A collapse of the social partnership model would be no bad thing, writes Vincent Browne.
The idea that a group of business and trade union leaders, along with representatives of the Government, plus a rag-tag of "community" groups, should decide among themselves, in secret, fundamental economic and social policy for years ahead and decide how and when redistribution should happen is absurd. An end to this arrangement would offer the prospect of a more democratic means of deciding such policy, a more open means and a fairer means.
The last agreement provided for pay and conditions, taxation policy, infrastructural development, the environment, poverty and social inclusion, health and health inequalities, equality generally, pensions, the statutory minimum wage, affordable housing, maternity leave, adoptive leave, parental leave. What's left? All of those issues decided in secret, with no meaningful mechanisms of accountability, no oversight by the elected representatives of the people. That's it. Signed, sealed and delivered. This social partnership thing has got out of hand.
Social partnership was used by Charlie Haughey when he came back to office in 1987 as a means of getting agreement on the tough choices that needed to be taken to get the country out of an economic mess. Following years of industrial unrest, that social partnership created industrial peace at a time of great tensions and, inevitably, social partnership is accorded some of the plaudits for the economic successes that ensued.
Whatever about the justification then for engaging in social partnership - and in retrospect it was an important element in reaching the necessary consensus for getting ourselves out of the economic hole we had dug ourselves into - there is no such justification today.
It is simply wrong to divert almost all the major decisions on the running of the country into a secret process involving unelected agents.
Almost all the issues at stake in social partnership negotiations should be subject to open discussion and then decision by our Parliament. Actually, parliamentary decision-making is a bit of a farce too, for all the decisions supposedly taken by parliament are taken in advance, again in secret, by the executive arm of government and parliament merely ratifies that decision, whether a majority likes it or not. But at least the executive arm of government has to justify and explain its decisions in parliament and, at least in that respect, there is a smidgen of accountability.
By the way, weren't the Progressive Democrats opposed to the social partnership thing some years ago?
Public sector pay is something that should be sorted out independently of any partnership process. Public sector pay is an issue of concern to the public as a whole for it is public resources that are being used to fund public sector pay. Public sector pay should not be determined by the bargaining power of the unions involved but by fairness. It is a reality that some public servants are far too well rewarded and these include TDs and Ministers. It is farcical that TDs should now be paid incomes that are at least four times the average annual income in society, How representative can this overpaid elite be of the average elector? Why should senior public servants, who have copper-fastened job security, plus lavish pensions be paid well in excess of €100,000?
There is a formula which should now govern public service pay talks. Everyone paid under the average wage in society should get paid an increase at least equal to the rate of growth of taxation plus inflation.
Those paid well above the average wage, say those paid over €60,000, should take a pay pause for at least two years with it being explicitly understood there will be no "catch-up" arrangement down the line (this would include all TDs and Ministers). And the others should be paid the going rate, around five or six per cent per annum, including benchmarking.
In other words, we should introduce some fairness into the system. Public service workers who are underpaid should be properly paid. Public sector workers who are overpaid should be paid no more for several years. Companies should be required to share their fortunes with their workers, whatever those fortunes may be. And all this should be explained on the basis that this is what is fair.
"In fairness" is nowadays almost a punctuation mark in conversation, suggestive that the ideal of fairness has some currency. It should be exploited. Fairly.
A concomitant commitment should be made to increase social welfare benefits by 12 per cent in the next budget and to increase the number of medical cards by 100,000.
This and all the other social justice issues should be debated publicly and then decided publicly in Parliament.
As far as the private sector is concerned the unions can battle it out with private firms over wage demands and those firms which are making mega profits should be forced to pay mega wages, those firms which cannot afford it, cannot afford it. The process should require full disclosure of company performance and all the better for that.