The partnership deal is a bad one for trade unionists, writes Kieran Allen
The latest social partnership proposals seems to be a done deal with opposition coming solely from either ""sectional interests" or small employers who complain they cannot afford to pay the terms.
However, underneath the seemingly broad consensus, a growing number of trade unionists are becoming concerned as they read the small print. The trade union movement is concentrated in the public sector but it is precisely this sector which has been asked to make the most sacrifices for relatively modest pay rises.
A simplistic message has been presented to the public that workers are getting a 10 per cent pay rise over two years. However, this assertion is part of the "creative" packaging that Taoiseach Bertie Ahern urged on the parties when they had difficulty reaching agreement on the pay element.
The plain fact is that workers will not be receiving a 5 per cent rise for each of the coming two years.
In the public sector, they will firstly face a pay freeze until December 1st, even though inflation is currently running at 3.9 per cent. After that, they will receive phased increases which amount to 4.03 per cent on an annual basis and which barely cover the official rate of inflation.
This rate is calculated before the full effects of oil price rises and interest rate increases kick in. It should also be noted that the official rate of inflation does not cover rising house prices adequately so some workers will lose out even more.
The proposed agreement consolidates an important shift in industrial relations machinery that has been occurring in recent years. In the past, workers got a pay rise to match the rise in inflation and then did extra productivity deals to get beyond this.
Now, however, workers are being asked to give extra productivity just to keep up with price increases. If there is not full compliance with a host of new measures, workers will be denied a pay rise.
In addition, if they take any industrial action on any issue that is covered in this comprehensive agreement, they can also be denied a pay rise.
Public sector workers are asked to accept widespread forms of outsourcing. In the past, trade unionists could argue that certain jobs belonged to the category of "core work" and could not be outsourced.
Under the proposed deal, however, these can also be outsourced if management can claim that it is necessary to "avoid excessive delays in delivery of service".
Trade unionists are also asked to give their assent to the concept of "shared services". This means that public sector bodies can develop more extensive relationships with private companies under public-private partnerships and have work shifted to many non-union firms.
Underlying this measure is a neo-liberal assumption that the thriving, dynamic section of the economy lies in the private sector and that the public sector is a burden which, in the words of Charlie McCreevy, could break "the back of the wealth creators".
This mythology conveniently ignores how the public sector subsidises the private sector by providing it with an educated, healthy workforce and by picking up the costs which economists coldly label "externalities".
It might be equally argued that the private sector benefits from enormous levels of "corporate welfare" as the state taxes companies at rates that are significantly lower than those the average workers pays. It is not for nothing that Ireland is labelled the "Bermuda of Europe" in corporate circles.
The agreement uses the buzz word "modernisation" to disparage the idea of a nine-to-five job and weekends off work.
Instead it demands that public sector workers either voluntarily agree to work evenings and weekends - with no extra overtime payments - or allow management to recruit new staff who will do so. In practice, this means that pressure will be put on new workers in the public sector to work unsocial hours.
You do not get quality public services by "flexploitation".
The public has a right to better public services but this will be achieved when the level of resources is increased. At the moment, Ireland spends one of the lowest proportions of its GDP on public services.
The new proposals bring few substantial gains for workers. Irish workers have one of the lowest levels of public holidays in Europe; have weak maternity leave provisions and no paternity leave. The deal brings no improvement in these areas.
Pension coverage is falling and nearly half of all defined benefit schemes have been closed to new entrants, yet the proposals do not compel employers to pay into a pension scheme. They do not even stop highly profitable companies like the Bank of Ireland throwing new employees out of its defined benefit scheme.
There are, it has to be acknowledged, some positive changes regarding employment rights but these are predominantly about implementing existing laws. It does not seem just that workers must make sacrifices while some employers who previously evaded laws are rewarded.
The proposals rest on a fundamental imbalance between two parties claiming to be partners.
Employers can claim inability to pay wage increases if they can point to "loss of competitiveness", but workers cannot place extra "ability to pay" claims on companies who are making huge profits.
In the public sector, increases are only granted "on verification of co- operation with flexibility and ongoing change" but there is no sanction on managers who refuse to engage in meaningful discussion with unions. All future claims for extra improvements in the public sector will be outlawed under a clause which states that "flexibility and change will not give rise to claims for increased rewards for staff in the form of promotions, regradings, allowances or other benefits".
Contrary to the impression created by some spokesperson, there is little enthusiasm for social partnership deals amongst many trade unionists but they are often accepted from fear that they could be worse.
"There Is No Alternative" was a slogan of Margaret Thatcher, not the union movement, and having the courage to say "no" is often how labour advances. The deal should be sent back and the negotiators told to bring back an improved version that better reflects the contribution that workers have made to the Celtic Tiger.
• Kieran Allen is head of the school of sociology in University College Dublin and author of Celtic Tiger: The Myth of Social Partnership