Irish ferries – a great struggle but a terrible deal.

by SIPTU member Wed Jan 11, 2006 15:12

Great Article Alan. Fully agree with the analysis - though the title doesn't do it justice. Great struggle - terrible deal is not quite what the article says in that it ackowledges that the result while disappointing could have been a lot worse.

by Brendan Young Thu Jan 12, 2006 12:26 youngbren at eircom dot net

I agree with Alan’s general assessment: great struggle – terrible deal. Irish Ferries have imposed a pay cut to €7.65 an hour for a significant proportion of staff. (And my recollection is that there are to be deductions from this for accommodation, food, etc.) This is now the benchmark rate for agency-recruited migrant workers. While this is an improvement (along with other conditions) over what was originally on offer, is not the previously established rate for the job. Imposing the minimum wage as the rate for the job sets a very dangerous precedent. A privatised Aer Lingus could easily be the next target for the use of agency-provided eastern European staff, paid the minimum wage. Establishing the minimum wage as the rate for agency workers can only encourage other employers to try outsourcing, putting a general downward pressure on wages. And rest assured, the current neoliberal direction of the EU will ensure that mass unemployment will remain a structural feature of eastern Europe for generations, providing a pool of cheap labour of up to 10 million people. Plenty of agency workers there!

Reflagging of Irish Ferries will probably proceed; in any case it’s in the company’s gift to make that decision. And as Paul Smyth observed at the time, there is no requirement on the company to pay the Irish legal minimum rate on a Cyprus-registered vessel.

The three year no-strike clause gives the company plenty of time to deepen its outsourcing strategy. It’s not clear to me why it was necessary for SIPTU to agree to this. The company broke LRC recommendations in the past, so why should it not do so again in future? The key issue is union organisation and the ability to act to defend members’ interests. Even if the company has agreed to recognise and facilitate union membership of agency workers, the only means to ensure payment of even the Irish minimum wage is the threat of a stoppage. But as increasing numbers of both officers and ratings become agency-recruited, (which is central to company strategy), unionisation becomes increasingly difficult – and the vulnerability of the workers increases. Why should migrant workers join the union if it presides over a two tier pay structure and gives a commitment not to strike in support of the lower paid? It will be interesting to look at union membership and actual wage rates on Irish Ferries in a year or two’s time.

I understand that there has been an upsurge in applications for membership of SIPTU by migrant workers in the wake of the dispute. Evidently the minimum wage is not being paid across the board – the increases gained by the Irish Ferries agency workers must be attractive to others; and some migrant workers see SIPTU as defending their interests. I hope they will not be disappointed.

Many of them will be disturbed by Pat Rabbitte’s divisive suggestion for a work-permit regime, which might allow some migrant workers already here to remain – provided they don’t ‘displace’ Irish workers. But what of their impoverished friends and families back home? We wouldn’t want hordes of ‘Poles’ coming here – taking our jobs, our houses and our women – would we! (Micheál Martin and McDowell must be lovin Pat just now!)

Rabbitte’s support for a ‘vibrant market economy’ in Ireland / the EU means however, that he wants no break with the essentials of current Irish / EU economic policy. He suggests restrictions on the movement of labour to prevent ‘displacement’ of Irish workers; but no restrictions on the movement of capital – which is what leads to workers being played off against one another. Migration control amounts to national protectionism: siding with Irish capitalists and their European big brothers against the eastern Europe victims of neoliberal politics. We’re doing OK out of contemporary capitalism and we’re not going to rock the neoliberal boat; so if there’s unemployment in eastern Europe, that’s their problem. Nor does Rabbitte’s approach deal with capital relocations to eastern Europe or China to take advantage of cheap labour. The alternative approach is to challenge the primacy of the market – which is enshrined in many EU Directives and in the EU Constitution – and begin to develop Europe-wide solutions to mass unemployment, which must include controls on the movement of capital.

As to whether more could have been won in the Irish Ferries dispute, I think the potential existed for a much better outcome. It is however, necessary to acknowledge that divisions among the workforce made things difficult. Re. the SUI: I don’t know the average age, length of service, and possible entitlements under the redundancy deal, etc. – all of which would have influenced the SUI members, who made up the majority of the workforce, and amongst whom a majority appeared to want to take the deal. While this was done with a gun to the head, the previous acceptance of outsourcing (by SIPTU) on the Normandy route would not have inspired confidence in defeating the management and preserving existing jobs, wages and conditions - in a context where many may have viewed the deal as worth taking on its own merits. And the SUI leadership were clearly not prepared to fight.

But once the SIPTU members went into occupation, the situation changed and the possibility emerged of turning the dispute around. The SIPTU leadership also recognised this as a fight that needed to be taken on. But the staff on the ships were never going to be able to defeat the company on their own; solidarity action was always going to be necessary. The day of action demonstrated the potential for solidarity action. But the numbers who actually took strike action on the day was quite limited, especially as there was no call for solidarity strike action. My estimate would have been 40,000ish marching in Dublin: a very big demo, but not 80,000 as Alan suggests. What’s Emmet Farrell’s estimate?

Clearly ICTU would not have supported any ‘illegal’ strike action – no matter that the other side pays little heed to legal niceties when they can get away with it. But given the potential for solidarity action shown by the Dublin demo and others around the country, (and the wave of popular sympathy for the SIPTU members on the ships and for the agency workers), why did SIPTU accept the minimum wage as the rate for the job? The threat of closure? So if any employer threatens closure in the future (or relocation to eastern Europe – in Poland the rate is about €3 an hour), will the minimum wage be acceptable as an alternative? What about a demand for (re-) nationalisation in such circumstances?

SIPTU leaders called for support for the day of action as strongly as could be done short of calling strike action. This was a very good first step, and should be recognised as such. But why was there no call for strike action in the wake of the big demonstrations – at least in public transport, the ports, and Dublin airport – to reject the outsourcing proposals and the wage cut? The SIPTU leadership had an opportunity to decisively win a fight against the use of outsourced eastern European labour to reduce existing wages. That fight would have meant breaching the Industrial Relations 1990 legislation and thus would have entailed some risk to the union. But in my view it would have been very politically risky for the government to take legal action against the union in the specific situation, particularly with Ahern expressing sympathy for the workers.

A desire to get back into partnership talks clearly influenced events, and demonstrates the corrosive nature of the partnership arrangements. And the possibility of having to go it alone in calling strike action (without the backing of ICTU – Begg would not countenance breaking industrial relations law) would have influenced SIPTU. But in my opinion the conduct of this dispute was not a pre-ordained: SIPTU wanted to win and leadership was given – but only up to a point. Rather the SIPTU leadership did not take the steps necessary for a decisive victory. And while the final outcome was an improvement over the company’s original proposals, outsourcing was implemented and the minimum wage was established as the benchmark – which is a clear victory for the company.

This is a precedent for others employers to follow; and one which will weigh heavily on the heads of workers who are confronted with outsourcing in the future. Will the trade union movement accept outsourcing / wage cuts to the minimum wage: and if workers decide to take action, will effective leadership and solidarity be organised to support them?

Jack O’Connor rightly notes in his letter to the Irish Times of Jan 11 that the EU Services Directive would make outsourcing / wage cuts of the Irish Ferries type much easier. Whether the Services Directive becomes law in its current form – including the ‘country of origin’ principle – remains to be seen. The European Commission, and Internal Market Commissioner McCreevey (and more than likely the Irish government), certainly want to include it. The amended version of the Directive retains the ‘country of origin’ principle, with a contradictory qualification that member states can still apply national legislation in opposition to ‘country of origin’ regulations, etc. This is a classic social democratic fudge that will, if approved, be finally decided upon by the European Court of Justice. The European Parliament will vote on the current draft on Feb 14, but final approval by the Council of Ministers will probably be in about 18 months time. So get onto yer MEP to oppose it now!

Jack O’Connor is right to oppose the Services Directive. The Directive provides for a qualitative liberalisation of the European labour market and much more besides. But between now and its enactment there will be many more outsourcing disputes; not to mention the need to act against the Directive if it does come into force. And if people regard the outcome of the Irish Ferries dispute as a proud victory, then a defeat will be grim indeed.

One final word regarding the left: there is frequently denunciation / dismay at the outcome of disputes, and a general dissatisfaction with the politics and strategy of the trade union leaderships. Yet the left (could the Labour left and Sinn Féin be included in this categorisation?) does little to organise and / or unify the militant opposition that does exist. One would hope that this dispute, and the prospect of another partnership deal, would spur the left to consider doing some consistent united front work in the trade unions.

by Updater Thu Jan 12, 2006 16:18

The SIPTU executive have recommended that the union should reenter the partnership negotiations and will reconvene the special delegates conference on 31st January.

by Updater Fri Jan 13, 2006 13:03

Irish Ferries accused of breaking assurances on jobs
A number of Irish Ferries workers who hoped to remain on with the company have reportedly been told their jobs are being cut despite assurances they say they were given to the contrary.
Irish Ferries agreed to keep on 48 permanent workers with their terms and conditions protected under a recent Labour Court agreement on its plans to replace existing staff with cheaper labour from abroad.
However, reports this morning said it had informed a small number of workers who were hoping to be covered by the deal that the maximum limit had been reached and they would be made redundant.
One of the workers is claiming to have received assurances from management that he would be kept on following the controversial outsourcing plan.
He is now accusing the company of "changing the goalposts", but Irish Ferries is insisting that trade unions were fully aware of what it planned to do in respect of the affected workers.

by Liberty Hall Langer Mon Jan 16, 2006 13:54

Interesting article and an interesting response also from Brendan.
I'll confine my thoughts to saying that I believe that the views of people on the left on matters such as social partnership would be listened to with a lot more respect if some of those individuals were more involved with their own unions and in their own workplaces. We could wait for ever for our unions to become the perfect anti-capitalist instruments we want; we have to continue to build the unions we have and to make them better.
On several occasions I have seen prominent left activists holding union positions run for cover when the need for workplace organisation and direct one-to-one recruitment of colleagues is brought up. Building for the next demo is all very well, but some of 'us' (whoever 'we' are) need also to do the basic work of recruiting our workmates into the union (whichever union).

by Badman Mon Jan 16, 2006 13:59

I'll confine my thoughts to making non-specific and vague accusations about somebody or other.

Other than that I'll ignore anything that I don't want to deal with.

by Liberty Hall Langer Mon Jan 16, 2006 14:58

Not fair at all.
I'm trying to highlight a systemic problem, not have a pop at individuals. Of course I have people in mind (and no-one associated with the article I should add); but there is a problem when some of the loudest left voices in the movement are nowhere to be seen when it comes to the nitty-gritty of union organisation and recruitment. Is anyone going to disagree with that?

by Curious Mon Jan 16, 2006 15:04

"but there is a problem when some of the loudest left voices in the movement are nowhere to be seen when it comes to the nitty-gritty of union organisation and recruitment. Is anyone going to disagree with that?"

It would probably help if you were a bit more specific. A lot of left activists are involved in their unions but obviously you have something more specific in mind. Don't be shy.
But here's a question for you. Do you think that the threshold of decency was maintained in the IF agreeement and what response has there been to Friday's newspaper reports of workers claiming that the agreement has already been breached by the company with regard to those wishing to stay with the company?

by Liberty Hall Langer Mon Jan 16, 2006 17:32

What I really have in mind is the pro- or anti-partnership dichotomy which pervades debate in the labour movement. As it happens I voted against the last agreement and will probably do so again. But I am sick to the back teeth of this question being seen as the most important question facing Irish workers. I honestly don't see whether dealing with capitalist employers at national level or local level is a matter of principle. It isn't, unless one is an honest anarcho-syndicalist who thinks that the class war precludes any agreement with employers (not my view but at least a coherent one).
What is far more important is what we are doing to communicate the ideas of trade unionism to non-union workers, so as to make our unions stronger whether or not there is a national pay deal, and what we are doing to make our unions stronger where we already have recognition.
And hence my moan, or, better, cri de coeur. If we are to organise the non-union sector, we need to be strong in the already unionised sector. I have been infuriated by people talking the talk but not walking the walk, where walking the walk is being willing to stick your head into the office next door and ask people you've known for years to join the union.
All I am saying - and perhaps we can all make this a New Year's Resolution - is let's strengthen trade unions where we have them through real workplace activity. That is part of making a better world, not a distraction from it.

by Liberty Hall Langer Mon Jan 16, 2006 17:35

Direct answers: yes, I think the IF deal does maintain a THRESHOLD of decency. Let's remember that a threshold is where you enter the house, not where you want to end up, nor a particularly good place.
On the alleged breaches, I can quite honestly say that I know no more than what I've read in the papers.