funny that Michael D referred to her as Coyne in his acceptance speech. He mustn't have been briefed by the people in the Aras.
The other side of Michael D Higgins
- Thread starter onq
- Start date
funny that Michael D referred to her as Coyne in his acceptance speech. He mustn't have been briefed by the people in the Aras.
I most certainly would not be happy in the highly unlikely event that the board of Ryan Air were consulted on Government decisions ( latest Paddy Power odds - 1,000 ,000 to 1
- get the money on now Purple ! )- the Unions & IBEC are the recognised largest representative bodies of employers & employees - the board of Ryan Air represent no one but the company & of course in your highly imaginative scenario you do not envisage a role for an opposite viewpoint - so not really partnership then , is it ?In past elections , the question of social partnership was one that never came up on the doorstep as the perception was that everything was working fine & of course it never even entered the equation in terms of the last election - I never remember an election since 1987 when the question of social partnership was a factor.
'perception was that everything was working fine'....indeed.
Look at the Health Service with all the extra money thrown at it and the extra employees. Or all the extra teachers and assistants, whilst illiteracy rates continue to increase. Or the high costs of public services such as utilities and transport.
And now that everying is'nt fine, we're left stuck with high numbers and high wage bills...some people getting paid above average wages for doing next to nothing. And nothing can be done because once in and made permanent, you can't be moved out.
So applause for social partnership....brilliant work
That’s my point; it’s not social partnership when the majority of the electorate are not represented by the social partners. IBEC and the unions are two sides of the same coin.I most certainly would not be happy in the highly unlikely event that the board of Ryan Air were consulted on Government decisions ( latest Paddy Power odds - 1,000 ,000 to 1
I’m not happy with any un-elected body or group having the level of influence that the so-called social partners had.
The only people with a mandate to govern are the government. When they dilute that function by including vested interest groups they are undermining democracy.
It was a factor for me and I’m not alone in that. The erosion of the tax base and pro-cyclical economic policies were probably not big issues on the doorsteps in any but the last election either. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have been.
My point is that successive Governments from 1987 deemed it necessary to involve employers & employees in social partnership - the only sizeable bodies representative of both parties were IBEC & the Unions - as has been pointed out I agree that Governments govern & if they choose to involve other parties in fiscal decisions then that is their right - some people may not like it but that does not make it any less of a democratic government decision.
The question of social partnership may have been an issue for some in previous elections but not of a sufficient number to make it an election issue.
OK, so if the government announce that they will be passing over all decision making to the board of Ryan Air you will accept that, since they are the democratically elected government and therefore can choose not to govern. I wouldn’t accept that since I regard it as their duty to govern.
I wouldn’t even accept it if they said that they would consult with the board of Ryan Air and would give them what amounts to a veto over all government decisions (which is what the SIPTU/ICTU had under social partnership). Then again I’m old fashioned and a bit odd about democracy; I think it’s important and fragile and shouldn’t be taken for granted or diluted.
Complainer
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,949
We're actually stuck with lots of public servants being [broken link removed] and working their asses off to cope with increasing demand and reduced resources.
More nonsense from Fintan O’School. He should stick to writing about things he understands. The fact that you are quoting this rubbish says a lot about your understanding of costs and competitiveness, none of it good.
I’ll try to give you a very simple example;
You go into a supermarket and stop to buy a tin of beans. There are two brands on offer, both of equal quality and size. One is 25% more expensive than the other. Do you choose the more expensive brand because you know that the people producing it are paid more but have a higher cost of living or do you choose the cheaper brand, produced by people on lower wages but with the same standard of living?
I think the answer is neither of the above; you just buy the cheapest one because they are just beans and you don’t know or give a monkeys about the how’s and why’s that makes one more expensive than the other.
Well here’s the big news; the same applied to just about everything we export and consume.
Here’s another bombshell; high wages cause high prices, not the other way around.
Let me be quite clear about this - successive Governments chose to run with social partnership , to do so they involved Unions & IBEC amongst others - there is no question but that they were empowered to do so , both democratically & constitutionally.
The Government were not parties to the negotiations on pay , they were merely the facilitators although Bertie did quite like to make a last minute appearance.
You may consider the involvement of social partners as a dilution of democracy ,I consider such involvement to be a mere extension of the democratic process which of course it is.
Your point regarding the Ryan Air board , whilst imaginative , stretches credulity - let's stick to reality.
No it doesn't, it would be exactly the same thing; a vested interest group with a veto over how the state is run.
Of course it does - on 2 levels.
1. It will never happen.
2. The Ryan Air board are totally unrepresentative of anybody but their company - a vested interest yes , representative of anybody but themselves - No.
As I say - a hugely creative scenario based on a premise as likely as a zombie invasion.
1. I agree that it will never happen. I am bringing it up as an example to show that Sicial(ist) Partnership is a subversion of democracy.
2. Unions are totally unrepresentative of anybody but their members. Again; where's the difference?
Unions represent 600,000 people in the Republic & IBEC are the largest employer representative in the state - if the Government decides to involve representative parties to participate in social partnership - who else are they going to call ?
You really could have picked a better example than the Ryan Air board , examples are best based on a somewhat more likely scenario - yours is based on pure fantasy.
It doesn't matter how big or small the vested interest group is; they have no place in government.
Unless the elected Government decide they do - after all they are mandated to govern as they deem fit .
ok, so you're cool with the board of Ryan Air running things then.
Well that's just silly. No government has a blank cheque to make decisions just because they are elected.
As I have pointed out such a scenario is pure fantasy & we have both agreed that such a scenario will never happen.
Can we please stick with the realities of social partnership - the only ones that will ever be involved are the largest representative bodies .
Successive Governments deemed it necessary to deal with Unions , employer reps & others in the social partnership model.
Simply a matter of fact - did those Governments act in an undemocratic or unconstitutional fashion ? - No.
In this situation - they governed as they deemed fit.
Of course Governments are mandated to rule as they deem fit - we place our trust in them to act responsibly ( unfortunately in the case of FF ) - although the cross party decision on the introduction of social partnership In 1987 was indeed a good one.