# Social partnership to blame for woes..thoughts?



## thedaras (14 Dec 2010)

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/1214/pay.html


----------



## TarfHead (14 Dec 2010)

My thoughts .. ?

I agree. When Joe O'Toole referred to Benchmarking as an ATM, you knew something wasn't right.


----------



## Caveat (14 Dec 2010)

Although technically it predates his tenure, dreadful Bertie-ism. The worst excesses spead like mould during his reign.

Hasty, ill concieved, union pandering madness.

Certainly some of the blame should rest there, yes.


----------



## Purple (14 Dec 2010)

Yes, it was a major part of the problem.
I started a thread about this here


----------



## Deiseblue (14 Dec 2010)

Social Partnership led to wage moderation , a huge downturn in days lost to industrial disputes and a decrease in employees tax burdens which led to the advent of our good times.

I think that any role played by social partnership in the severity of our downturn is minimal by comparison to the roles played by our Government , Banks & Developers aided by the lightest of regulatory touches.

Indeed there seems to be a general feeling that we would be well on the road to recovery if it wasn't for our devasting Banking crisis.


----------



## villa 1 (14 Dec 2010)

+1 deiseblue. It's about time we had a rattle off the public service


----------



## DerKaiser (14 Dec 2010)

I think you do have to ask why did wages shoot up so quickly from 1997 to 2007?

My personal opinion is we got into a vicious circle of chasing inflation.

Reckless availability of cheap credit and inflation chasing policies (social partnership included) merged to create a monster.


----------



## Sunny (14 Dec 2010)

It might have started off as a partnership and to be fair to the unions, they played a big part in building up the Celtic tiger. But let's be honest here, it stopped being a partnership a long time ago. The unions were simply bought off by lazy incompetent politicians. The union leadership became more interested in sticking their noses on the trough than doing their job. All one needs to look at is how many boards consist of trade union leaders and yet all we hear about is FF/property developer cronyism.


----------



## Deiseblue (14 Dec 2010)

I would point out that although SIPTU officials serve on various boards they are precluded by the union's constitution from accepting a salary for such services , either no salary is accepted or the salary is paid into union funds - in any event no individual benefits.

SIPTU is Ireland's largest union.


----------



## shanegl (14 Dec 2010)

Deiseblue said:


> I would point out that although SIPTU officials serve on various boards they are precluded by the union's constitution from accepting a salary for such services , either no salary is accepted or the salary is paid into union funds - in any event no individual benefits.
> 
> SIPTU is Ireland's largest union.





> aided by the lightest of regulatory touches.



Did Mr. Begg ever speak out as a member of the board of the Central Bank?


----------



## Deiseblue (14 Dec 2010)

shanegl said:


> Did Mr. Begg ever speak out as a member of the board of the Central Bank?


 
Sorry , can't help you with that as I don't have access to that info .

You will have to research that yourself.


----------



## Delboy (14 Dec 2010)

shanegl said:


> Did Mr. Begg ever speak out as a member of the board of the Central Bank?





not to worry, Begg is gone off the CB board. And things have changed radically in this country in how we're going to run things from now on....just look at the new nominees!!!

[broken link removed]

Ooopppss, wait a second....maybe things have'nt changed

Some of Mr Geraghty's CV...from the Sindo 8/09/09:
As a leading proponent of the now ailing social partnership process, Mr Geraghty's career thrived during the boom years with appointments to the RTE Authority, the board of Fas and the National Competitiveness Council all included on his CV. 

 The one-term member of the European Parliament continues to serve as the Chairman of the Affordable Homes Partnership, while enjoying the benefit of a defined benefit pension from his tenure as Siptu president.


----------



## Deiseblue (15 Dec 2010)

Given that wealth of experience Mr. Geraghty sounds like an ideal appointment to me .

The appointment of Mike Soden however leaves me somewhat puzzled , perhaps his first hand knowledge of Internet policy will prove useful.


----------



## Mpsox (15 Dec 2010)

In fairness, Social partnership did deliver industrial peace for a number of years, and perhaps at the start, some of the payrises were merited. Certain things, such as ROS.ie were introduced without too much fuss from unions and this should be recognised. However, as it progressed, I have to question if the price that was paid in latter years was too much, with little to be seen for the taxpayer in return. The money paid to unions for "training" also leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

Perhaps it's biggest legacy it left is the sense of entitlement within the public sector workforce, entitlement to increments and payrises without delivering tangible benifits and reform. I believe that the unions, under social partnership, forgot their social responsibility for society, the taxpayer and the end user of services and the price of this was getting the most in financial terms for their members.


----------



## Deiseblue (15 Dec 2010)

I think in terms of this discussion that we should bear in mind that Social Partnership was not a union dominated partnership as IBEC , the government were also involved in the decision making process and presumably had an equal voice.

I would wonder what would have happened if we had reverted to a free for all system of wage negotiation during the boom years - could this have proved disastrous in terms of our current situation ?


----------



## Latrade (15 Dec 2010)

Deiseblue said:


> I would point out that although SIPTU officials serve on various boards they are precluded by the union's constitution from accepting a salary for such services , either no salary is accepted or the salary is paid into union funds - in any event no individual benefits.


 
I know of several boards where there is no salay, but instead a stipend which is paid personally along with expenses. 

But I actually agree with the good that came from the social partnership outweighing the bad in a lot of cases. Days lost due to indisutrial unrest was a major contributor, as well as all the cemementing of employment law we now enjoy as employees in our organisations (unless a MoF decides to step in and overrule High Court decisions) and it was a mechanism that block off the Thatcher/Reagan politics of the time. In the end it really did become pure trash. The principles of negotiation become completely twisted. It went from here's 20 points that need addressing, let's find a compromise to: here's 20 points that need addressing one side can have their way on 10 and ther other side can have their way on the other 10.

Which leads me to the last point, social partnership had more than one party sat at the table, it wasn't just the unions.


----------



## Latrade (15 Dec 2010)

Deiseblue said:


> I would wonder what would have happened if we had reverted to a free for all system of wage negotiation during the boom years - could this have proved disastrous in terms of our current situation ?


 
The context at the time was the UK where Heath proposed a social partnership and it was rejected by the unions there. Thatcher got in, all they had was individual barganing and we see where that got them in the end. I don't think it too much hyperbole that collective barganing served us all well in a good way.


----------



## michaelm (15 Dec 2010)

Social Partnership had it's merits but was past it's sell-by-date when the Government finally killed it off.  It is disingenuous to blame our current situation on Partnership.  The Government are to blame for a series of poor decisions, failed policy and a failed financial regulatory system.


----------



## Shawady (15 Dec 2010)

Latrade said:


> Which leads me to the last point, social partnership had more than one party sat at the table, it wasn't just the unions.


 
+1 and as I have said before on AAM, from 2004 onwards poverty justice groups had a strong influence on government spending. The social welfare bill grew out of control in this period.

These are the groups that sat in on agreement talks.


Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU)
Service Industrial Professional and Technical Union
Irish Business and Employers’ Confederation (IBEC)
Small Firms’ Association (SFA)
Irish Exporters’ Association (IEA)
Irish Tourist Industry Confederation (ITIC)
Irish Hotels Federation
Chambers Ireland
Irish Farmers’ Association (IFA)
Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers’ Association (ICMSA)
Irish Co-Operative Organisation Society Ltd. (ICOS)
Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers Association
Macra na Feirme
Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed (INOU)
Congress Centres Network
CORI Justice Commission
National Youth Council of Ireland (NYCI)
National Association of Building Co-Operatives (NABCO)
Irish Council for Social Housing (ICSH)
Society of Saint Vincent de Paul
Age Action Ireland
The Carers Association
The Wheel
The Disability Federation of Ireland
Irish Rural Link
The Irish Senior Citizens’ Parliament
The Children’s Rights Alliance
Protestant Aid
Community Platform
National Women's Council of Ireland
Environmental Pillar
[broken link removed]


----------



## Purple (15 Dec 2010)

The only people who should have a say in how the country is run are the Td's elected by the people. The Dail and most of the government have had no real power for the last 10 years as the country was run/carved up by the social partners, dominated by IBEC and SIPTU, and the Department of the Taoiseach. Basically That meant Bertie sitting back and letting unelected vested interest groups look after their own interests at the expense of the people who elected his government to govern. Brian Cowan has been a disaster as leader but the damage was done by Bertie.


----------



## Caveat (15 Dec 2010)

Like most other aspects of his "governing" Bertie just made it up as he went along with no foresight nor consideration of consequences. 

The man was, and is, a disgrace.


----------



## Deiseblue (15 Dec 2010)

Purple , I agree , Governments are elected to govern and as such the Government initiated social partnership in 1987 & chose to involve the parties detailed in a previous post.

A purely democratic , government initiated process I would have thought .


----------



## TarfHead (15 Dec 2010)

Shawady said:


> These are the groups that sat in on agreement talks.


 
So, if you're in paid empoyment and not in a union, who is representing you ?

In a '_purely democratic_' approach, the Government would make and implement decisions in the national interest and the special pleadings of lobby groups would be a background hum.

One of the virtues of social partnership, claimed by other posters, is that it bought industrial peace. IMHO, industrial peace is a norm and is a tradeable commodity.


----------



## Shawady (15 Dec 2010)

TarfHead said:


> In a '_purely democratic_' approach, the Government would make and implement decisions in the national interest and the special pleadings of lobby groups would be a background hum.


 
I agree. It's just sometimes when social partnership is mentioned, it is just discussed in the context of the public sector unions. I'm just making the point that many groups had their feet under the table.


----------



## Complainer (15 Dec 2010)

Wouldn't it be nice if Minister Lenihan actually published the amazing report that came to these conclusions?


----------



## Purple (15 Dec 2010)

Deiseblue said:


> Purple , I agree , Governments are elected to govern and as such the Government initiated social partnership in 1987 & chose to involve the parties detailed in a previous post.
> 
> A purely democratic , government initiated process I would have thought .


There’s a list a mile long of governments around the world that were democratically elected and them chose to behave in an undemocratic fashion. Do you think that the fact that a government is democratically elected then justifies undemocratic behaviour?
Our founding fathers made the stupid mistake of failing to separate the legislature from the executive. This was compounded by our single transferrable vote system so the executive is continuously hamstrung by the likes of Jackie Healey-Ray so even when the government respects the structures that we do have our government is always going to be disproportionately influenced by sectoral interests. With social partnership and a government that doesn’t allow real debate in the Dail our democracy is nothing but a sham.


----------



## Deiseblue (16 Dec 2010)

After the electorate has democratically decided on the formation of a Government then they are mandated to govern as they decide best - hence the advent of  social partnership in 1987.

You may not agree that it was the best way to proceed but really that doesn't matter - the electorate had mandated the Government to proceed as they saw fit.


----------



## Leper (16 Dec 2010)

Purple said:


> The only people who should have a say in how the country is run are the Td's elected by the people. The Dail and most of the government have had no real power for the last 10 years as the country was run/carved up by the social partners, dominated by IBEC and SIPTU, and the Department of the Taoiseach. Basically That meant Bertie sitting back and letting unelected vested interest groups look after their own interests at the expense of the people who elected his government to govern. Brian Cowan has been a disaster as leader but the damage was done by Bertie.


 
Perish the thought Jackie Healy Rae deciding on who gets paid for what.


----------



## shanegl (16 Dec 2010)

Deiseblue said:


> Given that wealth of experience Mr. Geraghty sounds like an ideal appointment to me .
> 
> The appointment of Mike Soden however leaves me somewhat puzzled , perhaps his first hand knowledge of Internet policy will prove useful.



I agree, running a complete sh*t show like FAS will have given him plenty of experience for maintaining the status quo at the CB.


----------



## Deiseblue (16 Dec 2010)

shanegl said:


> I agree, running a complete sh*t show like FAS will have given him plenty of experience for maintaining the status quo at the CB.



Mr. Geraghty was certainly a trade union rep and a director but to say that he ran FAS is an overstatement.


----------



## Purple (16 Dec 2010)

Deiseblue said:


> After the electorate has democratically decided on the formation of a Government then they are mandated to govern as they decide best - hence the advent of  social partnership in 1987.
> 
> You may not agree that it was the best way to proceed but really that doesn't matter - the electorate had mandated the Government to proceed as they saw fit.



I take it then that you have no problem with the current government putting in place their 4 year plan as they have a mandate from the people to do as they see fit.


----------



## thedaras (16 Dec 2010)

Very good point Purple, Lets see how they wriggle out of that one.


----------



## Deiseblue (16 Dec 2010)

Purple said:


> I take it then that you have no problem with the current government putting in place their 4 year plan as they have a mandate from the people to do as they see fit.


 

None whatsoever , to quote that oft , overused , pragmatic phrase - we are where we are.

I do not agree with their approach to resolving the fiscal situation but I do agree that as the current mandated Government that they are entitled to proceed as they see fit.


Hopefully the next Government will approach our fiscal crisis differently , I am encouraged for example by the fact that FG & Labour have both stated that they will revert the minimum wage cut.


----------



## Purple (16 Dec 2010)

thedaras said:


> Very good point Purple, Lets see how they wriggle out of that one.



Deise is well able for anything that I throw at him (that and a good sense of humour are the reasons I enjoy discussing things with him) so I didn’t expect a knock-out blow with that last post.
I’m on Complainers ignore list because, well, who knows, so as he doesn’t see my posts I don’t expect a reply from him.


----------



## Deiseblue (16 Dec 2010)

Purple said:


> Deise is well able for anything that I throw at him (that and a good sense of humour are the reasons I enjoy discussing things with him) so I didn’t expect a knock-out blow with that last post.
> I’m on Complainers ignore list because, well, who knows, so as he doesn’t see my posts I don’t expect a reply from him.


 
There's an " ignore " option !

God , nobody tells me anything 

I also enjoy our exchanges and you have certainly raised a smile from time to time on my grim unionised countenance.


----------



## thedaras (16 Dec 2010)

Plus one to both Purple and Deiseblue.


Deiseblue; 





> God , nobody tells me anything



Thats because we like to keep the unions in the dark.


----------

