Scrap Partnership: It's time to strike back

national | worker & community struggles and protests | news report

Monday November 23, 2009 11:23

by Alan MacSimóin

wsm_ireland at yahoo dot com

Working people hit the streets in huge numbers on November 6th. The protests showed, once again, that there is a willingness to resist the government’s attacks on living standards. Most observers put the total number who walked out of work to take part in the eight protests at around 100,000.

When 120,000 marched on February 21st the Irish Congress of Trade Unions followed this up with their plan for a general strike on March 30th, only to cancel it in return for the promise of new "social partnership" talks.

The prospect of new "social partnership" talks has been suggested again. Congress leaders want little more than to be ‘consulted’ and negotiated with. They want to moderate the government’s strategy but accept the “need” for income cuts.

Statements from ICTU general secretary David Begg and SIPTU president Jack O’Connor say they want the cuts to be implemented more gradually. Begg has said public spending cuts should be spread over the next eight years up to 2017 instead of the Government's target of 2013 “to minimise the effect the cuts have on workers”. They have agreed with the government’s argument that workers should bail out the rich, they just want it done over a longer time.

Some public sector union leaders have made it known they are prepared to support cuts in services, allowances, working conditions and even extending the working week as long as there are no more cuts in basic pay. This has led to a feeling among many union activists that the leaders have “sold out”.

With many senior union officials on wages many times higher that their members it is certainly true that they have no personal motivation when it comes to resisting pay cuts. INTO’s John Carr gets €171,313 a year, IMPACT’s Peter McLoone €171,000, ASTI’s John White €144,000, David Begg €137,400 and Jack O’Connor €124,000.

However, while it would be easy to blame this small but very influential group of overpaid people, it ignores the reality that the majority of union members voted for the ‘partnership’ deals. The agreement may be dead but the concept of a common interest between boss and employee still hangs over us like the ghost of yesterday.

There is no alternative to income cuts if we continue to “embrace the spirit of partnership”. If the bosses and government are our “partners” then it makes sense to go along with their priorities. That means bailing out the rich at the expense of working people. As SIPTU’s Brendan Hayes pointed out when he refused to sign the Taxation Commission report, “people earning more than €200,000 would not have to pay any more tax”.

This is a class conflict. There is an employers’ offensive to reduce wages and public spending. It is not about everyone taking a hit, it’s about the minority who own a huge amount of Ireland’s wealth preserving and adding to their holdings.

Employers unilaterally impose new contracts, pay cuts are imposed in profitable firms like Marine Terminals and Boots, pension schemes are changed to no longer guarantee a set payment and jobs are outsourced to low pay firms.

Instead of buying in to the fiction that the bosses’ interest is somehow a “national interest” we can start asking questions like, why can hospitals and schools have their funds cut but €54b be quickly found to bail out a handful of mega-rich property developers and investors?

Why are people like Tony O’Reilly, Margaret Heffernan or Denis O’Brien not being relieved of a chunk of their wealth when workers have to give up a chunk of our pay? Why are PAYE workers, who have absolutely no control over economic decisions, expected to foot the bill?

The alternative to pinning our hopes on David Begg getting a great deal over tea and sandwiches in the Taoiseach’s office is strong, combative unions. And that means shop stewards and activists who want to fight back getting together inside our unions to convince our colleagues to back an alternative based on letting the rich “share the pain”.

---

This article is from the forthcoming issue of Workers Solidarity, this is its first online publication

save preference

Comments (6 of 6)

Money talks

by Realist

Mon Nov 23, 2009 14:06

Private sector workers have already had their taxes raised and their pay cut because the businesses they are employed by will simply go to the wall otherwise in a shrinking market.

The public sector exists soldely because it is funded by taxpayers, the majority of whom are also working people who do not have secure employment because of the recession.

The government simply does not have income from taxes to continue its current spending and its ability to borrow is restricted.

If it does not cut taxes it must borrow to make up the shortfall or else the IMF will step in and make the decisions for them.

At the moment when the cost of living is falling it is simply unrealistic to expect the government to be able to maintain its current spending the majority of which is public sector pay and social welfare.

No amount of rhetoric about class struggle so going to alter the cruel of facts of life that government spending in all areas must be cut one way or another , sacrificing many services, laying off workers and cutting social welfare and other payments.

there are other options realist

by Cathal - WSM

Mon Nov 23, 2009 14:28

Realist, the governmnet has many other options to make up the shortfall. Most of the richest people in Ireland don't even pay a penny tax. That could be changed. And they could take back control of the huge oil and gas reserves off our coast that have been just given away. No public service pay or social welfare cuts are neccesary.

False divisions

by Andrew

Mon Nov 23, 2009 15:22

All workers have had the rate of tax they pay raised.

Beyond that

A 90% tax on earnings over 100k would raise 2.1 billion
A cap on public sector wages at 100k would raise 450 million
A 5% wealth tax which excludes farming land would raise 8 billion

In the longer term there is the equivalent of 10 billion barrels of oil off the Irish coasts. This is almost been given away to Shell and other companies at the present. If the government took 70% of this, the rate Russia, Angola and Nigeria among other countries do, this would see 294 billion coming in as these fields are developed.

to realist

by Conor. M

Mon Nov 23, 2009 18:59

''If it does not cut taxes it must borrow to make up the shortfall or else the IMF will step in and make the decisions for them.''

These are classic scare tactics. As a previous commentator pointed out, there is plenty of revenue in Ireland, its just not FOR Ireland. There is over €500billion worth of oil&gas here. Why cut, when we can raise taxes for the wealthy and tax Shell to good heavens.

'We are going to use your money to help out our friends in the banks who helped facilitate this economic crisis. While we do that, we're going to attack the people who had nothing to do with the crisis, and/or actually got nothing from the Celtic tiger era. If you don't bow down and take it... we're going to call the IMF (we wont really)'. - Brian Lenihan's Diary

Re: Classic scare tactics

Tue Nov 24, 2009 12:34

"These are classic scare tactics. As a previous commentator pointed out, there is plenty of revenue in Ireland, its just not FOR Ireland. There is over €500billion worth of oil&gas here. Why cut, when we can raise taxes for the wealthy and tax Shell to good heavens."

Are you an economic illiterate?

Government revenue is gathered from business profits and from the wages of workers.

Do you think that you can raise endlessly raise taxes to "good heavens" without any impact whatsoever on businesses and without any knock on effects on government tax revenue?

Money is invested in businesses including Shell for profit. No other reason. That is why economic activity exists. People are investing in enterprises which will increase the amount of money they invested. When enterprises cease to be profitable or lose money they collapse and are broken up to retrieve what money the investors can still get back from their failed investments.

If investors find that too much tax is taken from their profits with the result they do not make the profits they wanted, they do not make any profit or they end up with less money than they initially invested, they will be less likely to invest in Irish business enterprises and they will invest their money elsewhere.

Raising taxes and borrowing to cover public spending is the road to ruin.

Banks borrow money because they know that the debtor will pay them back plus interest. That is why it is profitable to lend money.

If the government does not have the ability to raise the revenue to finance its debts then the borrowers will no longer lend the money.

When profits dry up and businesses go to the wall then tax revenues will plummet and there will be less money for public spending.

To Realist

Wed Nov 25, 2009 17:40

Do you think the deal oil companies like Shell get in this country is good for the people?

The only chance the state has to get revenue from the resources is through the very low 20% tax rate. And the corporations can write all their expenses off against it, so the exchequer will probably get nothing.

Number of comments per page

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

Anti-Empire

The Saker

Public Inquiry

Human Rights in Ireland

Scrap Partnership: It's time to strike back

Comments (6 of 6)