Tag: social partnership

‘There was no cave-in and the trade unions have not won a famous victory’

2nd December 2009

It is interesting to read reports in newspapers which in the past have stated - perhaps hoped - that public service unions were beaten. They are now leading with headlines that the Government has caved in to the public service unions. It cannot be both and in my view it is neither. One newspaper stated that trade union leaders were jubilant at this agreement last night, which is quite fanciful, and the union leaders certainly do not look jubilant in the photograph beside the article.

They have no particular reason to feel jubilant and they are not looking for jubilation. They are not looking for humiliation and defeat either, which appears to be what some commentators and politicians want. It seems that the only way some people think we can make progress is through confrontation, with people being beaten and shot down. I do not agree with that or see it as the way forward for our country or the public service.

As somebody who absolutely supports the need for radical reform in the public service, I know that nobody in their right mind believes it can be achieved in two weeks of negotiation. How could all the issues we have debated in here be addressed in that short time? It is nonsensical or daft to suggest that was possible.

There was no cave-in and the trade unions have not won a famous victory. One report in a newspaper had a trade union group describing what happened yesterday as “the greatest betrayal in the history of the Irish trade union movement”. Which is it? My party has called for negotiations with a view to reaching agreement and yesterday’s developments represent a small but welcome advance. It is only an interim measure and it’s not a solution to the problem. I do not know if it will work.

Others may be right in raising how the 12 days of unpaid leave will work. Perhaps we will describe them as the 12 days of Christmas 2009 in a couple of years. We do not know how it will work out. The idea should be considered further and thrashed out in the next couple of weeks. Do we want confrontation or progress? People must decide what they want; do they want to see people beaten down or do they want a national recovery effort involving all of the country’s people in order to turn around our current economic position?

For that limited reason, yesterday’s developments are welcome. In the Labour Party we have argued that the public sector pay bill must be reduced and serious efforts should be made to achieve that without cutting people’s basic pay. The interim agreement seems to suggest that is possible. I do not know if it will ultimately be possible to reduce the public sector pay bill without cutting basic pay but I hope it will. This represents a small step forward in that regard.

Is ‘Social Partnership’ a misnomer?

22nd October 2009

I am extremely disappointed that the Government appears to have lost out on the opportunity afforded to it when its representatives met the social partners - I believe they are still referred to in this way but the title may now be something of a misnomer - to engage in any real or meaningful discussion, particularly with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. The Government’s current line is, “We have to do what we have to do.” Such an approach does not provide a basis for seeking consensus across society in respect of the difficult situation we face and the undoubtedly serious measures that must be taken.

It is simply not good enough that the Government puts out three figures as comprising the €4 billion in savings that need to be made and then announces that this is the way it must be. There will be no consensus in respect of, buy-in to or support across society for this type of dictatorial approach with regard to what is going to happen in the next couple of months. I have appealed to the Leader of the Seanad to do what he can, however minimal that might be, to persuade the Government and the Minister for Finance not to take this kind of approach or attitude towards the former social partners. I also urged the Leader to convince the Minister for Finance to use the opportunity that will present itself in the coming weeks to enter discussions with the trade union movement and put it up to its members to contemplate those areas - be they in the public service or elsewhere - where radical change must occur and invite them to come forward with proposals. I do not know if that is the basis on which the Government wishes to have the discussion on this matter. However, simply announcing a position at this stage will not work.

We are where the Government brought us

6th February 2009

Yesterday there was an all-day debate on the latest Government proposals on the Economy. I had a chance to speak and below is a transcript of what I said.

I begin by making a technical point. The Seanad is, of course, not being asked to vote on the measures introduced by the Government this week. I understand the Seanad’s constitutional position in respect of financial matters. It gives a slightly different focus to our debate. We are responding to the statement made by the Minister of State at the beginning of the debate. The advantage of that is that it gives us an opportunity to make more general remarks and give a more general account of where we are coming from on these issues. It is important to remind ourselves that we are not being asked to vote for or against the Government’s measures, which were passed by the other House a couple of hours ago.

I do not disagree with Senator Brady’s remarks, which are fresh in my mind, about the importance of not wallowing in a sense of blame. I agree that we will not make much progress on the grave issues before the House by wallowing in the past or immersing ourselves in petty finger-pointing. Having said that, it would be absurd to suggest that there is no room in this debate for an analysis or assessment of how we got here. I often hear Senators on the Government side using the phrase, “We are where we are.” I even heard Senator O’Toole use it today. That, and nothing more than that, is supposed to be the basis for discussion. It is suggested that we should confine ourselves to proposing how we should get ourselves out of where we are. I would amend the phrase slightly - “We are where the Government brought us.” That is where we are, and it should be the starting point. If we do not honestly analyse what has occurred, I do not think we can hope to achieve the public or social solidarity that will be needed to address these issues in the future. When one asks people to make sacrifices, one needs to have their support and confidence. If one is entirely silent on what has happened, that is not possible. People are not stupid. They are discussing among themselves how we got to where we are. The Government has to be clear on that.

I noticed a marginal reference in the Minister of State’s speech to mistakes having been made. It is like the first cuckoo in that it is the first acknowledgment of mistakes I have spotted in a Government speech over recent weeks. I may be wrong in that respect. The Minister of State touched on the construction issue in that section of his speech. The relevant section lasts just four or five words, but at least it is there. It is necessary. Perhaps the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, made some similar remarks in the other House last week. I am not entirely sure. The Government cannot expect people to come together in any serious way to support its decisions, or at least give it some space when making them, if it is not straight and honest about what has occurred.

Read More