Congratulations - you've just created the IBEC nirvana wet dream race to the bottom. No employee rights, no redundancy rights. Once you get a cheaper employee, dump the current guy in a skip and replace him. And once you get a cheaper guy again, dump the cheap replacement in a skip. Rinse and repeat. And watch for a cut in the minimum wage to ensure that the cheap replacements don't get above their station.
That is not what I said you are describing the Ryainair model of employee relationship and I don't do Ryanair.
What I said was that in case where the survial of the company providing essential services is at stake and unresonable union demands are made workers who want to work for the existing conditions must be allowed to do so and that those who do not want to contribute to the survial of the company need to be let go and be replaced by people that are willing to contribute. I quite clearly said that those must be willing to work for the same conditions that the strikers would get. Not more Not less. I'm not saying they should get less as you describe.
In respect of minimum wage, I always advocate a fair minimum wage as work must be rewarded and if you work you should get more than on social welfare. And I don't care if that is in public or private sector. Work is a basic right and fair money for work is one too.
The criticisms you detail here seem to relate a lot more to corporate greed than to social partnership. Perhaps you'd like to expand on what might have happened over the last 10 years without social partnership?
Bohooo. Corporate greed can only work if there is no effective supervision of existing rules (and that is what we have) and there is another party that is willing to accept corporate greed. Nobody forced anybody to buy an overprized property with a 100% loan that anybody with half a brain knows they could not effort if the APR goes up by even a slight % point.
Greed went through all layers of our society, some just profited more than others.
I think that the Irish experiment of social partnership has contributed to the current problem and while I agree that there were some positive elements to it overall I would classify it as a failure as it only works in good times but not bad times (as we currently see).
I worked in several countries where labour relations are dictated by the goverment over where unions are an accepted partner up to where a block of people controll every element of the work live (aka social partners). None of these is perfect.
I actualy am of the opion that the social partnership only serves to protect top earners ranking for higher level public servants over union officials to private business CEO's.
This is nothing to do with communism. This is to do with Bus Eireann who went out last year with an aggressive recruitment campaign to poach drivers in steady employment to join them, and then dumping those same drivers at the end of their probationary period with no redundancy and no compensation. A fair deal is required - no-one is suggesting employing drivers to do nothing, please hold back on the exaggeration.
Sorry, but who owns or controlls Bus Eireann? Isn't that the goverment?
If you accept a job at terms and conditions that allow an "at will" employment by the employer that includes the option how redudancy is made than you have the risk that this happens. I have the same, I'm working "at will" of my boss, if they deceide to let me go, than let me see I get my P45 and if I'm long enough with the company I get my payment under the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967-2007.
But I took the decision to accept that terms of my employment freely, I negoiated a package that I accepted as resonable for my circumstances and than entered the job knowing that if the economy turns I might loose it.
Just because Bus Eireann is owned by the state does not mean that this is a job for life.
It's time people accept that they contributed to this mess and that is from union officals over goverment to bank CEO's.