Recession measures demonstrated utter contempt for welfare of young people

Just as the Government and its agents were taking advantage of a sector with weak resistance to cuts, so the unions turned a blind eye, writes Michael Clifford

THERE are two aspects to the current industrial strife that tell a lot about this country, its people, and society. The first concerns a deficit of national solidarity, which contrasts sharply with the general experience in sub groups or communities in the country. The second is the capacity for denial that raises its head every now and again from the national psyche.

An outstanding feature of the recession and attendant trauma of the last few years was a lack of solidarity within the country. When times were tough, it was everyone for themselves. Pain was inflicted greatest where there was least resistance. And one of the main groups to get it between the eyes were the young.

By young here, I’m referring to those leaving education, aged between 18 and mid-20s. As the cuts were being pencilled in, some bright spark noticed that one area of soft resistance was the young. They don’t vote. They’re not organised. And they don’t fret about the future to a great extent. If things don’t work out for them, they can emigrate and see you all again in 10 to 15 years.

So it was that a few bob was saved in reducing the level of jobseeker’s allowance to those under 26. Cutbacks to education supports were also introduced. Risk of exploitation under the JobBridge scheme was greatest for this demographic. And, of course, the collapse of the job market was felt keenest among the twentysomethings.

Those who had power managed to protect themselves the worst of the cutbacks. In 2010, Brian Lenihan sorted out the senior public servants who lobbied him claiming they were being disproportionately hit, even though most were earning well over €100,000 a year.

In 2011, the bright, new shining coalition introduced a cap of €92,000 on salaries for political advisers but seven of 15 cabinet ministers ignored the cap for their own personnel. In a country that was on its knees, the lack of real solidarity was striking.

There was one other measure that demonstrated the utter contempt for the welfare of the younger demographic. One of the cutbacks to the public pay bill was to lower the pay for new entrants. This was cynical and expedient and done with the acquiescence of the trade unions.

Patricia King, general secretary of ICTU, was challenged on this by Clare Byrne on RTÉ Radio last Saturday. King replied that the unions did not agree to any such measure. This may well be the case, but it is irrefutable that the unions did not make a stand on the issue. Just as the Government and its agents were taking advantage of a sector with weak resistance to cuts, so the unions turned a blind eye.

From the Government’s point of view the creation of a public service in which two people doing the same job were paid at different rates was not a matter of concern. It was tomorrow’s problem, and right then it wasn’t clear in terms of the State’s finances, whether or not tomorrow would come.

For the unions, there were more pressing issues. Most unions were preoccupied with quelling the anger of their own members and selling what they believed was the best deal achievable.

They sure as hell weren’t going to ask their members to display some solidarity with new entrants who were not yet in employment.

Neither were they going to make a stand on any wider fidelity to solidarity in the workplace they may claim is a central tenet of trade unionism.

That was all five and six years ago. To be fair, as the tide of recession recedes, the unions are belatedly laying down markers about pay equality.

Pay equality is now a central reason for the ASTI teachers’ union strike to begin next week. The union claims not to be in search of extra money in general, but merely for all of its members to be on the same scale. This gives their action moral authority, but the question remains as to why they didn’t act until so late in the day.

For the Government, the question arises as to why pay equality across the public service has not been already dealt with. Is it acceptable that in the budget for next year more than €300m has been handed out in tax cuts while new teachers, guards, nurses and most administrative staff are expected to work for less than their colleagues?

It is also notable that the measure to increase welfare payments by €5 had its origins in a proposal to hike up the state pension by that amount.

Those reliant exclusively on the state pension have taken a major hit in recent years, but many others in receipt of private pensions have not.

By contrast, nobody in Government or opposition was too concerned about making any sort of a gesture to the young who have disproportionately taken a far greater hit. It’s simply a question of follow the votes.

Pay equality is one thing, pay restoration another. The latter concept is at the heart of the industrial action being undertaken by the Garda associations.

The Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors (AGSI) is demanding that the cuts inflicted since 2008, amounting to 16.5%, be reversed. The Garda Representative Association (GRA) is equally strident in its demands.

Forty-eight hours before polling in the general election last February the GRA issued a release “calling on the new government to fully reinstate the terms and conditions of rank and file Garda Síochána to pre-2008 levels”.

What kind of an economy were those pre-2008 levels of pay based on? Back then, around 40% of the workforce didn’t pay income tax.

By 2008, the public pay bill had doubled in the previous eight years. On average, public sector workers were earning over 50% more than they had in 2000.

The wider economy was just as crazy. As noted here before, a family with three small children and one earner outside the home on €50,000 a year was actually receiving rather than contributing money to the exchequer, when low tax rates, child benefit, and the annual €1,100 under-six payments were taken into account.

That example is not typical of most families, but it does demonstrate how the economy was based on the fantasy that as long as the construction industry was booming and people spending money the never-never would never arrive.

Public sector workers certainly took a major hit during the recession, but they were not alone.

Who exactly is supposed to foot the bill for pay restoration now that the fantasy land has been whipped away?

In a sane world, pay hikes would revert to a natural incremental rise over a number of years rather than any aspiration to get back to 2008 levels as quick as possible. Surely it’s time to cut out the sense of denial that pervades all talk of pay restoration.