And those who fuelled the demand for property and land development. No demand, no need for the developers and banks to do what they did. No demand, no need to the government to put all its eggs in one basket with taxes.
There's too many factors to use the banks and developers as a reason why Unions would be taking the stances they are. It's also laughable considering many of these same officials didn't do too badly on their own or from their nomination to various posts under Social Partnership.
But as to the current actions, it's the sign that social partnership has ended and Unions seem to be heading down the individual bargaining path. I just don't get the math behind it though. Recent example from a friend who is now out of a job: staff called in and taken through financial situation, options were 10% pay cut or lay offs. Only my friend and a couple voted for pay cuts, everyone else refused under union advice. Week later redundancies announced and also working week reduced to 3 days.
But as 20 people were laid off, the Union has just lost 18 paid up subscribers. They do realise that people can't and wont pay subs if they've no income.
If there is a move to go down the individual bargaining route (always seems popular in times of strife, I think they need to go and do some research on UK economic history... start with the Heath government and the Union's rejection of a move to social partnership/collective bargaining and then what happened to the Union movement after this. One word: Thatcherism. How'd that turn out again?)