Economics: Letter to Jack O'Connor, Siptu president

Dear Comrade, or should I simply say, dear Leader? For you have been given so much power in the way our system of social partnership operates, I doubt if there is anyone else in the country more powerful than yourself.

On the issue of Aer Lingus privatisation, you mightn't feel that powerful at the moment, but let's park that for a minute.

Both of us recently had the pleasure of being guest speakers at the ISME conference in Killenard. Well, it takes all sorts as they say. Those business suits in ISME mightn't be expected to invite you to their conference but it just goes to show what a broad-minded bunch they are, capable of listening to and appreciating different views to their own.

It contrasts with the approach of Siptu. Take for instance last year's meeting in Liberty Hall on the question of the services directive. When one speaker at that event - Eoin Ryan MEP - attempted to voice a view different from that mandated by the iron principles of democratic centralism, he was booed and shouted down from the floor.

By contrast, your contribution to Isme's conference was appreciated even by those who disagreed with it, including myself.

The difference is your loss in the end. The trade union movement's failure to subject its own view of things to - dare I say it - a little bit of competition will ultimately be to its own detriment.

Profound changes are taking place in the attitudes of working class people towards underperformance in the public sector, wasted public expenditure, closed shops and outmoded work practices.

But to get to the point Jack, what I'm really writing to you for is to clear up some misunderstanding over the question of the displacement of workers and the so-called "race to the bottom".

In your speech to Isme you paid me the compliment of referring to articles I had written on the issue of migrant workers and how they are affecting the lot of Irish workers.

You drew attention to two articles in particular. In one you claim that I argued there was no displacement of Irish workers. In the other, you claim I admitted that there was and said that you didn't like having to say "I told you so".

I'm delighted to clear up any misunderstanding. At a microeconomic level - ie at the level of firms and sectors, there is of course displacement. Any dynamic economy experiences regular displacement. It is precisely by this revolutionary dialectic that older, less desirable jobs are destroyed and new and better ones replace them.

But I have always maintained, at a macroeconomic level, there is no net displacement of Irish workers.

If you don't believe me just take a look at the unemployment rate, which continues to fall, and wage rates, which across all but very few sectors, continue to rise.

In two sectors - manufacturing and tourism - the number of Irish workers is falling while the number of immigrant workers is rising. But this is no displacement in any negative sense. As the fall in the Live Register proves, Irish workers leaving those sectors are not lying idle, but moving on to better things.

The jobs they are leaving behind are a godsend for temporary immigrants who now have a chance to earn needed cash and broaden their horizons. Those immigrants are leaving behind parts of eastern Europe where no opportunity exists for them to engage in any meaningful work. In other words everyone is gaining from this process. What we are seeing, dear comrade, is not a race to the bottom but a race to the top.

Of course, it cannot be ruled out that some individual Irish workers are not making this transition.

Our comrades in Ictu have reacted to this problem in a constructive manner by highlighting the need for improved policies in the area of lifelong learning and flexicurity.

Giving workers and employers tax incentives to pursue job-related training - as is done in Hong Kong and Sweden - deserves the full support of everyone in and outside the trade union movement. So do measures to ensure that basic workers rights are not eroded.

But Comrade, we must acknowledge the concrete realities of the situation. If the state has a duty to protect and assist the worker, the worker also has a responsibility to be vigilant and responsible in their work. It is a painful reality that - whether by their lack of dedication to their work or complacency - some Irish workers have exposed themselves to replacement by taking a slipshod approach to their work. Trade unions should represent workers, not shirkers.

Far from being a negative force, regulated competition in the workplace is a healthy, vibrant force. It forces workers to do something that one of your heroes, Karl Marx, would have approved of: to assume responsibility for the contribution they make to society through their labour.

As of your radio interview on Morning Ireland early last week, you have ceased to be entitled to argue against this by basing your opposition to Michael O'Leary's acquisition of Aer Lingus on the grounds that it would undermine competition in the aviation market.

In O'Leary's case this isn't entirely correct. Ryanair and Aer Lingus do not compete directly on all of either airlines' routes and other airlines compete directly with both. But the ideological breakthrough you have made is stunning.

We can both, for instance, recall how, when it was a monopoly in the mid-1980s Aer Lingus charged Irish workers more than 200 old Irish pounds - a worker's weekly wage back then - for the privilege of flying to the continent. Now for many destinations, the price is less than the price of a pint.

Looked at one way, Michael O'Leary has greatly contributed to the liberation of Irish workers from the shackles of exploitation by semi-state monopolies, as well as from the disgraceful way they are let down by the public services for which they pay. Only by extending the revolutionary process of competition to remaining reactionary bastions of privilege can we fully liberate the Irish worker and citizen from exploitation. On behalf of the revolution, I welcome you to our struggle.

Fraternally yours.