Program for Social and Economic Progress” Union bosses line up with Capitalism

The Irish trade union bureaucracy has a long history of national wage agreements with the Dublin Government. It was able to present these as a balancing act between capitalist bosses and unrealistic militants within the working class and as a way of protecting jobs and the wage rates of low paid workers.

With the Programme for a National Recovery (PNR), signed over two years ago, the bureaucrats finally fell off their non-existent fence. They agreed what was effectively a wage cul and a savage reduction in the social wage - the services like health and education that help determine the overall quality of life for working people. The agreement was policed with a vicious effectiveness, isolating and smothering industrial action and carrying outa savage witchunt against militants who opposed the deal.

The rationale for the PNR was that wage cuts would “restore” profit levels and thus lead to new investment and job creation. Cuts in services would enable the poor to repay the bosses debt to the international banks and restore prosperity.

One prediction came true. Profits went through the roof. But there was absolutely no evidence of job creation. The government talked up an “economic recovery” - ignoring the fact that only interest repayments to the banks were being made and that the Irish economy still rests under a mountain of debt.

The bureaucrats didn’t tear up the agreement. Instead they signed the Program for Economic and Social Progress [PESP]. They falsely presented this as a 3-year wage agreement. In fact itcommits the bureaucracy to collaborate over the next 10 years in implementing the capitalist economic strategy of the government. Workers who want to fight this will have to rethink their views on the role of the trade union leadership.

The truth is that, under pressure of a long period of recession and a sustained offensive by capitalism against the working class, the majority of the trade union bureaucracy have decided, some consciously and some through sheer inertia, to come down from their traditional position of trying to balance between the working class and capitalism and joined the bosses side. This is the only realistic meaning to the concept of ‘social partnership’ established first in the PNR and institutionalised through the anti-union industrial Relations Act 1990 (which the ICTU jointly administers with the employers and government) and also in the PESP which isa ten year programme falsely presented as a 3 year pay deal.

To avoid getting bogged down in the percentages, statis: tics and wishful thinking which forms the majority of the PESP, our analysis must centre around the concept of ‘social partnership’ and a fightback strategy built around opposing it.

Developing a fightback will neither be easy nor produce short term results, but will evolve from a long period of united activity and discussion which are essential to re. gaining the political consciousness necessary to move forward. Below we list some pointers which we believe can act as a framework for the discussion, Legitimacy of the PESP agreement, From the outset neither the PESP nor its predecessor should be accepted as having being legitimately negotiated and agreed upon by the trade union membership. A valid agreement would imply debate and input by union members and some semblance of accountability by the of ficials. These we absent from these deals. The agenda for the negotiations was set by report of the National Economic and Social Council (NESC) in which some ICTU officials participate along with their ‘social partners’ and various experts. Neither this report nor ICTU input were subject of debate at the special ICTU conference which decided to negotiate the PESP and which occurred just prior to its release.

The trade union membership had at best a couple of weeks to study the PESP before voting. The vast majority have never seen itand of those that did many were givena glance as the vote was being taken. The document itself took a year to produce in its final form. For most of that time discussion centred on the 3 year pay element and the AN REABHLOID Page 4

question of a 10 year joint economic strategy was never re ferred to.

### Content

Thecontents of the PESP are essentially the Government's economic strategy. It was launched by Haughey and his ministers withouta trade union official in sight of the press and TV cameras.

The objectives in regard to employment, taxation, social services and so on are all purely inspirational and dependenton the success, profitability and goodwill of the bosses. In effect at least 90% of the document can be disregarded. As with the PNR the framework set out in the introductory section of the documentare its main content. The needs of workers and trade unionists must be satisfied within the framework of capitalism’s plans - Developments within the EC, in particular the creation of the single market and Economic and Monetary union, mean that Ireland will become still more closely integrated into the international economy...[Page 8].

Of course we know that these developments were not set in train for the purpose of expanding and protecting the interests of the working class - quite the contrary - they are intended to protect and expand the interests of capitalism at he expense of the working class. The trade union leadership themselves accepted this point during the campaign against the Single European Act.

As in the old PNR, the finances for public services are again subject to a reduction as a ratio of ‘national’ debt to GNP [page 11}. Reduction of the national debt or increasing GNP are completely dependent on factors outside of FOLLOW THE LEADER, Ireland. If the international economic situation becomes unfavourable social services, employment, the tax regime would all deteriorate to meet this objective. [This is the overriding principle of the programme, ithad been drafted with that principe, and that principle cannot be infringed in the implerieutation of the programme. ...] page 11.

New structures The first thing that must be acknowledged in discussing a fightback strategy is that it cannot be won within the corrupted structures of the official trade union movement. Having wrested almost total control of these structures and minimised democracy within the unions, the bureaucracy will not be ambushed or beaten on theirown ground. Atthe hint of any threat they will move the goalposts as they did at the special ICTU conference to review the PNR, where they cut the delegations of unions with memberships in the 6 counties.

The ICTU have succeeded in their present course by demobilising the trade union movement. The many new struggles which will arise as they police this new agrecment must take up the task of mobilising against this corrupt leadership, unmasking their role and demanding their withdrawal from the Labour Relations Commission and the scrapping of the PESP. Make no mistake about it, ICTU will be at best indifferent or more probably openly hostile to every dispute undertaken by workers. This role, not yet under serious discussion in the workers movement, has been the key elementin the defeat of recent struggles. Inthe Air Rinta dispute on the TEAM aircraft maintenance facility the ICTU openly backed management threats to close down the facility.* They rejected every proposal that AN REABHLOID Page 5

»)

RAG MAT IS — didn’t meet management demands and eventually achieved a legally binding agreement. A more recent example was in March this year when employers in the contract cleaning industry objected to proposals to bring part time workers into the social security net pecause of the cost of PRSI contributions. They duly issued 20 000 protective notices to their workforce giving notice of redundancy. This attempt to move an entire section of the part-time workforce into the black economy and deny them all rights was met by silence from ICTU.

New offensive There are plenty of signs of a new offensive in individual workplace struggles like Waterford Glass and the Evening Press. This will soon generalise into a full scale offensive, with the state moving to privatise major public services. The union leadership are preparing for this. They recently took Congress policy opposing privatisation and reworded itto oppose “less than 49% public ownership” - in essence conceding private ownership and control without a shot being fired.

Plans for this offensive are well advanced. All the state companies; An Post, Bord Telecom, Dublin Bus, Iarnrod Eireann, Sugar Co, Irish Life etc, are being restructured and aggressive management are being installed in most. In An Post the cost-cutting plan includes 1500 job losses (19% of the workforce), unlimited flexibility including contract work and part-time work and the threat that their 6% pay award under the PESP is conditional. 550 Post offices are threatened with closure - the issue deferred until the local Government elections are out of the way.

In larnrod Eireann the recent lightening strike was caused by the suspension of a driver who refused an order breaking, past work practices, It seemed to be a deliberate test case, The new Industrial Relations Act was immediately invoked - an immediate courtinjunction was granted. The case then went to the Labour relations commission. This sort of thing will continue to happen as one of the effects of the Labour Relations Act is to forbid action in one-person disputes - it must go to arbitration. Management can launch a one-sided civil war against individuals and groups of workers with the full weightof the law to prevent them responding.

New Politics The economics of capitulation in the trade union movement go hand in hand with the politics of capitulation. Labour has ccmmemorated the anniversary of the Rising by hauling down the Starry Plough and raising the pink rose of European Social democracy. The Workers Party pose as a left alternative but on many issues are to the right even of the Labour party. Sinn Fein have made themselves irrelevant by their single- minded persuit of capitalist politicians in Fianna Fail.

Groups like “Trade Unionists and Unemployed Against the Program” have done credible work in fighting the sellout and it is around popular democratic structures like these, allied with the left and anti -imperialists, that a fightback will be built. The limitation of discussion mainly to the wages implications of the agreement means that militants have yet to get to grips with the politics of “social partnership” and this is an immediate task that faces them.

Social peace is not something that is bought with a few scratches of a pen. The new offensives will be met by a fightback from th. working class. The task for working class activists is to prepare the structures and political program that can resist bureaucratic attempts to stab these mobilisations in the back.

KEVIN McCRACKEN AN REABHLOID Page 6

eview