Careful with that axe, Richard. The intriguing rhetoric of employment ‘reform’.

There’s a bleak entertainment to be had in the ‘debate’ over the ‘reform’ of the JLCs and attendant entities. It’s not so much the specifics which almost incredibly [I say almost, almost…] appear now to be establishing a two tier labour structure at that level with new entrants paid at lesser rates than those already in stream (though this will be no surprise in areas of the public sector), but in the language used itself.

The avoidance of the terms wage cuts, or lowering wages, or reducing pay is evident throughout.

Consider some examples:

MINSTER FOR Enterprise and Jobs Richard Bruton has said his controversial proposals for reform of wage-setting mechanisms would create opportunities for employment in sectors badly hit by the recession.

Speaking yesterday he again signalled his proposed changes could see lower pay rates for new staff. However, he said existing personnel would be protected by their current contracts. “Over time, rates and patterns may change. If we are to create jobs we have to adapt and change patterns.”

By the by, note his no less entertaining though fallacious logic when he appears to implicitly blame JLCs for job losses:

Mr Bruton said in some areas where terms and conditions were covered by joint labour committees, more than 25 per cent of jobs had been wiped out. There were huge opportunities for sectors such as tourism or retail if reforms allowed them to win new business.

That these sectors are particularly hit by a global recession, that in parts they were the product of misguided state support and private sector bubbles, appears to elude him as does the point that the picture is rather more mixed than he would portray it, for more on which see Michael Taft’s analyses].

Anyhow, Bruton continues:

It was important businesses were allowed to be sufficiently flexible to seize opportunities provided by the Government through initiatives such as cutting the VAT rate in the tourism sector, reducing PRSI and scaling back the travel tax.

Uh-huh. But unfortunately there’s no way to entirely sugar the pill…

He argued that if the existing legally binding joint labour committee rates were reformed, existing staff would still have their own contractual relationship with their employers. However, lower rates could be applied for new staff.

In another report there was similar carry-on from him:

“In reality, the proposals are likely to have the greatest impact on new employees, and thereby create an incentive for employers to hire,” he said. “However, it is important to be open and acknowledge that this may, over time, have the effect of causing an adjustment to the terms on which some workers are employed.”

Yes, but never upwards. Curious that.

And Stephen Collins, is equally in thrall to this dynamic:

What was striking about the reaction to Richard Bruton’s proposed changes in weekend working rates was not that a number of Labour TDs opposed the plan but that their opposition was clearly sanctioned and even encouraged by the party leadership. This was evidenced by the fact that the Labour press office issued a raft of statements from TDs opposing the Minister’s scheme. Normally government TDs who want to disagree with a minister in public have to issue their own statements and incur the wrath of the party whip for doing so.

And…

There is a case for announcing the changes in rates for the low paid at the same time as the long awaited reforms to reduce costs and eliminate restrictive practices among well paid professionals. However, there is an urgency about getting the decisions made to show everybody that the Government is serious about getting the public finances in order and creating the conditions for new job opportunities.

No mention of the reality that the proposals reduce wages there. And Collins seriously over eggs the pudding with the following:

The Government has to implement reforms in both cases. They are vital pieces of the jigsaw required to bring the economy back to health and they are also conditions of the EU-IMF programme.

The idea that the JLCs are so pernicious is simply not supported by the facts, but on a broader question, are the IMF really troubled by the JLCs? Really? Truly?

By the way, this trope about achieving some sort of balance between costs and restrictive practices among ‘well paid professionals’ is a crock, and linking two very different issues together in this entirely artificial way is purely a cosmetic feint to put a more positive gloss on measures that affect tens of thousands of low paid workers [Michael Taft says more than 200,000 are covered by them]. We saw the same trope trotted out yesterday in the Irish Times.

RADICAL PROPOSALS to cut payouts to lawyers involved in long-running medical negligence cases have been made by Minister for Enterprise and Jobs Richard Bruton.

…

The plan might also assuage the concerns of Labour backbenchers, some of whom have attacked Mr Bruton in recent weeks for seeking to cut wages for low-paid workers in regulated areas rather than going after the “sheltered sectors”.

Mind you, Collins is back banging the old TINA drum and casting his net wide to do so. So, no change there.