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.
No, she's using her married name now apparently.
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?
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...
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.
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- 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 ?
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.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.
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’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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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 .
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?