Irish Examiner view: The country cannot be held to ransom  

Crowds gathered on O'Connell St during day six of national fuel protests this April. File picture: Niall Carson/PA 

Wednesday saw public sector workers in a variety of sectors begin industrial action in the form of a work-to-rule protest. More than 100,000 workers were involved in the action, which was called because of a delay in agreeing a new public sector pay deal.

A work-to-rule protest conforms to certain guidelines. The civil servants and local authority workers involved may refuse to do additional work which is outside their normal duties, but in the case of health workers, for instance, essential functions are still maintained.

The Irish Nurses and Midwives Organisation (INMO) stated that the work-to-rule action meant that its members in the public health service would carry out duties necessary for safe patient care during their rostered hours, for instance, but would “not attend non-clinical meetings, except where attendance is strictly necessary for direct patient care”.

It is worth weighing up these guidelines when considering the messages coming from a meeting in Westmeath earlier this week, one that focused on rising fuel prices and which referred to the fuel protests held earlier this year around the country.

As reported by Newstalk, one speaker warned the Government: “We also have learned from these fuel protests and we know exactly which way to go about it, so that’s your warning... We are not going to sit back anymore; you’re going to get it from all angles.”

The contrast could hardly be starker. On one hand, there is a group that blockaded roads all over Ireland illegally earlier in the year, while, on the other, we have a far larger group of people registering their protest along accepted parameters.

The fact that the fuel protesters are giving advance notice of their intention to break the law presents a direct challenge to the authority of the State, and if the State does not respond appropriately, then that authority will be undermined.

Holding the country to ransom by breaking the law cannot be seen as a negotiating tactic.

There is far more at stake here than winning temporary concessions.

Public funds, private gains

The matter of private companies’ responsibilities when it comes to the public realm surfaced at a recent meeting of Cork County Council, one at which pertinent points were raised by councillors.

As reported here by Sean O’Riordan, one concern aired was the perception that the local authority is carrying costs associated with maintaining public land where private operators’ telecommunications infrastructure is located.

Councillor George Gill pointed out that thousands of telecommunications poles and ducts are located on roadsides, footpaths and public verges: “These are public assets. Yet the commercial operators who use them to generate private revenue pay little or nothing to the people of Cork for the maintenance of these assets. But small businesses placing a sign on a footpath pay an annual fee for using public space.”

This is a striking example of private companies benefiting significantly from the public purse.

It is reasonable to presume that such companies do not contact local authorities such as Cork County Council to share their end-of-year profits, yet such profits are boosted, by definition, if those companies do not contribute to the upkeep and maintenance of the lands on which their equipment is located.

The matter of contributions from companies for infrastructural maintenance was also raised in a slightly different context at the same meeting, when councillors suggested utility companies should contribute more towards the cost of repairing roads and footpaths damaged by their works.

Councillor Ann Marie Ahern said constituents regularly complained to her about tripping on footpaths, adding: “Nine times out of 10 it’s because utility works are subsiding.”

This is a different situation in that such utility companies may be publicly owned rather than private enterprises, but the end result seems remarkably similar.

Whether these operators are public or private, it seems to have no impact on the final outcome — the local authority is left footing the bill. On the basis of general responsibility, councils should be compensated appropriately by outside agencies if their operations affect public infrastructure — particularly if local authorities end up paying for repairs and maintenance.

Newsworthy heir

Readers may be forgiven for not being au fait with the latest political developments in far-flung countries — there are certainly enough domestic developments to occupy minds here — but a recent story in Uganda is worth noting.

After the country gained independence from British rule in the ’60s, it banned the traditional kingdoms which had existed in the country, in an effort to create national unity. Eventually those kingdoms were restored in 1993, and though their monarchs do not have any formal power — and are legally barred, in fact, from engaging in partisan politics — they exert immense authority among their people as figureheads and guardians of traditional culture.

Hence the grief in the Tooro Kingdom in August when King Oyo Nyimba died at the age of 34.

His lack of a publicly-known heir led to a brief succession dispute, which the elders settled in favour of Edward Rukidi Kijanangoma.

A cousin of the late king, Mr Kijanangoma is a news anchor and editor with state broadcaster Uganda Broadcasting Corporation.

What's your view on this issue?

You can tell us here