Ukraine Shoots Down F-16 With Patriot, A... Sat Aug 31, 2024 11:53 | Anti-Empire
Surprise Offensive Puts 300 km² of Russ... Fri Aug 09, 2024 08:44 | Marko Marjanović
The Wholesome Photo of the Month Thu May 09, 2024 11:01 | Anti-Empire
In 3 War Years Russia Will Have Spent $3... Thu May 09, 2024 02:17 | Anti-Empire
UK Sending Missiles to Be Fired Into Rus... Tue May 07, 2024 14:17 | Marko Marjanović Anti-Empire >>
A bird's eye view of the vineyard
Alternative Copy of thesaker.is site is available Thu May 25, 2023 14:38 | Ice-Saker-V6bKu3nz Alternative site: https://thesaker.si/saker-a... Site was created using the downloads provided Regards Herb
The Saker blog is now frozen Tue Feb 28, 2023 23:55 | The Saker Dear friends As I have previously announced, we are now “freezing” the blog. We are also making archives of the blog available for free download in various formats (see below).
What do you make of the Russia and China Partnership? Tue Feb 28, 2023 16:26 | The Saker by Mr. Allen for the Saker blog Over the last few years, we hear leaders from both Russia and China pronouncing that they have formed a relationship where there are
Moveable Feast Cafe 2023/02/27 ? Open Thread Mon Feb 27, 2023 19:00 | cafe-uploader 2023/02/27 19:00:02Welcome to the ‘Moveable Feast Cafe’. The ‘Moveable Feast’ is an open thread where readers can post wide ranging observations, articles, rants, off topic and have animate discussions of
The stage is set for Hybrid World War III Mon Feb 27, 2023 15:50 | The Saker Pepe Escobar for the Saker blog A powerful feeling rhythms your skin and drums up your soul as you?re immersed in a long walk under persistent snow flurries, pinpointed by The Saker >>
Interested in maladministration. Estd. 2005
RTEs Sarah McInerney ? Fianna Fail supporter? Anthony
Joe Duffy is dishonest and untrustworthy Anthony
Robert Watt complaint: Time for decision by SIPO Anthony
RTE in breach of its own editorial principles Anthony
Waiting for SIPO Anthony Public Inquiry >>
Voltaire, international edition
Voltaire, International Newsletter N°97 Fri Aug 30, 2024 12:14 | en
The New Iranian Foreign Policy Fri Aug 30, 2024 12:12 | en
Press lies about the Venezuelan presidential election, by Thierry Meyssan Tue Aug 27, 2024 06:59 | en
Voltaire, International Newsletter N°96 Fri Aug 23, 2024 15:28 | en
China chooses international law, distances itself from Israel and reunifies the ... Fri Aug 23, 2024 15:18 | en Voltaire Network >>
|
At last: The Campaign Against the Pay Deal
Leaflets, website and meeting Y'all,
The Campaign Against the Pay Deal
1. has begun;
2. is meeting again this Thursday in the Teachers Club, Parnell Square, Dublin, at 8 pm;
3. has produced a short (not short enough say some!) leaflet for a 'no' vote
(copied below for your edification - call us for hard copies for your trade
union colleagues);
4. is putting up a website at www. tradeunionactivists.org
5. is non-party
Towards 2016: eight good reasons to say 'no' to this bad deal.
1. Pay. Towards 2016 offers 4.4% per year (annualised). Annual inflation is
3.9%. Childcare inflation is five times the overall official rate and house
price inflation is nine times the rate. As the ICTU says, "many firms are
enjoying double digit profit levels". Government Ministers received five pay
increases in the six months to December last.
2. Ten long years. It is folly to tie ourselves to a complicated, elaborate
and restrictive agreement for ten years. The pay section lasts for three
years: twice the last deal.
3. The 'race to the bottom' could accelerate. SIPTU stayed away from the
talks for four months because no real protection was on offer. But
outsourcing (like at Independent Newspapers) is excluded from the new
procedure (Section 18) and is agreed to for the public sector. Section 18
only applies to compulsory redundancies: the Irish Ferries redundancies were
not compulsory. The procedure is a maze: the unions have to go through a new
panel, then the Minister who may refer it to the Labour Court. If it's found
that the redundancies are bogus and the employer goes ahead, the only
sanction is that they will not get the state rebate on statutory redundancy
compensation.
All it gives the workers is that they can take an Unfair Dismissals
claim: but most of these cases don't result in reinstatement. Towards 2016
would make the situation worse for the unions. To use the procedure the
union must show that it has cooperated with restructuring and must not take
industrial action. In another Irish Ferries SIPTU members could not occupy
the ships and SIPTU could not mobilise the magnificent solidarity marches.
4. Assault on Public Sector Workers. This deal is a watershed in that public
sector workers have to give substantial productivity in exchange for the
ordinary cost-of-living pay increases of the deal. While the last agreement
included productivity concessions this was in the context of the
implementation of benchmarking. Under this agreement the parties accept:
"Co-operation with the implementation of policies, initiatives and reforms
following Government decisions or the enactment of legislation (primary,
secondary or EU)". This basically requires cooperation with all government
decisions. If there's disagreement "staff will co-operate with the changes
while the issue is being so processed." Contracts are to be renegotiated and
performance management schemes are to be implemented. Working hours are to
change with workers forced to work unsocial hours. All workers are to vote
on specific changes which only affect some workers. Outsourcing and the use
of agency workers is given the go ahead.
5. Binding arbitration again. Towards 2016 carries over from Sustaining
Progress the requirement for unions to accept the verdict of the Labour
Court on inability to pay claims, disputed breaches of the agreement and on
whether changes being sought by employers are 'normal and ongoing changes'
which must be allowed.
6. A slap in the face to SIPTU. During the 'partnership' talks themselves
the government snubbed SIPTU by deciding to privatise Aer Lingus. During the
talks it was announced that the Great Southern Hotels are to be sold and
that the Bank of Ireland will dismantle its pension scheme.
7. Social wage scam. The 60 pages of social provisions in the deal are
mostly padding. As the Irish Times editorial of June 16th says: "As on
previous occasions, however, the targets set are largely aspirational and
accord in broad outline with existing Government policies. Their
implementation will rely on the buoyancy of the State's finances". The
10,000 affordable houses promised in the last deal were never delivered!
8. Nothing on Pensions. The deal gives no protection against the current
assault on defined benefit pension schemes and shelves the long-awaited
national mandatory pension schemes into a Green Paper discussion document.
Campaign Against the Pay Deal
087 6775468 / 087 2839964
www.tradeunionactivists.org
A more detailed briefing on the raw deal is to be had at the Other Press section of your very own Indymedia Ireland.
|
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (19 of 19)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19Just scrolled through your very good website. A question, though, if you don't mind.
You have an Irish Times article up on your site by Kieran Allen (one of your organisers) in which he finishes up by demanding that the union bureaucrats be sent back to negotiate a 'better' deal. Now I'm against any type of centralised bargining, so my question is, is this the policy of the campaign or of elements in the campaign?
I cant speak for the campaign, this is just mt own opinion.
In any campaign there will be a variety of views, any attempt to impose Democratic Centralism would be a disaster: you wont have a campaign.
IMHO KAs article puts forward a good proposition: a defeat for the Beaurocracy on Towards 2016 would be a victory for rank & file trade unionists. Even if a "better" deal was later passed the beaurocracy wouldnt quickly recover
You are against any centralised bargaining: fair dues to you.
I'm not against centralised bargaining, I think we should use the strength of the trade union movement to ensure that the weaker sectors also get the best possible deal. That doesnt mean that I support Partnership, it means that I support the old IWW motto that: An Injury To One Is An Injury To All. By abandoning the weaker sectors you are allowing those workers to be injured.
To take your position to its logical conclusion then negotiations should only take place on a workplace basis. Well thats not how it ever worked in the Trade Union movement, negotiations, outside of Partnership, have always taken part on an industry and sectoral basis. Thats why there are minimum pay rates way in excess of the SMW in industries such as Construction, Catering, Hairdressing, Hotels etc.
Are you opposed to centralised bargaining in these areas? Will you campaign to have them stopped?
Nothing wrong to have a variety of opinions in a campaign as long as all of them are geared towards deafeating Towards 2016.
"The working class and the employing class have nothing in common. There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among millions of the working people and the few, who make up the employing class, have all the good things of life. Between these two classes a struggle must go on until the workers of the world organize as a class, take possession of the means of production, abolish the wage system, and live in harmony with the Earth. ... Instead of the conservative motto, 'A fair day's wage for a fair day's work', we must inscribe on our banner the revolutionary watchword, 'Abolition of the wage system. It is the historic mission of the working class to do away with capitalism."
Don't think that includes going back to the bosses looking for a better deal. You are being honest about what position you would take but don't bring the IWW into it.
i dont need your permissionto quote the IWW. incidentally are you opposed to centralised sectoral bargaining? do you believe that the agreed minimum rates in the construction industry should be abolished? should bargaining take place on a site basis.
you should find out the meaning of Industrial Unionism before yopu go quoting the IWW. A quote removed from context and from the reality of centralised sectoral bargaining is meaningless.
RTE, CIE, Aer Lingus etc all have groups of Unions. Should these be broken up?
I never said you need permission to quote the IWW. I said your position is honestly held. All I said was that the IWW wouldn't be supportive of Partnership agreeements. The other things you mention aren't dependent on selling your soul in the same way Partnership does.
i oppose partnership. that doesnt mean that i have to oppose collective bargaining. what is the alternate to the present pay deals? surely it is negotiation on a sectoral basis rather than every man or woman for him/herself. i never implied the IWW would support partnership.
l
But if you send them back to renegotiate it means that you are sending a sign that you implicitly support Partnership. It is a dishonest tactic on behalf of the SWP. And why? To get half hearted support from one SIPTU NEC member who happened to turn up at a PBP meeting. Is it worth it? I don't think so. Better to be honest about your politics.
i honestly dont think so. if towards 2016 is defeated then its a major setback for the burocracy. if there was a well developed rank & file TU movement then it could take advantage of such a defeat and smash partnership once and for all. such a group does not exist and theres no point in kidding ourselves about it.
in the event of a defeat of T2016, in the abscence of an organised resistance, it is likely that the Burocracy will renegotiate it. But this in itself would be a major defeat for them, they would be weakened. even if a revised T2016 was then accepted the Burocracy would not have regained all of their standing.
This leaves room to build a real opposition to the TU Burocracy rather than having yet anothr meeting of lefties in a hall.
I would not expect the vision or the boldness of the Haymarket martyrs, but surely a call for a 30 hour working week (or a 35 hour week for the more timid trade unionists) could be advanced? Or would this upset our comrade partners bertie and IBEC too much?
Towards 2016 will be passed, that is a certainty. You need to get real Pat C. You perspective of what would happen if the deal is defeated is irrelevant, the deal will not be defeated and everyone involved in the "Campaign Against the Pay Deal" knows it. Therefore you are justifying campaigning for a better social partnership deal based on a false premise! The Campaign Against the Pay Deal is a sell out and an abandonment of principled opposition to social partnership, opposition to class collaboration. The Campaign Against the Pay Deal is calling for a better form of class collaboration.
I notice that nobody but the SWP, Des Derwin and one or two other independents are involved in this particular campaign. No Socialist Party, no WSM, no ISN, no WP, no CPI, though all have activists in SIPTU. This is actually worse than any previous campaign against partnership, because its the first 'anti-partnership' campaign which isn't really anti-partnership, just against this particular deal, and for the first time no left organisation other than the SWP is involved. Theres progress for ye!
Towards 2016 will be passed, that is a certainty. You need to get real Pat C.
If its predestined that its going to be passed then why have any campaign against it?
You perspective of what would happen if the deal is defeated is irrelevant, the deal will not be defeated and everyone involved in the "Campaign Against the Pay Deal" knows it.
Where do you get your crystal ball and how do you read peoples minds?
Therefore you are justifying campaigning for a better social partnership deal based on a false premise!
Thats known as a non-sequitar or setting up a man of straw to knock down. You presume you are 100% right therefore everyone else is both wrong and dishonest. I doubt if you are a trade unionist. You sound more like a 16 year old Trot-Tot.
The Campaign Against the Pay Deal is a sell out and an abandonment of principled opposition to social partnership, opposition to class collaboration. The Campaign Against the Pay Deal is calling for a better form of class collaboration.
That is just ignorant abuse. Who are you? An anonymous troll. What have you ever fought for?
'Trade unionist' asked originally about the policy of the (little) Campaign Against the Pay Deal.
Kieran Allen's call, in the Irish Times article, etc, is his own policy. It is not incompatable with the Campaign. But the ONLY publication we have produced is the above leaflet. We have also distributed the briefing, produced before the campaign was established (if we can use such formal terms about something so small and hurried), which can be found in the Other Press part of Indymedia.
Older activists will remember that earlier and infinitely larger and broader campaigns against national deals concentrated on the particular deals and allowed for the participaion of those who might not have a problem with centralised (national) bargaining as such.
If there was a campaign that opposed social partnership explicitly I would have no hesitation in supporting it. At present the CAPD is distributing 10,000 copies of the above leaflet.
My alternative to social partnership is free collective bargaining or as Kieran Allen put it so well in his 1999 pamphlet 'Workers and the Celtic Tiger: Why Partnership Doesn't Pay':
"The alternative to social partnership is that workers get the freedom to make claims against employers when they choose. Sometimes this will be done on a workplace basis. Shop stewards should seek a mandate from their members and submit claims for higher pay rises and better conditions and report back regularly on the negotiations. Sometimes this will occur on an industry-wide basis..." [End quote]
Free collective bargaining always included sectoral and industrial bargaining (e.g. teachers and building workers), JICs etc. It is interesting that the one rate which naturally SHOULD be bargained on nationally and through the ICTU (who else?) is the National Minimum Wage. But under this deal, and the last one, this right to bargain on the MNW has been given up by Congress and handed over to the Labour Court to determine.
Being accused of selling out on social partnership is a novelty for the people involved in this wee campaign, though I suppose we're as capable of selling out as anyone.
SIPTU voted today to accept the deal by 72% to 28%. Wasn't that the same vote the last time? Well did the tactic of diluting the 'No to Partnership' stand to a position of renegotiating do any good? Did it f**k! All it did was confirm who the SWP's whipping boys are? Take a bow.
What campaign did you run against the Deal? Why didnt you and the various organisations that didnt get involved in this campaign win workers over with your superior, principled and unyielding positions? This is a bad day for anyone who wanted a no vote. Your gloating shows that you have no interest in advancing the cause of the working class. You are just out to score cheap points.
Socialist, you talk about the SWPs whipping boys, who do you mean. As far as I know the only people who called for the renegotiating of the deal was the SWP, others who were involved in the campaign with them didn't support this position and if you read the latest Socialist Worker they have a correction pointing out basically that people like Des Derwin and Eddie Conlon didn't support the SWP position.
I hate to be a killjoy but is it not a bit late now lads?
I mean, organinsing this campaign after siptu members (the largest union) have already voted in favour????
It seems to be a bit of a waste of time and energy.
The SWP only apologised to Des Derwin which leads you to think that Eddie supported the SWP position.
You left Savinkov down. There is no evidence to suggest that Eddie Conlon agrees with any of the SWPs positions. AFAIAA he was i n a tactical alliance with the SWP; the common cause being the defeat of towards 2016. Just as the aim of all previous campaigns was to defeat the contemporary National Agreement.