I note the teachers' union is upset.

Mind you, some would ask when aren't they?

Bill English has launched a campaign telling those wanting a pay rise that those pay rises are going to be about one or two percent.

Why? Because inflation is zero and anything more than one or two percent means we're paying for stuff we can't afford, and that leads to inflation, which leads to trouble he doesn't need.

Now the teachers, upon hearing that, got all worked up and told us they're wanting at least five percent if not more given:

1. They want some sort of catch up.

&

2. They argue you don't get good teachers if you don't pay well.

So, on point one they're delusional. You can't go into negotiations each year bleeting about stuff you're aggrieved about from previous years.

But on point two they're right. Teachers are hopelessly underpaid, apart from the hopeless ones who are overpaid.

In that lies the real issue. I have no problem giving a good teacher 55. I probably wouldn't have the trouble giving them 10 percent, because great teachers do great things. But not all teachers do great things. Some teachers do very little and yet because of the union movement they all get paid the same if they've hung around the place for the same period of time.

I would argue there is no shortage of money in the education sector, it's just not handed out properly. Never has been. It's the unions who vehemently oppose any change to that system.

Here's the simple reality, no good ever comes of a mass collective pay agreement. It is not debated or decided on because of talent or expertise. It is decided based on the weakest link and the amount of money a Government of the day has to hand out.

Given they're dealing with such large numbers and the resulting agreement applies to each and everyone of those in the group, the number is always low.

This is why the Government's idea of super teachers and super principals was such a dramatic breakthrough, it at long last recognised brilliance and rewarded it.

Yet still, tragically not all the unions could get on board. If all you're ever negotiating over is the rate of inflation, then your request will never really go anywhere. In which case, Bill English's argument makes perfect sense.

To ask for more you have to offer more, you have to do more, and the unions have never grasped that. Their view of wage negotiation is simply holding their hand out having dreamed up a number, and if that's as sophisticated as it gets then their numbers will almost always be a dissapointment.