Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE MOVES HAVE already been choreographed. After a period of ‘intensive negotiations’ and ‘crisis talks’ the leaders of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU) and the government continue to come up with a package for the ‘extension’ of the Croke Park deal.
Last week, the government was trumpeting the progress it made on promissory note. The country, had, it appeared, saved €20 billion and this was considered a price worth paying to copper-fasten debt to the backs of our grandchildren until 2050.
Yet, strangely, despite these ‘savings’, the government feels it must reach into the pockets of nurses, fire-fighters and gardaí to take more money. These particular groups of workers engage in difficult, stressful activity. Sometimes, they are required to leave their families at all hours of the night or on Sundays to do it.
One of the most basic axioms of a modern, civilised society is that work during anti-social hours be rewarded. Traditionally, the rate has been set at double time but the government has deemed this an unacceptable luxury. Something else is peculiar about the idea of ‘extending’ Croke Park.
The Croke Park agreement is not due to expire until mid 2014 – more than a year away. Although, it has been lashed by media commentators from the right of the political spectrum, it was accepted by public servants because it guaranteed no further pay cuts. After the union leadership put up only a token resistance to a pension levy and a pay cut that took away 15 per cent out of their income, a demoralised workforce concluded that their best bet was to agree to the deal.
They assumed that it guaranteed their already shrunken pay packets and that was enough. Few examined the small print – so fearful were they of further cuts. But the agreement allowed their employers to change contracts, re-organise shift systems to eliminate overtime, to re-deploy workers up to 45 kilometres from their home, to link incremental progression to ‘performance’ as defined by line managers. In other words, it was a tough deal that brought many changes.
But, and here is the point – it still has a year to run. Which begs the question: why are professional negotiators discussing tearing it up and replacing it with one that is worse?
Union officials tend to have a bureaucratic mentality. They believe in rules, procedures and above all adherence to agreements. If one of their members says ‘we should not accept this’ they will invariably be told, ‘Unfortunately, we have signed an agreement and must stick to it’.
The only explanation, I can think, for breaking from this norm is that some of our unions must be very close to the government. There are conflicts of interest between the needs of parties and union members and they must be particularly acute.
This sort of thing has, unfortunately, been happened before. The Croke Park agreement promised that a share of the ‘savings’ gained from extra productivity would go to workers who earned less than €35,000. But that was also torn up – and the unions accepted it without a murmur. The original number supposed to depart the public services was to be approximately 18,000 employees but it rose to 30,000. The unions again accepted – and sometimes even cheered on – the increase.
Last year, the government managed to get through one of the biggest changes ever to affect workers. Namely an increase in the pension age to 68 for those currently aged under 50. While the rest of Europe erupted in anger, there was silence in Ireland. All of which indicates that the more sacrifices one accepts meekly, the more the government is emboldened to ask for more.
If we become lulled by a PR machine that claims the government achieved wonders on the promissory note by ‘quiet diplomacy’, is it any wonder we lose the will to resist.
The growing revolt of the 24/7 Alliance and the brewing anger over property taxes may, however, be a sign of a different mood. ‘Enough is enough’ appears to have become a popular watch cry. I do hope it grows louder.
Kieran Allen is a Senior Lecturer in Sociology in University College Dublin. He is the author of Ireland’s Economic Crash (Dublin: Liffey Press 2009). To read more by Kieran Allen for TheJournal.ie click here.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
I’m getting a bit tired of these charities producing polls that they paid for that say the majority of Irish people agree with whatever policy the charity is trying to achieve. There’s a new one every week.
@Vestigial:
Do they pay for who responds to the polling?
@Ixtrix Net: wonder where all these polls take place. I’ve never been asked to take part in one
@Vestigial: Oh, but Americans benefited from Prohibition; let’s ban everything and sit in a shack reading the Bible. It’s for our own good, mar dhea.
@Vestigial: surely they should say 73% of people polled. Can’t really say 73% in Ireland unless they have asked everyone in Ireland.
@Vestigial: what do you think about the subject? Do you think its a good idea to make the legal age to buy tobacco 21?
@Fiona Fitzgerald: where did you read about banning everything in the article?
Make cigarettes illegal for anyone born after 2003. Problem as good as solved in 10 years
@The Kerry Slug: Prescription only from your GP
@The Kerry Slug: Then we’ll have a black market with cigarettes that aren’t regulated, and it would eventually be easier to buy them underage. Just like how it’s easier for 15 year olds to buy cannabis than to buy alcohol.
@Tomo: You are going to have a black market anyways as we have seen so why not just ban them outright. Black market or no black market , a complete ban will save a lot of lives every year. It will also free up hospital beds etc for other illnesses that need to be treated. I smoked for many a year and it all started with easy access to the cancer sticks, if I did not have the easy access in my teens, more than likely I would never have taken up the habit. Oh how I wish now that they were banned outright before I started.
@The Kerry Slug: Thats honestly the stupidist comment I’ve read this week. Name one time prohibition of anything has ever worked?
@The Kerry Slug: Make driving a petrol/diesel car illegal to drive by anyone born after 2003. Help solve our climate issue.
@The Kerry Slug: You can’t ban something out of existence. If there’s a market there will be a supply. Kids have much easier access to banned drugs then to legal ones and a lack of a regulated market makes the product more dangerous for the consumer. We’re being held back as a nation waiting for people like you to catch up particularly with regard to cannabis. Put simply, your thinking is debunked, outdated and incorrect. Please catch up.
@Black Iron Tarkus: I would generally agree that prohibition is pointless when banning something desirable or useful. But who in their right mind would actively seek out nicotine as an illegal drug if they werent already hooked on it? To make it illegal now but still available on prescription for addicts might save a few younger lives down the line
@Nameo Maximus: Then alcohol? And sugar? Possibly set up a direct debit to spend our savings on television instead? It’s for our own good, why consult us at all if we’re no longer living in a free country?
@Black Iron Tarkus: You don’t get it lad. Kids ween themselves onto cigarettes by the very nature of them being accessible. In smoking areas etc. Of course you’d get a black market but also probably a 90% reduction in uptake. We complain about the health service being inadequate, well we have to hold up our side of the bargain too.
@Roy Dowling: Fantastic comparison Roy. Really great stuff. Fair play to you.
@Declan Doherty: Imagine a nation without smokers. Would be class. I’m all for legalising weed Declan. I think the difference between tobacco and weed is night and day. If heroine was legal a lot more people would do it. When you live in a society you get to decide what’s best for people. Especially when we have a shared health service.
@The Kerry Slug: it wasn’t supposed to be a comparison. It’s supposed to be as stu pid as your original comment.
I don’t care if 99.9% if people think it should be banned, it’s my body and my choice.
@John Duggan: that’s fine saying that when you have the maturity to make the choice. Should we let kids run amok and get hooked on alcohol and drugs in their early teens because ‘it is their body, their choice’ ?
@James Beattie: James, kids have easier access to banned products than legal regulated ones. You should try warming up your bra1n cell before making comments.
@James Beattie: yes. A generation of alcoholics and smokers is a small price to pay for my freedom.
Obviously I’m joking, but the article is about raising the age to 21 (3 years into adulthood) while I never mention reducing the age limit. I certainly don’t believe children should be allowed to smoke or drink (although a little red wine with dinner won’t kill them).
@John Duggan:
Your choice if you smoke it in your own home (assuming you own your home and aren’t ruining a rented place with the smell). I shouldn’t have to breath in that disgusting cloud of poison on the street or at the bus stop.
Smoking in public is a bit obnoxious behaviour tbh. Aside from the health effects of second hand smoke, it smells rank and the rank smell clings to clothes.
@David Bourke: get over yourself
@Darren Sheridan:
No u
@James Beattie: “Should we let kids run amok and get hooked on alcohol and drugs in their early teens”
It’s already illegal to sell alcohol or cigarettes to anyone under 18 so that’s kids ‘in their early teens’ covered.
Obviously that doesn’t stop many kids of that age from obtaining alcohol and cigarettes nor will raising the legal age to 21.
We love passing feel good legislation in this country, makes us feel like we’re making a difference.
The fact is, an 18 year old is an adult and we shouldn’t be restricting the lives of adults with legislation that we then pretend is aimed at protecting children.
@John Duggan: Your choice now but when you end up in a hospital bed with lung cancer or emphysema will you be glad with your choice then. A complete waste of health care resources on you but we will still try keep you alive through hour misery.
@Splat: You could make the same arguments about fat people or any number of other people who’s life choices ultimately lead to their demise. Where do you stop?
@John Duggan: Except I will be paying for your terminal/hospice care when you eventually develop cancer or COPD. And it is a terrible and preventable way of dying.
@John Duggan: Except I will be paying for your terminal/hospice care when you eventually develop cancer or COPD. And it is a terrible (and preventable way of dying.
@John Duggan: Except I will be paying for your terminal/hospice care when you eventually develop cancer or COPD. And it is a terrible (and preventable) way of dying.
My gran always says most of the men of her generation were dead early because they smoked and drank alcohol
Strange times we live in, at 16 people can leave school and enter fulltime employment.
At 17 people can give consent to have sex, they can also apply for a car driving licence.
At 18 people can choose how they identify in terms of gender, they can marry someone of the same gender or a different gender, they can also legally purchase alcohol, they can also join the Armed forces or Garda and serve their country.
And yet some people apparently believe that these very same adults, are not old enough to make their own decisions about tobacco?
So you can join the army at 18, getting shipped around the globe and potentially have to kill someone, but you’ll have to wait 3 more years to buy some cigarettes.
Makes sense :-)
@Wolfgang Bonow: Both based on the same principle, sign em up as young & dummb as possible before they realise what theyve gotten themselves into! #DeathLottery
I saw 2 Francie Brady’s fogging for death near me last night if they were 7 they were lot,smoke was nearly bigger than them haha smoking bad people stay clear….
@Mark Murphy: what were two 7yr olds doing out at night? Where were you that they were standing beside you smoking?
@This time its personable!: Probably putting a bet on at the bookies.
@Sean May: you’re right, well known that kids love the all weather racing.
They should add another year for the vape products. It should take at least that long to get addicted and then decide to give up.
Cigarettes should be encouraged it makes room for the next generation on the planet
have your say