Lessons we may not have learnt: Back to our dangerous old habits

We are, it seems, on the very cusp of indulging in the kind of self-destructive behaviour and delusion that helped write the script — partially at least — for our economic collapse.

Today second-level teachers go on strike — unless there is an 11th hour change of heart — to oppose Government policy on educational reform as if they had been elected to run the country.

This anti-democratic stonewalling is symbolic of how very difficult it is deliver fundamental change in this country.

This disruption, no matter how the teachers’ unions tell us we don’t understand the issues, is utterly disproportionate and inappropriate, especially as Education Minister Jan O’Sullivan has made very significant concessions on the core issue.

Last week a report disclosed that since 2011, the number of senior administrators working in HSE hospitals rose by 11% despite the fact that during that period the number employed in some nursing grades fell sharply, as did the numbers of cleaners, caterers and porters.

Hence, ever-increasing numbers of managers are responsible for an ever-falling number of healthcare professionals trying to deliver medical and support services to a growing number of people. This seems utterly irrational.

Speaking on RTÉ yesterday morning, Shay Cody, general secretary of IMPACT, did his best to add to the momentum building around the possibility of reversing public sector pay cuts imposed during the darkest days of our economic collapse.

He suggested that the elimination, even if in stages, of the 7.5% pension levy would be a good place to start.

It has been one of the spectacular communications successes for public sector unions to create the false impression that this levy is a pay cut rather than an entirely appropriate contribution to a pretty secure pension.

The levy is not a pay cut, it is income defered until retirement.

Government should, even as a looming election begins to cloud objectivity, resist these suggestions.

The arguments are simple enough, especially as we learnt them in such a very hard way.

We still borrow €9bn a year to run the country so it seems unwise to raise expectations around public sector pay.

It would also be socially inequitable to do so.

If the resources exist, and until our optimistic growth figures are realised we are still counting chickens before they are hatched, then that leeway should be used, through the tax system, to improve incomes for all poorly paid workers.

Those dependent on social supports must be considered too.

And there’s more.

The Central Bank’s plan to spend €140m on its new headquarters is, according to construction industry sources, almost twice what it would cost to build a new office block of the same size from scratch.

This surely matches the hubris shown at the highest point of Celtic tiger lunacy.

It is unfortunate asking these questions is routinely described as an attack on the public service.

That response is another symptom of our foolishness, as if a weak, under- resourced public service is of benefit to anyone.

However we must live within our means and that means that talk about reversing public sector pay cuts is dangerously premature.