National pay deal will have to cover wide range of social issues

The next national agreement, if there is one, will be like no other. When delegates to the special conference of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions gather in Liberty Hall, Dublin, this morning they will be asked to endorse talks on no fewer than five framework agreements covering: prosperity and competitiveness; inequality and social inclusion; quality of life in communities; workplace relations; and of course, wages and living standards.

The agenda has moved a long way since the latest generation of national agreements was launched by Mr Charles Haughey in 1987. The chief actor in expanding that agenda has been the ICTU and it is now calling for a new vision for Irish society.

The proposal it is submitting to delegates today is so visionary that it allows for agreement on issues such as lifelong learning; affordable housing; gain-sharing in the workplace; childcare and health service waiting lists, without a deal being struck on pay.

At the launch of the National Economic and Social Council report on the parameters for new talks on Tuesday, "vision" was also the buzz-word. The NESC too emphasised the bigger picture and it skirted the issue of how pay should be dealt with completely.

Mr Dermot McCarthy, assistant secretary at the Department of the Taoiseach responsible for economic and social policy, was frank enough to admit there could be a "payless" agreement.

Although he was quick to add that centralised pay bargaining was the "glue" that had held all previous agreements together. Without it, he predicted that the arithmetic of the public finances would "go out of kilter pretty quickly" and everyone would end up worse off.

Many at today's conference feel the ICTU leadership settled for increases that were too low and too rigid.

At the same time they know that the tax cuts which have pushed the real earnings of PAYE workers up by 30 per cent since 1987 were possible only because the agreements allowed unions a say in social and economic policy.

Ideally, they want a new mix that gives greater opportunity for local pay bargaining, while continuing to receive tax cuts and better social services.

Recognition of the value of national agreements has trickled down to the rank and file of the trade union movement. Earlier this year, SIPTU engaged in the most extensive consultation undertaken by a union with its members on what they want out of a new agreement. Pay was a central concern but so were tax reform, job security, pensions, childcare and health. At last month's conference of the union, after a complex and sometimes bitter debate, delegates voted almost unanimously to enter talks on a new agreement.

It is no accident that SIPTU played a central role in resolving the nurses' dispute. Not only did it have over 8,000 members on the picket lines but the union saw the damage that the strike could do to social partnership at national level.

That threat appears to have receded, although the results of the nurses' ballot will probably not be known until tomorrow.

Nevertheless, the strike has changed the way in which public service pay will be dealt with in future.

Already the teaching unions who, with 40,000 members, represent the largest single block in the public service, are seeking a review of pay and conditions. The general secretary of the Teachers' Union of Ireland, Mr Jim Dorney, said earlier this week that "blanket increases" in pay were no longer a viable way to do business in the public service.

The Civil and Public Service Union, which represents 10,000 clerical workers in the civil service, has taken the even more revolutionary step of commissioning private consultants to advise on the feasibility of a gain-sharing model for the public sector.

CPSU general secretary Mr Blair Horan has told members they must prepare for a wide range of scenarios, ranging from a new national agreement to a free-for-all within the public service, with individual government departments negotiating deals with unions.

In spite of the tribulations of the public sector, it is private-sector workers who are least happy with the constraints of national agreements.

Whether it is a union representing low-paid shop workers, such as MANDATE, or one representing well-paid professional and managerial grades, such as MSF, there is strong opposition to any attempt at further centralised pay deals.

MANDATE is the largest union in the Republic opposed to a new national agreement. It is well organised in the large multiples, such as Tesco and Dunnes Stores, and believes it can strike a better rate outside national pay rounds.

However, it says that if a new agreement is reached it should provide for a flat-rate increase of £20 a week and tax breaks designed to help the low paid.

MSF has traditionally been critical of national agreements but its members have just voted by four to one to enter talks. This is on the basis that any new agreement covers issues such as tax reform, affordable housing, improved occupational pensions and gain-sharing at enterprise level, as well as pay.

Its national secretary, Mr Jerry Shanahan, is one of the few senior trade unionists to put a price tag on a new agreement in pay terms. He says that workers could receive increases of 26 per cent over three years without any damage to the economy.

He points out that the biggest single drawback in Partnership 2000 was that it was "front loaded" in pay terms. This means that the vast majority of trade unionists have only a 1 per cent rise to look forward to between now and 2001. That is not even enough to match inflation.

But he also accepts that pay is no longer the only consideration. Like other trade unionists, employers and politicians, Mr Shanahan is struggling to deal with a rapidly changing agenda, much of it is gender driven.

Nurses have provided the most dramatic evidence so far of the impact unionised women are having on the workplace. Their priorities are as often about better occupational pensions, paid parental leave or adequate childcare as they are about pay.

That is one of the reasons why the "vision" thing will be so important in talks on a new agreement.