We were thrilled that the Süddeutsche Zeitung covered the BIS union strike held on 30 November. It was great to get media recognition. The school’s position, based on what has transpired thus far, was predictable. Most interestingly, the head of the board accuses the union of exactly the things that could be more accurately applied to the board itself.
The SZ resported that school directorate vehemently opposed a “Manteltarifvertrag” (Tarifvertrag) because “er die Schule ‘knebeln’ würde”. “Knebeln” is the German word for gag. Not as in a joke, but as in stopping a person’s mouth with a rag or an object to silence them. So the directorate has given as a reason for not signing the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) that it would gag the school. Up to now, however, everything that has transpired seems to indicate the opposite. The board and the director have issued countless updates in many forms about negotiation activities and have free and ample opportunity to communicate with the BIS community. The staff, however, have been blocked from direct communication and issuing any information to anyone. So the question is, who’s been gagged?
Elsewhere, the head of the board, Michael Schulz, is cited as indicating that Ver.di have instigated an ideological (“ideologisch”) strike. This makes it sound as if a third party has infiltrated the school to redraw political boundaries. “An der Schule sollten nur die Stakeholder Vereinbarungen treffen.” (“At the school, only the stakeholders should engage in negotiations.”) In fact, it is the staff who were engaged in negotiations and are now engaged in a struggle to have these negotiations, and the collective bargaining agreement that issued from them, recognised.
To paraphrase, apparently the CBA and a works agreement are, in their content, almost exactly the same. But a CBA is a stronger, unassailable contract that allows both the school and its staff to negotiate. The works agreements does not. More than just content, it’s about structure, regulation and process. Nevertheless, if the board see the two contracts as basically the same, why not sign the CBA? It’s been negotiated. It exists already. It only requires a signature. It upholds the negotiated content. And it goes one better – it makes it secure against those who would annul its content.
By the way, at least on the side of staff, there is nothing whatsoever “ideological” about this debate. It pertains directly, materially and profoundly to the livelihood and existential security of the people employed at BIS, people who work hard every day for the wellbeing of the students and their families. This isn’t ideology. It’s security and stability.
Click below to read the full articles on the Sueddeutsche Zeitung website:
Article 1
Article 2
The SZ resported that school directorate vehemently opposed a “Manteltarifvertrag” (Tarifvertrag) because “er die Schule ‘knebeln’ würde”. “Knebeln” is the German word for gag. Not as in a joke, but as in stopping a person’s mouth with a rag or an object to silence them. So the directorate has given as a reason for not signing the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) that it would gag the school. Up to now, however, everything that has transpired seems to indicate the opposite. The board and the director have issued countless updates in many forms about negotiation activities and have free and ample opportunity to communicate with the BIS community. The staff, however, have been blocked from direct communication and issuing any information to anyone. So the question is, who’s been gagged?
Elsewhere, the head of the board, Michael Schulz, is cited as indicating that Ver.di have instigated an ideological (“ideologisch”) strike. This makes it sound as if a third party has infiltrated the school to redraw political boundaries. “An der Schule sollten nur die Stakeholder Vereinbarungen treffen.” (“At the school, only the stakeholders should engage in negotiations.”) In fact, it is the staff who were engaged in negotiations and are now engaged in a struggle to have these negotiations, and the collective bargaining agreement that issued from them, recognised.
To paraphrase, apparently the CBA and a works agreement are, in their content, almost exactly the same. But a CBA is a stronger, unassailable contract that allows both the school and its staff to negotiate. The works agreements does not. More than just content, it’s about structure, regulation and process. Nevertheless, if the board see the two contracts as basically the same, why not sign the CBA? It’s been negotiated. It exists already. It only requires a signature. It upholds the negotiated content. And it goes one better – it makes it secure against those who would annul its content.
By the way, at least on the side of staff, there is nothing whatsoever “ideological” about this debate. It pertains directly, materially and profoundly to the livelihood and existential security of the people employed at BIS, people who work hard every day for the wellbeing of the students and their families. This isn’t ideology. It’s security and stability.
Click below to read the full articles on the Sueddeutsche Zeitung website:
Article 1
Article 2