For every strike action, the clients pay the price albeit in most cases
In pursuance of the law, precisely The Labour Act, 2003 (Act 651), industrial actions are used as almost the last option to impress upon governments and employers to satisfy the demands of workers/ employees in every democratic dispensation.
It is trite knowledge, that, for every strike action, the clients (students, patients, commuters etc) pay the price albeit in most cases, the ‘strikers' drum home their demands after all.
Just recently in June, the various Teacher unions joined the fold of other trade unions, through an industrial action, to drum home what is termed in occupational parlance as cost of living allowance (COLA) which is coterminous with the end of the year.
By my nature, I wish there were no strikes. Losing instructional hours is something that ‘pains' me. I know it is same for other teachers. How I wish governments are able to revolve issues even before they get to the brink of strike. I opine this with the notion that, a strike action can either be successful or not, but whichever way, losses are counted on the part of the ‘innocent’ clients.
This time, the Teacher unions have announced a fresh strike action through an official reportage, whose letter and spirit suggest that we are not in consonance with the appointment of the new Director General who is stepping in to superintend over the affairs of Ghana’s education.
This development has brought about avalanche of comments from people, with some lambasting our union leaders. What is instructive to me, is, a situation where even some teachers have join the bandwagon to castigate our union leaders without recourse to the facts.
In one of the many arguments I have read, the proponent cited the Pre-Tertiary Education Act, 2020 (Act 1049) Section 19(1) which states “The President shall, in accordance with article 195 of the Constitution, appoint a Director-General for the Education Service”. Then he goes ahead to say that “Teachers' unions are not merited with consultation in the act. Neither is the president compelled to appoint only professional teachers”.
You see, when you hear an erudite person advance an argument on this tangent, it is most unfortunate. What the proponent of this argument is saying is that, the extent to which the constitution was silent on the credentials/ background of such an appointee, anybody the president deems fit should be appointed.
We may choose not to subscribe fully to the principles underpinning the current strike action, but this is a wrong assessment aiming to discredit same.
Did we not lament or if you want, bemoan the situation where the president appointed a medical doctor, Dr Mathew Opoku Prempeh, as the Minister for education? Were we not exonerated by his abysmal performance? Why was he reassigned to a different ministry? It is no secret that he will go down in history as the worse education minister in this country. This happened because he has no clue in handle educational matters because he got no background.
Shouldn’t this be a lesson to us? At least, from what I have heard and read, the new prospective appointee has no background in the office he is coming to occupy. If this is in the assentive, then shouldn’t this be a source of worry to us as teachers?
Admittedly, the law was silent on who should assume that position, but I do understand the framers of the constitution. They could not predict the future so they left some holes to be handled by current situations. I am not a lawyer and I have never pretended to be one, but what happened to common sense? The interpretation/ application / enforcement of the constitution / law must be coupled with common sense and logic!
In the final analysis, teachers should not always be seen embarking on strike for pecuniary purposes, but everything that has the potency of militating against the service. Make no mistake, the background and experiences of any person who takes occupation in that office has some effects (positive or negative) on us. Therefore, the extent to which the union leaders are fighting to ensure that the right person is appointed, we (teachers) are estopped from making comments which are prejudicial and contemptuous to the resolve of our union leaders.
I leave it here by saying that, we cannot continue to anathematize our leaders for fighting just courses and expect them to deliver on their mandate.
Thank you.
