As we enter Easter I always give a thought to the man who 105 years ago led the Citizen’s Army into The Rising in Dublin, James Connolly. A man who gave his life working to improve workers' rights and seeking a fairer, equal and more just Ireland.
Here this coming week, a century later we find our membership voting to take industrial action for the most simple of basic of workers’ rights, the right to be consulted on their very work being handed out to others. And the right to protect that work and the terms and conditions achieved by our forefathers many years ago.
Let’s reflect on how this dilemma has come about
Internal closed shop agreements and social partnership are anti-democratic, because a small group of insiders make the deal. This is then packaged and sold to workers as the best deal possible at this time, given the present circumstances.
Internal closed shop agreements and Social Partnership comes onto the horizon as a result of political, employment and economic crisis, in order to reduce workers’ expectations, demands and aspirations and to lay the ground for the introduction of reduced terms, yellow pack new entrants and austerity.
The trade union movement must reject this strategy.
To be clear, I am not condemning the entire trade union movement. There are many within the movement fighting against this strategy. Internal closed shop agreements and Social Partnership agreements are not binding on the government: it is free to treat them as advisory, while unions depend on the state to introduce legislation in the spirit of the agreement, which rarely happens.
The ultimate goal of internal closed shop agreements and Social Partnership is the demobilisation of union resistance in employers’ interests. Unions exchange wage moderation and industrial peace for an expectation of policy and institutional influence. The amount of influence is debatable. Some legislative regulations protecting workers were negotiated under social partnership but ultimately had to be passed by the government. Not all were: for example, we still await legislation on union recognition amongst many other issues.
Trade unions always feared legislation on employment, but social partnership actually accelerated it. Of course the crowning glory of social partnership was the Industrial Relations Act (1990), which in effect stripped all power from unions and workers, transferring it to employers and the judiciary. The trade union movement was hoodwinked by Bertie Ahern, then minister for labour, who was seen as the workers’ friend, with guarantees, promises and assurances that it was in workers’ best interest to get this legislation through, as it would inevitably lead to better pay and conditions, when employment relations would improve immensely as a result of it. Yes, employment relations improved immensely—but for employers, not workers—as a result of the 1990 Act.
The trade union movement had been softened up and became far too cozy around Government Buildings, and High level local management believing their own bluster that they had influence on social and company policy. During this period the working class suffered devastating cuts to the social wage; the building of public housing was abandoned to the private sector; charges were introduced for the dysfunctional health service, on its knees as a result of continuous cuts. At the same time tax breaks were given to employers, speculators and investors as workers were robbed to pay Peter, Paul and every gombeen businessperson in the largest transfer of wealth to the ruling elite since the foundation of the state.
As a result of internal closed shop agreements and social partnership, union density collapsed. Strikes became a thing of the past, leading to a generation of union reps without any experience of collective bargaining or collective action.
As time went on, Internal closed shop agreements and Social Partnership became more and more bureaucratic, with working groups, task forces, reviews, and committees, leading to avoidance, postponement, and lack of decision-making on contentious issues. Employers did not have to implement regulations, and many did not.
The private sector has almost complete autonomy to pursue corporate strategies, while employers are free to determine the form, structure and organisation of any internal collective bargaining unit.
The main achievement of internal closed shop agreements and social partnership was a victory for the employers in gaining pay restraint and industrial peace. The cherry on the pie was a plethora of anti-union legislation, not least the Industrial Relations Act. The government succeeded in lowering workers’ expectations, enabling them to impose austerity policies at will. In the public sector, “workplace partnership” has been used in a managerial manner to drive through a predetermined reform agenda.
The reliance of the trade union movement, particularly the larger unions, on internal closed shop agreements and social partnership as a strategy has over time engendered a reluctance to embrace - and in some cases a fear of - alternative strategies.
Internal closed shop agreements and Social Partnership created an unnatural division between the public and private sectors, and this was encouraged by the government, employers, and media. The Croke Park / Landsdowne Agreements then divided the public sector unions. Internal closed shop agreements and Social Partnership has left the trade union movement a pale shadow of its former self: broken, demoralised, with falling union density and a serious lack of experience in collective action, leading to a fundamental lack of confidence.
The employers’ side, on the other hand, has grown in confidence as increasingly, and successfully, they turn to the courts to stop workers from striking. The anti-union legislation has led to many victories over unions, giving employers the confidence to now engage in aggressive union-busting tactics.
The legal environment is extraordinarily hostile to workers and to unions. Workplace partnership is non-existent, as the balance of power has shifted from workers to employers.
Internal closed shop agreements and Social Partnership has devastated the trade union movement; but still many within it are wedded to this paradigm. There has been a class war on workers’ rights for thirty years, and workers are losing hands down.
Internal closed shop agreements and Social Partnership is class betrayal. Unions must become radical or they will become redundant and ultimately defeated.
This week our members make a choice and the choice is fully theirs: do we stand together to put a hold on the onslaught of attacks on our very futures, or accept the continued rollover ethic being accepted by the softened up group union thinking?
I know where Connolly would have stood.
Internal closed shop agreements and social partnership are anti-democratic, because a small group of insiders make the deal. This is then packaged and sold to workers as the best deal possible at this time, given the present circumstances.
Internal closed shop agreements and Social Partnership comes onto the horizon as a result of political, employment and economic crisis, in order to reduce workers’ expectations, demands and aspirations and to lay the ground for the introduction of reduced terms, yellow pack new entrants and austerity.
The trade union movement must reject this strategy.
To be clear, I am not condemning the entire trade union movement. There are many within the movement fighting against this strategy. Internal closed shop agreements and Social Partnership agreements are not binding on the government: it is free to treat them as advisory, while unions depend on the state to introduce legislation in the spirit of the agreement, which rarely happens.
The ultimate goal of internal closed shop agreements and Social Partnership is the demobilisation of union resistance in employers’ interests. Unions exchange wage moderation and industrial peace for an expectation of policy and institutional influence. The amount of influence is debatable. Some legislative regulations protecting workers were negotiated under social partnership but ultimately had to be passed by the government. Not all were: for example, we still await legislation on union recognition amongst many other issues.
Trade unions always feared legislation on employment, but social partnership actually accelerated it. Of course the crowning glory of social partnership was the Industrial Relations Act (1990), which in effect stripped all power from unions and workers, transferring it to employers and the judiciary. The trade union movement was hoodwinked by Bertie Ahern, then minister for labour, who was seen as the workers’ friend, with guarantees, promises and assurances that it was in workers’ best interest to get this legislation through, as it would inevitably lead to better pay and conditions, when employment relations would improve immensely as a result of it. Yes, employment relations improved immensely—but for employers, not workers—as a result of the 1990 Act.
The trade union movement had been softened up and became far too cozy around Government Buildings, and High level local management believing their own bluster that they had influence on social and company policy. During this period the working class suffered devastating cuts to the social wage; the building of public housing was abandoned to the private sector; charges were introduced for the dysfunctional health service, on its knees as a result of continuous cuts. At the same time tax breaks were given to employers, speculators and investors as workers were robbed to pay Peter, Paul and every gombeen businessperson in the largest transfer of wealth to the ruling elite since the foundation of the state.
As a result of internal closed shop agreements and social partnership, union density collapsed. Strikes became a thing of the past, leading to a generation of union reps without any experience of collective bargaining or collective action.
As time went on, Internal closed shop agreements and Social Partnership became more and more bureaucratic, with working groups, task forces, reviews, and committees, leading to avoidance, postponement, and lack of decision-making on contentious issues. Employers did not have to implement regulations, and many did not.
The private sector has almost complete autonomy to pursue corporate strategies, while employers are free to determine the form, structure and organisation of any internal collective bargaining unit.
The main achievement of internal closed shop agreements and social partnership was a victory for the employers in gaining pay restraint and industrial peace. The cherry on the pie was a plethora of anti-union legislation, not least the Industrial Relations Act. The government succeeded in lowering workers’ expectations, enabling them to impose austerity policies at will. In the public sector, “workplace partnership” has been used in a managerial manner to drive through a predetermined reform agenda.
The reliance of the trade union movement, particularly the larger unions, on internal closed shop agreements and social partnership as a strategy has over time engendered a reluctance to embrace - and in some cases a fear of - alternative strategies.
Internal closed shop agreements and Social Partnership created an unnatural division between the public and private sectors, and this was encouraged by the government, employers, and media. The Croke Park / Landsdowne Agreements then divided the public sector unions. Internal closed shop agreements and Social Partnership has left the trade union movement a pale shadow of its former self: broken, demoralised, with falling union density and a serious lack of experience in collective action, leading to a fundamental lack of confidence.
The employers’ side, on the other hand, has grown in confidence as increasingly, and successfully, they turn to the courts to stop workers from striking. The anti-union legislation has led to many victories over unions, giving employers the confidence to now engage in aggressive union-busting tactics.
The legal environment is extraordinarily hostile to workers and to unions. Workplace partnership is non-existent, as the balance of power has shifted from workers to employers.
Internal closed shop agreements and Social Partnership has devastated the trade union movement; but still many within it are wedded to this paradigm. There has been a class war on workers’ rights for thirty years, and workers are losing hands down.
Internal closed shop agreements and Social Partnership is class betrayal. Unions must become radical or they will become redundant and ultimately defeated.
This week our members make a choice and the choice is fully theirs: do we stand together to put a hold on the onslaught of attacks on our very futures, or accept the continued rollover ethic being accepted by the softened up group union thinking?
I know where Connolly would have stood.
 |
| Gerry Corbett is Independent Workers' Union, ESB, National Secretary |
Insightful as ever from Gerry.
ReplyDeleteIdentifies the issues and conveys it without guff.
One serious problem he identifies is the lack of experience among many trade unionists in the area of collective bargaining.
Even in terms of disputes and mediation, it is quickly learned that no matter what you go in with on your plate, you will come out with it only half full. Inexperience will lead to you being hauled all over the board and placed on the weakest squares.
Serious attention needs to be paid to this deficiency among trade unionists.
Am excellent nuts and bolts unravelling of the Social partnership.
ReplyDelete