Republican News · Thursday 16 January 2002

Workers running to stand still

---

ROBBIE MacGABHANN looks at the outcome of the latest 'social partnership' talks between the Dublin government and the main trade unions in the 26 Counties.

---

Is this really social partnership? Workers accept wage increases that will probably leave them marginally worse off. In return, employers, and that includes the 26 Counties' largest employer, the Dublin government, only have to promise to actually adhere to existing labour law.

At the same time, the other elements of social partnership, particularly those dealing with what is called the "community pillar", are ignored. So no proposals on health, education, tax reform or childcare were included in the new partnership deal.

What was supposedly delivered is a "shared commitment to increase the supply of affordable housing". There is still no real detail on how this commitment will be delivered.

Sinn Féin spokesperson on Community Affairs, Seán Crowe TD, has called on workers to give "careful consideration" to the new partnership proposals and to see if they tackle inequality and promote social inclusion.

Crowe said: "Workers voting on the new partnership proposals will have to give them very careful consideration particularly in the context of how it affects them and the wider context of tackling inequality and promoting social inclusion. It seems that this is not a real agreement about social partnership. It is only a wage contract and a weak one at that".

This has been reinforced this week by the fact that only now are the farming organisations and community pillar of the partnership process being included in the negotiations. With a wage agreement already delivered, what scope have the community pillar for lobbying the government? Surely a wage agreement should be the bargaining chip for a programme of social inclusion.

However, it seems that the trade unions were not even able to protect their own position before lobbying on behalf of weaker groups in society. Employer recognition of unions, compliance with labour legislation and the fulfilling of statutory redundancy rights are all basic workplace rights. Why were they on the negotiating table in the first place?

Seán Crowe also highlighted his concerns that "the minimum wage increase is too small. Why was there no immediate proposal to take low paid workers completely out of the tax net?

"The housing proposals are very weak and a much more solid response based on the analysis of the three Bacon reports as well as the NESF report on social and affordable housing and last year's NESC report prepared specially for the partnership talks are needed. We need targets for reducing waiting lists, homelessness and Traveller accommodation. A real partnership agreement would have also dealt with the issues of healthcare, the dire state of primary schools, childcare and tax reform."

So now, as union members get ready to debate and vote on the new agreement, they must know that the wage increase elements are barely leaving workers in a standstill position and might not even cover inflation and the cost of the new barrage of stealth taxes introduced by Charlie McCreevy in last December's budget.

The deferral of full payment of benchmarking until 2005 will severely water down their real value to workers and is a lot to ask of public servants, who were promised action on low wages some years ago.

What is likely to happen is that those in the workplace in the stronger unions and more profitable businesses will use this agreement as a starting point and then seek more increases. In previous years this has been the case in the high tech industries as well as with nurses, teachers, guards etc. Those on the bottom rung, both inside and the outside the workplace, have been left farther and farther behind.

This week, public transport ground to a halt and a new crisis has hit hospital accident and emergency services. Partnership clearly doesn't exist in the workplace and certainly not in this new agreement.