Emergence of Social Partnership: Why

1
Emergence of Social Partnership Why?
Economic crisis in 1987
2
Emergence of Social Partnership Who?
Farming organisations 1988
Trade unions 1988
Government
Employers organisations 1988
Community platform 1997
3
Why participate? - Unions

• Higher tax levels lead to decreased disposable
  income
• Low paid members unprotected by wage floor
  increased pay dispersion threatened labour
  solidarity
• Public sector pay falling behind private sector
  pay
• Increased unemployment lead to falling trade
  union numbers

4
Why participate? - Employers

• Pay rises outstripping inflation continuing
  threat to competitiveness
• Concerns about tax/social welfare systems
• Concerns about government borrowing

5
Why participate? Government

• Fiscal crisis required union acceptance of
  undesirable policies
• Recognition by Fianna Fail of an opportunity to
  attract voters from Labour
• Fianna Fail campaigned in 1987 on a platform of
  fiscal conservatism (without cuts to social
  welfare payments) and support of a return to
  centralised pay agreements

6
Why participate? Farmers

• Employment in agriculture declining at a rate of
  almost twice the EU average
• CAP reform threatened to reduce farm income
• Depopulation of rural areas

7
Why participate? Community Platform

• Representation of those who are often excluded
  from the governance process
• To hold the Government and social partners
  accountable for objectives concerning income
  distribution and social exclusion

8

• The move to tripartism in 1987 was encouraged
  first by a profound economic crisis and then by a
  growing consensus that such a course was
  succeeding. Economic recovery generated a
  virtuous cycle in which success feeds
  commitment to centralised bargaining in
  anticipation of further success.

9
Social Partnership Agreements (1988-2005)
1988-1990 Programme for National Recovery
1994-1996 Programme for Competitiveness Work
April 2000-2002 Programme for Prosperity
Fairness
2003-2005 Sustaining Progress
1991-1993 Programme for Economic Social Progress
1997-March 2000 Partnership 2000
10
SPAs The Process
Report by NESC establishes estimates policy
framework
Social partners and other interested parties
submit position papers
Social partners negotiate agreement
Social partners take agreement to their
constituencies for a vote
New national agreement
11
SPAs What They Have In Common

• National wage agreement
• Increases allowed for the public and private
  sector over the duration of the agreement
• Parameters for changes to the personal income tax
  structure
• Parameters for changes to social welfare
• Targets for public sector spending

12
SPAs How They Differ(1987-2002)

• Increasing length and complexity of agreements
• Increased attention to social issues
• Increased focus on economic sectors
• Commitment to minimum wage (P2000)
• Decision to undertake benchmarking for the public
  sector (PPF)

13
Is Social Partnership the only explanation for
economic success?

• Yes! SPAs provided a
• Stable IR environment
• Stable wage setting environment
• Forum to discuss difficult economic problems

• No! this was a period of
• Constant international economic growth,
  particularly in US
• Large increases in FDI attracted by the IDA

14
SPAs Criteria For Judging Effectiveness

• Centralised wage bargaining are used to perform
  the following economic functions
• Competitive function
• Stabilization function
• Employment function
• Equity function

15
Social Partnership and Democracy (Rory O Donnell)

• Seamus OCinneide of NUI Maynooth
• - creeping consesualism
• - Leinster House ? closed committee rooms
• - Elected reps ? civil servants
• - Subversive of the constitution

16
What is Democracy?

• Effective participation
• Equal voting at decision stage
• Enlightened understanding
• Control of agenda
• Inclusiveness
• Promotion of the common good
• We should avoid comparing real democracy with
  actual social partnership.

17
Defence of Social Partnership

• Look at the outputs
• Decline of representational politics the cart
  before the horse?
• International trends
• Central role of government in SP

18
Social Partnership Delivers Nothing on
Homelessness

• Affordable housing was an ICBEC demand
• Voluntary Community pillar were not really
  involved this time
• SIMONs proposals ignored
• They recommend a No vote

19
SIMONs Proposals

• 2003-05 review led by Taoiseachs Department
• Setting of local housing output targets
• Mainstreaming of government funding
• Proofing of government policies
• Independent review of effectiveness

20
Sustaining Progress??

• No financial provision for social inclusion
• No indication as to how existing (flondering)
  measures will be progressed
• Budget 2003 ensured that commitments under PPF
  would not be delivered
• Social welfare increase under budget 6 ie.
  30cent above inflation a drop in real terms

21

• We, like all other organisations committed to
  social justice, are faced with a much more
  fundamental challenge.
• The government is intent on reducing social
  partnership back to merely a pay deal. We must
  find a way of putting real partnership back on
  the table. SIMON 2003