Deal on Irish Ferries reached

by Socialist Party Wed Dec 21, 2005 19:11

Irish Ferries
Bosses let off the hook by bad deal
By Stephen Boyd

by SameOldStory Wed Dec 21, 2005 12:48

... were so happy to see close to 200,000 people countrywide supporting the Irish Ferries workers. Pity it didn't lead them to support the workers themselves. The result: Irish Ferries can re-flag "our" ships; pay any new employees the minimum wage for 3 years; and then tear up their obligations from their new foreign base. Oh, and there's a 3-year no strike clause. That's worth a few tens of millions, no?
This was not what people marched for. But the union bosses are fat and lazy after decades of Programmes for Poverty and Exploitation (PPE). Well, folks, watch out, next time you're asked to march as cannon fodder for a dirty deal.

by Davy Carlin Fri Dec 16, 2005 12:42

Second time around -

Yep the 'new' and 'different' statement has been read as well.

Will come back to this issue in its wider entirity in my Diary in Jan under the title
'as mad as ever' or something along those lines methinks. D

by man - swp Fri Dec 16, 2005 12:29

SIPTU v Irish Ferries: Draw In The First Round Of Battle Against Outsourcing

‘People power’ has forced the bosses of Irish Ferries to make significant concessions to their workers.

Thanks to the mobilisation of the wider trade union movement, the new Latvian workers who come onto Irish Ferries will be paid the minimum rate of €7.65 an hour. The company originally wanted to pay them €3.50 an hour. Then at the last moment they tried to deduct 80 cents an hour for board and lodging on the ship – a deduction of €56 a week – but they did not get away with it.

These workers will be brought into the ‘threshold of decency’ set by the Irish labour movement. Existing workers who decided not to take redundancy will also have their rates of pay and condition protected. None of this would have happened if SIPTU – and particularly the grassroots trade
unionists in Irish Ferries – had not stood up and fought.

The hypocrisy of Ahern and Fianna Fail

Throughout the whole dispute, Bertie Ahern and Fianna Fail pretended to support the workers in a desperate attempt to shore up their declining votes in working class areas. But it was totally hypocritical. They claimed they were ‘powerless’ to prevent re-flagging but they were never ‘powerless’ when employers wanted something.

Successive Irish government have brought in emergency laws to protect companies like Allied Irish Bank and Goodman’s meat packing business when they were threatened with bankruptcy. Each year they introduce a Finance Bill that creates more tax loophole for big business. But when it comes to workers, they do nothing.

Worse: behind closed doors at EU level, they support measures which undermine our rights.

* The Irish government has helped to vote down an EU directive to prevent the re-flagging of ferries that travel between EU ports.
* They have helped to veto the Temporary Workers directive which would have given workers who are hired by recruitment agencies full legal rights after six weeks.
* At present, Charlie McCreevy is pushing through a new service directive which contains a ‘country of origin’ principle.

This means that migrant workers will be subject to the laws of their country rather than those where they are working. In most cases, this means lower labour standards. The lesson of this dispute is that Ahern and Fianna Fail should never again be considered the ‘social partners’ of the trade union movement.

More could have been won

The struggle of the Irish Ferries workers was driven from below and got the full backing of SIPTU official, Paul Smyth. The top leaders of SIPTU and the ICTU came in to give backing – but there was one main limitation. The union leaders desperately want a new social partnership deal. They did not want to escalate the battle in case it would have broken links with the government and the employers.

They wanted a huge mobilisation on Friday December 9th – but they also wanted to contain it within certain limits. Instead of calling a full national strike which could have shut the country down, they called a day of protest where workers were sometimes encouraged to ask permission of the employers to join the march. These tactics set limits on what could have been won.

A national strike with threats of further escalation could have forced Bertie Ahern to stop re-flagging. Now the company have only given a three year commitment to pay the minimum wage. A national strike could have stopped Irish Ferries turning over all its staff to a management agency –Dobson’s – or put pressure on the Irish government to re-nationalise the company if they refused.

Keep the unions out of another partnership deal

Irish Ferries was no maverick company – its Board of Directors was drawn from the captains of Irish Industry. A key section of the employers have concluded that the unions have been so weakened by social partnership that they can start to reduce wages. Many of them understand that the Celtic Tiger is running out of steam and they want to make workers pay the costs – rather than reduce their profits.

Some, like Irish Ferries, wanted a frontal assault to reduce wages in one fell swoop. Others believe that they can use the mechanisms of social partnership to lull the unions asleep and get away with outsourcing quietly.

They want to:
* hire more temp workers;
* use yellow pack’ schemes to pay new workers less than those older workers
* outsource work, particularly in the public sector, to contractors who pay less wages.

All of these practices are allowed for under social partnership – and tragically many unions have signed up for deals which accept ‘yellow pack’ conditions and outsourcing.

We must stop the this rot now. Irish Ferries was a warning about how partnership has weakened our unions.

The main issue now is to keep our unions out of entering any new partnership deal – and re-build a fighting tradition.

Only such a fighting union movement can organise the thousands of migrant workers who can come to Ireland. It will also be able to resist outsourcing and give workers back the same pride when they marched on Friday December 9th

by Davy Carlin Fri Dec 16, 2005 11:43

Quote’

‘Like the Socialist Workers Party, we applaud the courage and determination of the Irish Ferries workers and the countless activists, who rallied to their cause. But unlike these “socialists”, we do not see fit to proclaim the deal a victory or to hide the treacherous role played by the official leaders. To do so would be to participate in a cover-up, rather than point the way forward'

Spot on -.

‘The heroic and unofficial actions of the Irish Ferries workers, who occupied their ships, has paved the way for the Irish working class to reclaim its place in history and set an example for the working class across Europe. The union rank and file must come together to drive the struggle from below and realise the potential they have to determine history’.

Again spot on - the article in most part l believe is quite good.

As stated either the SWP leadership got this wrong {which would show how very very detached they are from the class} or it is in real terms the reality of their politics and political direction - which again would show similar detachment from the working class.

Either way, given the enormity of this dispute and the marvellous mobilisation of workers it would for most defy belief that a ' Revolutionary' party could reach such an analysis.

Even with the most limited of political outlook and even if one had little or no contact with the class 'Revolutionary instinct' would not direct you to such an analysis.

Personally I am not surprised as one of the key issues to my leaving the SWP was the ‘mad’ leadership decisions they where asking us to carry through {as recorded elsewhere on the site } - this analysis has just concretised my belief and shows again {this time in the South} how detached from reality and the class they are with such statements.

That aside it was important and essential to march and to protest – that is not where the problem lays - it was with the deal and the leadership given, indeed as like many such leaderships they bottled out of it.

An important lesson learnt by many more but this was already known by many of us already - from the onset.

It is therefore how we can ensure that such need not arise again and through creating such a momentum {as I had found with similar leaderships to the fore on occasion} where they can find little alternative but to be - dragged by an outreached arm by the scruff of the neck - with the momentum from below that has been created - as we march forward.

It has only begun.

by Seer Fri Dec 16, 2005 10:51

"The SWP in their latest statement paint the union bureaucrats in a glorious light. Quote: "The struggle of the Irish Ferries workers was driven from below and got the full backing of SIPTU official, Paul Smyth. The top leaders of SIPTU and the ICTU came in to give backing – but there was one main limitation." Only one limitation??? Paul Smyth is not someone that is a good workers leader. Nor are any of the SIPTU or ICTU leaders. They did not do what was necessary. Smyth et al are tied to the political establishment in this country. The union leaders held back friday's day of protest. Even without partnership (the ONE limitation they have!!!) they would be bad workers' leaders. "

Of course Paul Smyth turned up at the People Before Profit Alliance/Davitt League meeting and the SWP were probably wetting themselves at a 'celebrity' interest. I would say this has something to do with their softly softly approach.

by another SIPTU member - Education branch Fri Dec 16, 2005 10:36

The statements issued by the SWP disgusting. They are supportive of this rotten deal that everyone else on the left is rejecting. Thier 15 December statement is supportive of the SIPTU bureaucrats. It's an indication of the SWP's lack of orientation to the working class and their increasing political problems.

In my workplace yesterday morning everyone was talking about how rotten the deal with Irish Ferries is. This is a green light for every company in Ireland to sack, offer redundencyy and re-hire on minimum wage via agency staff. This is a green light for employers to reduce wages dramatically across the economy. The Irish Ferries dispute was a dispute that had to be won, compromises on wages were always going to be dangerous.

The SWP say that this deal was a victory for 'people power'. Wrong again. Yes, the people power shown by the thousands last friday was a great step forward. The many thousands drawing anti-partnership and class conclusions is a positive aspect of the dispute. The brave stand of the officers in Irish Ferries has to be commended and will be remembered in the history of the Irish working class. However the reduction of wages, the no-strike deal, the bureaucrats' sell-out, will also be a part of working class history. The deal is only valid for 3 years. In 3 years expect the Lativians to be sacked and replaced with another group.

The SWP in their latest statement paint the union bureaucrats in a glorious light. Quote: "The struggle of the Irish Ferries workers was driven from below and got the full backing of SIPTU official, Paul Smyth. The top leaders of SIPTU and the ICTU came in to give backing – but there was one main limitation." Only one limitation??? Paul Smyth is not someone that is a good workers leader. Nor are any of the SIPTU or ICTU leaders. They did not do what was necessary. Smyth et al are tied to the political establishment in this country. The union leaders held back friday's day of protest. Even without partnership (the ONE limitation they have!!!) they would be bad workers' leaders.

The SWP are clearly in political difficulty. They have not got a working class orientation. They regularly throw open their own paper for uncrtical articles from members of Labour, a pro-capitalist estbalishment political party. Their orientation and outlook is middle class. Only the middle class could see this as a 'draw'. They are not serious in their work. All the stupid fronts (remember the great 'merger' btwn the Davitt League and People before Profit!). The idiotic and opportunistic approach in elections (in last election they canvassed for SP's Joe Higgins first then their little known local candidate second). Every person I work with were diappointed with this deal. My workmates are not revolutionaries and don't claim to be. Yet, the SWP maintain they are a revolutionary party. You are not Socialist, and you are not a Workers' Party. Could a SWP member please try to explain their crap politics.

by Me Fri Dec 16, 2005 10:34

Just what we need another little left group reminding us what VI Lenin said.

by Updater Fri Dec 16, 2005 10:30

Some lessons should be learned from the Irish Ferries experience. The dispute has shown us how even the most intractable and highly charged dispute can be resolved within the partnership model. The National Implementation Body, which has representatives of both Ictu and Ibec, devised a formula the Sunday before last which formed the basis for the eventual outcome. It is a pity that it took so long to give effect to the spirit and intent of that formula.
When a matter is of national interest and jobs in many sectors are at stake, it is neither defensible nor strategically wise for the company involved not to engage in public debate. Of course there was misrepresentation and misinformation, but by vacating the public stage, the company was partially to blame for this. Union leadership should never again allow itself to be manipulated by elements within their ranks who are not working towards realistic objectives that are in the public interest.
For politicians, there is something to learn as well. Never again, I hope, will we see them jump into a delicate dispute with no understanding of the facts and realities and no contribution to offer to constructive bridge-building. The wider community is not impressed with them.
Employers are willing to engage with Ictu on their concerns which arise from the Irish Ferries dispute. Where it can be demonstrated that improvements are necessary and will not undermine our competitiveness or attractiveness for foreign investment then we will consider these on their merits.
It is time for common sense, common purpose and an end to rhetoric.

by SP member - SP Fri Dec 16, 2005 10:20

Andy from Workers Power turned up at the SP meeting on Monday and when making his contribuation did not accuse the SP of being left cover. SP members who spoke including Joe H and Kevin McL said that the proposed deal was a sell out.

by Siptu member Fri Dec 16, 2005 08:10

I think the article form workers power is quite good. At least they are not like the SWP in supporting the bureacracy and talking up this sell out deal. There is one problem I found with it, it said the Socialist Party were giving the bureacracy left cover, this is not the case as you can see from Mark P's contributions.

by AJ - workers power Fri Dec 16, 2005 05:51

Please check out the link for the workers power statement on this whole issue. We'd appreciate any feedback...

by Gearoid O Loingsigh Thu Dec 15, 2005 19:50

Yes, workers can and do get it wrong as does the left on many occasions (I include myself in that). However, being wrong is one thing signing away rights is another. A no strike deal is not the same as to wether one signed a deal for 4% when 6% could have been obtained. One is in the realm of principles and the other is in the realm of tactics and daily practice.

It is not Stalinist to assert that their are principles that must be defended. Arguing that workers don't have the right to sign away basic rights like the right to strike that not only affect them but the whole of the workers' movement and future employees in their own company who will not have the right to strike. That is what I am arguing. It is obvious that positions can and shouldn't be imposed however, they must be always constantly argued for. That is my disagreement.

Thanks, Pat I will do my best to keep the flag flying here.

by Davy Carlin Thu Dec 15, 2005 19:33

Quote 'In fact rushing to get something out can lead to serious mistakes'

I agree with that 100% Mark, more especially given the real importance of this issue and the aftermath of such a mobilisation.

I think some have indeed ‘either’ got it wrong or it is in real terms the reality of their politics and political direction - even on the earliest readings.

The points you rise I believe are more considered and closer to the mark {political analysis} in my view.

‘Quote' grabbed by a trade union bureaucracy terrified of the forces a real struggle could unleash'

Again Mark sound as a pound' could have came out of my own mouth. D.

by pat c Thu Dec 15, 2005 18:39

"Workers don't have the right to sign no strike deals"

workers have the right to be wrong. think about what you are saying. surely workers have the democratic right to vote in any way they want regardless of what you or i think.

to suggest otherwise is to adopt a stalinist approach and i know you are no stalinist.

i was also perturbed by the tone and content of johns comment. i wonder if it was really by him?

solidarity comrade, keep the flag flying in colombia.

by Gearoid O Loingsigh Thu Dec 15, 2005 18:16

Workers don't have the right to sign no strike deals. No strike deals take away a weapon of the working class and also deprive other workers at a later stage of fighting. Just like no one has the right to agree to be enslaved. There are certain rights which cannot be given up or renounced. This is not just a position of the left, it is actually the case in Irish law that certain rights cannot be voluntarily forfeited.

I now live in another part of the planet and different time zone, so I have only just seen John Meehan's smart arse comment (not to mention personal abuse of which I was accused). Got anything better John? Not even some old gossip? (yes I have just engaged in mild personal abuse with the last comment on gossip, should keep them going in the Teacher's club escape from reality). Biddies of the world unite!

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal cap) Thu Dec 15, 2005 18:13

Yezhov, I'm a bit loathe to respond to someone who is clearly uninterested in any answer but is merely looking to score some cheap points. But for anyone who is actually interested:

The Socialist Party will put forward its considered opinion on the deal when we have a chance to actually consider it properly. This isn't a race of some sort where the first people to put up a statement win a prize. In fact rushing to get something out can lead to serious mistakes. Judging from a quick comparison of the link E posted above compared to the earlier SWP article, that already seems to have happened to at least one group on the Irish left - rushing out a comment and then having to backtrack from it on further reflection.

My own initial view is that this looks like a bad deal, grabbed by a trade union bureaucracy terrified of the forces a real struggle could unleash.

by pat c Thu Dec 15, 2005 18:03

read what i wrote. no rational person could conclude that i am supporting the burocracy.

i have emphasised that it was the action of ordinary SIPTU members which acheived what was acheived. I have made it clear that i am not a supporter of partnership.

I do think the actions of the SUI were disgraceful.

I dont think the Latvian workers who have gotten a 120% wage increase and a 1 to 2 paid time off deal would see this as badly as some here would. The latvian workers matter as well, their improvement in conditions is due to the Class Solidarity shown by the SIPTU ships officers.

It is now the job of SIPTU to recruit these workers into membership. The SUI has consigned itself to the dustbin of history.

Piracy Not Partnership!

by E - SWP Thu Dec 15, 2005 17:58

Latest SWP statement now available at:

http://www.swp.ie/html/irishferries_dec15.htm

by Yezhev Thu Dec 15, 2005 17:55

The SWP have come in here for a bit of criticism over their statement on this whole affair but at least they've made a statement. I've just checked the SP site and no indication of what they think.

What's wrong are the full timers too busy writing letters 'setting up something of a false opposition' for the members who dissent?

by sell out Thu Dec 15, 2005 17:55

Pat, in effect you are a craven supporter of the bureacracy. How can you say that SIPTU did not sell out the irish ferries workers?!

by pat c Thu Dec 15, 2005 17:41

"I also think that 'no strike deals' are treachery pure and simple. No union has the right to trade its workers fundamental right to strike - the only weapon they have - especially when the affected workers had exactly zero say in the matter"

i agree with you. but what if the workers vote for it? are you saying that workers have not got the right to make a decision that we disagree with?

you are right that the latvian workers diod not get a vote on this but then they are not members of a union. i suspect though that after SIPTU had secured them an 120% increase in pay and 1 paid month off for every month on it is very likely that they would have voted in favour of this deal. I base this opinion on the fact that they were previously prepared to work for €3.60 an hour with no paid time off.

given the sabotage carried out by the SUI i think this was the best deal acheiveable.

i dont think you are right about the rest of the irish workers leaving IF, but we will have to agree to disagree on this and history will show which of us was right.

it is now up to SIPTU to organise the Latvian workers and seek the same conditions for them as the existing staff. the Latvian workers didnt get a vote on deal so how can they be bound by it? SIPTU activists get your thinking caps on.

I think this is not the defeat that some are painting. More could have been gained but for the SUI. Remember, it wasnt the SIPTU or ICTU leaderships who sold out the workers in this case, it was the SUI. That does not imply any illusions in the burocracy on my part but lets deal with facts.

It was the action of the ordinary SIPTU workers which acheived the 120% pay increase for the Latvian workers.

Lets here some support for the unoffical action by the SIPTU Pirates who seized the control room. They achieved this improvement in conditions for the Latvian workers.

Piracy Not Partnership!

by Mark P - Socialist Party (Personal Capacity) Thu Dec 15, 2005 17:40

That's a bit over the top "SWatcher", quite frankly. Firstly, Chekov was mostly agreeing with you. More importantly, these things aren't quite as simple as you are making out. Yes if the unions had called a one day general strike that would have been a big step towards forward and it was certainly the right demand for socialists to raise, but even that wouldn't have guaranteed victory.

by Chekov Thu Dec 15, 2005 17:39

If you read what I wrote, I do concur that it was an abject defeat and your point that an increase in the 3.60 per hour offered is meaningless as a measure of success.

However, I don't know enough about the morale of the Irish Ferries workers themselves to be able to say for sure whether it would have been possible for them to acheive a better result without broad action across the working class (such as you mention). Where we differ is on the likeliehood of such action being called. Frankly, I think the chances of the TU higher-ups having the bottle or desire to call such broad and daring action was exactly zero. So, from the point of view of the workers involved, this may have been the best realistic outcome - although, as I say, I don't know enough about the morale of the workers in the company to be able to say so for sure.

Sadly, I think that we would need radical changes in our unions before real victories in such struggles would be possible. Thinking that a general strike was a realistic possibility under our current union leadership is just wishful thinking.

by SWatcher Thu Dec 15, 2005 17:27

Chekov I cant see how you can even think that this might be a semi good deal or best deal possible as the workers were not in a good position. They were in a fantastic position! We had around 100,000 on the streets of dublin supporting them, they had cost the company €5.5m in just 2 weeks. The company's threat of a 25% of redudency was a cry of desparation! If the union had utilised the massive public support and called for a 1 day general strike and called for the nationalisation of Irish Ferries they would have won, easily! Conditions could also have been improved for the workers. It would also have seriously set back IBEC, ISME and their ilk. Chekov you should have more faith in the strength and willingness to struggle of the working class.

On another note, We cant look at the €3.60 then see €7.65 as a victory, its mad to think like that! sure if you think like that Irish Ferries could have said 10 cents per hour then €3,60 would be a massive victory!! If you think like that you are already defeated.

by Chekov - wsm (personal capacity) Thu Dec 15, 2005 17:13

While I can understand that this deal might be about as good as was possible to acheive for the workers immediately affected - in particular the Latvians - it is an abject defeat for the Irish labour movement.

The message that IBEC will get from this is that a company who goes on the offensive will acheive a significant proportion of the 'savings' that they seek even in the face of the biggest mobilisation of the labour movement in decades. If a company can acheive so much (slashing of wages, a new 'precarious' labour force whose hands are tied by a no-strike deal, a dubious 'legally binding' deal which will last for no more than 3 years, reflagging, etc) when they face such enormous opposition, other companies will surely be figuring that they have little to lose by trying it on - and there are only so many times that the unions can mobilise on such a scale without demoralising the workers.

Furthermore, I think that it is obvious that the existing workforce will take redundancy en masse. I mean management will realise full well that if they can 'persuade' any recalcitrant workers to leave, they will instantly be able to replace them with lower paid workers - hence they will have a strong incentive to victimise and force out anybody who stays. I would bet that within a very short space of time, the entire existing workforce will have been replaced by new workers with much lower pay and conditions.

I also think that 'no strike deals' are treachery pure and simple. No union has the right to trade its workers fundamental right to strike - the only weapon they have - especially when the affected workers had exactly zero say in the matter.

So, while I can understand the difficulties of the Irish Ferries workers in this particular case, I think that you would have to have your head in the sand to escape the conclusion that this is a serious and damanging defeat for the cause of labour.

Rather than a 'draw' it is a drubbing, not as heavy as the 20-0 defeat that management were aiming for, but a drubbing all the same.

by SWatcher Thu Dec 15, 2005 17:09

Xtu is probably more accurate in calling it a surrender. The Irish working class and the Ships officers were solid in their opposition to Irish Ferries and would have been prepared to go on a days general strike to defend Irish ferries workers conditions. It was the TU leaders that just gave up. It was a surrender but certainly not a 'draw' or a vistory as the SWP/bureacrats/Republicans/Labour Party are claiming!

by xtu Thu Dec 15, 2005 17:05

It was a surrender.

by SWatcher Thu Dec 15, 2005 17:03

Davy, the article can be found from a link on the SWP.ie website. The exact URL is http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=8021

by SWatcher Thu Dec 15, 2005 17:00

Alan I would consider a draw being the pay and conditions remained unchanged. This was a clear defeat. Pay went from €11 to €7.65, which in reality will be much less after deductions for accomadationa dn food etc.( Remember Gama were claiming to be paying their workers the minimum wage on that basis!) The deal has a no industrial action clause for 3 years? and in 3 years the whole thing is out the window. How can you cal this a draw considering the massive public support and political pressure the union had in their arsenal. This was a clear defeat and it shows very clearly that the SWP are completely out of touch and closer to the bureaucrats then the working class.

by Alan - SWP Thu Dec 15, 2005 16:50

The swp position is that the deal between siptu & irish ferries is a draw. It could have been better & it could have been worse.

by D Thu Dec 15, 2005 16:02

Silly me, I though by a quick glance that it was a press statement or something - but tis the article in their paper

by Davy Carlin Thu Dec 15, 2005 15:50

Reading up on all different parties {and none} positions and analysis in detail on this 'deal - in process of doing something up myself as well.

Question -

Where can the SWP statement printed as above by Simon be found? Cheers

by pat c Thu Dec 15, 2005 15:46

I've got gripes against the SWP but I think you are letting sectarianism get in the way of proper analysis.

120% increase in pay for Latvian workers.

1 paid month off for each 2 months worked for Latvian workers. Originally they were getting no paid leave.

All existing staff who wish to remain will retain their conditions.

In the light of the sabotage action taken by the SUI this was an extraordinary victory. This victory was due to the action of SIPTU members who in true piratical tradition seized the engine room.

The SIPTU Pirates won this victory despite being stabbed in the back by the SUI.

Three Cheers for the Class Solidarity and Internationalism shown by the ordinary SIPTU members. They won these rights for the Latvian workers. SIPTU must now organise the Latvian workers and win equal pay and conditions for them, the SUI have nothing to offer them.

Piracy Not Partnership!

by SWatcher Thu Dec 15, 2005 15:32

In an Ireland.com survey 66% of those polled answered No to this question

'Will the deal reached at Irish Ferries provide protection for workers at the company?'

And the SWP are saying this is a huge victory? Even Irish Times readers are more politically advanced then the SWP.

Yet another example of the SWp cozying up to the bureacrats. I will never consider the SWP a pro workers organisation ever again.

by pat c Thu Dec 15, 2005 13:57

"i dont see how my real name is relevent at all. i only have any knowledge on it as my da has worked irish ferries for 27 years and my mother worked for them for 5 years,"

your comments would carry more credence if you used your real name. anybody could claim their parents worked for Irish Ferries.

"i don't see the circling of petitions as stabbing siptu in the back. the sui members wanted to go and were petrified that with all paul smyths arsing about that they werent going to get the redundany."

yes it was a stab in the back . earlier you claimed that SIPTU was only representing its own members. SIPTU has secured the improved conditions for the contract workers.

"the sui leadership were acting on their memberships behalf. "

they certainly were not acting in the interests of the contract workers or the interests of their members who wished to remain working at Irish ferries.

I"'m not trying to misrepresent what the insihmore4 did by taking control room. i support what they did insofar as they were workers taking control of their workplace. what i don't agree with is the fact that they only did it on the behalf of the officers and not to for anyone else, especially not the latvians."

the SIPTU action secured a 120% wage increase for the Latvian workers. If the SUI hadnt sabotaged the dispute, better might have been acheived.

" as i said before no sui members took control of any other area as morale was so low and they have been completely broken by irish ferries management and they just wanted out. "

Might morale also have been low due to the fac that they were represented by an ineffective and undemocration union like the SUI? The officials of the SUI stood to gain €150,000 each from the redundancy deal.

"siptu in the beginning talked of union rates (as did the sui) and then realised that when there was absolutely no hope of this happening agreed to minimum wage. "

the contract workers were abandoned from the start by the SUI. dont forget: you mentioned earlier that the SUI were the first to ask for redcircling.

"One is has been on sick leave for a while, one was offered redundancy on the normandy and wouldn't take it and there is actually only one paid person in sui who works in their building on amien street, and he has no part in the negotiations. "

that is not my information. the problem is gettting access to the SUI accounts. It would be a brave member who would ask for a copy of them..


"Maybe Siptu agreed to the re-flagging at that stage because they realised it was a no-win situation and as far as i'm aware smyth had caused that much trouble he wasn't even allowed in the final negotiations.I'm just wondering at this stage why they decided no to keep going with it. "

Your libelling of Smyth is not going to impress anyone. SIPTU would have acheived more if they hadnt been stabbed in the back by the SUI.


"There was no last minute sabotage by the sui of siptu's stance. they went in and said the same thing that they had always said, that their members wanted out. there was no last minute change in stance."

What else would you call the petitions by SUI members other than sdabotage? What about the letter to Irish Ferries management from SUI members supporting the management position? Thats known as scabbing and crossing Class lines.

"I'm not "unaware" of who had negotiating rights for who. The point I was making is that on one hand you are saying that sui stabbed them in the back, i.e. didn't give a shit about siptu members....yet its ok for siptu to not give a shit about sui members. it just seems a bit strange that its one rule for one trade union and another for another."

SIPTU was negotiating on behalf of its own members and was also protecting the interests of the contract workers. Incidently it was SIPTU who negotiated the deal that allowed existing IF staff to retain their conditions. The SUI couldnt have cared less, they were only after the redundancy money.

Again, remember that this deal was acheived by the SIPTU ships officers who seized the control room, not by the SUI, and not by the union burocrats!

Three Cheers For The SIPTU Pirates!

Piracy Not Partnership!



I

by angry student Thu Dec 15, 2005 13:30

I note that a member of the Labour party wrote am article in Socialist Worker on USI. There is not a single criticism of the false position of recent LP USI bureaucrats that resigned in protest. Disgusting. The Socialist Workers' Party are a joke. They are not socialist. and the pro-Irish Ferries deal shows they are not a workers' party either.

by SP Member - Socialist Party/CWI Thu Dec 15, 2005 13:26

Firstly

'Inis' said 'siptu in the beginning talked of union rates (as did the sui) and then realised that when there was absolutely no hope of this happening agreed to minimum wage. Everybody including siptu knew that this was going to happen and were too busy arguing to keep the positions of the current irish ferries workers to really push the boat out altogether and continue looking for any higher rates for the latvian crew. '

The SIPTU leadership is limitied in outlook due to twenty years of partnership and a consequential conditioning of compromise rather than struggle. The jobs, wage rates, and conditions could have been maintained and even improved if the ICTU and SIPTU had used the demos last week and the threat of a 24 hour general strike to demand the government re-nationalise Irish Ferries. Remember the Government were quick enough to nationalise the likes of PMPA and ICI when it suited them. The compromise was only necessary because of the limited outlook of the SIPTU and ICTU leadership.

Secondly

'Iris' said 'i don't see the circling of petitions as stabbing siptu in the back. the sui members wanted to go and were petrified that with all paul smyths arsing about that they werent going to get the redundany. the sui leadership were acting on their memberships behalf. doing what was asked of them'

The SUI are a degenerate union and did stab SIPTU (and their own members) in the back not just at the LRC but over a prolonged period. As Pat C pointed out the SUI had negotiating rights for a section of Irish Ferries workers and it is not surprising that these workers, knowing the track record of their union leadership would not really be inclined to engage in any struggle to preserve their jobs in the full knowledge that the SUI would sell them out. The SUI leaders were representing themselves trying to get a redundancy cheque out of Irish Ferries.

But this raises a far bigger question, one that has not been directly posed since the economic difficulties of the 1980's. Should trade unions accept redundancies if they are on a voluntary basis? I would answer the question in this fashion...Workers do not own their jobs they are merely borrowing them from their children. The economic growth that this country has been experiencing will come to an end and when recession hits job losses will mount. If the unions do not fight for every job then the children of today will be the unemployed of tomorrow. To accept the idea of voluntary redundancy over compulsory redundancy is to accept the dictat of the capitalist dog, a dog that will come up and bite you on the behind because you are burying your head in the sand.

by state agents? Thu Dec 15, 2005 13:24

The SWP have come out in favour of the rotten anti-union deal. This deal is an attack on the working conditions and pay of all workers. It's a marker for employers to make the minimum wage a maximum wage. It's a set-back for the working class. And the Socialist Workers' Party SUPPORT it!

Here is their statement in FAVOUR.
_________________________________
Mass action sinks Irish Ferries management
by Simon Basketter

Following the magnificent walkouts and protests in Ireland last week, Irish Ferries workers, who have been occupying two ships in Welsh ports for 21 days, have forced a stunning climbdown from the management of the shipping company.

Their determination, together with the mobilising of the Irish labour movement, forced Irish Ferries' management to resolve the dispute. Last Friday up 170,000 workers took part in walkouts and rallies across Ireland in support of the workers.

The dispute centred on plans to replace 540 workers from the Irish Republic with migrant workers on less than half the Irish minimum wage. The workers have won a pay package for all migrant workers which will bring wages above the Irish minimum wage of £5.20.

The company has also backed down over rest time. It had intended to make the new workers spend their rest time on the ferries – a plan it has now withdrawn. Higher crewing ratios have also been guaranteed, allowing for further rest periods.

During the dispute Irish Ferries threatened to cut existing redundancy payments by 25 percent. Instead the original offer of eight weeks per year served has been kept. All workers who wish to stay at the company will have their existing terms and conditions guaranteed.

While the union lost its fight to prevent the reflagging of the company’s vessels abroad, a legally binding contract guarantees the conditions of all workers for Irish ferries.

The Irish unions have issued leaflets in Latvian and Lithuanian to explain the victory to the new staff and get them involved in the union.

The dispute does not just show that organised workers can take on major companies and win.

It also provides a method to tackle attacks across Europe from the proposed Bolkestein directive, which will turn Irish Ferries defeated plans into the preferred method of stripping back workers’ rights.

If British unions mobilised in the same way as the Irish ones have in the last week, we could turn back New Labour’s attacks on our pension rights.

END

by Curious Thu Dec 15, 2005 13:08

How come this didn't make the headlines yesterday or wasn't on the SIPTU website announcement.

by Inis Thu Dec 15, 2005 12:27

i dont see how my real name is relevent at all. i only have any knowledge on it as my da has worked irish ferries for 27 years and my mother worked for them for 5 years,

i don't see the circling of petitions as stabbing siptu in the back. the sui members wanted to go and were petrified that with all paul smyths arsing about that they werent going to get the redundany. the sui leadership were acting on their memberships behalf. doing what was asked of them. most of siptu wanted to go anyway yet they couldn't because of smyth drawing the whole thing out. you talk of siptu being stabbed in the back as if the two unions had some kind of happy family relationship and then all of a sudden the sui decided to fuck them over. this was never the case.

If you felt I was padding my comments with "not new information" i apologise.

I'm not trying to misrepresent what the insihmore4 did by taking control room. i support what they did insofar as they were workers taking control of their workplace. what i don't agree with is the fact that they only did it on the behalf of the officers and not to for anyone else, especially not the latvians. as i said before no sui members took control of any other area as morale was so low and they have been completely broken by irish ferries management and they just wanted out.

"That is untrue. SIPTU have maintained that all workers should get uion rates and be unionised." siptu in the beginning talked of union rates (as did the sui) and then realised that when there was absolutely no hope of this happening agreed to minimum wage. Everybody including siptu knew that this was going to happen and were too busy arguing to keep the positions of the current irish ferries workers to really push the boat out altogether and continue looking for any higher rates for the latvian crew. as it happens some iof the irish temps on the ships were only getting what worked out as near enough to minimum wage. any one that was getting anything to near decent was there 15 years+, (unless you're in an officer position).

"They are not working on the ships, they are paid salaries by the SUI but are also still on the books of Irish Ferries and so would qualify for the redundancy deal.".
One is has been on sick leave for a while, one was offered redundancy on the normandy and wouldn't take it and there is actually only one paid person in sui who works in their building on amien street, and he has no part in the negotiations. I'm not denying that they qualified for the redundancy deal, all i'm saying is that people have to put themselves in the position of who was working on the ships.

"I cant prove that anyone was intimidated into signing the petition but given that the SUI is run on a Sopranos basis I wouldnt be surprised if it happened." I'm not going to pretend that in the distant past there were some not so angelic characters involved, on the other hand thats many years ago and anyone who was like that is long gone. As in its so long ago, they're dead. I'm unwilling to use my real name as I'm not fond of putting my real name on the internet regardless of what the subject is. If you put you're email address up i'll let you know but thats about all i can do.

Maybe Siptu agreed to the re-flagging at that stage because they realised it was a no-win situation and as far as i'm aware smyth had caused that much trouble he wasn't even allowed in the final negotiations.I'm just wondering at this stage why they decided no to keep going with it.

It would be great if all the new crew were TU members b it siptu, or sui but as it stands it going to be a different situation from GAMA and people will be only waiting for Irish Ferries to slip up. They've been given the minimum wage (and i'm not saying thats adequate by any stretch) but i'm full sure in three years time this is going to happen all over again.

There was no last minute sabotage by the sui of siptu's stance. they went in and said the same thing that they had always said, that their members wanted out. there was no last minute change in stance.

I'm not "unaware" of who had negotiating rights for who. The point I was making is that on one hand you are saying that sui stabbed them in the back, i.e. didn't give a shit about siptu members....yet its ok for siptu to not give a shit about sui members. it just seems a bit strange that its one rule for one trade union and another for another.

Damn right the sui members will take the moeny and run because they didn't feel they were in a position to do otherwise. i have great admiration for those who are willing to risk everything for their job, but when it boils down to it, not every one is in a position to do this. Take one shop steward for example who was involved in "taking a stand". He fits kitchens in his week off. If it all went tits up and Irish Ferries dug their heels in he would have had something to fall back on. thats not a personal attack on him but unfortunately not everyone was on the same position.

"It will be a challenge to SIPTU and to the entire TU movement. Either the foreign workers will be unionised or it will be a disaster for the TUs." I agree with this but the unions haven't had an awful lot of luck of late in unionising Irish staff who intend to stay here in ireland for the mostpart so I'm sorry but i really don't have all that much faith in them with this one.

"Not true. just above you pointed out that the SUI were the first to suggest redcircling. This means that from an early stage the SUI supported lower rates for the contract workers." The red circling thing was introduced as Irish Ferries wanted to cut present staff wages to the minimum wage. The members who opted to stay as opposed 2the redundancy asked for this to be included. SUI were told in no uncertain terms that there was no way on earth the new crew would get what they were getting (in the interests of being competitive and allsorts of shite like that) and the redcircling became something of a last ditch effort to salvage something.

I suppose I just feel at this stage that the SUI did what a union is supposed to do and tried to act in the interests of their membership and is taking alot of unwarrented flak while trying to balance doing what they could for the new crew knowing full well that this would finish off yet another trade union in Ireland.

by pat c Thu Dec 15, 2005 11:33

First of all I would be a lot happier if I knew who I was discussing things with, you claim to have knowledge. But you wont put your name to your comments.

" to say that the sui undermined the siptu action is ridiculous."

No its not. During the height of the negotiations the SUI stabbed the SIPTU negotiators in the back by circulating petitions and sending letters to management which supported the managements position.

" the crux of the matter is that siptu represent the officers. not the cleaning crew, not the catering staff, not the ones that do the crap jobs. because that was the sui who always represented them. "

that it is not new information. why are you padding your comments?

"when the "inishmore 4" officers locked themselves into the control room, they said that they werent coming out until the security had left the ship and....wait for it....the officers positions were secured. "

that is a misrepresentation of the SIPTU officers action. they struck on behalf of all workers. why didnt the SUI members seize positions on the ship?

"siptu were always quite willing to have the officers accept their normal rate of pay and work alongside a foreign crew getting paid peanuts. "

That is untrue. SIPTU have maintained that all workers should get uion rates and be unionised.

"i'll grant you the fact that the sui is not a normal union in the sense that the representatives are still employees of the ships (well, were anyway). this is not a bad thing however, the sui reps terry o'connor, and bobby carrick etc during any dispute with irish ferries were going in to fight for their own jobs."

They are not working on the ships, they are paid salaries by the SUI but are also still on the books of Irish Ferries and so would qualify for the redundancy deal. They havent done much fighting to defend their own jobs or anyone elses. they have done a lot of fighting to get the redundancy money.

"The ordinary membership (as you put it) were never intimidated into signing any petition by anyone. You make this assertion without any proof to back it up. If people on the ulysses didn't want to sign the petition they didn't, simple as that. "

I cant prove that anyone was intimidated into signing the petition but given that the SUI is run on a Sopranos basis I wouldnt be surprised if it happened. Your unwillingness to use your own name doesnt convince me.

"Morale throughout the crew was so low they were all resigned to the fact they were going. Quite rightly too. Siptu have agreed to the re-flagging, which is convenient for Irish Ferries."

SIPTU "agreed" to this after being stabbed in the back by the SUI.

"In 3 years time when the crew members who were "red-circled" (incidentally the red circling was actually proposed first by the sui, then siptu latched on afterwards) are offered redundancy again with a gun to their heads there won't be enough trade union members on the ships to fight it. "

Well its up to SIPTU to organise the other workers and ensure that there is enough TU members to retain rates. SIPTU didnt originally propose redcircling because they believed all workers should be the going union rate.


"This deal was not a victory. This was a real case of divide and conquer by the Irish Ferries management. "

Yes and the SUI aided Irish Ferries by their last minute sabotage of the SIPTU stance.

"It sickens me to the stomach to read "it is now up to SIPTU and the SUI (though it would be in workers interests if the SUI were to disappear) to organise these workers". Pat, why would it be? siptu were never interested in the catering or cleaning staff and ---- all of the ratings. why would it be a good thing for the workers?"

SIPTU was not in a position to represent the ratings as the SUI had negotiating rights for them. How is it that you are unaware of this?


"this may appear to be a victory but just because thousands of people come out and march on the streets, it doesnt mean the workers will win. yeah it was nice but unfortunately, the people who actually work on these ships know what the score is. yeah they'll take the money and run. "

Yes the SUI will take the money and run. There will be 8 SUI members left in Irish Ferries after they have ran with their money.

"This dispute will be the end of the sui altogether, but mark my words its the beginning of the end for siptu in irish ferries."

It will be a challenge to SIPTU and to the entire TU movement. Either the foreign workers will be unionised or it will be a disaster for the TUs.

"As for SIPTU grassroots member; to say that every worker could have been made redundant and every foreign worker paid €3.60 an hour and then to say that would have been purely the fault of sui is crazy. the sui negotiators always argued for them to get minimum payment. "

Not true. just above you pointed out that the SUI were the first to suggest redcircling. This means that from an early stage the SUI supported lower rates for the contract workers.

by Inis Thu Dec 15, 2005 11:01

i've read your post pat and throughout this whole ordeal i have to say that this is the one which i really have problems with. to say that the sui undermined the siptu action is ridiculous. the crux of the matter is that siptu represent the officers. not the cleaning crew, not the catering staff, not the ones that do the crap jobs. because that was the sui who always represented them. when the "inishmore 4" officers locked themselves into the control room, they said that they werent coming out until the security had left the ship and....wait for it....the officers positions were secured. not the ratings or catering. siptu were always quite willing to have the officers accept their normal rate of pay and work alongside a foreign crew getting paid peanuts. it would also meant that there would be no longer any other union around to get in their way. siptu represent higher paid employees and therefofre were looking to achieve different things.

i'll grant you the fact that the sui is not a normal union in the sense that the representatives are still employees of the ships (well, were anyway). this is not a bad thing however, the sui reps terry o'connor, and bobby carrick etc during any dispute with irish ferries were going in to fight for their own jobs. as opposed to paul smyth who got to go home every night safe in the knowledge that regardless of the outcome of this, he'd still have his job). I'm not saying at all that you shouldn't have paid employees of a union but the fact remains that the SUI leadership were personally involved in ths dispute. The ordinary membership (as you put it) were never intimidated into signing any petition by anyone. You make this assertion without any proof to back it up. If people on the ulysses didn't want to sign the petition they didn't, simple as that.

Morale throughout the crew was so low they were all resigned to the fact they were going. Quite rightly too. Siptu have agreed to the re-flagging, which is convenient for Irish Ferries. In 3 years time when the crew members who were "red-circled" (incidentally the red circling was actually proposed first by the sui, then siptu latched on afterwards) are offered redundancy again with a gun to their heads there won't be enough trade union members on the ships to fight it. dobsons are the agency all workers will go through. they're registered in cyprus. this will happen and worse in three years time.

This deal was not a victory. This was a real case of divide and conquer by the Irish Ferries management. It sickens me to the stomach to read "it is now up to SIPTU and the SUI (though it would be in workers interests if the SUI were to disappear) to organise these workers". Pat, why would it be? siptu were never interested in the catering or cleaning staff and fuck all of the ratings. why would it be a good thing for the workers? this may appear to be a victory but just because thousands of people come out and march on the streets, it doesnt mean the workers will win. yeah it was nice but unfortunately, the people who actually work on these ships know what the score is. yeah they'll take the money and run.

This dispute will be the end of the sui altogether, but mark my words its the beginning of the end for siptu in irish ferries.

As for SIPTU grassroots member; to say that every worker could have been made redundant and every foreign worker paid €3.60 an hour and then to say that would have been purely the fault of sui is crazy. the sui negotiators always argued for them to get minimum payment.

The crew on those ships have families and mortgages and all have a certain breaking point. I'm sick of hearing people saying that the sui members should have stood firm when they never have been in that position themselves. Irish Ferries threatening to close shop and the crew would only get statutory redundancy. Irish Ferries then agreeing to give redundancy but threatening to cut 25% of it. It just got worse and worse as it went on. Is it any wonder the "ordinary sui membership" (and most of siptu) wanted out?

The state of labour law in this country means that both unions were only going to ever achieve so much. Human nature results in people wanting the best they can get out of a bad situation, and this meant for an awful lot of them, opting for the redundancy. to blame them then for what happens is completely unreasonable some of them could not afford to not take the redundancy and then wait to see what happens.

by Peter - Siptu Member Thu Dec 15, 2005 10:45

You couldn't even notice Des''s sarcasm in putting it up to the bureaucracy. You are a disgrace to socialism. I hope somebody from Socialist Democracy comes on here and disassociates themselves from this attack on a decent socialist.

by Kevin Mannerings - Verdi Thu Dec 15, 2005 09:50

Those saying the workers were defeated in this dispute have some arguing to do.

The company was planning compulsory redundancies, and a union free shop, beyond Irish and European employment rights. They got a nasty surprise and lost millions over it. They were forced to make humiliating statements to the stock exchange about their losses.

The strikers brought the company to a standstill, occupying the ships and taking full control. The company were so scared, they did not dare invoke the powers of the state to smash the occupation, or demand compensation for the occupation.

My understanding of the deal is that there will be no compulsory redundancies, the new employees will be entitled to Irish trade union representation and rights under Irish law.

And what is to stop the new employees doing the same as their predecessors until they get
decent pay?

As a former SIPTU member, I am well aware of how bad the bureaucracy is, but this time, the grass roots had so much control, the chances of a sell out were small.

The message reverberating around Europe must be that employers can expect militant responses from workers if they go for 'Bolkestein Directive' style social dumping.

I can't see employers queuing up to follow Irish Ferries.

It will be interesting to see if the new employees take a lead from the fantastic militancy we saw in this dispute. It is wrong to think that nowadays there are groups of workers who are so poor, they can be ruthlessly exploited. Irish Ferries may be in for some more surprises.

by John Meehan Thu Dec 15, 2005 00:49

Oh Des Derwin! - you congratulate Jack O'Connor - for calling a one day strike over the Irish Ferries Dispute - and attract criticism from Gearóid Ó Loingsigh.

We badly need an Irish version of Private Eye's Dave Spart - see link above - but in the meantime Gearóid fits the bill.

Perhaps we should establish a "Daithí Mac an Spáirt" award for the most ludicrous examples of left wing sectarianism published each month.

Gearóid wins the December competition by miles.

On the serious side, the result of the irish Ferries dispute is, as Des observed earlier, a wartershed defeat for the Irish Workers' movement.

The dispute was very difficult - because a big majority of the irish Ferries' workers were in favour of taking the company's redundancy offer.

On the other hand, the size and scope of the demonstrations shows that public hostility to the dangerous neo-liberal restructuring agenda is rising. In such a situation, it is necessary to focus attention on the role of the state.

A start was made in the Dáil by the TD's Séamus Healy and Joe Higgins, who called on the government to immediately introduce emergency legislation outlawing the actions of companies such as Irish Ferries. This needs to be pushed more aggressively in the immediate future in many forums.

If this means direct conflict with the European Union institutions - so be it.

by Gearoid O Loingsigh Wed Dec 14, 2005 21:16

For those of you who couldn't find the Derwin comment I reproduce it in full below. It was always on the cards that they would betray the workers. That is their track record in the last 18 years of Social Partnership or does anybody remember Ryan Air.

The comment is not a personal one against Des Derwin but a comment on the left that thinks Jack O Connor are on our side they are not. It would be better if the left told the workers that they should be on the guard when the bureaucrats foam at the mouth because a betrayal is on the way rather than congratulate people whose track record is on long list of betrayal after betrayal.

The problem is that the left doesn't want to challenge the bureaucracy. It sucks up to them time after time. I even remember Des Geraghty when he was the head of Siptu being invited to talk about the struggle against capitalism! a man who wouldn't know socialism if it bit him.

to rectify it is not personal abuse but criticism of the position of Des Derwin and others in relation to the bureaucracy. Having being the victim of personal abuse on this site myself, I tend to refrain from it.

Here is Des Derwin's statement. His line is not that different from the SWP of SP.

Irish Ferries: SIPTU General Officers request every member of SIPTU to support the National Protest.
by Des Derwin Friday, Dec 2 2005, 3:00pm
national / workers issues / news report

The General Officers of SIPTU have circulated all SIPTU activists "requesting every member to support the National Protest on Friday 9 September".

The General Officers of SIPTU have circulated (29th November) all SIPTU activists "requesting every member to support the National Protest on Friday 9 September". They are "also requesting every member to participate in the protest rallies on that day". There are to be rallies outside Dublin too.

It's EXPLICIT: though SIPTU is not instructing anyone, the General Officers are putting their authority behind the request. (In SIPTU this de facto has the same weight as any formal decision or instruction.)

The request is explicit. The unstated implications are as unambiguous. They are "requesting" all SIPTU members (on leave, off work, at work in factories, shops, public services, airports, transport, newspapers, broadcasting, ESB, etc., etc.) with no 'ifs or buts', except, of course, for essential and emergency services, to go, whether or not they are working at the time, to join the rallies. In Dublin the protest march will commence at Parnell Square at 1.30 p.m. on Friday 9th.

I congratulate Jack O‘Connor, Brendan Hayes and Joe O’Flynn on their stand.

by zip Wed Dec 14, 2005 19:23

Why is Irish Ferries still insisting that it will reflag its ships when there is a supposedly binding legal agreement re Irish minimum wage rates?

by SIPTU grassroots member Wed Dec 14, 2005 18:40

I think it will always be easy for those on the extreme left to cry sell out and betrayal when a deal is done by unions. In fact I'd love to know of examples when they don't!

There are three things I think a lot of us would agree on:

1) things could have turned out a lot worse, particularly with the way the SUI have carried on. We could have been in a situation where all the current workers were made redundant, new workers were brought in at 3.60 an hour with no paid leave and unionisation of Irish Ferries workers could have been at an end. This would have had disastrous conseuqences for other industries.

2) The outcome of the deal is not what anyone of us would have wished for. We all would have hoped for better, but its always difficult particularly with a hostile union doing the propaganda job of Irish Ferries management to know when to strike a deal. If SIPTU had held out for the status quo ( I assume nothing short of this would have been good enough for Gearoid) then we could be in a situation where all current workers were been forced out and replaced with workers at 3.60 an hour. Nonetheless the deal is no victory and still signals that we are in a very precarious position in terms of erosion of workers rights.

3) Just because the SIPTU bureaucracy and those in Congress were relatively strong on Irish Ferries does NOT mean that we are all happy to rush back into social partnership or that they have not been a disgrace on other issues in the past.

Finally insinuating that Des Derwin is some sort of soft trade unionist is a bit like accussing Gearoid O Loinsigh of been soft on the Coke boycott. Its absurd!

And in Conclusion the trade union movement is in a very tough situation at the moment. Healthy debate and criticism is needed but if we are to turn the current crisis around we will also need a degree of unity (at least amongst the left and anti partnership activists). The alternative is to canabilise ourselves while the employers are busy dismantling unionised workplaces and workers rights.

Piracy not Partnership!

by Merlin the Wizard Wed Dec 14, 2005 17:38

"Bring on the badly spelled personal abuse and bile."

Funny.

by Liberty Hall Langer Wed Dec 14, 2005 17:31

The deal reached achieves basic standards for the new workers on the ferries at a time when the existing workers, understandably, were coming under intense pressure to take the money and run. I think people have to understand that real human pressure and how it can communicate itself to negotiators. Negotiators are only as strong as the people on the ground, after all, and every group of workers has their limit.

Is the deal wonderful? No.
Is it a victory? A creditable away point, I'd say, but no more than that.
Are IBEC, FF/FG and the American Chamber shocked by the public response? You bet they are.
Would it have been better if Irish Ferries had been beaten altogether? Of course.
But is it a sell-out? Certainly not.

Given that Irish Ferries was being used as a vanguard by the employers' organisations to destroy minimum standards and trade union resistance, this was not a bad result. Anyone who puts themselves in the shoes of the Irish Ferries workers will see that.

Bring on the badly spelled personal abuse and bile.

by pat c Wed Dec 14, 2005 17:27

i think your criticism of Des is misplaced he has always been at the forefront of fighting partnership. yes you are right, ICTU and SIPTU sold out the ryanair workers, quite literally snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

in this case there were extra complications, the role of the SUI. the SUI is not a normal union and has been run as a family business for many years. i mean family in the mafia sense. the officials of the SUI are themselves still officially employees of Irish Ferries and each stood to gain approx €150,000 from the redundancy deal. they were undermining the SIPTU action. this is not an attack on ordinary SUI members. some may have been intimidated into signing yeterdays petitions and letters to Irish Ferries management.

the workers will vote on the settlement offer. full details are not available yet but it seems that those who choose to remain with irish ferries will retain there conditions and union membership. there will be a legally binding agreement wherby the contract workers will be paid the minimum irish wage this is 120% increase on what they were previously offered. the contract workers will also now have one month paid leave for every 2 months they work, previously they were going to get no paid leave. still worse than the existing conditions though.

i dont like the idea of the contract workers being paid less than those who work alongside them but it is now up to SIPTU and the SUI (though it would be in workers interests if the SUI were to disappear) to organise these workers. there has to been a rate for the job, a union rate which will apply to all workers

The actions of the SUI have impeded the chances of a total victory. Their petitions and letters to management undermined the negotiating stance of SIPTU.

If the SIPTU officers had not seized the engine rooms then even this deal would not be on offer.

Three Cheers for the SIPTU Pirates!

Piracy Not Partnership!

by Updater Wed Dec 14, 2005 17:18

In a statement today the British TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber says the dispute was more than a little local difficulty, and he's glad that sense has prevailed. He says workers across Europe will be glad that wages have been protected and rights respected.

by Peter - SIPTU member Wed Dec 14, 2005 16:23

I think the attack on Des is completely unwarranted but then not surprising from somebody who happens to be in the purest Leninist sect in Ireland (and when out of it). Des has been a vocal opponent of the bureaucracy at branch, region and national (conferences) level. He ran on a fighting trade union platform on several occasions. Des's only crime in my eyes is being far too soft on being used by the SWP on more than one occasion but at least he get involved. Your sect does nothing but denounce and piss people off.
If he ever did congratulate Jack on anything it was on what was happening not on the basis of supporting everything Jack did. BTW I have searched the archives here and can't find any instance of Des congratulating Jack. Care to show the example and let us all see the context.
Shameful carry on anyway. I'm sure Des will be attacking those who sold out and so should you.

by Gearóid O Loingsigh Wed Dec 14, 2005 15:29

This deal is a sell out but what do you expect from the Siptu bureacracy. They sold out Ryan Air baggage handlers in a similiar fashion. The company will have what it wants in a short period. The minimun wage is the benchmark now for workers on the ferries.

The left ran around congratulating the bureacracy on their tough talk. I even recall Des Derwin posting here congratulating Jack O Connor. Where are the congrats now?

It is time the left woke up. The bureaucracy is just as much an enemy of the workers as the boss.

Sad that after 18 years of Social Partnership, the left don't realise this and invite the O Connors of the world to share platforms with them talking about racism, anti capitalism etc when these are the same ones who sell us out.

by SIPTU member Wed Dec 14, 2005 15:19

This deal is a complete sell out. It provides a two tier workforce, Irish workers getting paid current rates while foreign workers get lower rates, this is a dangerous precident. Not just that but the €7.65 being paid to the Latvians will be subject to deductions for accomadation, food etc, which as the workers will be living on the boats in effect there will be wages of €3.60 in effect. Irish Ferries are allowed to reflag which will mean that after the 3 years of the deal is up then there will be no restrictions on them and it also puts in doubt the safety standards of the ship.

This deal is an utter sell out by SIPTU. They shoud be ashamed of themselves. 100,000 people marched in Dublin as they wanted to defend working conditions and oppose the race to the bottom. SIPTU have just given IBEC the green light to ride roughshod over the rest of the working class. This deal should be rejected and the bureaucrats in SIPTU and other unions should be kicked out andreplaced with democratic fighting unions not more partnership and more attacks

by Trade Unionist Wed Dec 14, 2005 13:45

SUI AGS admits that the SUI is now out of business on Morning Ireland.

by Sue Wed Dec 14, 2005 13:45

Congratulations!

I believe that the workers did well out of it, but I cant help but think that if people came out in their thousands like they did last friday what else can be achieved through public protest?

by johhny hollidays - gangland massacre troupe Wed Dec 14, 2005 13:32

It seems to me that the union has won a lot from the company- trade union recognition, minimum wage for new workers, protection of conditions of the old workers, and re-opening of a reundancy deal that was closed down, as well as the right to negotiate on behalf of the new workers- there is a fuller description of the terms at www.siptu.ie.
Given all this the re-flagging seems pretty meaningless for the time being.

Don't get me wrong- it would have been far better if SIPTU had fought harder and from a lot earlier on, but all of the above seems a big step fwd from just aweek ago. My own guess is that the govt got on the phone and leaned on IF management after the marches last week.

Everyone who came out last week did so in spite of the contradictory messages from the weak-kneed bureaucrats in Liberty hall and ICTU and it was only so big because of eth stregth of feelinbg and the efforts of rank and file activists across the left. Only for those efforts and the occupation by the ferry workers the SIPTU officals would have got nothing.

I think there is good reason to expect a lot more struggle in the coming months as partnership disintegrates . Bring it on.

by Beaten again Wed Dec 14, 2005 13:09

Ships to be reflagged? legally binding document (that will be the day)? All staff to be offered redundancies again?

Why the f**k did we march?

The only thing funny is the typos in that article. 'Sipty vice-president' and this line 'Irish Ferries said it its statement, issued shortly before 5am, that it believes that the dead reached "is one which will enable the company to compete into the future".'
Even Rothwell couldn't call it a deal - it's dead alright.