There can be few industrial disputes that cause such heartbreak as the current conflict between the Impact union care workers and the health services. Parents of the people affected have been very supportive of the strikers despite the disruption the strike has caused.
It is partly because of appreciation for the work that carers do but also because parents see the failure of the Government to address low rates of pay in the sector as yet another example of neglect for our most vulnerable citizens.
This is not the first time that care workers and other staff looking after people with intellectual disabilities have taken industrial action. In fact, the roots of the current dispute go back to the Impact dispute of 1997, when workers ranging from physiotherapists to childcare staff went on strike in pursuit of a "catch-up" claim with nurses. On that occasion, the union allowed members looking after the intellectually disabled to provide full emergency cover without pay.
Part of the strike settlement was that all the professions involved would be subject to a review by an expert group. This subsequently resulted in significant pay increases for everyone, except those working with the intellectually disabled - the Cinderella profession.
This is precisely the sort of dispute the Labour Court is designed to investigate. Impact claims that the only issue in dispute is implementation of the increase and no third party has a right to arbitrate on the substance of the award. However it is hard to see how the current confusion can be resolved without third-party intervention. If the case is as strong as Impact believes, it has little to fear.
SIPTU has already agreed to accept the Labour Court invitation, while reserving the right to take industrial action at a later date. Impact, having made its point, could do the same and avoid further suffering to families with more than their fair share of misfortune.
Meanwhile, the question must be asked why, yet again, a group of hard-working health-service workers are driven to extremes in pursuit of longstanding and seemingly reasonable pay demands. The hapless minister of the day is called to account in such crises but the real culprit is usually the Department of Finance, whichoperates on the basis that a pay rise delayed, is money saved. However, the ultimate price is paid by patients, most of whom are taxpayers. Not only that, but the financial cost of settling long-running disputes is usually far greater than if a reasonable offer had been made in the first place.
Hopefully, the deliberations of the Benchmarking Body will provide a basis for more civilised and effective pay bargaining in the future. In the meantime we must hope that the Labour Court can provide a speedy resolution to the current dispute.