Teachers have been Betrayed Again: October's Payroll Validation Exposes The Strike Settlement

The missing promotion arrears raise troubling questions about the promises made by union leaders, the terms of their agreement with government, and whether Ghanaian teachers can continue trusting the people who claim to represent them.

In my previous three articles, I unequivocally challenged the leadership of Ghana's three pre-tertiary teacher unions not to repeat the mistakes of the past by negotiating away the future of the teachers they claim to represent. I warned colleagues to remain vigilant, insisting that the announcement of improved allowances and promises of further negotiations should not be mistaken for a decisive victory.

Today, the validation of October salaries, with the expected promotion arrears reportedly missing, has brought those concerns into sharper focus. What, then, have teachers gained from the strike that cost them two weeks of classroom instruction, disrupted the academic calendar and subjected them to considerable uncertainty?

If the government's commitment was that all affected teachers would receive their salary-scale placements and outstanding promotion arrears within October, the omission of those arrears from the October payroll validation raises serious questions about the credibility of the settlement announced by union leaders. It also demands an explanation from both the government and the unions.

For those of us who cautioned against premature celebration, this development is deeply troubling. It reinforces the suspicion that the industrial action may have been suspended—or, as I argued previously, effectively called off—without securing sufficient guarantees for the teachers whose sacrifices made the negotiations possible. But the central issue goes beyond the missing arrears. It concerns the integrity of representation, the transparency of collective bargaining and the future of organised labour in Ghana's education sector.

Teachers are concerned about what exactly the leaders negotiated. When the three unions—GNAT, NAGRAT and PRETAG—declared industrial action over the delayed Collective Agreement, outstanding promotion arrears and the Deprived Area Allowance, teachers were given reason to believe that the leadership was prepared to confront government until meaningful commitments were secured.

The strike was not declared for the personal convenience of union executives. It was undertaken in the name of teachers whose promotions had not translated into the appropriate salary placements, whose arrears remained outstanding and whose conditions of service required urgent attention. Yet, following the negotiations, teachers were informed of commitments that appeared to offer a way forward. The arrears were expected to be paid within October, while the Deprived Area Allowance was to be pursued through the budgetary process. The broader question of improved conditions of service was also left for further engagement.

Now, with the October salary validation reportedly failing to reflect the expected arrears, teachers are entitled to ask whether the assurances given to them were adequately secured.

1. Were the payment dates binding commitments or merely targets?
2. Did the agreement cover every eligible teacher, or were some categories excluded?
3. Was the final payment tranche expressly guaranteed?
4. What mechanism was established to hold the government accountable if it failed to honour its commitment?
5. And, most importantly, why were teachers encouraged to believe that payment would be completed within October if the necessary arrangements had not been sufficiently secured?

These are not unreasonable questions. They are the minimum questions any responsible union leadership should anticipate and answer.

If the government reneged on a firm commitment, the unions must say so plainly and explain the steps they are taking to enforce compliance. If the agreement contained qualifications or conditions that were not communicated to members, the leadership must explain why. Teachers cannot be expected to bear the consequences of an agreement whose essential terms remain unclear to them.

The missing arrears are a warning, not a verdict on every fact, if you ask me. Let us be precise. The omission of promotion arrears from the October payroll validation does not, by itself, establish that union leaders deliberately negotiated away those payments or that they acted out of personal greed. Payroll validation and actual payment are also distinct stages, and the official position must be established.

Nevertheless, the omission is significant because it challenges the assurances under which teachers were led to expect payment. If the government had committed to making the payments within October, teachers deserve an immediate explanation of why the expected arrears are absent from the validation. If the timeline has changed, the responsible authorities must disclose the reason and provide a credible alternative date.

The unions, meanwhile, cannot hide behind general statements about continued negotiations. They must account for what they secured, what remains outstanding and what leverage they are prepared to deploy if government fails to deliver. A union's credibility is not tested only when it declares a strike. It is tested even more seriously when it must hold government to the commitments made to bring that strike to an end. The true test of leadership is not the ability to mobilise workers for industrial action; it is the ability to secure and enforce a settlement that improves their lives.

I earlier quipped whether the strike was called off or merely suspended, and today stand to be vindicated. I raised concerns in my previous article about the confusion surrounding the description of the industrial action as either called off or suspended. The distinction became particularly noticeable during the public address following the negotiations, when one leader reportedly used the term called off, and another appeared to draw his attention to the wording.

At the time, I considered the episode troubling. The subsequent concerns over the missing arrears have made the question even more pertinent. If the strike was suspended pending the fulfilment of specific commitments, what conditions governed that suspension? Did the unions expressly reserve the right to resume industrial action if the government failed to meet its obligations? Were those conditions documented and communicated to members?

If, on the other hand, the strike was called off without enforceable safeguards, teachers deserve to know why the leadership considered that decision appropriate. The terminology alone cannot establish what the unions agreed to. The formal resolution and the terms of the settlement must determine that question. But one thing is clear: teachers must not be left guessing about whether their leaders retain the authority and willingness to act when government fails to deliver.

A strike cannot be an effective bargaining instrument if the employer can wait for industrial action to end and then allow the commitments that prompted its suspension to drift indefinitely. If the unions negotiated a conditional suspension, they must enforce the conditions. If they agreed to terminate the action, they must explain what guarantees justified that decision. Anything less would leave members exposed to the very uncertainty the strike was intended to resolve.

The more troubling question is whether the negotiations produced a fair balance between the interests of government and those of teachers. Government had an obvious interest in restoring normal academic activities. The unions, meanwhile, had a responsibility to ensure that teachers' grievances were addressed sufficiently to justify ending the industrial action.

These interests were not necessarily incompatible. A properly negotiated settlement could have restored schooling while providing enforceable commitments on outstanding payments and a definite timetable for comprehensive negotiations on conditions of service. But if teachers return to the classroom without the expected arrears, without a reliable implementation schedule and without meaningful progress on the new Collective Agreement, the balance of the settlement deserves serious scrutiny.

The government would have achieved the immediate objective of ending the strike, while teachers would still be waiting for some of the benefits that justified their industrial action. That possibility should concern every educator. I have argued repeatedly that union leaders must not confuse the preservation of industrial harmony with the protection of members' interests.

A settlement is not necessarily fair because both parties signed it or because the unions publicly endorsed it. Its fairness must be measured by its terms, its enforceability and its practical consequences. If the agreement favours the restoration of services while leaving teachers' substantive demands unresolved, the leadership must explain why it accepted that balance. And if government has failed to honour the commitments it made, the unions must demonstrate that they are prepared to confront the failure rather than conceal it behind diplomatic language.

Here is the disturbing pattern of representation needing attentiveness. My scepticism did not begin with the October payroll validation. It is rooted in a broader concern about the relationship between union leadership and the ordinary teacher. The One Teacher, One Laptop initiative, for instance, raised legitimate questions about the decision to use teachers' Professional Development Allowance towards their contribution to the cost of the devices. The professional licensing system has similarly prompted questions about recurring charges, renewal requirements and the benefits teachers receive in return.

These examples do not prove that union leaders acted corruptly or that the present settlement was negotiated for personal gain. Such allegations require evidence. However, they illustrate why teachers should insist on greater transparency whenever agreements affect their allowances, salaries and long-term professional welfare. Union leaders are not the owners of the benefits they negotiate. They are custodians of a collective mandate.

Their responsibility is to explain the compromises they make, demonstrate the benefits obtained and ensure that members understand the consequences of agreements reached in their name. When that accountability is absent, distrust becomes inevitable. And when distrust is compounded by unmet commitments, teachers are entitled to reconsider whether their current leadership structures are serving them adequately.

The collective agreement may be the next disappointment. Beyond the arrears, I remain concerned about the future of negotiations on the new Collective Agreement. The reported position that the Fair Wages and Salaries Commission is undergoing a transitional phase and cannot engage in comprehensive negotiations should not be allowed to become an indefinite excuse for postponing improvements in teachers' conditions of service.

Teachers require more than assurances that discussions will continue. They need a defined negotiation schedule, clarity on the issues to be addressed and a mechanism for tracking progress. The concerns extend to allowances associated with digital support and professional development. Teachers must know what is being proposed, how the relevant allowances will be structured, and whether any new arrangements will improve their welfare in practical terms.

Given the present uncertainty over the promotion arrears, it would be unwise to accept further assurances without demanding written commitments and clear implementation dates. I have little confidence that meaningful improvements will emerge from these negotiations unless the unions fundamentally change their approach to accountability and bargaining. That is my assessment, and the leadership must now prove it wrong through results. A new Collective Agreement must not become another exercise in announcing progress while leaving the most consequential matters unresolved.

Teachers must consider a change in leadership is my new call with the utmost conviction it deserves. At this point, colleagues must begin asking whether the present crop of union leaders has earned the confidence required to represent them effectively. This is not a call for indiscriminate hostility towards organised labour. Teachers need strong unions now more than ever. Without collective representation, individual educators would have considerably less bargaining power against the state.

But strong unions require accountable leadership. If members conclude that their leaders have repeatedly failed to secure enforceable benefits, communicated agreements inadequately or accepted settlements that leave major grievances unresolved, then the democratic answer must be to demand accountability and consider leadership change through the unions' established constitutional processes.

Teachers should insist on comprehensive reports of the negotiations, disclosure of the outstanding commitments, consultation on major concessions and measurable standards by which union executives can be evaluated. Where leaders fail to meet those standards, members must be prepared to elect representatives who can. The future of the teaching profession cannot be secured by loyalty to individuals; it must be secured by loyalty to the interests of teachers.

The next move must be decisive for the whole benefit of teachers. The missing promotion arrears should serve as a wake-up call. The unions must urgently clarify the status of the payments, establish whether the government has departed from its commitments and demand a credible timetable for settling all outstanding entitlements. They must also clarify the formal status of the strike and explain what action they will take if the agreed deadlines are not met.

The government must provide a transparent account of the October payroll validation and explain the discrepancy between the expected payments and what affected teachers can actually see. If administrative or technical processes have delayed payment, the responsible authorities must identify the problem, specify the affected categories and give a realistic date for resolution.

Neither party should expect teachers to accept vague explanations. If the unions secured enforceable commitments, they must enforce them. If the government made promises that it has not honoured, the unions must say so and act accordingly. And if the agreement itself was inadequate, the leadership must have the courage to acknowledge that reality and return to the bargaining table with a clear mandate from its members.

The verdict belongs to the teachers. I warned in my previous articles that teachers should not surrender their vigilance simply because their leaders announced a settlement. The current concerns surrounding the October payroll validation reinforce the importance of that warning.

But the ultimate verdict should not rest on suspicion, rhetoric or personal conviction alone. It must rest on documentary evidence, the actual terms of the agreement, the government's explanation and the results delivered to affected teachers. If the arrears are paid promptly and the outstanding negotiations produce meaningful, enforceable improvements, the unions will have an opportunity to restore confidence. If the arrears remain unpaid, the deadlines are repeatedly shifted, and the Collective Agreement continues to be deferred, the leadership will have serious questions to answer.

Teachers must not allow this moment to pass without demanding those answers. The two-week strike was a collective sacrifice. It must not become a lesson in how easily workers can be persuaded to abandon their leverage in exchange for promises. A union that can mobilise teachers for a strike but cannot secure the commitments that end it must seriously examine its own effectiveness.

For now, I urge every teacher to remain vigilant, demand transparency and insist that the leadership account for the outcome of the negotiations. The government must fulfil its commitments. The unions must defend their members. And teachers must reclaim their rightful place at the centre of decisions made in their name. The classroom may have reopened, but the questions surrounding the settlement remain open.

Teachers must stay awake. Their arrears, their conditions of service and their professional future are too important to be negotiated away in their absence.