The search for common ground between the social partners mayonly produce a partnership agreement lite, writes Chris Dooley, Industry and Employment Correspondent.
Trade union leaders will be the first through the doors of Government Buildings today to begin the serious bargaining on a possible new national partnership agreement.
Representatives of the business, farm, and community and voluntary sectors make their opening pitches tomorrow and Thursday, after which the parameters of a potential deal may begin to take shape.
If anything, however, last week's formal opening of the talks at Dublin Castle merely underlined, and perhaps exacerbated, the difficulties ahead.
Few are prepared to predict that the social partnership process, considered crucial to the Republic's economic success, will survive the current negotiations.
If a deal emerges, it is likely to be very different in make-up from the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF), the current three-year deal which expires early next year.
Talk of a pay pause for all workers, which emerged from last Thursday's plenary session of the social partners, was dismissed by union leaders as "posturing" on the part of the Government and employers.
But it has considerably worsened the atmosphere in advance of discussions.
Eamon Devoy, secretary of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions' private sector committee, summed up the mood of members yesterday: "If employers want local bargaining, then we'll give them what they want."
Mr Devoy says his union, the TEEU, is likely to start preparing for such an eventuality at its annual conference in Galway at the weekend.
Remarkably, given the debate which followed, nobody had actually mentioned the words "pay pause" at Thursday's meeting in Dublin Castle.
The Minister for Finance, Mr McCreevy, implied, however, that public sector workers would have to accept such an arrangement in return for payment of the increases due under benchmarking.
"We'll see you the public sector and raise you the private sector," appeared to be the response of employers, who announced after the meeting that they wanted a pay pause for all.
Turlough O'Sullivan, director general of IBEC, had made no such call during the plenary session itself.
It was this which prompted Jack O'Connor of SIPTU, who is also chairman of ICTU's private sector committee, to suggest that IBEC only decided to call for a pay freeze when it realised the Government was taking such a hardline stance.
Mr O'Sullivan denies this and says IBEC's position, namely that the competitiveness lost due to high pay rises under the PPF must be restored, has been clear all along.
All of which leaves those who fear the consequences of a breakdown in social partnership wondering where the common ground might be for a new deal.
The issue is complicated by a wide range of factors, not least of which is the slowdown in the economy and uncertainty about its medium-term prospects. There is now increasing speculation that the pay element of a new agreement - or perhaps the entire deal itself - may be restricted to 12 months instead of the traditional three-year term.
This would allow all sides to come back to the table with up-to-date information about inflation and the state of the public finances.
ANOTHER possible scenario is that, instead of an agreement fixing pay increases over the next three years, a much looser arrangement might be reached allowing for pay rates to be decided at local level. To avoid industrial chaos, however, criteria would be drawn up linking increases to inflation and productivity. Claims made would have to be within the criteria set down.
Unions and employers might also, under such an arrangement, be required to sign up to a code of conduct setting out agreed procedures, such as using the State's labour relations machinery, in the event of disputes.
Some would view this type of agreement as a facade to hide the collapse of social partnership. But it would keep the partners talking at national level and maintaining the process would be good for the Republic's image.
However, neither of the alternative options - a shorter deal or a looser one - will get the partners over the immediate problem of the €1.1 billion benchmarking bill.
John Carr, general secretary of the Irish National Teachers' Organisation, insisted yesterday that unions will want benchmarking paid in full by the end of next year. The benchmarking body awarded public service workers average "catch up" increases of 9 per cent.
In the past, public and private sector workers have received the same increases in partnership deals, but it is difficult to see how this can be achieved this time around.
The benchmarking process was set up under the PPF, but Mr McCreevy made it clear last week that it can only be paid in tandem with a new round of general pay increases.
In other words, unions are likely to end up voting on benchmarking and a new pay deal, if there is one, as part of the same package. That creates an inevitable divide between public and private sector workers who, for the first time, could be voting on different packages for each.
The focus on pay is a source of frustration for those in the community and voluntary sector, who want to see an agreement embracing important social issues such as childcare, housing and the health service. And the farmers want to put farm incomes at the top of the talks agenda.
Nevertheless, pay is undoubtedly the glue which binds partnership agreements together. So while the unions will take a long shopping list to today's meeting, including items like redundancy payments and union recognition, it will be on the issue of pay that the partnership process will stand or fall.