outsidein »

• On strike

  March 22, 2010 @ 11:26 pm | by Bryan

  

  A large queue of people outside the Molesworth Street Passport Office in Dublin before lunchtime today. Photograph: Bryan O’Brien/The Irish Times.

  The first industrial action that I came across in this country was the nurses’ work-to-rule a couple years ago. I distinctly remember thinking that if this is how the rich world does strikes, then either it has got something right that my part of the world has yet to figure out, or people here just don’t understand the concept of the strike.

  Leader of the Labour Party, Eamon Gilmore, brought that back to mind. In response to the strike by officials at the passport office, he is reported as saying:

  I full understand the anger of low-paid public sector workers who have had their salaries unilaterally cut twice during the past twelve months, but those who are suffering as a result of action now being taken are not responsible for these pay cuts.

  This is where I suppose the cross cultural misunderstanding sets in. Growing up, industrial action was explained to me as something people did to a third party in order to force their employers to yield in to some set of demands. It therefore goes without saying that those who suffer are not responsible for creating the conditions that led to the industrial action in the first place.

  I don’t like industrial action in general. I don’t like it because I don’t see how it succeeds apart from a complete disregard for the public; and even then success isn’t guaranteed. In order to be successful, it often demands that the aggrieved do, or at the very least be willing to do something egregious in order to demonstrate their right standing, which is just twisted. In reality, that means that unless it were now impossible to obtain a travel document, or Gardaí refused to arrest anyone, or all health professionals decided that they wouldn’t turn up to work, industrial action by any of the above is not likely to be taken seriously. If it is taken seriously, it is most likely to be thought of as an annoyance and unlikely to serve the interests of those striking. Should providers of essential services refuse to work, on the other hand, the public would rightly turn on them and blame them for the ensuing disaster.

  But what’s a trade union to do? I don’t know. But in a country in which people prize their convenience, I don’t think inconveniently highlighting the plight of the low paid worker will win much sympathy. The trade union might win political capital. Politicians will seek to do the same on the basis of their reactions to the situation. But the passport office worker will almost certainly lose out.

  Then again, in this part of the world, you can’t just fire an entire department for going on strike. So maybe there’s hope.

• ‘New’ Unionism

  June 17, 2009 @ 12:40 pm | by Bryan

  UNISON, Britain’s largest public sector union, has halted some of its funding to the Labour party and threatened to stop its financial support to the party altogether. The reason? Labour’s privatisation of public services.

  It’s an interesting development. Labour’s response is eye opening. According to Reuters, a party spokesman said,

  The Labour Party and UNISON share a commitment to the values of public services and social justice … but the Labour Party’s policy is built on wider foundations — listening to the views of the whole community to build a fair future for all.

  It’s the ‘wider foundations’ bit that really stands out for me. It’s true that a governing party needs to look to the interests of many stakeholders and sometimes their interests collide. But a party that takes its name from the working classes should surely have, at its core, the interests of people on the lower rungs of the socio-economic ladder. I don’t know when that was last the case in Britain, but Tony Blair and Gordon Brown definitely did their bit to create a party whose character has little in common with its name.

  Even more interesting for me is the Irish trade union movement. Maybe its just evolution or changing with the times, but if there was a New Labour in Britain, there has to have been a New TU movement here. Although they sometimes refuse to sign up to collective bargaining, and they are criticised for all the ills of industrial Ireland, I can’t really tell the trade unions from the political establishment. It’s like the closing scene of Orwell’s Animal Farm. The animals in charge look just like the humans before them.

  The clue to what has happened can probably be found in the action UNISON opted to take to show their displeasure. They withheld money. If political representation comes at a financial cost, those with the least money will be represented the least.

• Doctors’ strike?

  February 27, 2009 @ 10:58 am | by Bryan

  99% of non-consultant hospital doctors (NCHDs) voted in favour of industrial action yesterday. Interestingly, nothing was left off the table, including an all out strike.

  I remember being involved in a doctor’s strike in Zimbabwe. It’s never a good thing when people who work in hospitals are unhappy. Patient care can only suffer. In a Zimbabwean context, a doctors’ or nurses’ strike meant that some people, who under different circumstances would have survived their illness, died.

  So why did we go on strike? We were dealing with a system that refused to respond to any but the most extreme actions. It was the only way to ensure that health personnel were earning just enough to be able to live above the poverty datum line. The fact that the country’s social fabric had been completely ripped apart made it much easier to take that kind of action. And we always saw it as action taken against the government as opposed to patients. I guess when times are desperate, people generally try to use whatever power they have to ensure that they have the best chances of getting by. But having said all of that, even though we were convinced we weren’t in the wrong, I think we all felt guilty about the consequences of our actions.

  Here in Ireland, The NCHDs are being unfairly targeted by the HSE (Health Service Executive). They are significantly weaker than the nurses, who have powerful unions backing them, and they have less leverage and options than consultants. Despite the fact that NCHDs do most of the doctoring in hospitals, it has been proposed that they take what amounts to a 49% pay cut. Can you imagine a 49% pay cut being proposed for consultants or nurses? It just wouldn’t happen … unless similar cuts were imposed across the board.

  That said, the environment in Ireland is different to that in Zimbabwe. For starters, in many ways, the strike vote is primarily a show of power. The Irish Medical Organisation is in talks with the HSE and the industrial action vote will bolster the union’s position.

  The politics and the socio-economic situation are also very different. Public opinion counts for a lot more here than it does in Zimbabwe. There is also more social cohesion. I can’t see doctors walking out en masse. This dispute will probably be decided by public opinion and after all the posturing is done (on both sides), some form of compromise will be reached.

  To echo the sentiments expressed in Monday’s editorial in this newspaper, the real issue here is that people need to feel that the burden of the recession is being shared justly. At some stage, severe cuts are probably going to have to be made, and the standard of living in Ireland will have to drop.

  I wonder if any mainstream political party will be able to endure the political fall-out from saying that and making cuts across the board. The cynic in me thinks that most political parties the world over are much more likely to try to spare those with the power to keep them in power, or precipitate their demise.

• Class conflict?

  February 19, 2009 @ 12:33 pm | by Bryan

  

  A section of the 4,000 crowd attending the the Civil, Public and Services Union (CPSU) demonstration against the pension levy which took place outside Leinster House yesterday. Photograph: Eric Luke

  Civil, Public and Services Union (CPSU) members, voted overwhelmingly in favour of industrial action. It is more likely than not that more groups of workers are going to demonstrate their displeasure in similar ways. In Ireland and beyond, questions are starting to be asked about the distribution of wealth.

  On a morning news talk show, Jimmy Carter’s former National Security Advisor, Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski spoke about the potential for ‘class conflict’. He brought up the fact that in the recent past, a small group of people have acquired extraordinary wealth. In his words, there was a ‘transfer of wealth’ which was to the benefit of a few. He then noted that in the foreseeable future, a good deal of people are in danger of losing their jobs, homes, and the little they have. The result, he postulates, is that those who find themselves on the short end of the stick could respond violently.

  Brezinski also brings up the fact that at a time of banking crisis in the United States a hundred years ago, the ‘bailout’ was provided by the rich. The rich have the capacity to help fix the economy and should be doing so is the conclusion that he comes to.

  Dr Brezinski was talking about what is happening in America, but things aren’t that different here. That then begs the question, do those with disproportionate wealth have a moral obligation to contribute disproportionately to an economic recovery? Likewise, is Ireland in any danger of ‘class conflict’?

  One of the silver linings of this recession is the fact that it provides a good opportunity to ask fundamental questions. In this case, there is an opportunity to look at what, as a society, we believe about the distribution of wealth. In Scandanavia once upon a time, it was virtually impossible to be wealthy because of the thinking there, and the tax laws that it produced. Today, Ireland gets to work out what the country feels about who should get what, and there is an opportunity to translate that belief into legislation. Ideally, that would happen without there being physical conflict.

  Maybe I’ve just grown cynical, but I doubt that there will be any such rethink. I don’t think there is any danger of class conflict in the Western world. I don’t think that people are as angry about he fact that some people have so much more than others. Instead, there is much more individual anger at not being among those at the top of the wealth food chain.

  The real danger for conflict is within the ranks of the poor. As people try to scramble up the narrowing rungs of the socio-economic ladder, I predict that there will be more people stepping on those below them than trying to pull down those above. Why? In the words of a friend, greed is universal. It doesn’t just apply to the wealthy.

• Sharing the pain

  February 4, 2009 @ 9:05 am | by Bryan

  

  Yesterday, Taoiseach Brian Cowen announced major public spending cuts. Harry McGee spells it all out clearly. What intersts me most is the fact that the bulk of proposal is in the form of a pension payment that civil servants will have to make. A civil servant earning €45k a year, for example, will see a weekly reduction in their salary of about €62.

  It is important to bear in mind that this pay cut isn’t really a pay cut. It’s more like being forced to increase the payments into your pension. That said, for those who are already struggling financially, the loss of a further €62 every week could hurt badly.

  This entire episode has been revealing. The truth is that a decrease in the overall standard of living has been inevitable for some time now. What should not have been so surprising is the fact that there has been a tendency to suggest that someone else should bear the brunt of that change. Fingers have been pointed at civil servants and the wealthy. I’m all for a progressive system of taxation. I’m even in favour of the rich doing even more than normal in times of economic difficulty. But I don’t like the idea of scapegoating people, the rich included. If there is a national challenge, shouldn’t everyone, rich, middle-class and poor contribute in some way to making things right?

  I think the government has done a reasonable job given the circumstances. The one area where I think they, and the entire political elite, have dropped the ball has to do with tackling things head on. I’m still waiting to hear a politician on either side of the political divide address the country’s economic difficulties without trying to gain political milage out of it. Even now, it seems like political considerations are dictating economic policy.

   

  By the way, I thought consensus at the moment was that increasing public spending and maintaining spending power trumps budget deficits? If that’s the case, how wise is decreasing the spending power of civil servants?

• Trade Unions in Ireland

  January 30, 2009 @ 3:32 pm | by Bryan

  

  A caricature of French president Nicolas Sarkozy is carried during a protest march in Paris yesterday. The demonstrations were part of a nationwide one-day strike called by France’s eight main trade unions to try to persuade Mr Sarkozy and business leaders to do more to help people overcome the economic crisis.
  Photograph: Reuters

  A lot has been said and written about the trade union led protests in France. What really stands out for me are the very real cultural differences between the French and the Irish attitudes towards trade unionism. Maybe I’m just uninformed, but I get the feeling that in general, trade unions are tolerated in this country as an institution of the past that society is evolving beyond. In terms of the economy, I get the impression that most people see the trade unions as a hinderance to progress.

  From a distance, it seems as though the French conception of trade unionism is significantly different. The French trade unions seem to be able to demand a seat at the governing table because of the support (albeit passive) they are perceived to have from most parts of society.

  If that in fact is the case, why is that so? How come the profile of the trade unions here doesn’t seem to be rising, even at a time when their traditional base is under a darker cloud than it has been in a long time?

• Seperate but equal

  August 20, 2008 @ 1:11 pm | by Bryan

  Fine Gael Education Spokesperson, Brian Hayes, has called for the separation of immigrant children whose English is poor from mainstream classes. The idea is that they will then be reintroduced to the regular classes when their English improves.

  I am a little surprised. Mr. Hayes called for the hijab to be banned in schools earlier this year on the grounds that “There is enough segregation in Ireland without adding this to it. Segregating in this way is not helpful to Muslims and not helpful to anybody.”

  Some people have been unhappy with Hayes’ proposal being labelled as ‘segregation’. But at the end of the day, that is what it is. Bear in mind that the idea behind the segregation of American schools was ‘separate but equal’. I’m struggling to see how the TD sees the wearing of headgear by some as segregation, but not the removal of some students from regular classrooms. Is it just me or are those positions inconsistent?

  What do teachers think of this proposal? The largest teachers’ trade union, the Irish National Teachers’ Organisation (INTO), has described it as ‘discriminatory, inequitable and deeply flawed’.  The high school union, the Association of Secondary Teachers Ireland (ASTI) supports the idea of separate ‘immersion classes’ in the first few weeks of school that would concentrate on English language skills. I would have thought that real immersion would involve putting those students whose English isn’t good in an overwhelmingly English speaking environment.

  Karl Kitching has written a really good opinion piece on this issue. What must be taken into consideration, beyond questions of ethics, are the social repercussions of separating immigrant students. Most people feel that the formation of immigrant ghettos is a recipe for social disaster. Do we really want to start cultivating those problems in school children?

• Should there be a Public Sector Wage Freeze?

  July 15, 2008 @ 3:39 pm | by Bryan

  It was interesting watching Questions and Answers last night. The big issue was whether or not there should be a wage freeze in the public sector.

  The argument for the wage freeze is that the economy is in recession. There have been a myriad of negative economic announcements recently. And it’s not just in Ireland. An American bank has gone bust and the housing crisis there looks like it is worsening. Henry Paulson, the Treasury Secretary, has had to bail out the lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And were that not enough, the UK inflation figures released today are the highest in 11 years.

  With such a gloomy economic outlook, there is a lot of sense in making the public sector as efficient as possible and making sacrifices now to ensure that the tough times end sooner. Private sector groups also argue though that those in the civil service have a great deal more job security. The flip side of that argument is that the economic environment hurts the lowest paid workers the hardest. There are civil servants that have seen a reduction in real wages since the last pay hike, and if there is a pay freeze, their standard of living will fall further.

  A big part of me believes that a wage freeze makes good, common sense. There is just one big catch. The people advocating for that wage restraint the loudest are either employer groups – who represent the wealthy – or government officials – who are looking for any way to save a buck.

  I still need convincing. 

• Wage talks

  July 4, 2008 @ 11:36 am | by Bryan

   

  I’m not a big fan of Pat Buchanan, but I think he raises a good point in this clip(Sorry, I can’t seem to embed it). The disparity in wealth between working people and those at the top of the social ladder here is shocking. And when the economy tightens, it is less well off people who bare the brunt of the harder times.

  The government and Ibec have basically called for wage restraint during the current talks on the new social partnership agreement. Their rational has to do with Ireland remaining competitive in a difficult international business climate. The trade unions on the other hand are pretty much saying what Buchanan is saying in the video. That it’s not fair to make those at the bottom of the pay scale pay the nation out of a recession.

  I don’t know who is right. My heart is with the trade unions. At the same time, there seems to be a lot of sense in going without today for tomorrow’s sake. I guess the question then becomes one of whether the sacrifices are being spread out fairly.

  I honestly don’t know. Someone school me. Are the trade unions preventing progress or are they keeping people from being exploited in this case?