Five days after the December Budget SIPTU withdrew unilaterally from negotiations on a new national agreement. Other organisations talked about withdrawal and the Association of Secondary Teachers in Ireland refused to even enter talks, but only the State's largest union had the capacity to pull the entire edifice down.

The gesture achieved what SIPTU wanted - to put the issue of low pay and low incomes centre stage. For the previous five days, debate on the Budget had largely been consumed by Finance Minister Mr McCreevy's controversial "individualisation" measure of £3,000 of tax allowances to upper income groups.

It was also a reminder of SIPTU's policy of keeping its options open on the industrial relations front. Another reminder, for this reporter as he waited in the lobby, was the sight of a trolley-load of official strike placards being delivered at Liberty Hall with the union's brand new logo on them.

SIPTU has no problems with individualising tax allowances. In fact, one of the concessions it secured in talks on the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness was the extension of the extra allowance to couples where the dependent spouse was in part-time employment.

Some people regard SIPTU's attitude as schizophrenic, a combination of old-style militancy and new-wave partnership.

During Partnership 2000 it concluded more partnership agreements than any other union, but unofficial action by its members also closed Dublin Airport.

SIPTU president Des Geraghty and his trade union believe that the primary role of unions is to transform society, not just negotiate on pay and conditions. Geraghty, whose family background is steeped in Larkinism, has a very ambitious programme indeed. He describes opponents of the national agreement approach, whether they be left-wing trade unionists or right-wing economists, as "slow learners".

He sees the current generation of agreements as central to modernising Irish society. To those who say the dialogue between the social partners is usurping the Oireachtas role and the democratic process, he replies: "This agreement is part of a process to improve the rights of people in the workplace and in the community.

"Far from being a simpleminded vote on a pay increase it is about improving the lot of workers and the disadvantaged, while underpinning economic growth."

In a reference to comments by the ATGWU leader, Mick O'Reilly, that issues such as taxation should be a matter for the Dail and that the best way to protect the interests of the working class is by building a strong Labour Party, Mr Geraghty said: "I want to know what we were doing on tax marches and in negotiations with successive governments on budgetary policy if we could leave it all to the Labour Party?"

Geraghty wants to see the roles of the social partners expanded and put on a formal footing. For instance he says: "It's time they looked at the Senate and made it reflect the real nature of Irish society.

"Important issues should be debated and decided in the public arena. As far as I'm concerned the negotiations on national agreements are a strengthening of our democracy. Because if you look at what is going on in the tribunals it's clear that a lot of what was happening in the past was decision-making behind closed doors by politicians and big business.

"What's wrong with the socially deprived, trade unionists or business interests being represented in the Senate? The present system is very elitist.

"Social dialogue is now part of the bargaining process within the EU," he says. "All European Commission proposals go to the European Parliament and to the social partners for consultation."

He argues for similar consultation at national and local government level.

"Modern democracy is about a series of bargaining processes. The only difference in the past was that the poor, the unemployed and workers were left out of that process. What we want is for the people traditionally excluded to be included in the process and allowed to bargain about their future."

But as an experienced trade union leader, Des Geraghty knows that for most SIPTU members, and other trade unionists, the agreement will stand or fall on the pay and tax figures. He admits that he is disappointed more was not achieved for the low paid.

"What people opposed to the agreement still haven't grasped is that it's a pay, tax and social inclusion package." For instance, when the employers failed to move towards the higher flat rate increases the unions wanted, "the Government recognised the problem and made tax concessions weighted towards the lower paid in the area of social welfare, by cutting PRSI and health levy rates". He says the introduction of the National Minimum Wage on April 1st will also mean pay increases can be made additional to the minimum rate in unionised employments. SIPTU has already put in place agreements to boost minimum rates in sectors such as cleaning and security.

Geraghty accepts that there is a special problem in the retail sector, where Partnership 2000 does not run out until March 2001. "The distributive trade needs to bring all its agreements into this year and the big multiples are making big enough profits to do it."

Further steps to control the rise in property prices is the other move he believes is essential to underpin the next agreement.

Like most trade union and employer leaders who remember the free-for-all of the 1980s he is fond of quoting the contrast with the current era. Between 1980 and 1987 gross pay rose by 91 per cent, or 69 per cent after tax. But inflation rose by 82 per cent, resulting in a drop of 17 per cent in real take-home. Since 1987 average take-home pay has risen by more than 30 per cent.

He accepts that the higher pay increases advocated by some economists might help reduce overheating in the economy. "But the human face of that shake-out is the closure of factories where people are on tight margins. That won't happen at the upper end of the market where most of these commentators operate, or in the public service."

Geraghty believes that many professionals are adding to inflationary pressure by boosting their own fees. Nor does he have much time for the secondary teachers' 30 per cent claim. "If teachers get 30 per cent we have to ensure we have the tax revenue to pay it; and pay for everybody else as well, because I can't see anyone else standing back. There was a lot of sympathy for the nurses but that wears very thin when you extend it everywhere."

He is also critical of the approach of Labour Court chairman, Finbarr Flood, to the new agreement. Mr Flood warned last week that he would be interpreting the clause on breaches of the new agreement very strictly. "If this agreement is passed we will be looking for a meeting with the court," Geraghty says. "I don't agree with the chairman having such a rigid and legalistic approach. The success of our industrial relations system is its voluntaristic nature."

Geraghty is optimistic that commitments in the agreement on extra resources for childcare will be honoured by the end of the year. He believes that the gain-sharing provisions will become a local bargaining clause with much greater flexibility than ever before.

It also has the virtue of not undermining competitiveness.

"I want to issue a note of warning here," he says. "Our economic success has been built on quite a fragile base. If we allow market forces to run riot in the housing sector and on the wages front we will destroy the fundamental reasons for our success, which are stability, predictability of costs, greater productivity to underpin our competitiveness and the ability to manage change.

"If we throw out all the factors that created our success, there is no basis for people to expect aspirations to be met automatically by some other means."