Notes on the Front

Commentary on Irish Political Economy by Michael Taft, researcher for SIPTU

September 14th Afternoon: The Recession Diaries

Recession 64 With the pay talks nearly at an end, IBEC, in the form of its representative here on earth – our friend Turlough – is warning of the gravest reperscussions if Irish employees are granted the right to collective bargaining.  Now, this is a right by law that employees in almost every industrialised country enjoy.  And let's not forget that little ILO Convention on Labour Rights that Ireland signed up to back in the 1950s.  No, plagues and locusts will descend on our garden economy if any single employee in Ireland is granted this right.  Why?  Because multi-nationals, especially US multi-nationals, won't come here.  You see, denying Irish workers the right to collective bargaining gives us a competitive advantage.  Take away that advantage and the economy goes down the tube.

Yeah, we gotta keep those foreign capital fixes coming or we'll all go into collective withdrawal.  Long-term readers of this blog will be aware I do not favour increasing the corporate tax rate in the short-term.  You can read the arguments here, but it all boils down to this:  if we do anything to undermine the stream of foreign capital coming into this country we will be forced to rely on indigenous enterprise and that means going back to the plough.  That is not an ideological statement, merely a pragmatic one.  It is an absolutely unsatisfactory situation:  our tax-regime (which is ultimately a tax-laundering regime) is a drain on other countries and peoples who have to engage in a 'race-to-the-bottom' on corporate tax rates, to the detriment of social and economic investment and higher taxes on labour; it is part of an international regime that has facilitated the loose money and practices that delivered us the international credit crunch; it is also implicated in a world-wide system of screwing developing economies.  On every level, it is wrong. 

However, jacking up the rate in the short-term will only plummet this economy for we have nothing to fall back on.  A progressive strategy would see over the next decade a massive investment and structural focus on developing indigenous enterprise, with the target after that of beginning to increase the corporate tax rate with a view to supporting the EU's consolidated corporate taxation proposals.  The ultimate goal would be to work within Europe to ensure a system that foreign capital cannot manipulate, playing off countries against each other to their disadvantage.  Raising the corporate tax rate is the endgame, not the opening gambit.

But to suggest that vindicating the right to collective bargaining is a bar to continued foreign investment is laughable.  That IBEC uses this argument shows just how cynical they can be when pursuing their agenda.  For they know that the majority of multi-national companies, including a substantial number from the US, already engage with trade unions.

In a study by Jonathan Lavelle, Patrick Gunnigle and Anthony McDonnell, from the University of Limerick, entitled ‘Charting the contours of employment relations in foreign-owned MNCs: survey evidence from the Republic of Ireland',they found that:

  • 61 percent of all multi-nationals engage, in one form or another, with trade unions

  • 83 percent of all Irish and UK multi-nationals engage

  • 72 percent of multi-nationals from the rest of Europe engage

  • Even 41 percent of US-based multi-nationals engage

So the picture is not so cut-and-dried.  When one considers that labour relations in many MNCs are such that employees don't require (or believe they require) trade union representation, the number of enterprises that actively deny recognition of collective bargaining rights is even less.

So why the IBEC hostility?  It's certainly not out of concern over competitive advantage.  It has to do with their own indigenous members, many of whom whom refuse to acknowledge the right to collective bargaining, refusing to act in a progressive manner.  It's not an economic issue, it's about power-relations within enterprises.  The foreign capital argument is just a ruse.

But that's the current logic of social partnership.  Employers accept it on their terms – a dialogue in the 'political' sphere but a refusal to accept the imperatives of partnership at the local level, in the workplaces throughout the economy. 

Trade unions shouldn't be bullied.  They should call IBEC's bluff.  And if IBEC does walk away from the table, then the economy will be all the better for it.  For then we can start from the bottom up – building sustainable productive enterprises of which participation and recognition of trade unions is an indispensable part.

8 responses to “September 14th Afternoon: The Recession Diaries”

  1. Niall Avatar

    However, Michael it looks like the trade union movement are rolling over to have their collective bellies tickled.
    The deal will be done and workers will pay for it in the short and longer terms.
    There is no willingness to pursue any form of alternative economic or investment policy and we will remain dependent on the whims of multi nationals.

    Like

  2. Tipster Avatar

    Hmmm. I’m not sure I agree with the closing claim: “For then we can start from the bottom up – building sustainable productive enterprises of which participation and recognition of trade unions is an indispensable part.”
    Surely we could (and should) start that regardless of the outcome today (or tomorrow)?
    (Which isn’t to say the unions should agree a deal — just that the probability is not high enough that if one is not agreed then we get to build a proper economy.)

    Like

  3. James Avatar

    I couldn’t agree more on corpo tax Michael – very well said in every respect (although I do wonder whether it would make sense to increase corporation tax somewhat while abolishing employers’ PRSI – a revenue neutral measure that would shift the focus of business taxes from employment to profits. Any thoughts?)
    However I too don’t quite follow the last paragraph – how does the collapse of centralised collective bargaining help unions at firm-level?

    Like

  4. Michael Taft Avatar

    Fair point, Tipster. I made a number of unstated leaps to get to that conclusion. My concern, however, is that what passes for ‘social partnership’ is actually a glorified centralised wage deal and little else. The collapse of the wage negotation (which looks unlikely at the time of this writing) could allow for a more considered debate on what constitutes a real partnership – one that is ‘partnered’ from national to local level. If, however, the wage deal is agreed – then I fear it will be business as usual; and that’s something we don’t need more of. However, I accept that I need to tease these points out more rather than leave them hanging in a concluding paragraph.
    James, unions bargaining at local level will get better deals than they would at national level and will rarely get worse. I am preparing a list of such local bargaining that has occurred in the last few months. However, if there is a centralised deal, there will be no scope for bargaining in most local places.
    On the question of cutting Employers’ PRSI and increasing the corporate tax rate – as a strong supporter social insurance, I would be opposed to cutting Employers’ PRSI. We already have one of the lowest in the EU (and would have to double the rate just to reach the EU average). We should be expanding social insurance – both the programmes and the financing. I believe it would be more acceptable than raising income tax rates. In any event, the multi-nationals would oppose such a move. Payroll taxes are a fraction of their total operating costs (espcecially in the capital-intensive chemical/pharmeceutical sector). However, a slight rise in the corporate tax rate would hit their profits harder. Not good if you’re trying to keep, never mind woo, foreign capital.
    Niall, tickling the bellies? Is that what you call it? I would have thought a more earthy term would better describe the situation.

    Like

  5. James Avatar

    Two points on corporation tax versus employers’ PRSI:
    1) does it matter how social insurance benefits are financed, i.e. whether they come from general exchequer revenues or a specific fund? Benefits can still be connected to contributions/wages even if there is no specific tax called PRSI.
    2) True, the capital-intensive MNCs would be hurt by my suggestion, just as more labour-intensive firms would benefit. I guess this poses the question whether its more important to promote high-profit high-productivity firms or more job-creating ones. Clearly, the economy as a whole is better off with the former strategy, but this requires a more ambitious vision of how to redistribute and reallocate the fruits of these high-profit firms so that we don’t end up with “jobless growth”.
    I know you’ve posted before on the challenge posed by the diminishing bang for the IDA’s buck in terms of jobs-per-investment.

    Like

  6. Tipster Avatar

    There is a deeply peculiar “understanding” of the concept of partnership in the civil service here. When the NGOs rejected the terms of the last agreement, one senior civil servant who had taken part in the negotiations told some of the NGO reps that their “mistake” had been to bring politics into the process. For officialdom, “partnership” with the community and voluntary sectors means they are paid (below the rate and on an insecure basis) to deliver social services on behalf of the state and are expected (and, increasingly, contractually /required/) to keep their mouths shut about the structural causes of the problems they are being paid by the state to apply sticking plasters to.
    It occurs to me that, if your job doesn’t prohibit it, your article on the recent profits in Irish firms could be the basis of an excellent op-ed piece for the Irish Times.

    Like

  7. Michael Taft Avatar

    James, apologies for being so late with my response. In my opinion, PRSI operates somewhat outside the general tax/revenue dynamic. First, it is a contract based on empployment – a contract involving the employee and employer; PRSI is the social element of the wages paid (or the social wage). I accept this is partly theoretical – but it is good theory. The state, of course, sets the contributions, the levies, the exemptions, etc. on top of being the final gauarantor of the Social Insurance Fund’s solvency. But reductions in access to benefits, the level of benefits or the financing of the Fund is, ultimately, a cut in the social wage.
    The financing of social insurance is quite efficient (if not somewhat regressive when it comes to workers). Unlike tax which can be subject to elaborate tax avoidance schemes, and changes in credits and thresholds – PRSI levies are more robust. They are, with some exceptions taken off the top. And given that it is not paid into the Exchequer, is not contigent on budgetary fortunes.
    For these reasons, as I’ve argued in past blogs, PRSI is potentially a highly efficient, highly progressive means of increasing people’s life quality (e.g. universal heath care insurance, stare earnings-related pension benefit, paternity and family leave and even child-care). That this is ignored in pay talks shows the narrow focus of such talks. Being separate from the Government’s budget makes it less a target of politicians mucking about (though they still manage to do so – as when Fianna Fail raided the Insurance Fund of €600 million in 2001).
    You are absolutely right, James, when you pose the dilmena of how we can extract the maximum amount of social wealth from capital-intensive, low-employment sectors. The requires support for lower-productivity activities (e.g. services sector) and a modern redistributive system. In my opinion, mucking about with PRSI doesn’t address this fundamental issue.

    Like

  8. Michael Taft Avatar

    Tipster, I haven’t heard the apoliical and mangerialist foundation of ‘social partnership’ put so well. yeah, the last thing you want anti-poverty groups to do is start going on about politics – i.e. the economic and social causes of poverty. Better to tinker with programmes and social welfare budgets.
    No, my job doesn’t prohibit me from writing articles – either in print or on-line media. But the Irish Times editorial board might have a problem with the arguments I would offer up. Still, I’ll try to pursue it – in some form or another. Thanks for the encouragement.

    Like

Leave a comment

Navigation

About

Commentary on Irish Political Economy by Michael Taft, researcher for SIPTU