AOb: Research salary structure and funding for education
Of course, the salary structure in education must be examined, as the CDA and D66 want. But more needs to be done AObchairman Liesbeth Verheggen. "The government's own financing system must also be examined. The government has cut salaries thirty times in recent years."
Image: Pixabay
"We wholeheartedly support the call of the entire House of Representatives to properly examine the salary structure of education," says AOb-chairman Liesbeth Verheggen. "As long as that doesn't mean a delay for where it is the most pressing now: in primary education and secondary special education. There is the greatest salary arrears and there are now the greatest shortages."
In addition, as far as Verheggen is concerned, the House of Representatives also urgently needs to examine the financing of education. "There are mistakes and wrong choices in the current system and government policy, as a result of which teaching salaries are constantly lagging behind."
Motion
During the teachers' debate at the end of March, MPs Michel Rog (CDA) and Paul van Meenen (D66) submitted a motion calling on the government to have the salary structure in primary, secondary and secondary vocational education examined. The job evaluation system and the associated salaries have not been revised for some time, according to the two.
Rog and Van Meenen got together for the motion, the entire House of Representatives voted in favor. They would like to see this assessment reach the Foundation of Education, the club in which education employers and education unions consult.
Excellent idea
"As far as we are concerned, the review of the salary structure is an excellent idea," says Verheggen. "The AOb will certainly support this in the board meeting of the Education Foundation," Verheggen assures. She is on behalf of the AOb on the board of the foundation. "I see the unanimous statement of the MPs as a positive signal. The House of Representatives finally sees that something is wrong with the salaries in education."
AObchair Liesbeth Verheggen: "I see the unanimous statement of the MPs as a positive signal. The House of Representatives finally sees that there is something wrong with the salaries in education"
According to her, this also requires something from politicians: cooperation in solutions. "It is certainly good to take a good look at that for all functions, teachers and support staff. But it should not mean a delay for those places where the need is greatest right now: primary education and secondary special education. When we get there doing nothing will only increase the shortages. We don't need an audit for that. Studies by the OECD, by the University of Amsterdam, by the CAOP, they have all shown where the problems lie in recent years. low salaries affect attractiveness."
Gap
In those two places, the gap with comparable positions in education is huge. In primary education, LA is the norm, while in secondary education, LB is the starting salary and progression to higher and better paid positions is possible. The AOb set February last year the Salary step-by-step plan not without reason to abolish LA and to enable growth to LC and LD. In secondary special education – with pupils aged twelve and older – teachers are still covered by the collective labor agreement for primary education and earn much less than their colleagues in pre-vocational secondary education. That gap must also be closed quickly.
But it cannot stop at examining the salary structure, emphasizes Verheggen. "Politicians should also have the courage to examine the financing system. They are one hundred percent responsible for that. And things go wrong in various ways."
Shorten in the meantime
Normally, the government passes on wage increases from the market sector on a one-to-one basis to civil servants and education. But cabinets of all colors immediately cut civil servants' and education salaries in the event of a slight financial headwind. In the past twenty years, the agreed increases have been slashed thirty times. Thirty times. The best known is the zero line, but apart from that a smaller 'policy discount' was also regularly applied.
According to the Ministry of the Interior's own research, this now results in a salary arrears of 18 percent compared to the market. Verheggen: "That can also be done differently. A similar financing model is used in the healthcare sector, but the government does not have the option of making interim cuts. It has to go in that direction."
Politicians should also have the courage to examine the financing system. They are XNUMX percent responsible for that. And there it goes wrong in several ways.
Partisan
Moreover, the government is biased, notes AObchairman Verheggen. "The idea was once that a more or less objective system would determine the salary scope. After that, it was up to education employers and education unions to consider how that salary scope could best be used. But the government often secretly sits at the table anyway. special conditions are set to make up for arrears. If the senior scheme would not be cut back, according to the dictation of the 2014 Education Agreement, there would be no salary increase."
The government often secretly sits at the negotiating table
It is strange that the level of the salary range is secret from the unions. This is determined according to that objective calculation method, but only given to the education employers. Unions have to figure that out through negotiation. The AOb has requested these 'space letters' by invoking the Government Information (Public Access) Act, but didn't get them.
"Because this undermines the confidentiality and strategy of the free negotiations," the Interior Ministry wrote in the rejection. Moreover, otherwise employers will no longer be able to secretly spend terms of employment money on other matters, the Ministry of the Interior emphasizes. "Disclosure of the data could lead to bigger claims on the negotiating table by demanding money that the cabinet has made available to government employers in the past and they have not spent on employment conditions."
Employer role of government
"Incomprehensible", says Verheggen. "The government calculates the possible salary increase more or less objectively, but school boards can withhold money for other things. It is much better if the figures for the salary range are on the table and we talk to employers about how to implement them. Do we want to do something special for starters, or for education support workers? Do we want a generic wage increase, or also one-off benefits for everyone. It is abundantly clear that the government does not want to give up its role as employer yet. They are still half at the negotiating table. They have to give up their role as financier, subsidy provider, "Keep it clean and do not interfere with the content. To begin with, those 'space letters' should therefore be public. So that it becomes clear how much money we are talking about and whether the government has cut again."
