Article From Labour Comment, January 2003
RELEASE ME
BUT
DON’T LET ME GO!
THE TAOISEACH is desperate for another National Wage Agreement; so is Fine Gael, so is the Labour Party! The Public Service Unions are in a panic for fear an agreement won’t come about. Both Tony O’Reilly and the Irish Times say we must have another Agreement! So why have they not succeeded in negotiating a Sixth Programme?
The answer to this lies not in the words of the popular ballad, Torn Between Two Loves, no, in the Taoiseach’s case it is “Torn Between Three Loves”.
There is absolutely no doubt about the sincerity of the Taoiseach in his outrage at the breakdown of talks between the Social Partners on 18th December, 2002. Ahern believed that the basis of an agreement existed on 17th December—and, but for the brinkmanship of the employers, the Sixth Social Partnership Programme would have been signed and sealed by year’s end!
Leaving aside the President of the ICTU, Senator Joe O’Toole, there’s only one man more desperate to see a continuation of the so-called Social Partnership process and that is Bertie Ahern.
Mr. Ahern was confident that there was a basis for a settlement in the early hours of 17th Tuesday, December, 2002, and briefed Tanaiste Mary Harney and the Government accordingly.
After 10 hours of further negotiations, this optimism had vanished and “on almost every point”, the sides started sliding backwards.
Mr. Ahern believes that, if the sides revert to the softer line of 17th December, there is hope of clinching a deal.
The sticking points were on the protection of living standards and the length of the agreement; union recognition; and provisions to ensure union compliance with the terms of an agreement.
The unions indicated to the employers (IBEC ) that they wanted a pay rise in the order of 6.5 per cent over 18 months, without any pay pause. IBEC favoured five per cent, over the same period, with a pay pause. Turlough O’Sullivan, IBEC Director General, said: “The next morning, when we got back to Government buildings, it (the ICTU claim) was for 7.5 per cent over 18 months. We found that extraordinarily difficult to deal with.”
On Trade Union recognition, he pointed out that new legislation had been put on the statute book over a year ago to underpin a voluntary agreement between IBEC, the ICTU and the Government.
‘Madam IBEC’ aka Mary Harney, the Tanaiste, does not want to change this arrangement to UK-style mandatory recognition, fearing it would scare off multinationals.
IBEC is prepared to pay five per cent but only over a 12 month period, with a time variation from 15 to 18 months under which a nominal increase of five per cent would really be worth less, around 3.3% or 4% in real terms. This would allow scope for a six-month pay freeze demanded by the IBEC employers.
“A potential sweetener to secure the deal is a 40 cent increase in the minimum wage hourly rate to 6.75 euro which would be a 6.3 per cent increase. If the employers play tough they will want to trim five cents off that figure.
“An extra 40 cents would keep the lowest paid about in line with inflation over the next 18 months. Other workers would suffer a real cut in buying power of between one and two per cent. Some private sector ‘late settlers’ could be brought forward so that they would not experience a full six-month pay freeze.” (Irish Independent, 18.12.2002).
THE FRAUD THAT IS ‘PARTNERSHIP’
“If ‘Partnership’ is working why are we demonstrating” was the slogan of the Independent Workers’ Union (IWU) at the Redundancy rallies held around Ireland on 4th October, 2002.
The IWP people were opposed to these agreements from day one, so it might be easy to dismiss their challenge!
But a more succinct, and perhaps authoritative, and certainly more ‘respectable’ voice has expressed exactly the very same opinion: “The clear conflict of interests, which exist between labour and capital and the rich and poor over distribution of wealth, ensured that ‘social partnership’ could not address all the country’s needs” (Gerald Flynn, Industrial Correspondent, Irish Independent, 31.12.2002).
Like the Independent Workers’ Union, Mr. Flynn uses quotes in relation to ‘social partnership’!
“Social partnership created the illusion of a single purpose with government, trade unions, employers, farmers and social and community groups all pursuing agreed strategies. The reality has been that most were, and are, pursuing their own interests. …Efforts will be made to keep some life in the partnership institutions but the reality is that a ‘social partnership’ outlook never rooted in the workplace, the boardroom or public service bodies, despite all the lip-service during the 1990s.” (ibid.)
Had it been a genuine social partnership—instead of a fig leaf for a series of pay agreements, nothing more—now as we enter ‘bad times’, the partnership element could have played a vital role in decision-making in the local workplace, instead, thousands of workers will end up with neither pay increases or influence in their place of work.
But let’s be honest, it is easy to blame Attley, Geraghty and O’Toole for churning out the rhetoric of partnership and local bargaining: “We’re the envy of the European trade union movement”; they knew we didn’t believe it anyhow—the idea of Irish employers embracing the concept of, even consultation, not to mind participation, in boardroom decisions is so absurd, we deserve to be certified for even thinking about such a proposition in the first place.
“CORPORATIST EXPERIMENT”
“The chief of the National Economic and Social Council (NESC), Rory O’Donnell warned last year that the corporatist experiment of social partnership was under real strain. He proposed a new approach with less emphasis on micro-social planning and more flexible pay terms” (Irish Independent-31.12.2002).
The poor man shouldn’t take such things so seriously, it was all show! Perhaps on one aspect of the whole charade, we could understand where he is coming from!
The demise of the PPF, which was the fifth successive partnership pay deal since 1987, will also lead to the abandonment of over 60 consultation bodies.
Sixty bodies! Even Stalin didn’t require that many for his massive five year plans in the Soviet Union. No wonder the upper echelon of the Trade Union movement dread the demise of ‘social partnership’.
But all is not lost, oh no, some partnership institutions, such as the National Economic and Social Forum and the National Centre for Partnership and Performance, will remain.
The National Competitiveness Council, which has charted the decline of the economy over the past two years, will also remain.
“The idea of partnership needs to be reinvented, and an emphasis on a mainly pay-based deal may no longer be either possible or desirable, argues Cliff Taylor, Economics Editor.” (Irish Times, 21.12.2002.)
How wrong can you be, Mr. Taylor, it doesn’t need any re-invention: it was never partnership, it was always pay deal, and 60 consultation bodies thrown in for good luck.
Put more bluntly, Mr. Taylor, it was a Wage Control process, the main thrust of which fell on workers in the Private Sector—they bore the brunt. In the last few weeks, Senator O’Toole has begun to make reference to price control, when he realised the process had begun to unravel, too late, Senator : had a form of price control existed, a good case could be made for continuation but, despite such calls since 1987, the ICTU choose to ignore them.
**********************************************************
“Partnership worth saving” — “As of last night, the stage was set for another impasse in the national pay talks on Wednesday. It cannot be too strongly urged how disastrous that could be for the economy.” (Irish Independent, 16.12.2002.)
**********************************************************
TRADE UNIONS: UNCERTAIN FUTURE
For a while, Trade Unionists bluffed themselves into believing that we were one of the functional influences in society—always called upon to give our opinion on matters of national importance!
RTE used allocate a regular time slot for coverage of each day’s proceedings at Congress in conference—at that time, we had a yearly delegate conference—it is now bi-yearly and barely rates a mention on RTE, never mind any direct coverage.
It is hard to believe the blather that it was the Trade Unions who made the ‘Celtic Tiger’ with the beginning in 1987 of the Partnership deals, while today, 15 years later and boasting the most vibrant economy in Europe, the same ICTU is at a stage where its industrial and social influence is lower than at any time since its formation in 1959, and becoming less relevant to many workers.
PARENT OF THE BOOM?
“For 15 years, social partnership has, as Mr. Pat Rabbitte said, been ‘a cornerstone of economic and industrial management by successive government’. Since 1987 there has been a period of remarkable industrial peace, with comparatively very few work days lost to pay disputes.
“For social partnership has been hailed for 15 years as a key contributor to growth and prosperity. However, the difficulty surrounding the first attempt at a post-Celtic Tiger partnership adds weight to the argument that such agreements needed the boom as much as the boom needed them.
“During the boom years, the Government found it easy to negotiate national pay deals. It offered tax cuts—-to which it was ideologically committed anyway—to modify workers’ demands for pay rises that would give them a share of the profits of the boom.
“The impact trade unions have had on economic policy has been very much overstated. In practically every area, Government policy has veered to the right. There has been a considerable amount of wage drift over and above the pay norms agreed under the partnership deals but, despite that, unit wage costs have declined steadily since 1990 and continues to decline.
“Improved productivity has more than paid for the pay increases of the last decade. Wage costs per unit of output have almost halved since 1990. Wage costs in our main trading partners abroad have risen by 17% over the same period.
“Workers have been getting a declining share of national income. The national wage bill is now about four times what it was in 1991 but profits have risen seven-fold.
“Long before these latest negotiations got under way, it should have been obvious to all sides that some new model was needed. The moderate pay increases of recent deals would never have been accepted without the tax cuts that provided an additional boost to take-home pay. Further tax cuts are no longer possible and it’s just as well.
“Tax cuts have tended to favour the better-off and have represented a distinct movement to the right in Irish economic and social policy. While tax cuts were popular, there is no doubt that society as a whole, and workers in particular, would have benefited more had a larger proportion on the accumulating surplus in the Exchequer been spent on improving the social and economic infrastructure” (Colm Rapple, Ireland On Sunday, 22.12.2002).
The private sector committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions is to meet on 6th January, 2003, to prepare co-ordinated claims in companies where more than one union operates.
Mr. Eamon Devoy, the Vice-Chairman of the committee, said employers appeared to believe that “local bargaining” involved telling unions what they were prepared to pay.
However, he said, free collective bargaining meant unions could serve “any claims they damn well like”.
“That’s not what employers have in mind, but it’s what they’re going to get. They had better get into the right frame of mind,” he said.
The Irish Small and Medium Enterprises Association (ISME), meanwhile, said it was “not averse” to a return to local bargaining, but pay rises of 5 per cent “should not be countenanced under any circumstances”.
The association, which is not party to the social partnership process, also said the pay rises for public servants proposed under benchmarking, “should be consigned to the dustbin of history”.
Semi-state companies can expect claims of six to eight per cent, plus a shopping list of add-ons, such as the 35-hour working week.
AMICUS Union finance organiser, Jerry Shanahan, indicated his Union would be seeking at least eight per cent annualised plus a range of gain-sharing and pension enhancement initiatives.
His colleague, John Tierney, National director of AMICUS, said the Union would be protecting workers’ living standards by insisting they get pay deals above inflation and which reflect increased productivity of the sector.
“We still have one of the highest levels of productivity in Europe. We have delivered and a lot of employers have been living on Government-subsidised pay increases through tax breaks. Our tradition is free collective bargaining, so the prospect of that doesn’t bother us,” he said.” (Irish Examiner, 20.12.2002).
Initially, it will be companies with more than 500 unionised employees and decent operating margins who will be targeted by the move.
BENCHMARKING
If a new deal for a Sixth Programme is not cobbled together, the future for Benchmarking makes for some interesting speculation!
“If the ICTU executive decided to collapse the pay talks on Wednesday, it would mark the end of social partnership—and public-sector benchmarking would collapse with it, as that deal depended on a new national agreement” (Irish Independent, 16.12.2002).
However, in the Irish Times (21.12.2002):
“It is understood, however, that the Minister for Finance, Mr. McCreevy, intends to pay the benchmarking increases, regardless of whether there is a partnership deal or not.
“Before he releases the 565 million allocated for benchmarking in the Budget, however, a deal on basic pay rises in the public service will have to be agreed.” (Irish Times, 21.12.2002).
“Begg, General Secretary of the I.C.T.U. says that because talks on a national pay agreement have collapsed, further progress on benchmarking cannot be achieved.” (Sunday Times, London, 29.12.2002).
Negotiations on these payments have been underway since July, 2002 and this month’s Budget provided for the first 25% down-payment.
The rest is supposed to be related to acceptance of improved working efficiencies in the public service.
Over the past six years efforts have been made to get similar “modernisation” deals but, while the unions agree in principle, their members have been very slow about accepting more flexible and accountable work practices.
The private-sector unions are wary of this new ingredient and feel that the public sector unions, who dominate the ICTU, may be willing to force through a “modest” general wage deal to ensure that they get their Benchmarking cash.
The
Public Service Benchmarking Report recommended special pay rises of between
3% and 25% for a range of local authority, health service and civil service
staff as well as Gardai, Army and Prison personnel.
Benchmarking is intended to put a stop to ‘leap-frogging’ or relativity
within the public service. It was the outcome of a three-year comparison of
private and public sector pay. The idea was that similar jobs would be ‘benchmarked’,
the review body, however, did not reveal what was compared with what—we
had to take that on good faith.
It was also asserted that difficulties existed in recruiting and retaining public service staff—yet, 50,000 extra positions have been filled in the past three years in a tight labour market.
And yet, along with the special ‘catch up’ wage increases to be paid over the next two years is a condition to actually reduce public sector employment by 5,000 jobs.
Benchmarking adds at least 1.1 billion Euro to the public sector pay bill and managed to eat up most of McCreevy’s 2003 Budget extra allocations.
“Public servants would receive any general increases agreed under any new deal in 2003, on top of their benchmarking rise. Private sector employees, meanwhile, will realise that the cost of benchmarking is one of the main pressures on the Exchequer ruling out further tax concessions.
“Against this backdrop, reinventing partnership will be no easy task. With deals in the past based on a “one increase for all” formula, the benchmarking process already means that the current deck of cards is stacked in favour of the public servants—and that the potential gains for employers and private sector employees of doing a deal are questionable.” (Irish Times, 21.12.2002).
In the absence of a national pay deal, the Government is expected to start talks on a public service agreement that would largely incorporate implementation of the benchmarking pay rises. These range from 3% to 25% with an average pay rise of 8.9%.
“In the week before Christmas, the High Court granted the Irish Federation of University Teachers (IFUT) leave to seek a judicial review of the Public Service Benchmarking Body’s (PSBB) report, which affects its members. It also directed that the board should provide reasons as to why it awarded a 3% pay increase to university lecturers, while awarding 11% to allegedly comparable grades” (Sunday Times, London, 29.12.2002).
In response, David Begg, General Secretary of the ICTU said the 1.1 billion benchmarking pay award, of which 565 million euro has been set aside for payment by the government, is likely to go ahead, although future awards could be at risk. “Unless they (IFUT) go for an injunction, I cannot see it affecting the present situation”, he said.
TWO DEALS: PRIVATE AND PUBLIC?
“Separate pay deals for private and public sector workers have been proposed by the Government in talks on a new national partnership agreement.
“It is understood Government officials had not spelt out in detail their suggestion that public servants might accept lower basic increases than private sector workers.
“Public sector staff are already set to benefit from the increases due under benchmarking. While public sector unions would resist lower basic increases for their members, it is thought they might accept a different timescale for payments.” (Irish Times, 18.12.2002).
RECOGNITION
The second area in which a gap remains between the parties concerns the thorny issue of Trade Union recognition.
The share of unionised employees at work declined progressively and without precedent throughout the Celtic Tiger years, dropping to about 43% at the end of 2001.
The level of union organisation in the private sector is substantially lower than this and large areas of hi-tech industry are virtually union-free.
Surely, this raises a fundamental question! If the ICTU concept of Social Partnership is such a cornerstone of national existence—why is the percentage of Trade Unions in the ‘booming economy’ of the last decade taking such a substantial fall?
Joe Duffy, of RTE and Ireland On Sunday, is another pleader for ‘Social Partnership’:
“The main beneficiaries of the pay deals over the past 15 years have primarily been our children.
“Never before have parents had such confidence in job prospects for their children.
“The stigma of unemployment—often across two or three generations—has been banished by the economic boom.” (22.12.2002).
But
the ‘children’ won’t join the Trade Unions, Joe, this is the
problem: Ireland’s new confident, make-it-happen, outgoing generation
don’t need trade unions—Silicon Valley has taught them to rely on
me—not us—me.
There are 300,000 public sector workers, union recognition in that sector stands
at something like 85%. The total Irish workforce is 1,750,000. The remaining
1,450,000 are private-sector workers and only 375,000 are in unions, that about
a quarter!
Trade Unions are unhappy that “right to bargain” provisions introduced last year were failing to deliver substantial progress. They seek the introduction of legislation, similar to that applying in the UK, obliging employers by law to recognise unions.
So far, this has been dismissed out of hand by both IBEC and the Government, which believes such a measure could dissuade some multinationals from locating in Ireland.
Unions
then pressed for measures speeding up the existing provision, which provide
for voluntarily resolution of disputes about recognition.
Employers, it is understood, were prepared to contemplate travelling at least
some of the way down this road, but not far enough to get an agreement.
**********************************************************
“When the Fine Gael and Labour Party leaders questioned the Taoiseach in the Dail yesterday on the breakdown of the social partnership talks, they did so in tones infected with a gravity normally reserved for discussion of rare tragedies that united Government and Opposition.” (Irish Times, 19.12.2002.
**********************************************************
REDUNDANCY
With 20,000 workers made redundant in the first nine months of 2002, plus another 20,000 in 2001, the demand for reform of Statutory Redundancy payments led to demonstrations throughout the state on 4th October, 2002. It is largely a social welfare issue for which the Exchequer would pick up most of the cost. Employers receive a rebate of 60% of all payments from the Social Insurance Fund.
There is a fear among some employers that unions want to make it a new floor from which to negotiate higher redundancy terms rather than a means to compensate those who face only modest statutory payments when they lost their job.
COMPLIANCE
The final area in which the parties failed to bridge the gap between them concerns what employers refer to as “compliance” with the terms of any deal negotiated.
Business lobby group IBEC came into the current talks convinced that the PPF had been effectively sundered in its last two years by pay deals way in excess of its terms.
The contention also was that unions and their members sought, on a routine basis, to sell co-operation with change measures.
“To counter this arising in any new deal, employers are seeking referral of any disputes under a new agreement to the Labour Court for adjudication on the basis of binding recommendations. (Irish Independent, 23.12.2002).
For
unions this would involve a radical departure from the largely voluntary tradition
of pay bargaining that has characterised the State.
The unions appear to favour a cocktail of largely voluntary measures for securing
compliance with the terms of a pay deal, involving the Labour Relations Commission
and the Labour Court, the National Implementation Body (created to bolster the
pay deal in the PPF), and a return to a model of long vintage in Irish industrial
relations—the use of third parties to pronounce on the ability or inability
of companies to concede pay rises.
They appear nevertheless to have countenanced binding recommendations, but were fearful of their use in situations of alleged inability to pay as a mechanism for stalling pay claims.
Again the gap between the parties is significant.
But the crux of the matter appears to be how to find agreement on a mutually acceptable and effective method of policing a pay deal rather than irreconcilable conflict over a fundamental issue of principle.
For IBEC, an agreement would only be worth signing if it contained specific compliance measures, requiring unions to adhere to the terms of the deal. It is proposed that a clause in any new agreement should require both employers and unions to accept binding Labour Court arbitration “on any matters of application or interpretation”.
Unions had no problems with binding arbitration in principle, but said the IBEC proposals were far-reaching, and would restrict their right to take industrial action even in cases where employers had failed to honour the terms of the deal.
IBEC claimed the clause was the minimum it needed to be sure the terms of the agreement would “stick”.
SENATOR O’TOOLE: THE RINGMASTER
Senator Joe O’Toole, ICTU President put the onus on employers to come up with an offer but stressed that nothing less than 5% to cover inflation, would be acceptable. Otherwise, trade unions would start seeking local deals and submit pay claims to those companies that “can well afford them”.
He added that, with the current deal ending on 31st December, employers would have to consider the “nightmare scenario” beginning in the new year unless a deal is worked out.
Mr. O’Toole, speaking on RTE yesterday, confirmed reports in the Irish Independent 10 days ago that private-sector unions were preparing separate local claims in case the pay talks collapsed. This is partly why the ICTU has been reluctant to formally seek a five per cent rise.
“If the ICTU executive decided to collapse the pay talks on Wednesday, it would mark the end of social partnership—and public-sector benchmarking would collapse with it, as that deal depended on a new national agreement.” (Irish Independent, 16.12.2002).
Mr. O’Toole said: “I believe I am surrounded by a lot of people who do not remember what it was like before 1987, when industrial chaos reigned in this country. We went from one crisis to another in terms of the economy and in terms of industrial relations. And that’s what we are looking at again.”
He added: “There is no question of the trade union movement negotiating a deal that worsens the living standards of workers and their families” (Irish Independent, 16.12.2002).
The TAX THING : A CON JOB!
“Business saw profits soar while the wage bill remained under control; workers got more take-home pay as a result of the tax cuts; and the Government got industrial peace which enabled the economy to forge ahead.
“But now tax cuts are off the agenda, and any increase in workers’ standards of living will have to come from higher pay. However, the higher pay is being sought at a time when business is enjoying much more modest growth and says it can’t afford it.” (Irish Times, 19.12.2002).
Senator Shane Ross argues that ‘Social Partnership’ was wrongly given all the credit for our prosperity. “A Pay Deal was easy to achieve in the good times. It was the child of the boom, not the parent” (Sunday Independent, 22.12.2002).
The representatives of Irish capital have certainly asserted themselves since 1987. One thing, however, is certain, the creators of the so-called boom were not indigenous capitalists. These were preoccupied with property speculation and hoarding their hard won gains abroad in illegal accounts. That’s one of the reasons we have the highest house prices in Europe.
We have come a long way from the early Nineties, when an Taoiseach, Charles Haughey credited ‘social partnership’ as giving “…us the capacity to transform Irish society in this decade”.
This is how the present Editor of the Irish Times summed up the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP) in 1991: it had “introduced a new extra-parliamentary tier of power to Irish life”, and—
“The Programme for Economic and Social Development is the most important instrument of economic policy apart from the Budget.” (5.1.1991).
And here we are today, with that Editor’s former party colleague, Madam IBEC, strutting and stumbling around the country with the hair shirt gospel of the PDs:
“I’ve loads of examples from around the country where workers in recent times have taken a cut in salary in order to protect their jobs and protect the company,” she said.
“You see huge sacrifices being made… we have (that attitude) here and it’s one of the things that makes us extremely attractive.” (Mary Harney, Sunday Business Post, 5.1.2003).
**********************************************************
“Don’t jeopardise social partnership” (Sunday Business Post, 29.12.02.)
**********************************************************
TAX
“The trading of wage moderation for tax cuts had another long-term political effect that may take a long time to undo. Economist Mr. Jim O’Leary pointed out in these pages last week that this tax cuts/wage moderation barter promoted ‘the notion of tax as an impost, as a deduction from wage packets, as something to be minimised, rather than as a payment for public services’.
“Now, as we know from the spending ‘adjustments’ in 2002 and the estimates for 2003, there is not enough tax revenue to pay for existing public services, let alone for the services the Government promised us in the general election campaign. However, 15 years of social partnership, together with the boom that allowed for public spending increases and tax cuts, have created a disconnection between tax and services in public debate. Everybody is arguing for better services: who is arguing for the tax increases to pay for them?
“With tax cuts off the table and the employers refusing to budge on pay, any prospect of the unions agreeing to a new deal rests on other issues, such as trade union recognition and improved workers’ rights to redundancy payments. The Taoiseach yesterday made positive noises on these issues: it will be the New Year before we know whether any movement is possible.” (Irish Times, 19.12.2002).
Subsequent
deals traded moderate pay increases for tax concessions.
A single person on an average wage had a 60 per cent rise in real take-home
pay between 1987 and last year, while a married couple with one person earning
had a 53 per cent rise.
“Now times have changed. The Government simply has no money to give to tax cuts and thus the key bargaining chip for wage moderation is gone. Also, given the uncertainties facing the economy heading into next year, there is little point in trying to negotiate one central wage figure.
“Some employers—particularly those in labour intensive sectors—will simply not be able to afford any increases.” (Irish Times, Cliff Taylor, 21.12.2002).
MR. MANSERGH
After the 1987 General Election, there was a second strand to the Fianna Fail economic policy . . . .
“The plan to cut public spending was coupled with advocacy of a tripartite system of economic management involving the government, employer groups and the trade unions. The concept had been discussed at the National Economic and Social Council but had been little developed by the Fine Gael/Labour coalition. Mansergh believed a mistake had been made.
“The negotiations with the trade unions, farmers and employers concluded in October 1987. The era of social partnership was born. Bertie Ahern was centrally involved in the deal, yet he credited Mansergh with convincing the Fianna Fail political leadership of the merits of the approach: ‘Mansergh had a hell of a lot of influence I think, on the change in policies of Fianna Fail in the mid-Eighties. He certainly was involved in our evolving policies on the North and the economy. If you wanted to know anything it was Mansergh you would talk to.’ (This is Ahern speaking, Ed.)
“The three-year deal with the unions, employers and farmers—entitled The Programme for Economic Recovery—set down certain economic targets to resolve the debt problem with a promise to share the benefits from any upturn in the Republic’s economic fortunes. The social democrat in Mansergh was an enthusiastic proponent of the social partnership concept.
“‘In many ways, economically, the country has not looked back since things were taken decisively in hand at that period after 1987. I mean, I regard ‘87 as being as at least as important a turning point as the Whitaker White Paper in 1958.’ (This is Mansergh, Ed.)
“Haughey’s shrewd economic management in the 1987-92 period stood in stark contrast to the reckless approach which characterised his first two periods as Taoiseach in the early 1980s. Several individuals including Mansergh were responsible for the changed stance.” (p.135).
“In a sense there was a divergence of view between Mansergh and the political thrust of the first Ahern-led Fianna Fail/PD Government. the coalition tilted to the right favouring reductions in taxation, adopting a neutral attitude to the EU and a less-than-benign line on the value of continuing with the social partnership model. Much of this thinking emanated from Charlie McCreevy, the Fianna Fail finance minister and the PD leader Mary Harney. Mansergh was on the opposite side of the ideological spectrum to the two leading ministers in the coalition Government. Not alone did he push more enthusiastically for the Nice Treaty, but he also defended social partnership against business sector and internal governmental attack. Critics were warned to ‘think many times over before throwing it over, and also about the effects on business confidence of a breakdown or abandonment of the process… Mansergh was orientated to the left-of-centre. Ahern and his Government with the PDs moved to the right-of-centre.” (Martin Mansergh—A Biography by Kevin Rafter, New Island Books, 2002, p.285).
‘NEW’ FIANNA FAIL
Could they Taoiseach ever have believed that when he agreed to go into coalition government with the PDs that in effect he had also taken on a third partner: IBEC. Ned O’Keeffe, the FF member for East Cork is correct, this is the most right-wing government since Collins. The driving force in the cabinet is the PDs and their former anti-Haughey Fianna Fail colleagues at the cabinet table. The days when the Public Service Unions could plaumause a Fianna Fail Taoiseach are over!
For Fianna Fail itself, we must pose the question: “Who is to be the master of the party?”
SEND IN THE CLOWNS: MAYBE THEY’RE HERE!
Senator Shane Ross, the Dublin speculator believes he has the whole plot figured out:
“A series of unrealistic wage demands are on the verge of being issued, designed to intimidate us over Christmas. When the talks resume in January, we will be softened up. We will gratefully succumb to the threats of Joe and David Begg, thankful that they are only demanding 7.5 per cent! We will concede anything to preserve industrial peace. To hell with competitiveness.
“Even now the shape of a deal is apparent. Pay will come in at about 6.25 per cent but over 18 months.
“An 18-month deal will be gloriously confusing. ICTU will be able to sell it to their battered members as a 6.25 per cent deal. IBEC will agree to it on the orders of the Government. ICTU will plug away at the 6.25 per cent figure—and play down the 18-month term. IBEC will roll over, as it always does, pathetically claiming that the hike in pay is less than the rate of inflation—and reduce the 6.25 per cent down to the annual rate (4 per cent). The government will take the path of least resistance and tell the employers to sign up.” (Sunday Independent, 22.12.2002).
This man is crazy—isn’t he?
**********************************************************
FIRST PROGRAMME: (1987) Programme for National Recovery (3 years)
Increase in basic pay at the beginning of each of three subsequent years (1988, 1989 and 1990) of 3% on the first £120 of basic weekly pay and 2% on the balance (yielding an estimated average increase of 2.5 %). A minimum increase of £4 per week in basic pay for full time adult employees would apply.
SECOND PROGRAMME: (1991) Programme for Economic & Social Progress (3 years)
First Year: 4%; Second Year 3%; Third Year 3.75%.
THIRD PROGRAMME: (Jan. 1994, December 1996) Programme for Competitiveness and Work (3 Years)
First Year: 2%; Second Year: 2.5%; Third Year (first six months): 2.5%; Third Year (second six months) 1%.
FOURTH PROGRAMME: (Jan. 1997-March 2000) Partnership 2000 for Inclusion, Employment and Competitiveness (3 Years and 3 Months-39 months)
First Year: 2.5%; Second Year: 2.5%; Third Year (first nine months): 1.5%; Third Year (final six months): 1%.
FIFTH PROGRAMME: (April, 2000-Dec. 2002) A Programme for Prosperity & Fairness) (2 Years and Nine Months-33 months)
First Year: 5.5%; Second Year: 5.5%; Third Year (nine months): 4%.
**********************************************************
If you wish to subscribe to the Irish Political Review, Labour & Trade Union Review, Church & State or Problems Of Capitalism & Socialism please go to our secure sales area. Postal delivery is free within the European Union.