The Workers' Struggle at Iarnrod Eireann

This article is from Social Democracy, Nov 6, 2017.  It discusses the role played by SIPTU in the Iarnrod Eireann dispute in particular but generally describes Irish Trade Unions as bureaucratic structures that demobilises grassroots self empowerment.

"To retain their control the bureaucracy carefully maintain a division between different groups of workers by staggering and delaying ballots, and will only ever expand their area of operations, and then only temporarily, when they are threatened from below as they were with water charges, a campaign they notoriously washed their hands off initially and then demobilised through their R2W intervention."

James Larkin, O'Connell St, Dublin.  Original photo by Oisín Kelly

The Workers' Struggle at Iarnrod Eireann
Another attack on the working class!

6 November 2017

Workers at Iarnrod Eireann have held the first in their planned series of strikes on Nov 1st   with more to follow on the 7th, 14th, 23rd, and December 8th. Their request is modest, a raise of 3.75% over three years in line with other transport workers. But after 10 years without a pay rise and with record numbers of passengers using the railways the company is now seeking to impose changes in line with those demanded from Bus Eireann workers; closure of some rail lines; outsourcing of work; forced re-location; freezing increments; adjustments to pensions and performance management. This comes on top of a reduction in staffing levels of 20% with the resulting increased workload shifted on to the remaining staff.  The company offer of 1.5% and the conditions attached to it represents an assault on real pay levels and working conditions which contains eighteen different changes to the workers' contracts. It is this and the the arrogant dismissal of the drivers claims that has caused outrage among the workers and prompted the strike action.

Contemptuous

This attack on the rail workers is more than just a sectional dispute it is part of a general coordinated attack on the working class that has gone on since the banking collapse. In this particular instance it comes as the culmination of talks that have run on for four years with the leadership of the unions missing opportunity after opportunity to strike when other workers were going out. All of which begs the question; why did Siptu and the rest of the bureaucracy not think of launching this campaign when Iarnrod Eireann workers were willing to support the Bus Eireann workers strikes against cuts and privatisation in the spring of this year or during the many strikes by Dublin Bus against cuts and the privatisation of routes going back to 2013?

Being aware of the union leaderships' refusal to co-ordinate resistance, and their avoidance of opportunities to broaden the fight against austerity, the Iarnrod Eireann management “Torpedoed” the talks at the last moment leaving the negotiators nothing to show after a concentrated five weeks of talks. The joint statement by the unions involved referred to the management's attitude as “contemptuous”.  They are undoubtedly correct!

The State employers hold the union leadership in contempt because after a decade of
compliance with acute cutbacks they know that they will agree to anything that provides them with a fig leaf irrespective of the cost to the broader layers of rank and file union members. It is this knowledge that gives them the confidence to be so “contemptuous” as to embark upon a €20'000 fishing trip while demanding that workers surrender their modest pay claim and their working conditions.

Absurd request

Following the arrogant dismissal of the pay claim by Iarnrod Eireann management Paul Cullen of Siptu has described the National Transport Authority as the “elephant in the room”. His comments were an appeal for them and the minister for Transport Tourism and Sport to intervene, but these bodies are the facilitators of cutbacks and privatisation, not disinterested arbiters and after the outcomes of the Bus Eireann dispute and the Dublin Bus route privatisations Siptu know that. The call on Shane Ross to “intervene” is an absurd request for the State to intervene to stop the management implementing changes that are in line with government policy.

This isn't going to happen. If Ross did intervene it would have only one purpose, that of bolstering the will of the management if it quails or to stave off a decisive workers victory by offering a few crumbs and diverting it in to further arbitration. The bureaucracy's great hope however is that such an intervention, for instance the release of funds overdue for routine maintenance, no matter how disappointing for the workers, may save a protracted struggle and put the issue quickly to bed.

A struggle within a struggle

Industrial struggle is fraught with difficulties for the union professionals. For the full timers a prolonged or acute struggle presents the danger that the workers will become confident in their own organisational abilities and develop positions that are beyond the bureaucrats' control. On the other hand they fret that their credibility with the workers will suffer when their prolonged negotiating and lobbying strategy fails so obviously that the bosses disdainfully dispense with their services and will not condescend to meet with them. This is what happened with the Iarnrod Eireann management which preferred to torpedo the talks in the certain knowledge that it will not be long until the union leaders find a way back to negotiations that contain no meaningful new concessions.

As the bureaucracy mediates between the management and an angry workforce they must allow the workers to show that anger through industrial action, just enough to re-convince a disdainful management that they need their services again but not enough that the workers action promotes a growing self-confidence and leads them to think that they can manage their own affairs without a caste of full time and ineffective bureaucrats.

The union bureaucracy's privileges are based on the hundreds of thousands of sub paying rank and file trade union members over which they have a highly secure control but during periods of heightened class struggle when they are caught between the workers and the bosses their control becomes unstable. However, in the complete equation it is only the rank and file workers that are not consciously organised as an independent force for themselves.

The Usual Pattern?

If the past is anything to go by this strike campaign will be faced immediately with a leadership desperate to re-enter talks and to quickly demobilise it, any recent campaign outlasting two or possibly three days of action counts as prolonged. The media, and the usual cacophonous gaggle of right wing politicos will intensify their campaign of vilification and complain furiously that the workers are in some way anti-social for preventing fans attending football matches or are cynically inconveniencing the public for entirely selfish reasons.

Following the usual methodology the LRC is likely to be brought in and the strike demobilised to facilitate talks. The most minuscule of alterations may be made using this route but the main issue of a pay rise of 3.75% will not be realised at all or possibly only partially but with a prodigious expansion of the score of caveats already attached to the 1.5% offer. The bureaucracy can probably expect to be granted cover for their cancellation of industrial action by vague promises for the establishment of a  joint committee which will be set up to look at all the contentious issues.

Break the pattern!

If events follow the usual pattern the union leadership will then once again face their members to denounce the minister, the management and the government and angrily regurgitate the old story that the deal they have negotiated is all that is practically achievable at present! Another couple of meetings will be set up to hammer out the details of the agreement they have just made, but are very unhappy with, and workers will be flattered by pats on the back and congratulations on their militancy as they return to normal service with  hollow promises that negotiations and consultation can halt the progress of the cuts. Anyone that has been a trade union member over the last decade, and longer, is familiar with this charade.

Sooner or later however, this pattern will break and for socialists consciously hastening the day of its demise is an imperative. For the working class the bureaucracy are not part of the solution, they are part of the problem but the well-worn path to surrender that they have trod for decades is becoming increasingly jagged. As the State ruthlessly reduces funding for services and pushes onwards to a low wage economy the bureaucracy have to struggle harder to control their increasingly angry members’ expectations. As a result the frequency with which disputes arise has increased. The last decade has seen repeated attacks on public sector workers in transport and each time opposition  has been demobilised with very little to show leaving the employers agenda intact. Pressure is building however and this time the Iarnrod Eireann workers have been described as 'enraged'. But that rage is not independently organised and notwithstanding spontaneous outbreaks, control, as things stand is conceded to the bureaucrats.

Socialist struggle

It doesn't have to be this way, but it will require a struggle. It is inevitable that the workers will try to fight back but it is not the role of socialists to act as passive observers. Socialists who describe themselves as revolutionaries should not be remaining silent, protecting their organisational base within the bureaucracy, and passively waiting for a revolt to arise spontaneously. They should be campaigning vociferously, making a conscious political intervention, condemning the antics of the bureaucrats and agitating openly and honestly for a self-organised rank and file response to sell out after sell out.

Calls, emanating from the centrist left, have been made on the bureaucracy for a “bold industrial strategy” and to “link” the issues at Iarnrod Eireann to “similar problems in Bus Éireann and Dublin Bus” but the bureaucrats they are calling on to “link'' the issues have been consciously and successfully keeping those issues separate. Not only are these “calls” totally ineffectual they serve only to reinforce illusions in the bureaucracy. We know this because it has already happened in the BusEireann strike in the spring. Balloting rules were used by union leaders as a delaying tactic preventing the possibility of action until it was too late. Then, once Bus Eireann workers were demobilised, the support strikes that had been balloted for, all on issues of serious concern in their own right, were cancelled also.

Spread the strike, it can be won!

As the strike campaign commences the Iarnrod Eireann workers cannot afford to leave it to the bureaucracy to achieve victory. In this they have indeed a task ahead of them but the anger and determination is there. It begins with confronting the contemptuous management of Iarnrod Eireann and their State backers and it continues with a fight to spread their industrial action in the face of the bureaucracy's opposition to class struggle methods. In effect they must stop the wheels turning and spread the strike to other threatened services, at first in transport. The events of last spring, however momentary, point the way forward; flying pickets and sympathy strikes are the most effective weapons in the workers arsenal.

This attack on the rail workers is merely the most acute point of an attack on the working class in general that is now almost a decade old. It involves the plundering of health, welfare, education, pensions, the ongoing attempts to privatise water and most importantly the point blank refusal to provide housing for working class people.

Resistance to this attack must be organised not just within the broadest swathe of austerity struck workplaces but also in the affected communities. It is the workers themselves through solidarity on the ground who must link these issues by immediate practical measures, not the bureaucracy. To retain their control the bureaucracy carefully maintain a division between different groups of workers by staggering and delaying ballots, and will only ever expand their area of operations, and then only temporarily, when they are threatened from below as they were with water charges, a campaign they notoriously washed their hands off initially and then demobilised through their R2W intervention.

Strike after strike shows that resistance to austerity has masses of trade union organised workers at its core but its potential is hampered by a compromising and bureaucratic leadership. To carry the fight forward that bureaucratic leadership's hand must be forced by a democratic and self-organised movement of rank and file workers.  Such a movement has the potential to both strengthen trade unionism and to take the struggle beyond the confines of 'industrial' issues to oppose the myriad aspects of this crisis ridden system's destruction of working people’s lives and to be the backbone of an anti-capitalist movement. This cannot be achieved without the most acute criticism of the union bureaucracy and their pro capitalist strategy which means calling for workers to self-organise against austerity and therefore against the bureaucracy and to fight back. All socialists must agitate for that outcome.

Victory to the rail workers!
No more bureaucratic sell outs!
Build a trade union rank and file movement!
All workers are under attack - broaden the resistance!


R2W AND R2W TD'S ABANDONED THE 9.4 EXEMPTION AND AGREE WITH PRO GOVERNMENT PROGRESSIVE CHARGES

by Enda Craig & James Quigley

The Oireachtas Committee on Future Funding of Domestic Water spent a full day on February 15, 2017 discussing compliance with European Law and the role of the regulator. A major part of that session concerned the principle of Ireland's ' Established Practice' enshrined in Article 9.4 of the Water Framework Directive and whether it is still a valid option for the Irish Government  to re-invoke the 9.4 Exemption that would allow Ireland a derogation from charging for domestic water.

Two Senior Counsels, invited by FF and SF, were adamant that it was still intact and on that basis saw no reason why the Irish Government should not use it.  It was noticeable how vehemently the EU Commission delegation and Fine Gael forcefully argued that Ireland gave up it’s right to invoke the 9.4 Exemption and asserted that it is now defunct.

As a result of the convincing arguments of both senior counsels, including supporting evidence of two similar cases in  the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and the EU Commissioners and FG efforts to quash it, I anticipated that the 9.4 Exemption would be, not only included but would form a major part in any report or recommendation.

However, there was no mention of Established Practice’, ‘9.4 Exemption’ or ‘Derogation’ in any final report, including the the 'Final Confidential Draft Report' that was supported by all the R2W TDs.  Incredibly, it was replaced by the new concept of 'Progressive Charges ' for excessive use and all that that entailed e.g. metering. 

According to the Committee secretary all the TDs on the Committee agreed the contents of that Final Draft Report. 

A group of R2W TDs predominately Sinn Féin,  heading to the Dáil plinth on April 6th.  At front Richard Boyd Barret, PBP, left and Eoin O Broin, SF, right

Progressive Charges, Metering and 9.4 Exemption. Who Benefits?

1.  The concept of charging and a minimum allowance was proposed by Sinn Féin and supported by R2W Unions in 2015 when Lynn Boylan included it in her European Citizen Initiative. This was totally opposite to R2W and even Sinn Féin’s stated policy in Ireland.

2.  A small daily allowance and charges for anything above was accepted in the final Oireachtas Water Committee reports. The principle of charging, no matter how small sets a precedent, it commodifies water with a natural consequence of a metering programme. There is no other way to measure a daily allowance.

3.  There is now  two components necessary for privatisation established, namely charging and metering.  The ink is not yet dried on the Oireachtas report and  the legislation based on it, the Water Services Bill 2017, now allows the charging amounts and allowances to be manipulated.  What with the Irish Water company well established, most of its plants and businesses outsourced to private companies, incentives and legal commitments in relation to metering, there is not much in it for optimism for the future.

4.  Retention of Irish Water the company. By accepting the process of the Oireachtas Committee, in the first place, and especially it’s Final Draft Report, the R2W TDs accepted and copper fastened the Irish Water company. In 2016 Eoin O Broin, Sinn Féin accepted that there was no viable alternative to Irish Water. This statement was not contradicted by any in the R2W leadership.

5.  By not including the 9.4 Exemption , R2W TDs accepted the arguments from the EU Commissioner. They have now allowed the Government to ignore it in future River Basin Management Plans.   During February 15th debate Eoin O Broin  unilaterally introduced a brief statement that the 9.4 was not included in the first RBMP.  In my opinion this was a highly significant remark, one that I would argue strongly against.  It was not the first time that Sinn Féin introduced brief unilateral statements which, in the circumstances, would be seen as R2W policy.  Without being corrected by R2W these throwaway remarks have had major consequences for the anti water charge movement in general and they have forced the direction of the anti water movement.

6.  R2W Trade Union delegation to the Oireachtas Committee on Feb 16th agreed that a former statement by Brendan Ogle  where he stated that he was not opposed to  ‘charging for excessive use’, is the policy of R2W.  Again this was another unilateral statement by R2W Trade Unions but taken with Lynn Boylan's 2015  Citizen's Initiative, it was designed to copper-fasten the policy of an excessive use charge again forcing the direction of R2W movement.

7.  Having not included the principles contained in the 9.4 Exemption in the Oireachtas Committee's final report, the ball was left firmly in Government hands whether they might  re-invoke it or not.  How much pressure Fianna Fáil will exert to have it re-invoked or how much commitment they have to the 9.4 Exemption is anyone's guess.  In my opinion this has been a massive failure of the R2W TDs.  Their argument that they were only 5 TDs in a committee of 20 is not good enough.  As I have said previous they either did a deal (which they are not willing to explain) or else they have been outwitted by their counterparts.  In the first place R2W should not have taken part in the establishment's charades and secondly when and if they realised that the 9.4 was not in the running they should have walked out and called an uprising.
 

How could this have happened?

Prior to and after the February 15th Oireachtas session, the 9.4 Exemption was seen as one of the most effective defences against EU insistence that Ireland charge for domestic water. To my dismay this exemption was thrown away by the R2W TDs and Fianna Fáil on the committee when it was not included in the final report. For seven months all requests for an explanation from R2W and R2W TD's have been met with a wall of deafening silence. Further research showed that between the 9.4 discussion in the Oireachtas Committee on Feb 15 and publishing its draft report on the April 5th  the committee met in over 30 secret sessions. Attempts, through direct requests to the department itself and R2W and through the Freedom of Information process , to get details of the discussions in those private sessions have been refused. 
It is obvious something substantial must have transpired to convince the R2W TD's and Fianna Fáil to abandon the 9.4 Exemption and accept excessive charges and metering instead. Either they succumbed to FG and Eu pressure or some type of deal was done.  Without complete information or openness and transparency and through lack of democratic avenues within R2W, I am convinced that the latter is the most likely. Until I get reasonable answers the facts and silence is pointing to FF and the R2W TD's dropping their support for the 9.4 and accepting Progressive Charges in it's place, a complete U-Turn from the positions that they portrayed in the media and manifestos.

They abandoned one of Ireland's best defences against European bureaucracy and allowed Brussels an inroad to do away with Ireland invoking the Water Framework Directive’s 9.4 Irish Exemption, something that the Commission has been planning for some time. Now the defenders of the Oireachtas Committee are practising how best to hoodwink' their various supporters and the public in general and hopefully not get found out. As part of this propaganda the R2W TDs banded together on the morning of April 6th, after the introduction of the final Draft Report when over twenty of the biggest bunch of sell-out TDs marched up to the Dáil media plinth and spouted forth their betrayal of the 9.4 Exemption, the Anti Water Charges Campaign and the people of Ireland.

Fianna Fáil have been no different.  They once professed strong anti water charges and anti Irish Water principles but have conspired with Fine Gael, contrary to the mandate they were given by their supporters,  to establish Irish Water and through their agreed mechanisms with Fine Gael to defuse the massive anti water movement and finally to introduce water charges and metering.

Barry Cowen, FF, MacGill Summer School, July 2015, "The botched implementation of the water charges regime by the government has shook public trust in the tariff system. Fianna Fáil maintains its call for the immediate suspension of charges. Domestic charges should only be introduced when the national infrastructure is brought up to standard."

Eoin O Broin, SF, April 6th on the Dáil plinth “Our collective view is that the report which we are going to vote on later today is an enormous victory for the Right2Water campaign”


Oireachtas Water Committee secret bussiness is a no go area

by James Quigley

Below is an appeal sent to the Freedom of Information Commissioner . It is the third step in a laborious process of trying to find out what took place in over thirty secret sessions of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Future Funding of Domestic Water in Ireland.  The committee's business ended in April 2017 in acrimonious and dubious circumstances.  Buncrana Together has written extensively on the subject and to date we have not received a satisfactory explanation from any member involved in the Committee.  

The only little bit of information we were able to get was from the Committee secretary Mr Tom Sheridan who told us that:

"The content of the Report, which is mainly comprised of the Joint Committee’s recommendations, was agreed in detail by the Members over a number of meetings and approved by them in the normal manner."

Apparently the Oireachtas Committee business does not come under the FOI Act and according to the FOI Coordinator the department doesn’t give out information relating to Oireachtas Committees.

Details of our FOI request and initial appeal can be read here and here.

Members of the Oireachtas Committee On Future Funding of Domestic Water

Below is the appeal  sent to the Office of the Information Commissioner by James Quigley on behalf of Communities for Ireland's 9.4.

 

"My FOI request concerned the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Future Funding of Domestic Water sent on Sept 8th 2017.  The request was dealt with and completely refused by the committee secretary Thomas Sheridan. I appealed his decision and my appeal was also refused by Vivian Uibh Eachach, Oct 13 2017, on the same grounds.

As far as I am concerned my request dealt with the administration of this committee, it's day to day procedures and in particular what each committee member voted and pushed for.

In the first place I find it difficult to accept that the person(s) dealing with my FOI request were directly involved with the issue. The question of impartiality arises here.

Secondly I find it difficult to accept that there is a carte blanche and total refusal of all information concerning such a public body, dealing with a public issue and in the interest of the public.

Surely there must be some information that is not totally restricted by the Houses of the Oireachtas Act 2013. I contend that that Act was dealing with sensitive issues and that is understandable.  However, it is not acceptable in this case where the issue was a public one, involving public representatives and witnesses.  In fact all witnesses' submissions are accessible to the public one way or another. 

As far as I can see there is nothing in that committee's proceedings that is remotely sensitive.  The committee was initially introduced  by Mr Coveney as a open and transparent process based on the recommendations of the Expert Commission.  One of this body's recommendations was that the public should have access and direct involvement in the water infrastructure affairs.  Surely a total refusal, hiding behind a bureaucratic 2013 act is contrary to this sentiment.

As part of my request I pointed out problems with the management of this Committee especially around the 30 odd secret meetings where, as far as I am led to believe, voting took place concerning what would go into a final report.  In particular I mentioned the session of February 15th and it's total omission from any report including the Confidential Draft Report sent to the committee members by Alan Byrne on April 5th.  I can send you his email which included the Draft Report.

I have read in the Oireachtas web site that it is a duty of the chairman to include all sessions in reports for members to accept or not for a final report.  That's as it should be and I contend that the Chairman and secretariat failed in this administration duty.  

It is significant that there was no mention of the February 15th session in the Draft Report especially as the Chairman himself commented on the day that this was a "very important discussion".  In my opinion this session was at the core of the argument, yet omitted entirely.

Again I would contend that the administration failed the public due to the controversial ending to committee's proceedings where the public was subjected to claims and counter claims by the members themselves who were openly at odds in the media.  

The administration did not protect the public by not making things clear especially as to what members voted for or agreed to.  No one was reprimanded and  official records and the truth has been withheld from public scrutiny.

To conclude I would suggest the reason given by both officials does not uphold nor protect citizens rights and as such goes against the very reason why we have Oireachtas committees in the first place."