Austerity


The Coronavirus Manifesto

by Gene Kerrigan, Sunday Independent, 22nd March 2020.

 

IMAGINE the chaos if the nurses went on strike right now, for higher pay and better conditions. They won’t do it, of course, but if they put their personal interests above all else, now would be the time to pull the plug.

Instantly, their every demand would be met.

Of course, in human and social terms, it would be disastrous — not to mention selfish and immoral.

Which is why the nurses won’t do it.

In fact, in the face of the Covid-19 assault on our lives, the opposite is happening. Retired medics are lining up by the tens of thousands to re-register and put their skills to use in the common good.

They and the existing workforce step without hesitation into the frontline.

And our gratitude is huge and transparently genuine.

This is the politics of community.

So, tell me this: why, in normal times, do we force medics and other essential workers to fight for every extra cent in pay, and every piddling improvement in conditions?

A range of other undervalued workers have kept us afloat in recent days. The shop workers and transport workers, the pharmacists, the cleaners, the armies of those who produce and distribute.

We’ll never know, for instance, how many tragedies were avoided by the cleaners whose work ensured we could enter spaces and touch objects they made safe for us. Many of them work for wages that are as low as the employers can push them, while still finding people who need the work.

At the same time, through exorbitant salaries, scandalous bonuses, bloated dividends, extortionate profits, tricky little share deals and sly manipulation of the tax laws, a thin layer of rich people have been sucking vast fortunes from the same system that underpays essential workers.

This is the politics of greed.

That’s what the tension in our society has been about. It’s what strikes and threats of strikes are about. It’s what the water tax protests were about. It’s what the housing crisis and the health crisis have been about.

The politics of community versus the politics of greed.

Look at housing. The word went out across the financial world — unprecedented profits to be made out of the Irish property market.

And the vultures, foreign and domestic, descended.

Working people were subjected to extortionate rents; every spare cent from two-salary households had to go to barely keeping up mortgage payments.

Homelessness was pushed up, children live perilously in B&Bs. People die sleeping on frozen streets.

The profiteers were encouraged and permitted to put their personal interests above all else.

In short, our political leaders endorsed policies that were disastrous, not to mention selfish and immoral.

And, for the most part, our media, cultural and intellectual leaders were cool with that, as their own properties rose in value.

Appeals to government to do something effective about the consequences of greed were blandly rejected.

Oh, no, can’t do that, it would be “unconstitutional”.

Oh, no, can’t interfere with the market, it would produce sub-optimal economic outcomes.

Ah, no, we’d love more social housing, but we don’t want to make “the mistakes of yesterday” — they said with straight faces.

And only a fool would hold back from extorting as much as possible, regardless of consequences.

Really? Is that what we’d tell the nurses right now?

Take, take, take, take

— to hell with the greater good, screw the politics of community, grab what you can, regardless of consequences?

No, that’s not what we want the nurses to do now — when they have massive bargaining power — and that’s not what’s on their minds.

In the battle between the politics of community and the politics of greed, it was the greedy who had the support of the political parties, the cultural celebrities and the intellectual charmers.

In the media, the greedy openly flaunted the proceeds of their avarice. Magazines glorified them. Radio programmes interviewed them in a servile manner. The media treated every vacuous comment from airhead CEOs and business “analysts” as though it was wisdom flowing from the lips of Aristotle.

TV shows promoted the values of the greedy and drooled over their lifestyles.

Universities and feepaying schools inculcated those values in the young.

Economist John Kenneth Galbraith summed it up, long ago: “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.”

Covid-19 didn’t come out of the blue. It’s the latest in a line of pandemics that killed a lot of people and were then beaten back.

This seems like a tough one, but we’ve known for a long time that at any moment we might be in this crisis.

Yet, we ran down our public health system. Not for years, for decades.

The rich people’s tax frauds of the 1980s and 1990s were effectively subsidised by austerity and cutting thousands of public hospital beds.

We had nine beds for every 1,000 of population in 1980. Ten years later, they’d cut that to six. Now, it’s about 2.6 beds per thousand. The OECD average is 4.8.

Leo Varadkar, asked about this by the Sunday Independent in 2016, said that if you take pressure off the medics things “slow down”. It seems fewer beds and more pressure makes them work harder.

In recent years, medics made no secret they were under severe stress, patients were suffering, the public health system was absurdly under-funded.

Hospitals were given inadequate budgets, and when they failed to keep to them, they were penalised. This was the greedy swaggering.

Oh, yes, said the politicians, we’d love to pay the nurses more — sure, aren’t they angels of mercy, one and all?

And we’d love it if overworked doctors didn’t fall asleep in their cars.

Of course, we’d be thrilled to supply all the equipment the medics need — so embarrassing when they have to use GoFundMe to buy a life-saving machine.

But, hey, the warriors of the stock market need another tax break; the Google executive won’t grace our shores unless we pay his kids’ private school fees; the bank executives are threatening to quit if we don’t raise the pay cap from a mere half-a-million a year.

And, look — if the rich weren’t vastly overpaid, sure, they wouldn’t be able to afford their philanthropy, right?

Actually, some of us aren’t too impressed by the rich “giving something back”. We’d much prefer if the greedy just stopped taking, taking, taking, taking, taking.

When this dreadful time has ended, and we’ve buried all the dead and shed all the tears, will we just pick up where we left off ?

The politics of greed produced the housing crisis and left us with a public health service ill-prepared for this dreadful virus.

It is the politics of community — in the shape of medics going beyond the call of duty, and other essential workers holding things together — that we look to in this crisis.

The mess the rich made of this country resulted from political choices.

When we’ve buried the dead, we will again have choices to make.

And, fundamentally, we’ll be choosing between the politics of greed and the politics of community.

If the politics of community — of equality and service and mutual respect — can save us in the bad times, we need it to make life better in normal times.

‘Covid-19 didn’t come out of the blue — we knew that at any moment we might be in this crisis’

Image may contain: one or more people and text

The general public is supporting the nurses;

The biggest workplace related march in modern times supported the nurses;

Many trade unions or trade union sections support the nurses;

The firefighters support the nurses;

The prison officers support the nurses!!

The ICTU Women’s Committee support the nurses;

The General Secretary of the ICTU is giving great support (according to INMO General Secretary’s speech on Saturday 9th February);

The Labour Party supports the nurses (they were on the march);

Fianna Fáil supports the nurses (‘This Week’, RTÉ Radio 1 today);

I want my trade union to support the nurses.

The general public is supporting the nurses;

The biggest workplace related march in modern times supported the nurses;

Many trade unions or trade union sections support the nurses;

The firefighters support the nurses;

The prison officers support the nurses!!

The ICTU Women’s Committee support the nurses;

The General Secretary of the ICTU is giving great support (according to INMO General Secretary’s speech on Saturday 9th February);

The Labour Party supports the nurses (they were on the march);

Fianna Fáil supports the nurses (‘This Week’, RTÉ Radio 1 today);

I want my trade union to support the nurses.

As has happened before, for instance during the water charge campaign, the exact position of our Union on a major issue is not generally known, or broadcast, leading to misunderstanding and even misrepresentation.

Sometimes within the Union, representatives, and even the NEC, may press for a position or clarification at some variance from the previously understood leadership policy in general. This modification may be held as the official position, available perhaps for future queries and challenges, but it can also be given the minimum publicity to avoid the impression of backing down or to effectively foster the old stance.  So, many members, unhappy with their Union’s position, may be unaware that the position is not as cut and dried as generally thought.

Well into the water charges campaign SIPTU on two occasions called on our members to support upcoming water marches. This was not widely proclaimed, there was no mobilisation effort or even visible SIPTU presence on the marches. Nevertheless the calls happened and remain of historical and internal interest.

So it is with the Irish Nurses and Midwives Organisation strikes. SIPTU’s position seems shockingly simple, and deplorable to many members wishing to support the nurses, as most people do, in the greatest industrial battle for some time. Reports such as that below from BreakingNews.ie (reporting an RTE radio interview) on 9th January 2019 have been left stand as is in the public mind (though at least one press release softened the message).

“SIPTU has said its members in nursing will not follow their colleagues in other unions in striking over pay increases”…SIPTU Health Division Organiser Paul Bell said his union – which has some 4,000 members in nursing – believes the INMO decision could jeopardise the Public Service Agreement. ‘Our comrades in the INMO are pursuing a particular strategy in a particular way, we are pursuing a strategy for nurses’ pay through the Public Service Agreement,’ Mr Bell said. “He said that while it will be a ‘difficult challenge’ for SIPTU members to walk past an INMO picket, his union does not share the nursing union’s opinion that the improvements they seek will not bring down the broader public sector pay agreement. ‘We do not believe that stepping outside process will deliver what we want to achieve over the short to medium term,’ Mr Bell told RTÉ Radio 1’s Today programme.”

The message seemed clear: the INMO are wrong, the INMO should stop and SIPTU will be passing the pickets.

Paul Bell has not pursued this engagement with the media and there have been two authoritative and important statements from the Union which have, unfortunately, been given only very limited circulation.

On 15th January a SIPTU press release said,

“SIPTU meets HSE on nurses pay
SIPTU nursing representatives met with the HSE today on the measures required to advance the pay and conditions of employment of our nursing and midwifery members, having regard to the Public Service Stability Agreement (PSSA).
SIPTU representatives urged the health service employers to consider the recommendation of the Public Service Pay Commission that the parties to the PSSA should examine the adequacy of current pay arrangements and should do so as a matter of urgency.
SIPTU fully supports the right of all workers to fight for better pay and conditions in the most effective manner as determined by union members.”

Note please these two important points: SIPTU urged consideration of “the recommendation of the Public Service Pay Commission that the parties to the PSSA should examine the adequacy of current pay arrangements and should do so as a matter of urgency”. What can this mean except that there is a case, under the PSSA even, for urgent movement on pay?!

Secondly SIPTU “fully supports the right of all workers to fight for better pay and conditions in the most effective manner as determined by union members” (our emphasis). What can this mean except that SIPTU recognises the right of INMO members to fight for better pay and conditions in the most effective way they determine as members of their union the INMO?!!

It has to be said that this apparent ‘we’re not doing it but you go ahead if you want‘ attitude has not always been reflected privately throughout the Union, and the full support for what other workers might do through their unions was not reflected, of course, by any SIPTU presence on the massive Dublin march of 9th February.

Then on Thursday 7th February the President of SIPTU Padraig Peyton (a psychiatric nurse himself) made a special short statement to a gathering of SIPTU District Councils officers in Dublin. He said that he wished to let it be known that SIPTU had engaged with the HSE in relation to SIPTU members who were not passing the INMO picket lines. The clear meaning was that SIPTU would be offering protection to members who respected the nurses pickets. Whatever about what might, or might not be, being said to SIPTU health workers on the ground, the SIPTU President’s statement seemed clear and firm enough.

The regretful separation of our Union from the nurses strike, and from a second mass movement of workers, compounding our absence from the water campaign with our absence from the widely popular nurses rebellion, remains. But the active position, and stated policy,  can be seen as perhaps less negative than generally thought and, especially, if made known, shouted rather than whispered, might offer some support to the nurses out fighting for decency, respect and fairness for all workers.

 

 

 

nurses around the world

liberty hall question mark

BreakingNews.ie reported today (9th January 2019) that, “SIPTU has said its members in nursing will not follow their colleagues in other unions in striking over pay increases. The union’s stance comes following the announcement that members of the Irish Nurses and Midwives Organisation are to hold a series of 24-hour strikes starting on January 30.

“However SIPTU Health Division Organiser Paul Bell said his union – which has some 4,000 members in nursing – believes the INMO decision could jeopardise the Public Service Agreement. ‘Our comrades in the INMO are pursuing a particular strategy in a particular way, we are pursuing a strategy for nurses’ pay through the Public Service Agreement,’ Mr Bell said.
 
“He said that while it will be a ‘difficult challenge’ for SIPTU members to walk past an INMO picket, his union does not share the nursing union’s opinion that the improvements they seek will not bring down the broader public sector pay agreement. ‘We do not believe that stepping outside process will deliver what we want to achieve over the short to medium term,’ Mr Bell told RTÉ Radio 1’s Today programme.”
 
An excellent May Day statement (1st May 2018) on behalf of SIPTU’s National Executive Council declared that “SIPTU supports the repeal of the eighth amendment”. It ended with this caveat on behalf of some of our members: “As the largest union of healthcare workers in Ireland, SIPTU wants to ensure that our members who work in front line healthcare services are protected and supported. This is why we are in favour of the provision of conscientious objection for medical and healthcare workers.”
 
We trust that this still holds and that as the largest union of healthcare workers in Ireland, SIPTU wants to ensure that our members who work in front line healthcare services are protected and supported. And that our Union is in favour of the provision of conscientious objection for medical and healthcare workers who may have a principled and conscientious objection to passing a picket in an industrial dispute, and will ensure that they are free of subsequent disciplinary action from whatever source.

siptu 8th amend statement 01.05.2018

 

 

From TUI Grassroots 28.11.2016

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1717839115137763/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED

The main issue the media are focusing on is where would the money come from to pay public servants. Here are some suggestions taken from various sources and going from the modest to the more radical. I have incorporated some of P. Healy’s suggestions below.

To start, some myths we should challenge.

  1. There is no money in the country! Not true. Ireland is one of the richest countries in the world (8th) but has high levels of income and wealth inequality.
  2. There is no scope for tax increases! In it pre-budget submission ICTU make the point clearly that tax revenues (as a percentage of GDP) are far below EU levels (31% v. 46% in 2016). As a result, social spending is also low (32% v. 48%). In an analysis of tax levels in 2012 Michael Taft of UNITE has shown that personal tax rates are on a par with the EU (23% v. 26% of GDP) as are household consumption taxes (10% v. 12%). But when it comes to things like taxes on employers we are way out of line.

So where would you start to look.

  1. The last budget. There are a few hundred million floating around here. The Vat relief to the hotels industry was continued despite a recovery in the sector and its record of low pay and bad conditions. The government could save itself €600m there.

True to form FG wanted to look after its rich friends and continued with a policy of granting USC relief to everybody. Some people think the relief only applies to those under €70,000. It’s not true.  It applies to all earnings up to €70,000 so everybody who pays USC benefits, even those earning over €70,000. In some cases, far above €70,000. The top 5% of tax units (that’s revenue jargon for those who pay tax either a couple or singly), that’s 110,000 units, have an average income of €186,000. Yes €186,000.  The top 10,000 units earn an average of €595,000, and none of them are in the public sector. The gains for top 5% from the last two budgets amounts to €172m incorporating USC relief and a new tax credit allowance for the self-employed.

 

There was a lot of talk before the budget about a countervailing measure to recoup some of this money from the most well paid. But there was none.  Interestingly there were a number of proposals published by ICTU and opposition parties which would have seen these people pay more:

  • Withdrawing the personal tax credit from those over €100,000 would raise €120m
  • A new tax rate for income over €100,000 would raise €464m.

 

In all ICTU has identified an additional billion that could be raised from a variety of not very radical tax reforms including a very, very, very modest wealth tax on those with assets in excess of €1 m.

 

  1. But in fact there is a lot more that could be got out of the wealthy. As Paddy Healy rightly points out the Net Financial Assets of Irish Households (shares, bank accounts etc. based on CSO sources) have risen by €71b since 2006, which was the peak of the boom. Assuming, based on data which attempts to profile Irish wealth, that the top 10% own 54% of assets, we can see that these people have increased their financial assets by €35 billion.

 

It’s not surprising then that when rich lists are published they show that the rich are getting richer. The Sunday Independent list shows the richest 300 Irish citizens are thought to be worth a combined €87.7bn, an increase of 4% in one year. The combined wealth of the top 300 has increased by an incredible 76% since 2010.

 

A modest wealth tax, even on assets over €1m, would provide almost €3 billion for the exchequer.

 

  1. Employers are not paying their fair share. Irelands rate of employer PRSI is way behind the EU average. So, for example, in 2012 revenue raised from employers PRSI was equivalent to 8% of GDP compared to an EU average of 20%. If Ireland’s rates were at EU levels, we could raise an additional €8 billion a year. Making more modest changes (for example raising the rate from 10.75% to 15.75% for income over €100,000) would raise €331m.

 

An equally large scandal concerns corporation tax. A very simple way to resolve present difficulties would be to force Apple to pay up the €13 billion it owes us. While public servants saw €2 b per year taken out their incomes at the height of the cuts, Apple is allowed get away scot free. The cost of current cuts to public servants is about €1.4b per year. And  media, politicians and IBEC wonder why public servants are angry?

 

But it’s not just Apple. While the rate of corporation tax here is 12.5% the reality is very few companies pay this and in some years effective tax rates were as low as 2% (see http://www.progressive-economy.ie/2016/11/jim-stewart-policies-of-trump.html?showComment=1479913798732#c4730590999113056481).

Google paid an effective rate of 0.14% between 2005 and 2011. So billions could be raised by forcing companies to pay the full rate of 12.5%. Further the average rate of corporation tax in the OECD is about 30%. Raising our rate to 19.75% would raise, according to the Department of Finance, an extra €4 b.

 

  1. And finally. There is a lot of dirt being thrown at public servants as if we were at fault for the crash. But we all know that it was speculators and bankers who were at the heart of the problem. The national debt soared from 25% to 120% of GDP between 2007 and 2012.  The cost of bailing out the banks is estimated at over €60b accounting directly for almost 40% of the increase in the debt. The banking crash obviously had indirect consequences leading, for example, to higher unemployment and higher social welfare cost and further borrowing. Nearly €1 in every €10 raised by the state now goes to pay interest on this debt which will be almost €6.5b in 2017. It’s the fourth highest item of expenditure after social protection, health and education.  The other consequence is that these debt payments turn a projected government surplus (tax – expenditure) of €5b in 2017 into a deficit of over €1b.

 

Surely it’s time to call a halt to this. To say our priority is to rebuild our services and infrastructure and pay back public servants the money they are owed. Surely the banks and financial institutions, the main holders of Irish government debt, can wait a little longer. So can the Troika who account for about 25% of our debt. A moratorium on repayment of interest on bank debt would provide the necessary breathing space to re-prioritise the needs of society.

 

In the debate about public sector pay the media and politicians are trying to create unnecessary divisions between us and rest of society. Some trade union leaders are contributing to this divisive narrative.  What I have tried to show above is that there is potential to raise plenty of money to repay public servants and also invest in the services we need. The problem is that the political will is not there to do so.

http://www.siptu.ie/media/pressreleases2014/mainnews/fullstory_18706_en.html

Statement by the National Executive Council of SIPTU on the Right2Water Protest

Date Released: 05 December 2014

The SIPTU NEC statement of 21st November 2014 concluded: “Therefore, in the absence of a declaration by the Government of its intention to provide every household with an adequate supply of water to meet all its domestic needs, at no direct cost, while retaining a tariff on non-essential use only and to legislate for a Referendum to prohibit privatisation, we will work with other trade unions and civil society organisations, including those involved in Right2Water, to campaign through peaceful protests and other democratic actions, to achieve these objectives”.

Since then, the Government has given no indication of any further movement in its position.

Therefore, we have sought engagement with the trade unions involved in the current Right2Water Campaign with a view to the development of a common platform on the issue across the movement.

Pending the outcome of any discussions with the other trade unions, we would encourage members to participate in the Right2Water protest which is scheduled to take place at Leinster House, Merrion Square, Dublin 2 at 1.00 p.m. on Wednesday 10th December 2014, of their own volition, if they are free and available to do so.  We believe that every peacefully conducted protest and democratic action has the potential to help further the demands for an adequate supply of water to meet the normal domestic needs of every household at no direct cost and a Referendum to change the Constitution so as to prohibit the privatisation of the public water supply.

21st November 2014

Statement by the National Executive Council of SIPTU in response to the Government’s policy announcement of 19th November 2014 on the public water supply.

The Government’s initiative of 19th November 2014, while offering clarity and certainty on water charges, will not provide a comprehensive long-term solution for the challenges confronting the development of the public water system.

· Its most immediate flaw is that the charges regime remains regressive in character. The objective should be to provide every household with an adequate supply of water to meet all their domestic needs at no direct cost, while retaining the option of a tariff on non-essential use only as a conservation measure. The Government should announce its intention to do this.

· Policy on the development of the public water supply should not be decided in the context of a fiscal austerity programme, which is now totally unnecessary in any event. It calls for a properly informed and structured public debate. If the current projections for economic growth are achieved, Irish Water could be re-designated as a democratically controlled Water Authority or a non-commercial semi-state company within the lifetime of the next government, without further increasing taxation or cutting public spending. This would enable charges to be dispensed with altogether, retaining a tariff on non-essential use only.

· We must have a Referendum to insert a provision in the Constitution prohibiting the privatisation of the public water supply. Otherwise, there is a real danger that we will drift into privatisation due, for example, to the inability of Irish Water to collect its revenues. In this regard, we welcome the decision of the Executive Council of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions to support, promote and campaign for such a referendum.

Therefore, in the absence of a declaration by the Government of its intention to provide every household with an adequate supply of water to meet all its domestic needs at no direct cost, while retaining a tariff on non-essential use only and to legislate for a Referendum to prohibit privatisation, we will work with other trade unions and civil society organisations, including those involved in Right2Water, to campaign through peaceful protests and other democratic actions, to achieve these objectives.

Dublin Council of Trade Unions Flyer 10-10-2014

Next Page »