SP and SWP Clash Over Partnership Deal

by anon Thu Jul 20, 2006 16:50

The "two main Left parties"??? Pleeeze! At least the Socialist Party have a TD and councillors, though still a very small party. The SWP are nothing. No elected reps anywhere and a tiny and dwindling membership.

by Jim Milligan - WP supporter Thu Jul 20, 2006 17:16

The Workers' Party may only have two elected councillors, both of them in Waterford, but the SWP has no elected councillors.

by Joe Thu Jul 20, 2006 17:27

Just how many members do the SP, SWP and WP claim to have?

by Hogweed is Fun Thu Jul 20, 2006 17:34

I'll give you a look at mine if I can see yours first? Sounds fair to me.

--------------------------------
Hogweed is always fun

by ISNer - ISN p.c. Thu Jul 20, 2006 20:58

The ISN oppose the whole partnership process on principle. We do not agree with the 'go back and negotiate a better deal' line because we believe that there can never be a partnership between labour and capital. For a recent article on the partnership deal in Leftline, on-line monthly of the ISN, and a pamphlet on the partnership process see the following links.

http://www.irishsocialist.net/

http://www.irishsocialist.net/unions.html

by The Insider Fri Jul 21, 2006 12:12

When are these two parties not in disagreement?

It's the Life of Brian again - the Judaean people's front versus the people's front of Judaea.

No wonder they are so small.

by Non Cynic Fri Jul 21, 2006 15:39

This is a disagreement over a serious issue. Many of the cynics on Indymedia may be divorced from Working Class issues and not realise the importance of the Partnership question. It's not a case of "People's Front of Judea" V "Judean People's Front". SWP are a well dodgy on workers issues. Last December they welcomed the Irish Ferries Deal. Now they will call for Unions to re-enter Partnership talks if vote is rejected. SP and ISN are the only socialist organisations fully opposing parnership.

by Renton Fri Jul 21, 2006 20:47

Socialist Worker 10.07.2006 - 30.07.2006#261

Vote No to the Partnership Deal

The Ireland of 2006, after nearly 20 years of social partnership, has booming profits, high productivity, restrained wages, high prices and low levels of workers rights. We also have low levels of public spending and the highest levels of inequality in Europe. This new partnership agreement will change none of this.

The agreement is to be implemented over 10 years. The trade union leadership has effectively entered into coalition with the most right wing government in the history of the state. If we decide to elect a new government next year it can say that it is abiding by this agreement and refuse demands for better public services and action against poverty. The independence of the movement has been seriously compromised.

Pay, Inflation and Growth.

The pay increase on offer barely covers the rate of inflation. There is a six month pay freeze in the public sector. The deal offers 10% over 27 months given an annualized increase of just over 4%. Inflation is currently running at 3.9%. Irish price levels are already 22 per cent above the EU average and the recent rise in inflation is substantially above the EU average of 2.2 per cent. Inflation figures do not include the cost of housing. Figures just published (June 21) show that house prices have risen by 270% in the last decade: 9 times the rate of inflation. The latest inflation figures do not include the recent hike in interest rates.

This deal was to be the payback for workers contribution to the boom. The wage share of national income has fallen from over 70% in the 1980s to about 55% today. This huge transfer of wealth to employers will continue. There are no limits on profits, rent or dividends from shares in this agreement.

Ireland is one of the most unequal societies in Europe. Social partnership was supposed to protect the low paid. In fact over the period of social partnership the risk of poverty for workers has increased. That’s why MANDATE, the shop workers union, has withdrawn for the talks. And they won’t be rushing back. This deal offers the low paid (those on less than €10.25 an hour) an extra ½ % over 27 months. That’s less than €2 Euros per week. Massive profits are being made on the backs of the low paid. Recent figures published by MANDATE show that in the last 10 years wholesale and retail sector profits increased by 338 % while wages went up by 126%.

Cost increasing claims are banned and workers are locked into binding arbitration if a dispute arises as to what is “normal ongoing change”. While there is an inability to pay clause for employers there is no right for workers to claim ability to pay more. The right to local bargaining in profitable companies was a key objective going into the talks. It was not achieved.

Assault on Public Sector Workers

This deal is a watershed in that public sector workers have to give substantial productivity in exchange for pay increases that barely cover inflation. The restrictions on public sector workers are increased by this agreement. Pay increases can be refused if workers do not cooperate with change and modernization. While the last agreement included productivity concessions this was in the context of the implementation of benchmarking. Some groups of workers have had pay increases withheld because of the failure to cooperate with “modernization”.

Almost 30 pages of requirements for different sectors are set out which make it easier to sack public servants and more difficult for them to get promoted. Contracts are to be renegotiated and performance management schemes are to be implemented. Working hours are to change with workers forced to work unsocial hours. All workers are to vote on specific changes which only affect some workers. This is profoundly undemocratic and removes the right of individual unions to defend their members interests.

And that’s not all. Outsourcing and the use of agency workers is given the go ahead where “work can be carried out or services delivered more effectively or efficiently”. The work of unionized workers can now be handed over to sectors where they are unorganized. And we thought this agreement as to stop the race to the bottom.

The Race To The Bottom

This agreement was to stop a repeat of the Irish Ferries dispute where workers were made redundant and replaced by low paid agency workers. An elaborate procedure has been agreed which is supposed to stop this but it wont.

The procedure only applies to Compulsory Redundancies: The Irish Ferries redundancies were not compulsory.

It does not apply “to the employment of agency workers, for temporary or recurring business needs, or the use of outsourcing/contracting-out, or other forms of business restructuring”.

To use the procedure the union must show that it has cooperated with restructuring and there can be no industrial action. If its found that the redundancies are bogus and the employer goes ahead the only sanction is that they will not get the rebate from the sates which is normally given to help cover the cost of redundancies. The workers can take unfair dismissals but most of these cases do not result in reinstatement.

Rather than rely on the self -organization of workers which was evident in the Irish Ferries dispute a bureaucratic procedure has been put in place which will derail workers action and make it impossible to mobilize against “an Irish Ferries on land.”

Much will made of the commitment to more labour inspectors. While they should be welcomed it needs to be noted:

• That there are currently more dog wardens than labour inspectors. There have been ongoing demands for years for more.
• As seen above the level of labour regulation in Ireland is low. This helps explain why real wages are falling.

There are few new proposals which will improve health, education or child-care. Indeed it is made clear that while capital spending on infrastructure (roads, broadband etc) is fixed at 5% of GNP spending in other areas is to reflect growth in the economy. The problem with public services is that we spend a lower percentage of our national income than in other countries. The ratio of social spending to national income will not increase as a result of this agreement. There are no new hospital beds in this agreement. While it makes commitments to reduce class sizes in primary schools the government has already accepted that it will not meet the commitment in the Programme For Government to have class sizes of 20 for under 9 year olds. On the day the pay agreement was published it was announced that the number of children in classes over 30 had gone up in the last two years.

While much is being made of the housing provision it should be remembered that the housing provision in the last agreement has not been delivered.

There Is An Alternative

This agreement endorses key aspects of government policy which is aimed at making Ireland business friendly. The demand for change and flexibility is all over this agreement. In the midst of a boom there are no major concession to workers in the shape of more holidays or shorter working hours. It has not been possible for the Irish Nurses Organisation to advance their demand for a 35 hour week in the context of national agreements.

It endorses Public Private Partnership and will lead to further privatisation. There is no commitment to public ownership. This agreement will not stop the erosion of pension schemes. It should be remembered that during the “Partnership” talks the state announced the privatisation of Aer Lingus and the Bank of Ireland, having announced profits of €1.3 b, said it was dismantling its defined benefit pension scheme.

This agreement imposed further restrictions on workers and unions. While employers are free to continue making super profits workers incomes are restrained for little or no pay back on the social wage.

The leadership of ICTU has failed abysmally in their objectives in going into these talks. This deal must be rejected.

Some say there is no alternative but yet, more than ever, individual unions are coming to the realization that they cannot advance and defend their members interests in the context of these agreements.

An alternative is possible. The first step in making it possible is to vote no to this deal.

The deal should be sent back and the negotiators told to bring back an improved version that better reflects the contribution that workers have made to the Celtic Tiger.

This briefing was compiled by Eddie Conlon (Former Hon Secretary of the TUI). Contact him at 087 6775468 or contact Des at 087 6229686 or Kieran at 087 2839964. This document is available to workers in a leaflet that can be distributed in your workplace.

by Renton Fri Jul 21, 2006 20:56

Where does the CIL (Campaign for an independent left) stand on this?

What are the chances of this specific partnership getting pased?

What are the views of the varied unions leaders on this "deal"?

Is it not contradictory that some "socialists" condone a deal between labour (workers) and capital (bosses)?

When is the result of the vote due?

by Trade Unionist Fri Jul 21, 2006 22:43

>Is it not contradictory that some "socialists" condone a deal between labour (workers) and capital (bosses)?

Well, I suppose you could be a purist and reject every agreement between unions and bosses. After all if workers won even a 100% wage rise they still live under the wage slave system.
Propagandist socialist took this view rejecting all fights for refoms as "palliatives" which reconciled workers to wage slavery.
But more socialists (including Connolly and Larkin) have negotiated deals with bosses without accepting the principle that bosses and workers share a common interest. In fact this is the way trade unionism goes every day of the week.
A rejection of this wage deal---because it is lousy---would be a step forward, opening space to press the argument that social partnership is a fraud in principle. To say "it's a lousy deal---go get something better" is a usual way to oppose bad deals, and commits no-one to class collaborationism.

by SIPTU member Fri Jul 21, 2006 22:51

Non-Cynic said that "SP and ISN are the only socialist organisations fully opposing partnership".

I'd be disappointed if anti-partnership politics was restricted to just two organisations. In the last few weeks I've been given leaflets opposing the deal by people in Labour Youth and the Workers Solidarity Movement.

I can also say that the anarchists of the WSM have been involved, alongside myself and others, in anti-partnership campaigning in the union going all way back to the first deal in 1987.

I do agree that partnership should be opposed, not simply the terms of any particular deal. How can anyone oppose partnership by suggesting our union leaders go back to negotiate a better partnership deal? It's like opposing capitalism by saying a better capitalism is possible.

by Trade Unionist Fri Jul 21, 2006 23:41

>It's like opposing capitalism by saying a better capitalism is possible.
Do you say socialists and anti-capitalists should turn their back on the struggle for reforms? or against counter-reforms? or should not prefer a less bad deal to a worse one?
Most workers are not revolutionary, but accept the "inevitability" of capitlaism, however reluctantly.. It is via the struggle against aspects of capitlaism that workers are more likely to move in a direct that sturggles against and rejects capitalism in total.
Workers in their majority do not reject National Pay Deals on principle, but also have policy objectives and concerns that they believe such deals should address. To refuse to say "this deal doesn't address your concerns adequately---send them back to negotiate something that does" is to refuse to connect with that consciousness. You and I know that capitalism will always fail to address workers' needs, but by raising the question concretely many more workers are likely to be persuaded to (a) reject the actually proposed deal, and (b) draw the conclusion that social partnership cannot deliver.

by Socialist Sat Jul 22, 2006 00:37

Socialists support reforms that beneift the working class. Socialists are opposed not to reforms but reformism. Socialists are aware that whatever reform is won through struggle will be attacked when the bosses fell confident in withdrawing the reform.

While workers do not reject national deals in principle, they do not accept them in rpinciple either. National deals are presented as a fait accompli and workers are told there is no alternative.

Social partnership is not negotiated from a position of strength by the trade union leaders but from a position of weakness. It is brought about because of the acceptance by TU leaders that there is no alternative to neo-liberalism and because they are unable or unwilling to lead any kind of a fight for increases and benefits for workers. Social partnership confines and prevents struggle by workers. All reforms for the working class are won by workers struggles or the potential for struggle. The bosses never give over reforms for free.

Social partnership is designed to advance the neo-liberal agenda of the government. It facilitates a ceiling on wage increases while at the same time allowing unlimited growth for profits. It facilitates privatisation. It facilitates an erosion of workers power. As long as the unions are locked into social partnership workers face enormous difficulties in bettering their condition. During previous deals union officials have been requested by certain employers to lodge pay claims for increases above those allowed under parnership in order for employers to retain staff who intend leaving for better jobs. These employers did not want to simply give the increases because other employers would have attacked them. Remarkably the union officials refuse to submit the pay demands on the grounds that they breached the national deal. How more ludicrous can you get.

The position of the SWP raises serious questions for the left. While many workers will accept the concept of social partnership, the SWP are supposed to be revolutionary socialists. By suggesting that the deal should be renegotiated they are sowing illusions that (a) the concept of social partnership is of benefit to workers and (b) that a better deal can be achieved under social partnership than uner free collective bargaining. Furthermore by suggesting the concept of social partnership is of benefit to workers the SWP are stymying any potential for radicalisation within the unions.

As far as I am concerned the SWP can keep their re-negotiation.

by James - WSM - Pesonal Capacity Sat Jul 22, 2006 00:57

TU: Do you say socialists and anti-capitalists should turn their back on the struggle for reforms? or against counter-reforms? or should not prefer a less bad deal to a worse one??

No to all three. But what you appear to be saying is that arguing for a less shit partnership deal is the only way to achieve reforms, (reforms of what nature btw?) What’s wrong with getting better pay and conditions by workers’ actions on the shop floor? It can hardly result in a worse deal than that got under partnership, unless you think that toothless labour inspectors justifies everything else in the deal. And secondly, it points the way forward to socialism by encouraging more self activity far more so than relying on bureaucrats negotiating a less crap deal. That isn’t to say that in the absence of a partnership deal workers are going to burst forth with strike upon strike, but it’s a good place to start.

TU: It is via the struggle against aspects of capitlaism that workers are more likely to move in a direct that sturggles against and rejects capitalism in total.

Joining in struggle doesn’t mean a wholesale abandonment of basic principles, and accepting the principles and the practice of shared class interests doesn’t advance struggles one iota. And how exactly is returning the senior bureaucrats to the negotiating table a “struggle”? I know the class war isn’t exactly raging, but it isn’t that bad!

TU: Workers in their majority do not reject National Pay Deals on principle, but also have policy objectives and concerns that they believe such deals should address.

True, but how do you think that a majority will reject it if those workers with a socialist perspective, e.g. anarchists and Marxists, are so reluctant to put forward their most elementary principles as an alternative?

There are lines that you don’t cross. And advocating joining the capitalist class in partnership is one of them. There isn’t any point in even playing lip service to socialism otherwise.

by Jon - Socialist Democracy Sat Jul 22, 2006 02:30

We have long history of analysing the bureaucratic betrayals involved in the partnership deals. see our website.

by Des_Derwin Fri Jul 28, 2006 15:47

Renton has posted a piece from 'Socialist Worker' above at 21st July. I have written the following to SW:

To the Editor, 'Socialist Worker'

28th July 2006

Comrades,

The coverage of' 'Towards 2016', the proposed social partnership deal, in
'Socialist Worker' (No. 261, 10th July) is to be commended. As is the SWP's
willingness to engage in a broadbased, joint-left, campaign against the deal
(CAPD).

'Socialist Worker' reproduced Eddie Conlon's outstanding briefing document
together with the contact names attached, including my own (first name and
phone number). Somehow a new final parargraph, not in the original leaflet,
was inserted as follows: "The deal should be sent back and the negotiators
told to bring back an improved version that better reflects the contribution that
workers have made to the Celtic Tiger". This was also copied to Indymedia
(July 21st).

A broad campaign on a ballot for a particular deal should be prepared to
take a neutral position on social partnership in general, in order to
include all trade unionists opposed to the deal. However, I profoundly
disagree with the new paragraph, or any social partnership arrangement, as
an alternative to 'Towards 2016'. My alternative would be free collective
bargaining as, for example, it appears MANDATE has now opted to return to.

Comradely,

Des Derwin.

end letter

Renton also asks what is CIL's position. CIL is opposed to 'Towards 2016' and to social partnership.

by Strategic Partner Fri Jul 28, 2006 16:55

Des, you are widely admired as a decent, hard working, principled trade unionist, and rightly so, but sometimes even the best of us can be profoundly mistaken. Again and again you have been burnt by the SWP but every time the spider invites you into the palour, in you go and...chomp!

This is not a "broad campaign" and well you know it, its just you, Eddie and the SWP. Surely, at this stage, you have to ask yourself why no one else, not one of individual trade unionists or groups that you have worked well with in the past, have joined this "campaign", Why has no one from CWAG, ISN, WSM, SP, LY etc.etc. joined this campaign? For the simple reason that they know it is a waste of time and energy trying to keep up with the tricks of the SWP and their oppurtunistic swivels and u-turns.

All you have done by aligned yourself with this front is alienated the very people and groups who have worked with you in an honest way in the past. I would respectfully suggest that you should reconsider your involvement in this so-called campaign.

by SIPTU member Fri Jul 28, 2006 20:41

"A broad campaign on a ballot for a particular deal should be prepared to take a neutral position on social partnership in general"

OK, Des. Answer me this. If the deal is rejected. What will you argue? Return to negotiations? Surely not?! Or will you argue for workers to take on their employers with industrial action to win wage increases. If you argue for a return to partnership talks (as the SWP do) then you have not really got a fundemental issue with partnership. Instead you don't like this particular rotten deal. To go into a Campaign without having this clarity is wrong. It sows illusions in Partnership. It's dishonest. You are telling workers that they do not need to organise and recruit to unions. Des, you should not go the road of the sell-out SWP. Don't orientate towards elements of the Union bureaucracy. Orientate to the membership and Be honest with them. I voted for you in SIPTU VP election. But I didn't vote for a left-bureaucrat position on Partnership.