NO national agreement will succeed the Programme for Competitiveness and Work if the Government fails to guarantee significant tax cuts for the low paid and to enforce the rights of workers to trade union recognition.
This was the message from the leaders of Ireland's largest trade union, SIPTU, after delegates to a special conference voted "reluctantly" to sanction talks.
The largest public service union, IMPACT, also endorsed the talks yesterday. It is now almost certain that the Irish Congress of Trade Unions will secure a mandate to negotiate with employers and the Government when its delegates assemble to discuss the issue on September 26th.
Yesterday's SIPTU conference was closed to the press but delegates spoke afterwards. A construction delegate from Dublin, Mr Mick Finnegan, said: "There's no great enthusiasm for talks. We're saying go ahead but don't come back without something decent on the table."
A Tipperary delegate, Mr Martin Kennedy, said: "The real test will be the deal itself and it will be much harder to get acceptance on this occasion."
Cavan delegate Mr Jim Finnegan said: "We must drop the idea of small pay increases." Tax cuts should be targeted at the low paid. Anyone earning £150 a week was "on poverty wages" and should pay no tax.
SIPTU president Mr Edmund Browne confirmed that the failure of governments to relieve the PAYE tax burden was the biggest single grievance to emerge at the conference.
Mr Browne and the union's vice president, Mr Jimmy Somers, said specific commitments to cut taxes would have to be included in budgets introduced during the life of any new agreement. The commitments would have to be honoured even if there was a change of government.
The SIPTU leaders would not be drawn on how much tax relief would be needed to secure acceptance of a deal, but did not discount reports that it could cost the Exchequer £850 million over three years.
On union recognition, Mr Browne said it was inconsistent for companies to come to Ireland and be allowed to enjoy the benefits of social partnership while refusing to recognise unions.
"I'm not saying companies coming here must recognise unions. But if they do come here and if their workers want to be represented by a union, they should have the right to do so.
"Union recognition has to be dealt with in the talks," he said. "This is not a single issue negotiation but I would hate any employer or the Government to ignore the significance of this issue.
"We cannot visualise a society where there is growing acceptance of the right of employers not to recognise trade unions. It is an abnegations of democracy."
On pay, Mr Browne said employers had been "miserly" about releasing "some of the extra wealth generated by the national agreements". Attempts to operate social partnership strategies at local level had also encountered many difficulties.
"There is a feeling that the private sector needs greater flexibility in any new agreement to deal with the problems that have built up.
This could include a local bargaining clause. But Mr Browne ruled out any return to the "clause three" approach adopted in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. This allowed for productivity based increases of up to 3 per cent on top of national pay rounds.
"It was a fudged version of local bargaining that brought the process seriously into disrepute," he said. In future a realistic price must be paid for changes that improved the competitiveness of companies.