Public sector changes - Reform is a path to recovery

THE Labour Court’s rejection of air traffic controllers’ claims that the introduction of new technology does not represent normal ongoing change is another defeat for the trade union movement.

A separate recommendation on air traffic controllers’ pay and pensions, which the Irish Aviation Authority insists were the real issues behind the closure of three airports last week, is expected in the coming days.

Yesterday’s ruling will also deepen the unease surrounding the public-sector work-to-rule disruptions aimed at reversing pay cuts imposed in December. One of the tactics unions have committed to is a complete rejection of any programme of reform that could improve services and cut costs.

Just like the air traffic controllers, public-sector unions contend that the process of reform is in their gift and that a premium can be extracted for implementing it. If the public sector unions imagine that there is any sympathy for this stonewalling amongst their fellow citizens they are mistaken. Reform is no longer an option for any enterprise, private or public. It is one of the constants that has to be an agent for change if a business or service is to be relevant and viable.

Speaking in the Dáil earlier this week Tánaiste Mary Coughlan said reform could not wait any longer.

“Public-sector reform is for the benefit of the citizens ... we can find savings which can be taken into consideration in the context of the adjustments we may need next year,” she said.

She was responding to Labour leader Eamon Gilmore who asked Ms Coughlan three times if she could give public employees assurances that they will not face further wage cuts in the next budget.

Ms Coughlan was unable to make such a commitment but, as she and several of her cabinet colleagues have indicated, union co-operation with reform should go a considerable way towards making further pay cuts avoidable.

This is not a complicated idea and is one that would have widespread support, even, it must be suspected, amongst public sector workers. In all of this there is opportunity if it can only be embraced.

Enthusiastic and quickly implemented reform could be the catalyst to restoring, in time, some of the losses endured by public sector workers. It should be an attractive option as, as Ms Coughlan has pointed out, the alternative may involve further pay cuts for public workers and frustration for the rest of us.

Not only would embracing reform revitalise our public services, it would show that unions still have a relevance and that they can contribute positively to society rather than just look after their members’ interests.

Sadly, there are a few difficulties to overcome before this might happen. Though not the greatest, the decision just before Christmas to reverse the pay cuts faced by department assistant secretaries is one. These people should be the drivers of reform, the energy behind the project, yet they have wrangled an unfair deal that puts them outside the pale. This Government is familiar with U-turns and one more – imposing the pay cuts – would make everyone, assistant secretaries and public sector foot soldiers too, realise that reform cannot be deferred any longer. Reform cannot be a hostage held for ransom any longer, it is far too important for that.