The ICTU yesterday formally accepted a government invitation to enter talks on a successor to Sustaining Progress. The Unions have made it clear that they want greater commitment to enforcing employment standards and will press for the creation of a Labour Inspectorate placed under the auspices of a new agency rather than the Department of Enterprise and Employment. Also, they want a six-year deal based on the targets established in the recent report of the National Economic and Social Council (NESC). The pay element of the deal, however, would be renewed every two years, under the Ictu proposal.
Speaking after the meeting, Congress General Secretary David Begg said the overarching goal of the new talks would be to ensure “that the country’s many social deficits were addressed.” IBEC's concerns reflect the usual employer emphasis on competitiveness:
We tackle this by controlling our cost base; ensuring that pay levels are brought back into line with those of our main trading partners; by maintaining a flexible labour market and by addressing the productivity issue through greater acceptance of change with improved flexibility in workplaces and effective investment in infrastructure, R&D and training.'
Bertie Ahern, as usual, takes both positions: "economic growth and competitiveness must be pursued in any new pay agreement". However "it was also important to maintain employment standards". Ahern is right in that progress on many different fronts needs to be made simultaneously. It is a fact of life that we must attend to the expectations that have been generated by a dozen years of unprecedented economic growth. On the other hand we must also deal with the medium term fragilities that are now apparent, the most notable being the decline of exports and industrial employment and the unhealthy dependence on consumer spending and construction to sustain growth.
The negotiations over the next few weeks could be dominated by a rather sterile debate about whether social provision or competitiveness should be a priority. The reality is that they are both needed and are inextricably linked. The fact is that where there is a lack of social provision, whether it be in public transport, affordable housing, childcare, the health services, individuals and families will seek their own solutions to such problems and that will result in the demand for more wages. It will be seen that the only way to seek to compensate for the lack of collectively provided services will be to seek and individual solution in the marketplace. Wage demands will then escalate and inflationary pressures will be the result. Some people would welcome this sort of scenario as it would ultimately pare back the level of state activities. But they should be asked about how to deal with all the negative fallout that would ensue.
Comments