MONDAY'S deal between the Government and the Irish National Teachers' Organisation, in which the Government has agreed to create 3,000 new promotional posts for primary teachers in return for the INTO's 17 votes at tomorrow's special delegate conference of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, has not done much for the reputation of national agreements.

The deal came too late to influence seriously the decision of other unions, but it will reinforce growing public cynicism over "social partnership".

As one of my more perceptive colleagues remarked at a recent meeting of my own union on the plight of freelance journalists, unions are becoming residents' associations, geared to meet the needs of permanent and pensionable employees. If the union concerned is a public service union, the insularity and focus will be all the narrower.

The trouble is that in a "free-for-all" unions may become even more blinkered in their approach.

It is hard to be overly critical of the INTO general secretary, Senator Joe O'Toole.

All he did was engage in a brilliant bit of brinkmanship. He maximised the negotiating ability of his union at a crucial moment in the Partnership 2000 process to win his members something they have sought for 26 years. Nice work, if you can get it.

If there is culpability, it is on the Government side. The Minister for - Education, Ms Breathnach, has done the Government no favours in its role as an employer. Her message to the big public service unions is unambiguous: anything is possible in election year. That message will not be lost on 26,000 nurses as they prepare for their first national strike in 12 days' time.

BESIDES Ms Breathnach, the Minister for Finance, Mr Quinn, and his Department mandarins must also take their share of blame for the time honoured way they strung out negotiations on public service restructuring. Take as long as possible to offer as little as possible appears to have been the maxim adopted.

The result was growing frustration and, as the economy boomed, heightened expectations that could not be met. Nurses would probably have accepted the second pay offer of £37.5 million gratefully if it had been offered a year earlier.

Low-paid civil servants are another group who feel betrayed under national agreements. They first sought a restructuring deal eight years ago.

Some public service unions, such as the PSEU and IMPACT did much better. Their experience of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work is much more positive and they can be expected to line up behind Partnership 2000.

There is no tradition, of course, of productivity bargaining in the public service. Unions as well as management have found it hard to learn some new steps.

There is no such excuse in the semi-State sector. The endorsement by large groups of workers for national agreements in companies like Aer Lingus, Telecom Eireann and CIE should have been in the bag long ago.

But a series of disputes over the application of general increases due under the PCW has poisoned the atmosphere. If Partnership 2000 is rejected, the Government could pay a high price for the tough bargaining stance of its own semi-State managers.

The extent of disillusionment will become clear today as unions such as SIPTU and the Communications Workers' Union count their votes.

In the private sector, many craft and British-based unions have traditionally opposed centralised bargaining, claiming they can do better themselves. Yet last week one of the biggest British-based unions in Ireland, MSF, voted decisively for the new deal.

As a union strongly organised in booming areas of the economy like banking, insurance and electronics, MSF members are among those who might be thought best able to fend for themselves in a free-for-all. Their vote suggests that, having looked at the Budget and added up the figures, they decided they were better off with a national pay deal.

THE Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed has also endorsed the deal.

While it has voiced some criticisms, INOU chairman Mr Paul Billings says his organisation is better off with a national programme that includes measures to tackle social exclusion, including representation on bodies to monitor their implementation.

The people with the biggest gripe are not the unemployed or the well-paid, but the low-paid, especially those in casual employment. These include most Mandate members, who work in the retail sector.

The Government may have made a serious blunder in the Budget by opting to reduce the standard rate of income tax by 1 per cent, instead of putting its tax largesse into a significant increase in personal allowances. Everyone would have benefited from increased tax allowances, but the low-paid would have benefited most.

As a result, married couples with young families living on a wage below £13,000 can expect a net increase in earnings of 8 to 9 per cent during the lifetime of Partnership 2000. Those earning £25,000 to £35,000 will have net increases of around 13 to 14 per cent.

To add insult to injury, Partnership 2000 addresses inadequately key issues for Mandate, such as Sunday trading and unsocial hours. The high-level committee to investigate the thorny issue of union recognition has been insufficient to win over union support for the partnership.

Many of these items are also important for the State's largest union, SIPTU. It is a traditional supporter of national agreements but this time has had a hard sell on its hands.

After a decade of wage restraint and economic-growth many workers want their share of the cake. That demand will remain, whether or not there is a Partnership 2000 to take us into the next millennium. Tomorrow, the unions will deliver their verdict on Partnership 2000 and the notion of social partnership. But there is a strong sense of unfinished business.