JM Thorn

15 February 2009

In the wake of the collapse of the talks on a national recovery plan ICTU has launched a campaign to oppose the public spending cuts announced unilaterally by the Government.  Although in its early stages the campaign appears to be developing the familiar three-pronged strategy of lobbying, demonstrations and vague threats of industrial action some time in the future.

What is clear is that for trade union leaders the path of protest is one that they have embarked on very reluctantly.  They would have much preferred to have been able to come to an agreement with employers and the Government.   Rather than opposing public spending cuts ICTU entered the last round of partnership talks accepting that €2 billion of cuts had to be made.   The reason they were unable to endorse the package put forward by the Government was that its burden so obviously fell upon workers.  It contained not the slightest gesture towards ICTU’s call for the pain of the recession to be spread more evenly.  The so-called pension levy, a pay cut in all put name, drove this home forcefully.  In these circumstances trade unions leaders, conscious of the potential threat to their own positions, had to withhold their endorsement.   David Begg warned that if they had accepted the deal workers “would have a revolution against them”.  Of course there was no lack of effort on their part to achieve agreement with Begg admitting that ICTU were "the last man standing" in the social partnership talks. 

The critical point here is that despite the break down of talks the trade union leadership is still firmly within the framework of social partnership.  The parameters of the anti-pension level campaign also fall within this framework.  ICTU’s “Statement on the Economic Crisis” (issued as it entered the talks) sets out the perspective of the trade union leadership.   Its main thrust is a defence of social partnership.  This is done by conjuring up the bogeyman of “right-wing commentators” who are critical of the Government “because they haven’t put the boot far enough into workers already”; and who oppose social partnership because of “their hostility to the idea that workers should have any say at all”.  The claim here is that social partnership gives workers some influence over Government policy, without which “bankers, developers and business gurus will be dictating the agenda exclusively”.  However, the reality of social partnership, since its inception in 1980’s, is that it has been very much geared to the agenda of business – of driving down labour costs, advancing privatisation and attracting foreign capital.  Moreover, this is an agenda that trade unions have enthusiastically signed up to.  There is no conflict between the “social partners” over the fundamentals of economic policy.  The arguments within social partnership are over peripheral issues and the gestures that Government and employers can make towards the trade unions. 

ICTU’s “Statement on the Economic Crisis” also portrays the Government as essentially a neutral broker between the different interests in society working for a national consensus.  According to ICTU the reason why the Government continues with social partnership is that “they can see that a major national initiative has the greatest prospect of success.”  But what constitutes a success?  As the latest talks centred on an annual €2 billion reduction in public spending, we can only assume that the achievement this cut would be counted a success.  The only debate going on is how this is going to be achieved.  What the outpourings of the of “right wing commentators” reflect is the perspective of a growing section of the Irish political and business class that social partnership is no longer necessary to achieve their goals, and that the trade unions can be abandoned.  This prospect is the greatest fear of the trade union leadership – and it is the reason they must continually show their worth to the Government and employers.   To do this they conjure up the other bogeyman of social unrest, warning of the strikes and civil disruption that would likely follow any imposition of cuts in pay and social benefits.  The ICTU statement engages in empty sabre rattling, boasting that it would be “confident of mobilising a stiff campaign of resistance” and waging “a pro-longed battle”.  However, reassurance quickly follows with ICTU committing itself to restoring the public finances through “a negotiated solution in which the burden would be shared by all sides in accordance with their ability to contribute”. 

This is the familiar defence of social partnership from ICTU, portraying it as a route between right wing reaction and potential anarchy.  The problem for union leaders is that the dramatic collapse in the Irish economy doesn’t allow for the minor gestures that have smoothed over the recent partnership deals.  The only thing on offer is an austerity programme that involves a massive assault on the living standards of working class people.  It response to this trade union leaders have fallen back on the well rehearsed Plan B of protesting within social partnership.   The epitome of this was the protest in 2005 over the attempt by Irish Ferries to reflag and dramatically reduce pay and conditions for its crews.  At that time ICTU brought over a hundred thousand people out onto the streets in protest.  But in the wake of that massive mobilisation it signed up to an agreement that only delayed the reflagging by six months.  This was a defeat for workers, but for the trade union leadership it was a great success – they had demonstrated their ability to marshal the workers within the bounds of social partnership. 

The emerging strategy of the anti-levy campaign resembles very much those mounted in the past by ICTU over Irish Ferries, the health service and education.  There is a lobbying campaign of TDs, a major demonstration and a vague threat of industrial action some time in the future.  This third prong of the strategy was exemplified by Jack O’Connnor’s warning that industrial action “on a very dramatic scale” could be needed to fight against the pension levy.  However, he said such dramatic industrial action would only come about in support of an overall plan to address issues affecting workers across the economy.  As a contribution to such a plan ICTU has published its own proposals for a social solidarity pact.  “There is a better fairer way” sets out ICTU’s preferences in a number of policy areas.  On jobs and employment it calls for the integration of social welfare and training, and the establishment the type of wage subsidy that exists in other EU states.  On the bank system, it calls on the Government to monitor the €7 billion it is handing over to the banks to ensure that the public interest is upheld. On competitiveness, it asserts that that the main threat in the weakness of sterling.  On the pay agreement, it says the ICTU will adhere to the agreement despite the employers and Government reneging.   On taxation, it calls for income from all sources – capital and labour - to be taxed the same.   On pensions, it calls for the National Pension Reserve Fund to be used as a Pension Protection Fund.  On employment rights, it calls for the Government to enact a programme of legislation to protect the rights of all workers in the context of EU enlargement in order to stop the exploitation of workers regardless of nationality. 

The most glaring aspect of ICTU’s recovery plan is that it makes no attempt to address the causes of the collapse of the Irish economy.  Of course to do this would be to put its own adherence to the prevailing economic orthodoxy of the past twenty years under scrutiny.   Most of the proposals ICTU puts forward are appeals to the Government to act with greater fairness and integrity.  Given the Government’s record over the years, and particularly the recent revelations over its role to the financial collapse, such appeals are laughable.  But this doesn’t stop ICTU supporting the bank bailouts. Its call for equity in taxation is so vague it amounts to nothing – there is no indication of what a fair distribution of taxation would; also there is no mention of corporation tax.  When it was reported that ICTU had put forward a proposal for a tax on second homes in the talks this was strenuously denied.  It puts high costs in Ireland down to the weakness of sterling, but makes no mention of the fact that Ireland abandoned a national monetary policy with the adoption of the euro.

The proposals put forward by ICTU are very weak.  Yet given that it supported the main planks of the policy that produced the economic collapse, they really could be little else.  Not one of them would provide a minimal basis on which to defend workers.  Some of what the unions have been saying is completely reactionary - anti-immigrant sentiment dressed up as defending Irish workers and partitionist claptrap about money and jobs going across the border.   The biggest weakness of all in the trade union position is the acceptance that workers must make sacrifices – that they must bear their share of the pain.  This is a green light to the Government and employers to press ahead with their attacks and make workers bear all the pain. 

However, as these attacks continue it will be more difficult for trade union leaders to maintain that social partnership is delivering anything.  The fact that they were unable to endorse the Government austerity plan indicates some vulnerability.  There is a basis to challenge them, and this will grow as working class resistance mounts and workers start to engage in independent action.  The Waterford Glass occupation shows that this is beginning to happen already.