Response to Philip O' Connor's “Lifting the Boats”

From Padraig Yeates, co-author, Saving the Future:

Dear Editor,

I would like to commend Philip O'Connor for his very kind and profound review of Saving the Future. He is right in identifying shortcomings in the book, such as the fact that there is no real discussion of the historical roots of social partnership in an Irish or European context. This applies on both the macro level eg. the Catholic corporatist tradition and the micro, eg the origins and authorship of the ICTU document 'Confronting the Jobs Crisis'. Our defence, which he acknowledges, is that the emphasis was on telling the 'inside story' of the current generation of agreements rather than providing a longer term historical analysis. He rightly emphasise the importance of the relationship between Fianna Fail and the trade unions as central to the partnership project. It is one of the great paradoxes of Irish politics and nowhere is this relationship better illustrated than in the complex personality of Charles J Haughey. How the relationship will play out in the future, especially when Haughey's acolyte Bertie Ahern departs the stage, will be central to the future evolution or decline of social partnership. I also accept Philip O'Connor has a point in regard to the relatively little space given in the book to the newer social partners and the newer partnership structures. However their role was peripeheral in the early days of partnership and it remains to be seen how these structures evolve. The very fact that we now have an overarching ten year agreement, Towards 2016, within which the old reliables of pay and workplace related issues are now dealt is a sign that important changes are taking place. However I suspect that failure to agree a new deal on the old reliables will quickly see the overarching structures begin to crumble. Finally, could I say that Philip O'Connor's review is an almost indispensable aid to anyone reading Saving the Future and considering the wider and longer term implications of the journey on which we have all embarked - willingly or otherwise.

Yours etc.,
Padraig Yeates

From Des Geraghty, former General President, SIPTU:

Dear Editor,

This is an excellent review of Saving the Future which places the partnership process in a correct context.It is not simply a pragmatic response to particular economic circumstances but a strategic process cabable of transforming economic, social and environmental governance in Ireland.It should not be seen simply as a static wage fixing mechanism but a constructive way of dealing with change and conflicting social intrests.Philip O'Connor is correct in his analysis of the context in which this set of systems has evolved and the limitations of the book under review.There are new and daunting challenges now facing modern Ireland which require to be addressed, such as the redistribution of income,the widening gap between those on low incomes, inside and outside the labour force and the high earning elites and the thorny problem of pensions. There are also major issues about the delivery of universal quality public services such as Health and Education and Transport.Is it too much to expect that we see a strategic shift in the future towards developing an effective partnership approach to social and environmentally friendly Infrastructure.We should not depend on Pay or Working Conditions alone to be the cement that holds the whole process together.There is plenty of scope for new and innovative thinking on all of these issues which should be directed towards refining and expanding the earlier agreements.That requires good credible political leadership at government level and serious reappraisal in all representative institutions of their core objectives and the best participative or bargaining processes available to deliver sustainable progress. Well done Philip O'Connor for your scholarship and insightful treatment of this complex dynamic process.

Des Geraghty

From Ciaran Mac Aonghusa, Dublin:

Dear Editor,

I really enjoyed the essay. A couple of thoughts in relation to both the future of partnership and the claim of the process to be democratic. According to the CSO national household survey, published on 7 Sept 2005, union membership continued to decline over the period '94 - '04. From 45% of workers to 33%. Not only that, declines were sharper among younger workers. Furthermore the 'spread' of union membership continued to narrow around public service workers. I wonder what does the author think will be the impact of the shrinking and narrowing of union membership on the partnership process? And if he thinks this undermines the claim that the process is in fact democratic by way of the spread of people it represents?

Ciaran Mac Aonghusa

Philip O'Connor responds:

I was delighted to receive such positive feedback on my review article, and the comments made certainly raise interesting issues. Padraig Yeates writes that it is hard to imagine the process surviving failure to produce a deal on the old reliables of pay and conditions. There is no doubt, and I stress this in the article too, that a tough deal on very hard issues has always been at the centre of any partnership agreement, and will continue to be so, though whether purely the "old reliables" or, as Des Geraghty suggests, involving wider agenda issues, remains to be seen. I do think however that disconnecting negotiation of the core deal from the wider partnership process - which has been suggested recently by Richard Bruton of Fine Gael for example - would be disasterous, and would reverse the social progress represented by the system of social partnership itself.

Ciaran Mac Aonghusa refers to falling trade union membership levels and questions whether this undermines the democratic credentials of the process. The CSO figures on trade union membership certainly show a fall in the proportion of workers unionised, but this was in a situation of incredible employment growth, which saw the workforce double in size (from 0.9m workers in 1989 to over 2.1m today). This is the reason for the percentage fall - the actual number of trade union members has actually increased. But the point is still important. The fact is that democratic systems are driven by the active, and this is as true of political involvement and electoral participation as it is for trade union membership. Where the option of participation is available and people choose not to avail of it, it must be assumed that they accept that others through their involvement are representing them. There is no doubt that if non-unionised workers opposed the agreements and felt they were being misrepresented by the union members who voted for them, this would rapidly emerge as an issue. To date it hasn't. Ironically one reason for relatively lower trade union membership than in the past is that the benefits, including pay increases etc., arising from partnership agreements apply universally, and not just to members of organisations which sign them. In fact the same is the case on the employers' side, where significant numbers of small businesses and employers are not members of employer organisations, yet also do not seem to represent a disatisfied grouping intrinsically opposed to partnership. Though not directly involved, they appear in my experience to regard their interests as being generally well served by the employer bodies involved in the process.

There is no doubt that the key to the future of the system is political leadership, and in the period after the resignation of Bertie Ahern as Taoiseach this becomes a major concern. His achievements with the Peace Process in Northern Ireland and the Partnership process in the Republic are considered his greatest legacies, and he was involved in both from the start. Haughey was the architect of the original very tough deal in 1987, and there is no doubt that in both Fianna Fail and the major unions - and also indeed in Ibec - there is an intent to continue to develop the process. As the article outlined, this intent has very deep historical roots in both traditions. I hear tell that a second edition of the book may appear with additional information provided in the form of a Chapter by Charles Haughey shortly before his death. This will certainly add much to the story in this regard. But regarding the political fragility of the partnership system I would not be too pessimistic. Experience in the mid-1990s showed that despite verbal hostility and luke warm attitudes to the process within Fine Gael and the Labour Party - which have resurfaced in both parties in the last year - when in government in 1994-97 they actually contributed significantly to developing and even deepening the process.

Finally, several people involved in the early history of the process on the trade union side did comment to me that in the points I raised about the genesis of the initial ICTU document "Confronting the Jobs Crisis" I mentioned several of the intellectual currents which shaped the trade union thinking but underplayed in particular the role of the Workers' Party. This indeed is true. A shortage of written evidence or memoirs makes this a challenging task, but materials have since been indicated to me and I hope to tackle that important story some time soon in greater depth.

Philip O'Connor