Many in Siptu are now talking about the end of social partnership, writes Chris Dooley in Cork
Anyone who thinks Siptu is bluffing about its threat to pull the plug on almost two decades of social partnership would have had second thoughts if they were in the conference room of Cork City Hall on Thursday afternoon.
For two-and-a-half days the union's biennial conference had motored along in routine fashion. A good speech here, a dreadfully dull contribution there. But there was nothing routine about the debate on Thursday afternoon when the 460 delegates discussed the next round of social partnership talks, due to begin within weeks. A motion in favour of trade union participation in the talks had been replaced with an emergency proposal from Siptu's national executive, drawn up the previous day in light of the Irish Ferries dispute. The new motion said Siptu would delay a decision on continued involvement in partnership until October 24th, the last moment given that its delegates will vote on the issue at a special conference of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (Ictu) the next day. Siptu's stance will almost certainly decide whether unions go into talks or not.
In the meantime, the motion proposed, Siptu's leaders would attempt to ascertain whether there was potential for "real progress" on measures to address the issues of "job displacement, exploitation and the accelerating race to the bottom in employment standards". The motion was unanimously backed after a highly charged session. Siptu activists who have spent 18 years participating in partnership, and defending it in union debates, roared approval as speaker after speaker declared that, in effect, it might be the time for war.
By the time union president Jack O'Connor rose to speak, the atmosphere was electric. What followed was probably his finest moment since he became leader of the country's biggest union two years ago. He had no doubt, he declared, that if "so-called social partnership" was to collapse, Siptu would take some punishment. "But I am absolutely confident that we will inflict it as well if the need arises."
But O'Connor was careful not to back himself into a corner.
"I know you might not like this," he told delegates, "but I happen to believe that the best way we can make progress on the issues of job displacement, exploitation and protection of employment is through genuine social partnership. I don't see any better way of doing it. But I have no interest in participating in any sort of charade".
O'Connor's speech, delivered off the cuff, drew a long, loud standing ovation. But that night, as delegates queued to shake his hand at the conference dinner, it was difficult to escape the conclusion that the more congratulations he received, the more worried he looked.
Perhaps it was a concern that the debate, and his speech, had ignited a fire which will be hard to put out. As delegates gathered in the bar following the dinner at the Silver Springs Hotel, the invigorating effects of the earlier debate and "Jack's speech" were still evident. Many were openly talking about "the end of social partnership" and, wherever they stood on the issue, most seemed to regard it as an exciting prospect.
So to read Siptu's response to the Irish Ferries situation as the usual tactical manoeuvring that accompanies the build-up to partnership talks would be a serious mistake. It would be equally wrong, however, to conclude that the union's leadership is ready to give up on a process that they believe has served workers well.
O'Connor, general secretary Joe O'Flynn and vice-president Brendan Hayes, are entering the most critical fortnight of their leadership of Siptu to date. The decision on October 24th on Siptu's support for partnership will be taken at a special delegate conference of the union. In other words, a meeting of the same activists who on Thursday were cheering the prospect of all-out war. O'Connor's record, as well as his comments on Thursday, show that he believes that real partnership is the best way forward. He is known to believe that, in a return to free-for-all collective bargaining, while some employers might suffer, workers would suffer too.
The problem is that it is not clear what exactly is required to enable the Siptu leadership to recommend to delegates that the union support entry into talks. At the very least, they will want assurances from the Government that minimum standards of employment, and an intolerance of exploitation, would become accepted norms. How to give practical effect to those aspirations could be worked out in the partnership talks - provided everyone was agreed on the goals. But it is unlikely that a general commitment from the Government would be enough to satisfy delegates on October 24th.
After all, Taoiseach Bertie Ahern has already condemned Irish Ferries for seeking to lay off Irish-based seafarers and replace them with cheaper migrant labour.
Public suport for Irish Ferries by Ibec, the employers' body, has exacerbated the situation. What might have been a one-off row with a recalcitrant employer has been turned into a dispute of much wider significance.
The threat to social partnership is real. Supporters of the process will take comfort in the fact that should O'Connor, Hayes and O'Flynn achieve guarantees sufficient to satisfy them that talks should take place, a majority of delegates would support them. All three are popular and are trusted by Siptu activists. Social partnership, then, is not dead yet. But neither is it out of danger.