AN INDUSTRIAL dispute is, invariably, a reflection of failure. That is especially true at this time of economic crisis when all sectors of society should pull together to stem a growing number of job losses. A machismo element has been evident in posturing by both employers and trade unionists in the run up to the electricians dispute. Now that an all-out strike is being threatened, however, they must consider the long-term damage that may be caused to the country and to their own interests. This is economic suicide.
During the past 20 years, the development of State-supported industrial relations agencies and the exercise of social partnership greatly reduced the number of strikes. But, from time to time, frustration or opportunism, by either workers or employers, gave rise to confrontation and industrial strife. The only certainty at such times was that a resolution would eventually have to be found through negotiation and compromise. The situation is no different today.
Talks between the parties broke down last Saturday. The chairman of the Labour Relations Commission, Kieran Mulvey, said both sides were determined to have a showdown. He felt he would not be able to intervene creatively until some of the heat was taken out of the situation and the parties adopted more conciliatory approaches. Channels of communication remain open.
Particular difficulties arise in this dispute because of a fragmentation of authority on the electrical contractors side. A new grouping emerged some years ago that challenged a pay agreement reached with the Technical, Engineering and Electrical Union and that grouping is demanding representation at any future negotiations. Such internal conflict must be resolved speedily if successful negotiations are to take place. From the workers’ point of view, the result of this dissension is that an 11 per cent pay increase, agreed two years ago with contractor organisations, has been deferred indefinitely and employers are now seeking a 10 per cent pay cut.
An employers’ representative remarked that “the world has changed since that pay increase was negotiated”. It has indeed. In 2007 the very peak of the property bubble had been reached. Since then, house completions have fallen by almost 90 per cent and unemployment in the construction industry has soared. Property prices have dropped dramatically. And developers are facing bankruptcy. That, however, does not justify a failure by contractors to renegotiate the original agreement, as recommended by the Labour Court.
Presentation of the dispute as involving an 11 per cent pay claim by electricians is simplistic. It could also be seen as a demand by contractors for an overall pay cut of 21 per cent. There is considerable room for manoeuvre between these two positions. Many private sector workers have accepted pay reductions as well as changes in terms and conditions on a voluntary basis. Such flexibility represents a positive response to a worsening economic situation and a contribution to greater competitiveness. A compromise must be found in this dispute.