Sunday Independent Stupid Statement of the Week September 9, 2012
Posted by Garibaldy in Sunday Independent Stupid Statement of the Week.trackback
Before getting to the stupidity, an interesting open letter to her Dáil colleagues from Nessa Childers.
I particularly enjoyed this raising of the Lockout as a means to justify an attack on the trade unions for refusing to re-negotiate Croke Park. Big Jim would, it seems, have supported wage cuts rather than, say, tax increases or not giving all our money to capitalist bankers.
As for the trade unions, with the 100th anniversary of 1913 Lockout imminent, they would do well to ponder what the great Jim Larkin would make of the Croke Park Agreement and the way in which it has impacted on wider society, particularly the most vulnerable workers and the people they serve.
This week’s winner by a nose (for linking unions to religion) is Marc Coleman.
Just as they did in the Eighties, Labour and Fine Gael are giving the unions what they want. And just as in the Eighties, the unions stand ready to cripple the economy with strikes if their privileges or the Croke Park deal are threatened. And like the pious euphemisms of Catholic Ireland, the new hierarchy have invented pious euphemisms of their own to describe this charade: “industrial peace”.
Not only did Nessa miss the think-in, it appears she also didn\’t get the memo on the actual Labour strategy in government and for the next election.
That has very little to do with hoping that everything will sort itself out in time for 2016 – Gilmore, in fairness, is not that naive. Rather its all about fiercely protecting a narrow special-interest constituency, in the expectation of getting payback in the polls next time round.
And in fairness, Labour have done an excellent job so far in executing on that strategy. Its very hard though to put an accurate metric on their performance, when labouring under a misaprehension as to the actual objective theyre working towards.
Pass no heed on this asshole Nessa. No-one else does.
Quite.
In case anyone is labouring under a mistaken belief, it is spelled ‘misapprehension’.
And Labour’s strategy is to focus on social issues. They have failed miserably on that front already with their cowardly response to the legislation on X.
The theory that they are protecting a certain group (in this case a large group of workers) is somewhat undercut by the fact that Ruairi Quinn is on the front page of the Sindo claiming that CPA needs to be revisited.
Once again, Bartley’s literacy is shown to be wanting.
@Rosencrantz
Seriuosly, are we correcting spellings now? Just a tad pedantic, no?
In any case, speaking of literacy, or more precisely, reading comprehension … Quinn was actually advocating for a follow-on CPA II, while strongly rejecting the notion that the current agreement be broken.
And in case there is any doubt, heres the relevant section of the interview:
\”Everything needs to be looked at, but looked at in a calm and clear way. There has to be a two-way dialogue. I am on record in saying I would like to see a Croke Park II, a replacement. I believe we should start thinking now about what that should be.
\”I would like them (the unions) to put everything on the table and see what we can get from it. It is a two-way exchange. Social partnership, before it got abused, was very good for this country. It worked very well, I have always been a fan of it,\” he says.
He also strongly rejects the notion of tearing the Croke Park deal up, saying a consensus approach is the only way forward.
He strongly criticises the Sunday Independent\’s \”editorial agenda in attacking public sector workers\”, saying: \”There is a certain … and your paper has a very clear editorial agenda in attacking public servants. Unashamedly!
And this bit:
Although an ardent fan of social partnership, Quinn says the Croke Park deal needs renegotiation and that negotiation should start now. Everything, including pay and increments, must be on the table.
He says: “We should anticipate a successor agreement and start negotiating it now. And if during the course of the negotiation we can speed up the transition between ‘agreement 1′ and ‘agreement 2′, I wouldn’t rule that out. But an agreement needs two sides, so I can’t speak for the other side.”
In other words, he wants a renegotiation. In fact, this proposal goes slightly further than what Leo Varadkar was shouting about in June. Is Leo Varadkar also a guardian of workers? Does he expect many votes from this special interest group?
If you read Quinns actual words, as opposed to the Sindo spin, he is talking about a follow-on agreement, possibly introduced before the old one expires. But with the endless negotiations to begin right now, well soon, or soon-ish at least. It would be childsplay for experienced union negotiators to chew down the clock until 2014.
The main point here from the Labour perspective is to extend the protection beyond the 2014 threshold with a successor agreement. If Labour enter the next GE with this special-interest constituency further shielded from the down-turn until say 2018, they will be richly rewarded at the polls.
In terms of everything being on the table, isnt that always the case going into these negotiations, but so rarely still the case as they draw to a close.
But in the particular case of increments, I would expect union opposition to a limited suspension begin to soften as more and more influential members hit the tops of their scales.
This is tiresome.
How is substituting the CPA for a new CPA not a renegotiation? As pointed out, his proposal goes further than what Leo Varadkar crowed about in June. It would be, therefore, rather stupid for a person to rush around claiming Labour are protecting a special interest group when a minister and very senior member of the party is proposing something that is clearly not in their interest.
However, you went ahead and did this.
Rather than admit you mistake, you now argue that while everything may ‘be on the table’ at the start of a negotiation that some things might remain unchanged at the end of a negotiation.
This is, of course, what happens in every bloody negotiation (excepting those that happen in right-wing fantasy land). Concessions are gained in return for concessions by the other side.
Quinn could easily have said the cutting pay would be counter-productive and would depress domestic demand in the economy further. In fact, this would be sensible economics. He did not and this is probably because Quinn’s voting base are delusional, right-wingers who nevertheless like to convince themselves they are liberals. He has no interest in supporting unions. The idea that the Parliamentary Labour Party are still a party of workers and the lower income stream is balderdash.
I note that Eddie Molloy was writing the same stuff in the IT on Friday, right down to the reference to Larkin, although there it’s even more absurdly phrased, if that were possible: “Next year will be the 100th anniversary of the 1913 lockout and the trade union movement will take the opportunity to remind us of the heroic struggle of their founding members against injustice. Big Jim Larkin will rightly be remembered for his inspirational leadership in that epic struggle. But before current trade union leaders presume to don the mantle of Larkin and all he stood for, they might stop to ponder this question: if Larkin were around today which causes would he champion? Where would he see the greatest injustices?” What, indeed?
But who is Eddie Molloy? I assume it’s this guy: “Over the last thirty years, Eddie has gained an unrivalled reputation for helping both indigenous and multi-national companies develop and execute their change and growth strategies. His is widely recognised as a thought leader with a record of success in the areas of strategy, structure, change and innovation.” See here for more: http://www.advancedorganisation.com/our_services.htm (a sample of what they do: “Achieving Distinctive Customer Focus: Creating a truly customer focussed organisation one that stands out from the pack. This means creating a ‘sense and respond’ capability based on a competitive product set, supported by coherent easy-to-use- systems, finger-tip information, employees with the right combination of skills and commitment to customer care. The secret is to empower front line employees to focus ruthlessly on attracting and strengthening the customer relationship while at the same time complying with clear boundary conditions.”
“What, indeed?” should obviously read “Where, indeed?”. I was working last night…
a sample of what they do …
And whats not to like about promoting customer focus?
Thanks for that info about the IT Jonathan. Private sector get up and go attitude I guess. Get paid twice for doing the same thing.
Eddie’s go getting meant he was on Marian today, receiving another payment for trotting out his arguments.
I would have thought he wouldn’t accept a payment from state coffers!
Quite an unpleasant post, Bartley. Unusual on CDR. All three MEPS miss the think in because we were not able to miss Strasbourg. The head of delegation has strenuously protested, btw. See more background in my last post on the lib dem thread. As for fairness, the current situation is so far from ” fair” everywhere. And no, Eamon Gilmore is not naive. He will also know what may happen to him. And that won’t be ” fair” either.
The Sindo is once again engaging in scapegoating of the PS. Ruairi takes a swing at them in his interview too. As for Molloy, what is he saying behind all that padding and jargon on his website? Listen to customers and try to facilitate them. Really big idea there…..
The using of speculation about Larkin is becoming absurd . But then again scapegoating defies reason in its motivation.
“Unusual on CDR.”
But not at all unusual for Mr. Bartley.
Its hardly nasty to call Nessa out on not having got with the Labour program.
He will also know what may happen to him. And that won’t be ” fair” either.
Sinister. Care to fill us in on what fate may befall the Tánaiste?
Ah! Not personal then.
The Molloy piece is just par for the course with him, and by and large a rehash of his previous Irish Times piece. Just an attack on both the public service and on the concept of trade union organisation itself.
The invocation of Larkin is laughable, though. If Molloy had been around in 1913, probably even then writing in the Sunday Independent, he’d likely be complaining about the lack of ‘social solidarity’ in the ITGWU for opposing scab labour.
Molloy’s mention of Larkin to attack organised workers is, in an obvious sense, a disgusting and dishonest use of his memory. But in another sense, it is quite clever, as it echoes Labour’s own use of Larkin, and also of Connolly.
In so far as Labour talks of them at all, they are presented precisely as hand-wringing social workers, caring for the “most vulnerable”. Labour are no more likely to refer to their actual views, actions or politics when misusing them to suit their right wing agenda than Molloy is.
Shameless Sindo Shills Suckers With Property Puffery http://namawinelake.wordpress.com/2012/09/09/shameless-sindo-shills-suckers-with-property-puffery/ – Ten out of Ten to MAMA Winelake’s Poetic Pounce
@Rosencrantz
Again youre just repeating the Sindo-spin as opposed to reading his actual words.
From that interview, and indeed previous pronouncements, its clear that Quinn is all about pre-positioning a CPA II successor, not re-negotiating the current agreement.
Now in order avoid another 12-days-of-Christmas debacle, its clear that some tough-posturing will be required to salve public opinion in advance of the cave-in.
Hence the oxymoronic line that CPA I was both a success and the government side left loads on the table, a mistake that can be rectified in a follow-on agreement:
“In my view it’s delivered. I hope there’ll be a Croke Park II. We will be looking for much better terms and conditions than we got in the first one”
Fast forward to 2016/2017 and we will hearing the same thing about CPA II.
Ah, Bartley, you are such a ridiculous troll.
Now you propose a hermeneutic of suspicion where Labour do not mean what they say they mean. And once again, your reading comprehension is lacking: when you have a deal that goes on for a period of time and later you propose a second deal that would be implemented before that first deal has expired, you are renegotiating. You can call it like but that is what it is.
You also keep ignoring that what Quinn is suggesting is identical to that of Varadkar. Something you were all for a few months ago.
A further announcement by Pat Rabbitte does not help your case: http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0910/ibec-croke-park-agreement.html
If anything, it is Kenny who is protecting this ‘special interest’: http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/taoiseach-government-honour-bound-to-complete-croke-park-deal-566395.html
Where is your criticism of Fine Gael? Surely they must be playing up to this ‘special interest’ too?