Partnership

murphaph

Well, today the government began it's 'social partnership' talks with the various unions at Dublin Castle. I'm interested in hearing everyone's opinion on this whole partnership business. I'm coming at this from the perspective of a private sector employee who is strictly paid on performance-no incremental pay rises without continuing performance. If I do nothing I'll get no pay rise.

I then see the public sector employees who work hard getting the same blanket pay rises as the ones who coast along in neutral all year doing as little as humanly possible to serve the public. I'm a bit peeved at the whole partnership process as I feel it excludes the overwhelming majority of society (social partnership remember!) except when it comes to collecting the tax revenue from the to pay the minority who are covered by the guaranteed pay rises they get under 'partnership'. I'd rather a system where public servants were paid on merit and hardworkers get their just desserts, as do the bone idle ones.

If you're a private sector employee or employer, how do you feel? If you're a hardworking public servant how do you feel?

Lemlin

I think partnership has served its time and should be changed. I think there's a unique paradox in the middle of the Irish system: collective agreements have meant that trade unions have played a key role in shaping economic and social policy to an extent not seen in most other developed countries in recent years, yet unions are not negotiated with by a bulk of the firms operating in the country ie. multinationals.

Only 35% of the Irish workforce are in unions, many of those are not even active members yet the unions are one of the three social partners. It doesn't make sense to me. Then there's the fact that many multinationals were attracted to Ireland because they knew they wouldn't have to negotiate with unions.

The unions, of course, are still asking for pay rises when the average industrial wage in Ireland is close to $20. Its $4 in the Czech Republic, which is a developed central European country.

ronbyrne2005

i think its largely irrelevant to the private sector,private employers will pay less if theres an oversupply of labour and will favour cheaper labour coming from abroad but will offer wage increases above inflation increases if theres a shortage of labour.as usual the private sector will be determined by market forces and the sheltered public sector will continue to be paid far more than equivalent workers in private sector (of course using private sector taxes).

ronbyrne2005

anyone hear Kieran Allen of ucd on radio regarding partnership.he's a nutter, thinks workers havent got a fair deal out of partnership and basically thinks workers should get all the profits!. now im left of centre but i know we have to be pragmatic in this increasingly competitive globalised economy.

ronbyrne2005

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

anyone hear Kieran Allen of ucd on radio regarding partnership.he's a nutter, thinks workers havent got a fair deal out of partnership and basically thinks workers should get all the profits!. now im left of centre but i know we have to be pragmatic in this increasingly competitive globalised economy.

I wouldn't have expected that talk from the head of the Socialist Workers Party.

ronbyrne2005

article in todays indo which i agree with
THEY all arrived. The politicians pretending to be NGO and the public sector unions - well they don't need to pretend. It's their show-

Surveying the success of 'partnership' over the past 18 years, the Taoiseach took the opportunity to put some distance between his Government and "Ireland's neo-liberal economists". Mr. Ahern said that although the idea of a partnership may not be appealing to some economic theorists, it works "in practice".

The Taoiseach went on to say that he did not want "any race to the bottom" but "improved take home pay and an improved quality of life." It was the great vision - concise, yet ambiguous enough to mean anything.

What'll happen next is very simple. In the coming days the civil servants and backroom negotiators will carve up your taxes according to the ability of each of the "partners" to cause the government political damage and - well - that will be that.

This is how it's gone for 18 years. Take a handful of vested interests, sit them at the table, give them a sound-bite to work from and let them divide the economic pie that the rest of the economy labours to produce on the basis of their ability to throw a spanner into the economy (trades unions), cause the government to look heartless (NGOs) or clog the streets with demonstrations (the IFA).

It's a bit like the Mousetrap - London's longest running play. By now all the actors, originally understudies to the original cast, know their parts to a fault.

However, one or two of the original members are, like ageing soap stars, playing aged versions of themselves.

Tanaiste Mary Harney said some things about exports and markets. The "employers leader" Turlough O'Sullivan and IBEC talked about the need for "moderate" wage increases of under 3pc. The Unions selflessly talked about social services, health care, housing and training. The NGOs asked for more money to combat the evils of - well - the type of neo-liberal policies that IBEC supports.

Here's some sobering facts:

Any wage increases agreed behind the closed doors of these talks might be real for government workers and some semi-state industrial behemoths where the unions are strong but for the rest of us they are theological utterances.

Whatever they are they will be bypassed by private labour markets.

Any wage increases for the private sector will be matched by adjustments in work practices, subsequent attrition of wages, restructuring of the labour force, outsourcing or reductions in employment benefits.

Any and all of the "social partners" claims on our economic wealth, agreed in the Castle, will be absorbed into Ireland's ever-rising cost of living and passed onto younger people through price hikes in nearly every sector of the economy from property to tax bands that don't move with inflation in future budgets.

The balance will be dumped onto our immigrant workers.

The real problem with the partnership arrangement is not that it doesn't fit some neo-liberal economic theory or that it costs too much in economic competitiveness.

Problem

But the problem is that it assigns the credit for Ireland's hard won success to a handful of largely unproductive, highly egocentric and excessively greedy groups.

These groups won access to the Government feeding trough in the late 1980s in return for not wrecking the economy.

They caused and presided over 18pc unemployment - then discovered Ireland Inc. - of which they are the class-A shareholders. Our role is to be grateful.


Dr Constantin Gurdgiev

is an economist and

editor of Business&Finance

democrates

So the real problem as far as Constantin is concerned is some people thinking they are better than they are. That's useful.

The unions are simply advocates for their members, they'd love more members in the private sector. In theory our democratic representatives would represent adequately, but history has shown otherwise.

Seems the main crib is that some are largely sheltered from the ravages of global competition while others are up to their necks in muck and bullets. For many the answer is to privatise as much as possible, ostensibly to gain efficiency but the rhetoric reveals a lust for vengance against those perceived to be comfortable.

People are right to be indignant. But I think the public sector are being scapegoated for what really hurts workers in the private sector. Ultimately citizens worldwide need to wake up to the real cost/benefit analysis of rampant competition. We're sold on efficiency and falling prices, great, but the price is excess consumption and pollution and an ever intensifying struggle to make a living. That competition would get a lot tougher and meaner if the entire public sector joined the fray.

PS I'm an ex civil-servant, ex private sector employee, and now self-employed.