Madam, – Arthur Beesley’s article (Business Opinion, August 17th) was an extraordinary and ill-informed attack on the trade unions’ alleged role in creating the economic crisis.
He wrongly accuses us of playing a central role in the formulation of the policies that brought us to this sorry place. But, during the boom years, individual trade unions and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions continuously criticised taxation policy, the over-development of the property sector, and the fact that workers had to pay vastly inflated prices to buy homes ever further from their places of work.
His reference to the “unsustainable expansion” of the public sector completely ignores the 2008 OECD report, which confirmed that a smaller proportion of the workforce is employed in the Irish public sector than in its European and North American counterparts.
He criticises unions for securing tax relief on trade union subscriptions. He doesn’t mention that far more substantial business and professional subscriptions have, for many more years, enjoyed tax relief as legitimate business expenses.
Trade unions are prepared to face up to the grave reality of the economic crisis. But let’s stop rewriting history. The mess we are being asked to clear up was not created by Ireland’s workers, unions or public servants. It is primarily the result of unacceptable practices in the banking and property sectors which, strangely, are hardly mentioned in Mr Beesley’s article.
Interestingly, Mr Beesley also fails to mention the role played by business journalists or the print and broadcast media, which depended so heavily on the property sector during the unsustainable boom years. By and large, the media (especially the business media) played the role of enthusiastic cheerleaders for an unsustainable property and banking sector. Trade unions did not. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – In his eagerness and haste to issue sweeping denunciations of the trade union movement and “expose” our (alleged) role in triggering the economic crisis, your correspondent Arthur Beesley unfortunately managed to overlook some salient facts.
A visit to the Congress website (www.ictu.ie) and even a cursory reading of some of our publications over the past decade reveals a rather different history to the revisionist version he has compiled.
To cite some very specific examples. Congress consistently opposed the broad thrust of taxation policy over the past decade, the chief legacy of which is a 20 per cent hole in our tax base and an unsustainable tax system. We long argued for a more equitable system that would deliver the resources necessary to build the “world class” health and education systems we heard so much about.
Specifically, we opposed the decision – initiated under Charlie McCreevy – to shift the burden from direct to indirect taxes. We opposed cuts in the top rate of tax (from 48 per cent), for those on high incomes. We also opposed the huge and very rapid reductions in capital taxes, particularly the halving of capital gains tax.
As far back as 2003, Congress sought to curb property speculation and prevent a property bubble, when we called for a development land tax, plus a windfall tax on land sales.
In 2005, and virtually every year since, we proposed the abolition of corporate welfare: end all tax breaks, shelters and subsidies – be they for car parks, apartments, horses or private hospitals – unless they could clearly demonstrate a beneficial return for the taxpayer. The last proposal was the only one which got some traction at official level and even then, it was too little, too late.
Of course the reason none of this advice was taken up was that it ran counter to the prevailing orthodoxy, an orthodoxy which found a warm and welcoming home in our “business media”.
And that sector was heavily populated with cheerleaders for the myth of the free market, tolerating no criticism of its operation and providing endless platforms for bankers, speculators and investment gurus to peddle their half truths.
Given all that has happened, it would seem now would be a time for introspection and self- appraisal on the part of wider business press.
Mr Beesley also attacked unions for their temerity in criticising the McCarthy report, which appears to have been accorded the status of “received truth”. Is there still no room for differing opinions and dissenting voices? And might it be possible that there are other ways to lift a country out of crisis, other than by attacking people’s living standards and deflating our way into depression? The last 25 years were characterised by a slavish devotion to the myth of the free market: has that now been replaced by a slavish devotion to the cuts agenda? – Yours, etc,
Madam, – We, representatives of the literature sector, endorse Colm Tóibín and Peter Sirr’s eloquent support of Irish arts and their importance in Ireland and internationally (Home News and The Arts, August 11th). Our cultural infrastructure has been developed over the past six decades by the Arts Council and is a major employer and economic generator.
Our writers engage spiritually and emotionally with the Irish condition and contribute to our national identity. Many of us have an affection and connection to writers such as Seamus Heaney, Maeve Binchy, Roddy Doyle and Edna O’Brien, people we probably haven’t even met, but who represent us in their work. Our writers, from the well established to the newly emerging, work as cultural ambassadors throughout the world, raising the profile of this small island. With the support of Culture Ireland in developing new international opportunities, significant economic returns can be generated from small investment, while attracting international recognition and goodwill.
Mr Tóibín is a great example of an Irish success story as his career has developed over the past couple of decades and has been supported by the Arts Council and Culture Ireland. His work is warmly received in all corners of the world, winning many awards and generating huge commercial returns.Ireland’s bestselling authors are helping to keep bookshops open and, most importantly, keep people in employment.
As the Government makes the hardest choices over the coming months, it is imperative that a longterm view is taken. We must capitalise on our creative assets and develop the cultural tourism opportunities available. Dublin City’s application for Unesco City of Literature is a prime example – and we are active supporters of this.
Rather than decimating the cultural infrastructure, we urge decision-makers to look to other countries which, in fighting their recessions, are exploiting cultural opportunities and see that the arts are clearly part of the solution. A cultural desert over the next decade would be devastating for our nation and for our international reputation. – Yours, etc,