money pay cut for people who do good valuable work in our community. The employer has become mean nasty unreasonable and selfish. A fair result for these people at the low end of incomes is affordable and reasonable. Where is it written that you must always have a real increase in wages? If the economy is slowing, profitability is down, business is taking a drop in income why not the worker?

Why not the politician including your heroes?  ;)

Swagman wrote on Sep 25^th, 2014 at 10:30am:

Unions shooting the workers in the foot yet again. Increase costs will cost jobs.

In this industry the number of places available is dependant on staff numbers - if they cut staff they then have to reduce their numbers ?