TEACHERS' PAY

Almost exactly two years ago, Danish local authorities and the teachers' unions engaged in a bitter strike over working conditions. This resulted in a lock-out, in which the authorities shut schools and teachers didn't work. After a month or so, the Government imposed a settlement, the central part of which was the obligation for teachers to spend all of their working hours on site instead of (for instance) preparing for lessons or marking at home or somewhere else. The new arrangements have been in place since the start of this year's academic year, last August.

Or have they? It is not just teachers that think that the idea of forcing professionals to work in a particular place at a particular time is old-fashioned. In an age where the watchword for many other employees is "flexibility", what is the point of forcing a teacher to mark twenty essays in a cramped teachers' room (with all the risk of disturbance) instead of in their study at home with a cup of coffee? And why should they have to mark them between the hours of 8 and 4, Monday to Friday, instead of Sunday morning or other times of the day?

Data just released show that many local authorities regret the attack on teachers' cherished flexibilities. The settlement included an escape clause, the so-called "local deal", whereby a local authority could do a deal with its employees outside of the settlement, if it saw fit. Intended to be used only sparingly and in special circumstances (eg a school on an island), it is now clear that at least half of all local authorities have taken advantage of it, and that proportion is rising all the time.

If most people take advantage of an exception to the law, does that mean that the law is in reality a dead letter? Many people, though perhaps not the politicians that crafted it, would say yes. I agree.

Walter Blotscher