REAL pay increases for middle income workers had only been 6 per cent over nine years of national agreements, Mr Jerry Shanahan of MSF told yesterday's ICTU special delegate conference. "That is not a good deal.
In a period when the economy expanded by 50 per cent it can hardly be accorded the status of a great achievement." While tax reforms had been of benefit to some, anyone with a mortgage or benefit in kind had seen the tax cuts clawed back, he said.
Middle income workers solely dependent on wages have seen their incomes virtually stagnate."
Unit wage costs in Irish industry had fallen 31 per cent between 1989 and 1996, while they had risen by 19 per cent on average among our main trading partners over the same period. Yet employers were continuing to demand change and flexibility while hiding behind national agreements that gave minimal increases.
There would be £500 million available for tax cuts in the next Budget, whether there was a new national agreement or not. "We have to ask who really needs a national agreement", Mr Shanahan said.
Another speaker against a new agreement was the senior Republic of Ireland official of the ATGWU, Mr Mick O'Reilly, who said the ICTU unions were disempowering the trade union movement by their approach. "It is becoming a referendum organisation that holds a referendum for its members once every two or three years. It is an extremely dangerous process."
No one was saying that trade unions shouldn't be involved in change, but change could be the result of conflict, as well as consensus, and trade unions should not be afraid of conflict. The trade union movement had been born out of conflict, Mr O'Reilly said.
If the trade union movement wanted to form a consensus it should be with groups like the Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed, the Scheme Workers' Alliance or community groups.
Mr Larry Broderick of the Irish Bank Officials' Association said that his union would be supporting the motion to enter talks. But it was a difficult decision to make because of the double standards of employers.
No sector had been more profitable than the banks. The only beneficiaries had been the "tat cats at senior executive level".