The other side of Michael D Higgins

Deiseblue said:
FF are a shower of opportunistic chancres whose mantra seems to be " all things to all men " - not socialist by inclination rather vote grabbing political mercenaries.
Click to expand...
FF collusion with the Trade Unions to undermine democracy in this country through social(ist) partnership shows their socialist inclinations.
 
Deiseblue said:
FF are a shower of opportunistic chancres whose mantra seems to be " all things to all men " - not socialist by inclination rather vote grabbing political mercenaries.
Click to expand...

Doesn't that basically sum up the majority of modern political parties in most Countries? PD's, Labour, Greens all went into Government with certain ideologies but forget about them pretty quickly when the reality of Government kicks in.
 
Purple said:
FF collusion with the Trade Unions to undermine democracy in this country through social(ist) partnership shows their socialist inclinations.
Click to expand...

Given our parlous economic state in 1987 FF had no option but to introduce the social partnership model which it must be remembered also included the biggest employer body as a counterweight to union involvement - it should also be remembered that FG gave their unequivocal backing at the time.

Were they right to do so - I believe so as this model proved hugely successful.

I certainly didn't believe that I was living under a socialist Government between 1987 & 2011 !
 

Trade Unions succeeded in blackmailing the Irish people into giving them unprecedented power over how the country was run with the threat of bringing the country to its knees. FF agreed to this as they were and are fundamentally a populist socialist party. The PD’s could not be described as a socialist party but they certainly weren’t right wing as they presided over the erosion of the income tax base which saw low earners paying around one third of the income tax that their counterparts in the rest of the EU paid (while higher earners paid around 75% of the EU average). Once the PD’s were wiped out there was a strong lurch to the left. The current government is probably more centralist than the last one (it’s also far less corrupt and, with a few exceptions, somewhat less inept).

The social(ist) partnership model is one of the primary reasons we are in our current mess. It did work well for the first few years but once the unions took over and the tail started wagging the dog we were well and truly screwed.
 
The social partnership agreement provided industrial stability allied to moderate pay rises - days lost to Industrial disputes fell to all time low levels - this model helped to lead to the " Celtic Tiger" era & unprecedented economic prosperity.

Then FF's appalling mismanagement in Government , which had little to do with socialism & more to do with vote grabbing & colluding with it's real partners the building industry , developers & Bankers sunk us.

The contention that socialist parties are big on increasing taxation could certainly never be levelled at FF !

I will certainly never agree that FF are a socialist party but the term inept populism certainly applies.
 
Deiseblue said:
The social partnership agreement provided industrial stability allied to moderate pay rises - days lost to Industrial disputes fell to all time low levels - this model helped to lead to the " Celtic Tiger" era & unprecedented economic prosperity.
Click to expand...

Of course industrial disputes became a rarity when everyone was getting paid off!!! The union leadership were hardly going to rouse their members into kicking up over X,Y or Z and bite the hand that was feeding them....

The Unions had no right to have such a say in our national affairs. And to say that IBEC was a counterweight in the initiative is pushing it to say the least. IBEC are inept and have little or no credibility in my opinion.

In 1987, FF could have said to the Unions put up or shut up- they did'nt have to take them into partnership at all costs. Time to modernise, get into the 20th century (never mind prepare for the 21st!) or the whole show can go bankrupt and we'll see what the IMF will do to outdated work practices etc. This failure to modernise is still with us today in archaic work practices, job for life culture, public services to benefit employees first and the public second etc
 

Apart from my post being a joke, If you took away blind labour loyalty and replaced it with blind ff loyalty, your post might read differently and that is why I think that political party discussions are doomed to an everlasting cycle of unrelenting unbalanced opinion.
 
People were paid off - moderate pay increases were negotiated by the largest employer representative body & the Unions with the Government acting as facilitators-a large number of non unionised companies also paid their employees in line with national wage agreements as they also felt that such increases were indeed moderate.

The argument that IBEC may or may not be adequate representatives is nothing to do with Unions.

If you are basing an argument on how you feel FF should have dealt with the Unions in 1987 then that horse has not only bolted but has died since !

The Croke Park Agreement is the framework for change in the Public Sector - this Agreement has the support of the current Government & the Unions & the IMF seem quite prepared to give it every chance .
 
Deiseblue said:
-a large number of non unionised companies also paid their employees in line with national wage agreements as they also felt that such increases were indeed moderate.
Click to expand...

Ahem.

Of course there was no labour market shortages in bubble-era Ireland And we had the lowest wages in the world

Deiseblue said:
The argument that IBEC may or may not be adequate representatives is nothing to do with Unions.
Click to expand...
Yes, but it was you who cited IBEC participation 'as a counterweight to union involvement' in social(ist) partnership
 

I did see your post as a joke & quite a good one !

But you did open a door & I could not resist replying.

I do indeed support Labour based on their their politics but I am not blind to the fact that not all their views, stances & decisions should be considered infallible - just the majority
 

T'was you who brought up IBEC and 1987.

The Croke Park agreement is practically useless. It will deilver very little real change in the long term- yes it will give cost savings in the short term which is what the IMF are worried about.

Until the day comes that civil and public servants (of which I am one) no longer have a job for life, then real change will never happen.
Organisations trying to operate with staff who can't be fired, no matter how inept or insubordinate that they are....or when the bad times hit and surplus staff cannot be let go to bring down costs, they only get moved around....well, thats not change then is it. It's just rearranging the deck chairs. And it's just organisations existing for the good of their staff at a cost to the general public whom they are supposed to be providing a service to.
 
T McGibney said:
Ahem.

Of course there was no labour market shortages in bubble-era Ireland And we had the lowest wages in the world


Yes, but it was you who cited IBEC participation 'as a counterweight to union involvement' in social(ist) partnership
Click to expand...

It was Delboy's argument that IBEC were less than adequate representatives of employers - I never stated that.

I reiterate my initial comments - IBEC were a counterweight to union involvement involvement in the social partnership model & were instrumental in agreeing moderate pay increases.
 

I did indeed bring up IBEC & 1987 as background to my argument - T'was you that based your argument on what you feel should have happened in 1987 rather than what actually happened.

You may refer to the Croke Park Agreement as simply moving the deck chairs but the government as employers & the Unions representing employees quite frankly see it as the best way not only to change practises , reduce numbers but also to guarantee industrial peace ( such peace being a Government imperative.

The recent Government statements on the forthcoming budget & recent media reports convince me that the Croke Park Agreement remains sacrosanct.
 
Deiseblue said:
I reiterate my initial comments - IBEC were a counterweight to union involvement involvement in the social partnership model & were instrumental in agreeing moderate pay increases.
Click to expand...

We’ve been around the houses a few times on this one.
IBEC represents organisations in the protected sectors; banking and so-called commercial semi-states (they are the businesses that can increase their prices the more inefficient they are). Some foreign multinationals are members because they are forced to join when they get the grants to set up here but they are passive members. They guys running IBEC come from the unionised sector. Many of them are union members.

Suggesting that they somehow represented the interests of employers in the private sector is just as absurd as suggesting that unions represent the interests of the (mostly non-unionised) employees in the non-protected sectors of the economy.

The suggestion that the pay increases given under these carve-ups were moderate is also nonsense, especially when the many other additional pay increases are taken into account.

There was no representation of the vast majority of the internationally traded good and services sector in any of the socialist partnership carve-up’s. If you want an image for Social(ist) Partnership think of the animals looking in the window at the end of Orwell’s Animal Farm.
 
We have indeed been around the houses on this one more than once !

I too bemoan the fact that a huge number of private sector employers were not represented in the social partnership model as I feel that this would have had the benefit of making the model truly representative - but the blunt truth is that such employers were unable to form such a truly representative body & as such were not able to force/lobby their way to the table & as such IBEC remain the largest body representing employers.

The wage increases were moderate - I know, I received them all !
 
Complainer said:
Maybe for the same reason that you chose to post it, and BoxTheFox chose to use it to have a dig?
Click to expand...

I'm genuinely not with you Complainer. Why is it derogatory to say that Sabina Coyne will now be using her married name as the spouse of the President??
 

All people with a vote were involved in a democratic process in this country....it happens every 5 years and is called a General Election. The government are elected to run the country, not to sit and make decisions with a cohort of unions and some employer bodies thats suits the minority at the eventual expense of the majority.
 

We are totally agreed on that - the Government are mandated to govern & if they deem it necessary to involve Unions & others then that is merely an extension of the democratic process .
 
liaconn said:
I'm genuinely not with you Complainer. Why is it derogatory to say that Sabina Coyne will now be using her married name as the spouse of the President??
Click to expand...

You should really ask BoxTheFox.


Indeed, and all the chosen Governments had made clear commitments to a social partnership approach involving unions and others before those elections. So those policies were implemented on a democratic basis.
 
Deiseblue said:
We are totally agreed on that - the Government are mandated to govern & if they deem it necessary to involve Unions & others then that is merely an extension of the democratic process .
Click to expand...
So if the government said that it would set up a working group composed of the board of Ryan Air and would implement all decisions they made verbatim you’d be cool with that since it would be a decision of the democratically elected government?

Complainer said:
Indeed, and all the chosen Governments had made clear commitments to a social partnership approach involving unions and others before those elections. So those policies were implemented on a democratic basis.
Click to expand...
Yes, all of the major parties the electorate had the option of voting for were going to run with social(ist) partnership. Therefore no matter what the electorate wanted they were getting social(ist) partnership. I can see how this looks like a democratic choice to a socialist but...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register