Francis Beckett, the reporter who wrote the TES story on the NATFHE conference on which I commented in my post below on June 6, has written me the following comment which in the interests of fairness I am happy to post up here:

'I wrote the TES stuff you quoted, and was on the press table for the whole debate. I know my report was subbed to pieces, but it still made it clear that everyone in the room was in favour of the merger not because they'd been brainwashed by a Stalinist leadership, but because they thought it would give them a more influential voice. It made clear that two thirds of the conference did NOT think the thing had been done top down, and it also quoted the reply given to this charge. This charge was quite was untrue - I've seen the evidence.

'They want a merger to give them a stronger voice - and you can hardly blame them. Their members in further education earn less than schoolteachers, and many FE colleges refuse to pay even the low wages agreed nationally - and get away with it. That's why they want a merger with another union - not for any of the squalid motives you attribute to them.

'It's your right to disagree, and theirs to disagree with you. But I'm surprised to see you distorting what I wrote in good faith, to serve your own political purposes.'

In the light of these comments I returned to the TES story (subscription only, alas) but could not for the life of me see any reference to a statement that 'that two thirds of the conference did NOT think the thing had been done top down' or that 'it also quoted the reply given to this charge.' In response to my further query, Francis Beckett sent me the following statements from his published story to support his charge of distortion:

'"Some members, while supporting the merger, wanted more time to debate the proposed constitution." "There was still a clear majority in favour of pressing ahead without making further changes to the constitution." "Sally Hunt, general secretary of the AUT, ..........said: 'I cannot go back to my members and my council and ask for further amendments to this document. It would be cheating you to tretend that I could.'" "Mick Jardine, from the executive, said: "The concessions offered by both sides have produced a document which is as good as it can be made." '

Now here's what I said on the matter in my original post:

'...Delegates voted to support the merger with just one no vote and one abstention — a voting achievement which might just have something to do with the plangent complaint voiced by Craig Lewis of Deeside College, Flintshire, who said: "The members of the union have been kept at arms length from these negotiations. The key question is what kind of a union we end up with. We don't need a union controlled from above, with information drip-fed to members." And this from former NATFHE president Tina Downes, who said: "It's been a top-down process. The branches have not had a go at it. We all want to be in the same union, but we may have to be a little patient." The report also tells us that no-one at the conference believed ordinary members of either union would vote against the merger. So it would seem to be a done deal. The members who have been kept at arm’s length will dutifully behave like turkeys voting for Christmas...'

Readers can decide for themselves whether the charge of distortion is true or not.

Posted by melanie at June 8, 2005