Organising against ‘Towards 2016’

by TU Tue Jun 27, 2006 17:58

Pardon my cynicism but you mentioned a PBPA meeting, surely you mean an SWP meeting? The PBPA has no existence independent of the SWP. I would like to get invoved in a fightback campaign but I'm f*!*ed I'm going to a meeting to be lectured on Trade Unionism by the likes of Brid Smith and Dave Lordan or by his Lordship RBB.

If this is genuine then please let us know who the sponsors of the meeting are. Also will the meeting be restricted to trade unionists or will it be a happy hunting ground for SWP students and fulltimers?

by real TU Tue Jun 27, 2006 19:14

"Pardon my cynicism...I would like to get invoved in a fightback campaign but I'm f*!*ed I'm going to a meeting to be lectured on Trade Unionism by the likes of Brid Smith and Dave Lordan or by his Lordship RBB."

Above is code for "I am a cyber activist whose main fetish is causing trouble and the fact is I have no intention of going to any TU meeting or doing anything worth while about this issue."

Even if anyone could be bothered trying to convince the above person (!) that this was not an swp/pbpa thing they wouldnt be going anyway.

Question is..when is TU above organising his or her own meeting on the issue- I'd love to go?

So easy to hide and made snide comments but do nothing.

'TU' your cynicism can never be pardoned.

by Socialist Party Member Tue Jun 27, 2006 20:24

The first comment is correct this is an SWP meeting. Message to the SWP don't hold your breath waiting for trade unionists to join you in this campaign. We all read the article in the Irish Times by Kieran Allen from which it is clear that the SWP no longer oppose social partnership.

by pat c Tue Jun 27, 2006 21:08

I doubt it. How did KA support partnership in his IT article? I certainly didnt read that into it. I thjought it gave good arguments to use in opposing this rotten deal. I am a critic of the SWP but theres no point in making things up.

I also dont believe that the PBPA really exists as an independent organisation but opposing the Deal is important. Maybe FG (is this Finn G?) could clarify who is going to be chairing the meeting and speaking.

by kk Tue Jun 27, 2006 21:58

The deal is out- people from CIl, swp and others have got together initially through a meeting called by pbpa and now are organising a follow up meeting and activity to fight the new pay deal. The perspective is yes oppose the deal but get on board people who may not oppose social partnership on principle but opose this deal and get on with the job of fighting it.
Yet we have someone claiming to be a member of the SP slagging it off by taking a dig at KA, claiming that he no longer opposes social partnership- based on what an argument in the IT- which on reading does not indicate that,
however if SP member will not join this campaign, which as I have said involves different people not just the swp, where is the sp campaign cause I would love to know.

Pat C- I'm not sure who is chairing the next meeting, if I know I will post it here asap.

by Non SP member Tue Jun 27, 2006 23:35

"We all read the article in the Irish Times by Kieran Allen from which it is clear that the SWP no longer oppose social partnership."

Yeah that's the problem, many of us did read the article and we know that you're just making things up. Try harder next time

by Sp member Wed Jun 28, 2006 00:39

The last part of Kieran Allen's article says: "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".

It doesn't say anywhere in the article that he is opposed to social partnership and at the end it says that the "negotiators" should "bring back an improved version". An improved version of social partnership!

On Wednesday 21 June on Five - Seven Live RTE Radio One when asked the question, "Is a bad deal better than no deal?", Kieran Allen replied: "That's not the choice the choice is....union activists can tell their negotiators please go back and negotiate for a better deal".

When given the choice of saying there should be no social partnership agreement Kieran Allen again said that a better partnership deal should be negotiated!

I think that is perfectly clear - the SWP are no longer campaigning against social partnership, they are calling for a better social partnership agreement.

by J Wed Jun 28, 2006 00:46

Im ot interested in what seems to be a yes he did no he didnt argument. Simply question- have the sp organised an anti partnership campaign or meeting- details please Im dying to go.

by KLMN Wed Jun 28, 2006 01:12

The SP will be campaigning against social partnership. Our campaign is a SP campaign and therefore there isn't a meeting for you to attend.

by J Wed Jun 28, 2006 13:24

Mmm hello KLMN of thew SP but the deal is out and unions are already voting on it.
You say "The SP WILL be campaigning against social partnership. " Emphasis on WILL. Implies the SP have no campaign yet and by the sounds of the "Our campaign is a SP campaign and therefore there isn't a meeting for you to attend." it looks like SP have none planned. Shameful. Especially when they are taking a dig at others for organising one.

Completely missing the boat

Our campaign is a SP campaign and therefore there isn't a meeting for you to attend.

by D_D Wed Jun 28, 2006 14:51

kk is correct in his description (in the paragraph below) of what happened last Thursday and what is happening this Thursday:

"The deal is out- people from CIl, swp and others have got together initially through a meeting called by pbpa and now are organising a follow up meeting and activity to fight the new pay deal. The perspective is yes oppose the deal but get on board people who may not oppose social partnership on principle but opose this deal and get on with the job of fighting it."

It's all late, it's all ad hoc, it's all a shame that the left (the WHOLE left) didn't establish a campaign months ago when efforts were made for that. But this 'just in time' (or not) scramble is genuine. No strokes are intended, at least by the non-SWP people involved. Everyone should lend a hand.

The speakers at the PBPA meeting, none of whom objected anyway to the proposal for Thursday's meeting, were: Bernard Lynch (ASTI), Paddy Healy (TUI), Des_Derwin (SIPTU), Mick Martin (SIPTU) and Jo Tully (INO).

There's a press conference on the deal tomorrow at twelve at the Earl of Kildare Hotel. Representative trade union activists are welcome.

Whatever about Kieran Allen's, or the SWP's, position on social partnership in itself, the campaign - as previous campaigns have - should include all who want a 'no' vote on this deal. I would not be content with the campaign's literature 'sending 'em back for another partnership deal'. It should be possible to accommodate all shades of opposition (e.g. MANDATES's). It should also be possible to argue on Thursday for a campaign that is explicitly against social partnership (if an even smaller campaign is preferred). There isn't exactly any "perspective" established yet as kk suggests, but that was propably the 'feeling' of the meeting. But Thursday is a different meeting.

by pat c Wed Jun 28, 2006 15:47

As its IT pay per view heres the full text. NB "Contrary to the impression created by some spokesperson, there is little enthusiasm for social partnership deals amongst many trade unionists but they are often accepted from fear that they could be worse." Thats hardly supporting Partnership.

"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."

Surely an improved version would be an advance? This is not new thinking , Mick O'Reilly of the ATGWU also put forward this line as far back as 1996. If this deal is rejected what is our strategy? Set up Barricades and declare Soviets?

If the ICTU Burocracy were forced to go back and return with a document that didnt include contracting out or outside recruitment of promotional posts as well as better pay terms then that would be a victory.

We might still campaign against the new deal but we would still have inflicted a defeat on the Burocrats.

Kieran Allen isnt the main enemy, Peter Mcloone is.,

Read the article and make your own mind up.

**********************************************************

Basic imbalance between two parties claiming to be partners

The partnership deal is a bad one for trade unionists, writes Kieran Allen The latest social partnership proposals seems to be a done deal with opposition coming solely from either “”sectional interests” or small employers who complain they cannot afford to pay the terms.
However, underneath the seemingly broad consensus, a growing number of trade unionists are becoming concerned as they read the small print. The trade union movement is concentrated in the public sector but it is precisely this sector which has been asked to make the most sacrifices for relatively modest pay rises.

A simplistic message has been presented to the public that workers are getting a 10 per cent pay rise over two years. However, this assertion is part of the “creative” packaging that Taoiseach Bertie Ahern urged on the parties when they had difficulty reaching agreement on the pay element.

The plain fact is that workers will not be receiving a 5 per cent rise for each of the coming two years. In the public sector, they will firstly face a pay freeze until December 1st, even though inflation is currently running at 3.9 per cent. After that, they will receive phased increases which amount to 4.03 per cent on an annual basis and which barely cover the official rate of inflation.

This rate is calculated before the full effects of oil price rises and interest rate increases kick in. It should also be noted that the official rate of inflation does not cover rising house prices adequately so some workers will lose out even more.The proposed agreement consolidates an important shift in industrial relations machinery that has been occurring in recent years. In the past, workers got a pay rise to match the rise in inflation and then did extra productivity deals to get beyond this.

Now, however, workers are being asked to give extra productivity just to keep up with price increases. If there is not full compliance with a host of new measures, workers will be denied a pay rise.
In addition, if they take any industrial action on any issue that is covered in this comprehensive agreement, they can also be denied a pay rise.

Public sector workers are asked to accept widespread forms of outsourcing. In the past, trade unionists could argue that certain jobs belonged to the category of “core work” and could not be outsourced.
Under the proposed deal, however, these can also be outsourced if management can claim that it is necessary to “avoid excessive delays in delivery of service”.

Trade unionists are also asked to give their assent to the concept of “shared services”. This means that public sector bodies can develop more extensive relationships with private companies under public-private partnerships and have work shifted to many non-union firms.

Underlying this measure is a neo-liberal assumption that the thriving, dynamic section of the economy lies in the private sector and that the public sector is a burden which, in the words of Charlie McCreevy, could break “the back of the wealth creators”.

This mythology conveniently ignores how the public sector subsidises the private sector by providing it with an educated, healthy workforce and by picking up the costs which economists coldly label “externalities”.

It might be equally argued that the private sector benefits from enormous levels of “corporate welfare” as the state taxes companies at rates that are significantly lower than those the average workers pays. It is not for nothing that Ireland is labelled the “Bermuda of Europe” in corporate circles.

The agreement uses the buzz word “modernisation” to disparage the idea of a nine-to-five job and weekends off work. Instead it demands that public sector workers either voluntarily agree to work evenings and weekends - with no extra overtime payments - or allow management to recruit new staff who will do so. In practice, this means that pressure will be put on new workers in the public sector to work unsocial hours.

You do not get quality public services by “flexploitation”. The public has a right to better public services but this will be achieved when the level of resources is increased. At the moment, Ireland spends one of the lowest proportions of its GDP on public services.
The new proposals bring few substantial gains for workers. Irish workers have one of the lowest levels of public holidays in Europe; have weak maternity leave provisions and no paternity leave. The deal brings no improvement in these areas.

Pension coverage is falling and nearly half of all defined benefit schemes have been closed to new entrants, yet the proposals do not compel employers to pay into a pension scheme. They do not even stop highly profitable companies like the Bank of Ireland throwing new employees out of its defined benefit scheme.
There are, it has to be acknowledged, some positive changes regarding employment rights but these are predominantly about implementing existing laws. It does not seem just that workers must make sacrifices while some employers who previously evaded laws are rewarded.

The proposals rest on a fundamental imbalance between two parties claiming to be partners. Employers can claim inability to pay wage increases if they can point to “loss of competitiveness”, but workers cannot place extra “ability to pay” claims on companies who are making huge profits.

In the public sector, increases are only granted “on verification of co-operation with flexibility and ongoing change” but there is no sanction on managers who refuse to engage in meaningful discussion with unions. All future claims for extra improvements in the public sector will be outlawed under a clause which states that “flexibility and change will not give rise to claims for increased rewards for staff in the form of promotions, regradings, allowances or other benefits”.

Contrary to the impression created by some spokesperson, there is little enthusiasm for social partnership deals amongst many trade unionists but they are often accepted from fear that they could be worse. “There Is No Alternative” was a slogan of Margaret Thatcher, not the union movement, and having the courage to say “no” is often how labour advances.

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.

Kieran Allen is head of the school of sociology in University College
Dublin and author of Celtic Tiger: The Myth of Social Partnership
© The Irish Times

by Liberty Hall Langer Wed Jun 28, 2006 17:13

Calling people like Peter McLoone an 'enemy' is really going to win you the support of the organised working class. You are entitled to think he is utterly tactically mistaken, but he's not the enemy.

by Mnm Wed Jun 28, 2006 18:20

I was at the meeting and there was no clear perspective outlined- A campaign against social partnership or one just to fight this deal. But I think Des Derwin put it that although he is opposed to Social Partnership, people should work with those who may not be but oppose this deal. Maybe I misread his comments but thats what I thought was his perspective.
Anyway, people should go along Thursday and get involved. I think this deal can be defeated and that it would deal a massive blow to the union bureaucrats.

by pat c Wed Jun 28, 2006 18:33

He is an ememy he has categorically stated that no new deal could be negotiated if this one was rejected. He along with Dan Murphy et al are betraying public sector workers by championing privatisation and contracting out.

by D_D Wed Jun 28, 2006 18:48

Yes, that's what I said. Though the meeting reached no 'perspective' collectively. A campaign that includes those against this deal only need not specify another partnership deal as the alternative.

My alternative to social partnership is free collective bargaining, which could include sectoral and industrial bargaining as always was the case.

by Sp Member Wed Jun 28, 2006 18:56

If Pat C, DD and others are prepared to work with SWP on this issue then go ahead, the Sp isn't, we're not prepared to work with a political party that is pro-partnership. And Pat C, KAs article in IT is anti the content of Towards 2016, it is not anti-social partnership, and if the unions were to negotiate a deal that did not include somethings as you state we would still oppose it because...we are against social partnership!!!!!!

by Mnm Wed Jun 28, 2006 19:07

Thats cool. Yeah the meeting reached no 'perspective' collectively.
A campaign should and prob will include people against this deal only. IT doesnt have to need not specify another partnership deal as an alternative and free collective bargaining is the alternative.
My take on the IT is that what KA argues in the IT is tyring to setting up the bureaucrtas up for a fall if you will. I dont think he is arguing a pro-partnership line.
Real pity the sp seem not interested in working with others against the deal. Ok the member above argues he feels the swp are pro- partnership from the IT article- possibly jumping the gun there, but where is there campaign. Fine if they feel that about the swpers and that they are very principled, but where are they on this issue?

by Darragh Wed Jun 28, 2006 20:00

I want to point out the most obvious sham with these "partnership" talks. We have a situation at these talks where the employers representative body at the talks, IBEC, is basically a front organisaion for a small number of large wealthy companies that are anti-union. These companies, through their front organisation IBEC, are calling the shots at the pay talks and engaging with unions at the same pay talks while refusing to recognise unions outside of the talks.

Can I ask what Davig Begg and the rest of the unionised community is doing even sitting down to talk to IBEC when the people who are steering IBEC are anti-union in every way possible??? The unionised community ought to have more respect for themselves and forget about participating in these "partnership" talks for as long as their supposed partners in the talks are effectively controlled by companies that are known to be anti-union.

by Graham Ó Maonaigh - Labour Youth Thu Jun 29, 2006 15:56

Has anyone got any contact details for the organisers of the meeting. I'd like to talk to them on the phone. I won't be able to attend tonights meeting unfortunatly but would like to send someone in my place to represent Labour Youth.

We are as you know opposed to Social Partnership before anyone launches on an attack.

I can be reached on 086-8381556. asap please.

In Solidarity

Graham

by pat c Thu Jun 29, 2006 17:36

If Pat C, DD and others are prepared to work with SWP on this issue then go ahead, the Sp isn't, we're not prepared to work with a political party that is pro-partnership.

Surely the main thing is to defeat this rotten deal thats on offer? The LP is pro partnership: does that mean you wont work with LP member Mick O'Reilly?

And Pat C, KAs article in IT is anti the content of Towards 2016, it is not anti-social partnership,

Thats a matter of opinion. IMHO it is against both.

and if the unions were to negotiate a deal that did not include somethings as you state we would still oppose it because...we are against social partnership!!!!!!

No disagreement there. But if Towards 2016 were rejected the beaurocracy would suffer a major setback. This would be a victory for the trade union rank and file. Even if we subsequently lost in a vote on a revised Deal , the ICTU beaurocracy would not have regained their standing. There would be room to build a genuine representative Rank & File Movement

Think of it in terms of Transitional Demands: call for a better deal in order to destroy partnership.

by LK Thu Jun 29, 2006 17:49

Well said Pat C. I think what you said fits perfectly with what people should be doing. Lets hope people dont fall for the argument they are making and see it for the way your have described and get involved.

by Adamson Thu Jun 29, 2006 19:35

Pat your last comment to call for a better deal in order to destroy partnership doesn't add up. If you call for a better social partnership agreement, (whether it is your intention or not and I don’t believe it is personally your intention), then you are saying to workers that it is possible to have a "better" social partnership agreement. There are no circumstances whereby social partnership can be good for workers. It is impossible for the capitalist class and the working class to engage in such a "coalition" type agreement and for it to benefit workers. It goes against the very basis of the class struggle.
You last comment infers that you believe that in the current circumstances it is better to take this "tactical" approach to fighting Towards 2016 as it may be the best way to defeat it. But the consequences of that will be that you will be sending a message to the working class that a better social partnership deal is possible. Therefore to call for a better deal is to support the concept of partnership between the capitalist class and the working class and that is not just a tactical mistake it is a fundamental mistake on a point of principle.
Even if Towards 2016 was defeated on the basis of a call for the union leaders to return to the negotiating table and to get a better deal this would not strengthen the left in the trade unions nor would it create the conditions to rebuild the shop steward and activist layers within the unions. It would create the illusion in the consciousness of many workers that they can get a better social partnership agreement. This would actually strengthen the idea of social partnership and would therefore be a defeat for the working class.
As for working with someone like Mick O’Reilly that is a different matter. We do co-operate with Mick but not uncritically. There is a big difference co-operating with a left trade union leader on some issues while at the same time pointing out our differences and being involved in an "alliance" or a campaign with a party like the SWP who claim to be revolutionary socialists but who are sowing illusions in the working class in the idea of social partnership.
We are not prepared to give credibility to what the SWP are doing or the endorsement of the Socialist Party to their shift to the right and their abandonment of socialism.
The Socialist Party are campaigning against Towards 2016 and we are doing it by pointing out how this agreement is a bad deal in terms of pay, proposed changes in the public sector etc; that it is a surrender by the ICTU leaders to neo-liberal agenda of the government and big business; and we are also arguing against the idea of social partnership.
The question being posed here by yourself and others as to why is the Socialist Party not getting involved in the SWP/PBP campaign is the wrong question. The question I would pose to you and others is: Why do good union activists and people on the left like yourself feel it is necessary to drop from their propaganda the call for an end to social partnership and a return to free collective bargaining?

by Caught red handed Thu Jun 29, 2006 19:47

What a lot of shite. Its all talk because the sp are not doing anything in reality on the ground against the deal- exept stand in the corner sulking about how principled they are and how unprincipled everyone else is.

by Mike Fri Jun 30, 2006 11:48

Sp did intervene with anti-partnership material at INTO branch meeting to discuss the deal. The following day Leaflets were distributed in this members school and went down well. Leaflet was then faxed to other schools who were not at the branch meeting or whose branch didn't organise a meeting. In the next weeks work will be done in INO, CPSU, CWU, SIPTU, TEEU workplaces to name but a few. Members are already discussing the issue with workmates, so hardly a question of the SP doing nothing now is it.

by F16 Fri Jun 30, 2006 13:35

LK you said above "Well said Pat C. I think what you said fits perfectly with what people should be doing. Lets hope people dont fall for the argument they are making and see it for the way your have described and get involved".
At the Kieran Allen organised meeting on partnership last night to launch a campaign there were how many people? 100? 50? 20?...No there was the grand total of 11! The union officials must be shaking in their boots at the prospect of being forced to renegotiate a new deal with those level of forces aligned against them!

by Reader Fri Jun 30, 2006 13:54

Nearly as many as there were at the PBP press conference earlier in the day. As reported in this mornings IT.

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Fri Jun 30, 2006 16:02

I'm a bit baffled by the tone of some of the contributions from people claiming to be in the Socialist Party.

Kieran Allen's Irish Times article was very poor, I agree. And his comments on the radio were worse. The general approach of saying "the negotiators should negotiate a better deal" is dangerous because it does imply that the problem isn't social partnership per se but this or that element of this or that partnership deal. That's not a road the Socialist Party is willing to go down. We are against social partnership in any form, and for a fighting, democratic trade union movement.

That said Pat C is right that many opponents of partnership would probably be willing to accept a better partnership deal. That includes people like O'Reilly or the ASTI leaders at the top and it certainly includes many rank and file opponents of the deal. We don't have a problem working with people on areas of agreement, like calling for a No vote, even though we certainly aren't going to hide our opposition to partnership in any circumstances in order to make things more comfortable for them. If the SWP are moving towards that kind of position, then we should take the same sort of approach with them.

That's sort of a side issue though. The key thing isn't holding the public meeting and declaring the campaign as the left has done in so many failed anti-partnership campaigns. The key thing is doing the work within the trade union movement, leafleting workplaces, arguing at branch meetings and the like. That's the work which the Socialist Party is already engaged in on this issue and if other people are going to be doing the same, that's something to be welcomed.

by Liam Fri Jun 30, 2006 21:48

Mark says: "The key thing isn't holding the public meeting and declaring the campaign as the left has done in so many failed anti-partnership campaigns. The key thing is doing the work within the trade union movement, leafleting workplaces, arguing at branch meetings and the like."

"Doing the work"?
"Intervening" at a teachers meeting with an anti partnership leaflet.
What do mean "intervene" surely it takes a bit more than to "intervene" as you said yourself
"doing the work".
Thats hardly doing the work as you say.
SP are all mouth on this and little action. As someone said earlier in the thread grandstanding by sp. Talk of being all principled yet you hear nothing from them except an "intervention" at a teachers meeting.
Btw to whoever said it the trade union meeting was not organised by ka but des derwin. are you attacking des now?