Irish ferries – the bitter fruits of partnership

The fruits of social partnership were on display one again this week with the revelation that workers on Irish Ferries vessels on the Ireland/France routes were being paid just €4 an hour. This came out amongst all the razzmatazz surrounding the unveiling of the new €50 million ferry that is to service these routes.

In addition to low pay, the workers, who are mostly from the newer EU member states, are forced to endure the most oppressive conditions. On the two Irish Ferries ships operating the Ireland/Britain routes workers do twelve-hour shifts, seven days a week. Any spare time they have is spent on the alternative vessel to the one they are employed on. They are actively discouraged from leaving the ships; any workers who do come ashore can be disciplined or even sacked. Also, the workers are no longer directly employed by Irish Ferries but supplied by an agency located in Cypress!

Despite these hardships they are still relatively well off compared with workers on the French routes. They are at least still receiving the Irish minimum wage of €8.65 an hour. However, come December they will no longer be entitled to this, and are expected to be put onto the lower rate.

The situation this group of workers find themselves in is iniquitous. But it is a situation that Irish trade unions have a great deal of responsibility in bringing about. For it follows directly from the deal that ICTU brokered with Irish Ferries in 2006 which saw more than 500 made redundant as part of an outsourcing and cost reduction exercise. At the time ICTU brought over 100,000 people out onto the streets of towns and cities across the country to protest at the blatant injustice of what Irish Ferries were attempting to do. One of the main slogans of these demonstrations was "no slave ships in Irish waters".

However, almost immediately after this impressible mobilisation, the trade unions made an agreement that gave Irish Ferries all they wanted. Their ships were re-registered in a foreign country and the any rights that the workers may have enjoyed under Irish law were removed. The only consolation was the workers on the Ireland/Britain routes would receive the Irish minimum wage for a two-year period. This agreement is due to run out at the end of 2008.

Unbelievably, some groups on the left hailed this as a victory. They fell in behind the bureaucrats because they were seen to be mobilising workers. However, the purpose of the mobilisation was not to fight back, but to demonstrate the ability of the leadership to marshal the working class and to show the Government and employers the benefits of keeping social partnership in place. If the union leaders could show their worth in facilitating the ongoing neo-liberal offensive they could keep their place at the table. So following hard on the hard on the heals of the Irish Ferries deal we had the ten year partnership agreement. Meanwhile, workers both indigenous and immigrant, both onshore and off shore, continue to suffer.

Ironically, the new vessel in the Irish Ferries fleet has been named the Oscar Wilde; another ship is called the Jonathan Swift. These two great Irish writers, much of whose energies were taken up in denouncing abuses of their day, would have no doubt found the conditions that prevail within the vessels that bear their names a subject worthy of their attention. If only today’s left possessed a fraction of their insight.

The eyes - watch the eyes. Bureaucracy sell out again

On 3^rd January SIPTU shop stewards agreed to a €20 million cost-cutting programme being sought by Aer Lingus management. Aer Lingus Branch Organiser Teresa Brannick said: "We are committed to the process, which has already identified some €10 million in savings in the areas where SIPTU has members."

Yet in October, when Aer Lingus management demanded the cuts and imposed a freeze on pay increases agreed under the ‘Towards 2016’ partnership deal,” SIPTU National Industrial Secretary Michael Halpenny had said:

“Aer Lingus has sunk to a new low … management has reneged on both local and national agreements between the Social Partners under T2016. Further, it is in breach of commitments entered into prior to privatisation ... Our members are not going to succumb to this kind of blackmail…they are entitled to respect as workers and not have to endure these attempts by management to bully them into submission.”

So how did we get from this sort of forthright opposition to the January collapse? The case is a textbook in bureaucratic manoeuvring – talk tough, threaten action, keep on the move and never left the left hand know what the right is doing.

So the first step was to ‘consult with other unions’ and promise members that industrial action ‘was not ruled out’. Aer Lingus were so overcome that they issued sacking notice to temporary staff and called for contract changes and wage cuts for those remaining.

In response the union balloted for strike action. “The justification for this relentless attack on the living standards of workers on, or near the average industrial wage, is that Aer Lingus rates are ‘not competitive’ in aviation sector terms. The methodology on which this claim is made has never been disclosed …” In other words the attack could be justified if the airline could prove it needed to be more competitive!

By this time the National Implementation Board (NIB) – SIPTU and ICTU officials in partnership with bosses and government – were stepping in to resolve the dispute and by mid-November had issued a report that called for the suspension of strike action wothout any guarantees from management and organised an independent report into Aer Lingus claims of financial misery. In time the report concluded that yes – if Aer Lingus could cut costs then it would make more profits.

That was enough for SIPTU. They agreed to ‘suspend’ strike action. "We expect the airline to involve itself in the process in good faith. Our objective in this process is to ensure an alternative solution can be explored which does not involve reducing our members’ pay and conditions of employment," said SIPTU National Industrial Secretary, Michael Halpenny. In other words – we will help organise the cuts!

Despite constant threats by the airline the unions could not be forced into opposition. What we got was militant bluster and practical collaboration. The union threatened action, writing to Congress seeking an all-out picket, while continuing with the process established by the National Implementation board to seek alternative ways of achieving the company’s objectives.

The success of this strategy does not lie in the mesmeric powers of the bureaucracy or the inability of workers to understand the process of betrayal. It rests securely on decades of betrayal that have demoralised union militants. Unwilling to enter battles where they will be isolated and stabbed in the back by their own leaders, they look for what appears the least worst option. In this case they were promised they could keep their current pay rates – as long as they agreed speedup and redundancy to the tune of 4000 euro per worker to pay for the company’s self-sacrifice!

It’s a pattern that has been repeated across public service, with the latest benchmarking report offering pay increases of 0%, an effective pay cut. There will be no cut in demands for speedup and job cuts. The hypnotic powers of the bureaucracy will in future be tested to the limit.

Unions combine with employers to halt strike

The Nipsa classroom assistants’ strike suffered a major blow when the other unions, Unison and the GMB, voted to accept the latest offer made by the education and library. This decision came at a meeting of the negotiating council involving unions and employers at which the offered was formally tabled and voted upon. With Unison and the GMB for, Nipsa against and the T&GWU abstaining a technical majority of the classroom assistants have voted to accept the offer. The employers will now contact each classroom assistant individually to ask them whether they want to accept the offer.

In the wake of the vote Nipsa announced that it was suspending its latest round of strike action (a two day strike each week). It claimed that its final strike day was in protest at the manner in which the offer had been accepted. Throughout the dispute employers had demanded that Nipsa ballot its members on the latest offer. In the days prior to the meeting of the negotiating council Nipsa had agreed ballot its members. This is after arguing against such a move on the basis that its members had already clearly rejected the offer. To concede to this demand was a major retreat which only emboldened the employers to press ahead with imposing it. It smacked of a desperate attempt to forestall the inevitable stitch up.

Yet in some ways this outcome helped the leadership of Nipsa. It enabled them to end the strike and absolve themselves of responsibility for the debacle. They could claim that they, like their members, were the victims of the other unions’ treachery. This does contain an element of truth. At the start of the dispute all the unions had a formal agreement to defend current pay and conditions of classroom assistants’. But following the slightly improved offer, the GMB, Unison and the T&GWU, immediately broke ranks. They made misleading public statements about the nature of the offer and denounced Nipsa for taking strike action. There are also suspicions that ballot they conducted on the offer were manipulated, with some members not being consulted and others who were not classroom assistants being balloted. It is doubtful whether the unions who voted for the offer actually do represent the majority of classroom assistants. In working hand in glove with employers to put down the strike they have played a thoroughly reactionary role.

However, divisions and treachery while important factors, do not in themselves account for the defeat of the strike. Nipsa leaders, while appearing to be the most militant, operated within the framework of respecting the sovereignty of the other union leaders. No attempt was made to challenge classroom assistants from other unions to support the strike. Nipsa leaders failed to support the claims by some its members that the Unison and GMB ballots on the offer were rigged. Most fatally Nipsa, along with the other unions, totally supported the Executive and Assembly. They perpetuated the myth that Stormont could deliver a just settlement, despite the fact that every party, Sinn Fein in particular, denounced the classroom assistants and did their upmost to bring the strike to an end.

The defeat of classroom assistants strike sends an ominous warning. Despite having a clearly just case; despite having public support; and despite their own determination (17 says on strike in total), they went down to defeat. This strike has demonstrated starkly that the working class in north is in no state to defend itself against the intensifying attack on its living standards.

Sinn Fein strike breakers

The idea that Sinn Fein represents some kind of progressive political force becomes ever more ridiculous with each passing day of devolution and power sharing. Even by its own low standards the party’s call for classroom assistants to abandon their strike plumbs new depths.

Classroom assistants have resumed industrial action after weeks of fruitless talks with the employers at the Labour Relations. These talks had come on the back of an all about strike by classroom assistants belonging to the Nipsa union in response to a proposal from the Education Boards to reduce their pay and conditions. This supposedly represented a settlement of a twelve-year dispute over job evaluation.

Throughout this current phase dispute the Sinn Fein education minister Caitriona Rune has consistently backed the Boards and done everything in her power to put down the strikers. This started almost immediately from when she took office and endorsed a financial package from the Boards to settle the long running dispute. This “settlement” was based on funding any pay arrears due to classroom assistants by reducing their current and future pay and conditions. The essentials of this offer remain on the table toady despite claims by the minister that it has been “vastly improved”. Despite it being overwhelmingly rejected Ruane wants to press ahead and impose it. The negotiations that have taken place have really been a facade as there is nothing more on offer. Their purpose is to demobilise the strikers and give the impression that the minister is doing something to resolve the despite.

However, with the resumption of strike action, these populist gestures have given way to outright hostility. The minister and the Boards have went on the offensive, misleading the public about what’s on offer and making scurrilous claims that the strikers are exploiting disabled children. Ruane has even gone so far has to write to every Nipsa classroom assistants urging them to abandon their strike. This is unashamed attempt at strike breaking.

A defence offered for such behaviour is that the Sinn Fein minister is bound into the Executive. Such arguments implicitly recognises the reactionary nature of the Executive. But the anti-strike posture of Sinn Fein is not confined to those with ministerial responsibility. The west Belfast MLA Paul Butler has also been vocal in his denunciations of the strike, claiming that “industrial action by classroom assistants will achieve anything accept to create more hardship for children.” This is particularly ironic, as he had joined a picket line only a few weeks earlier during the previous strike. He didn’t explain the reason for his U-turn.

However, independent thinking is not something Sinn Finn MLAs are noted for. Ruane and Butler are just ciphers for the leadership. They are part of a government that has already laid out its plans for an assault on public services and the working class; and are determined to stay in that government no matter what. By putting down strikers Sinn Fein can demonstrate its credentials as a party of government and its fitness for the battles to come.

When classroom assistants held a demonstration outside Sinn Fein offices west Belfast, Paul Butler was indignant that they held placards comparing Catriona Ruane with Margaret Thatcher. But given Sinn Fein’s current right wing trajectory it is one that is apt.