The politics of tenure in Ireland

Non-Irish readers of this blog may be astonished at many of the industrial relations (IR) goings-on. Why did the faculty not strike, after several ballots approving such action? Why is a case that may result in summary dismissal for everyone being allowed by SIPTU (the “union”) to go to the supreme Court on June 29, 2009, since a loss there would result in all IR negotiation becoming null and void? (If they can legally dismiss summarily, all negotiation is irrelevant). Why did SIPTU not make any attempt to enforce the numerous verdicts obtained by staff against management? Why did they not attempt to pursue the criminal and other sadistic behaviour by management of which their own correspondence evinces knowledge? In short, will tenure in Ireland be revoked de iure by daylight robbery, with only god knows what consequences internationally?

Tenure in Ireland has de facto been revoked some time ago, and it was a political decision made by SIPTU. As soon as they allowed the principle of individual dismissal, no-one's job was ever safe; there is no way of keeping together a research lab while one goes through the Kafkaesque IR processes of the Irish state. Yet this IR process allows SIPTU to continue to exert pressure on the government, and claim that the dismissal is illegal for as long as it suits them, while interfering in our lives. So there is much to be gained for them; however, a loss by Cahill in June would make SIPTU, as well as many staff, redundant. In this entry, I will try and summarize the situation, and speculate about the motives of the players.

First of all, DCU is a closed shop; all staff are forced to join the ruins of the old James Connolly/Jim Larkin behemoth, SIPTU, contorted into its present shape on the say-so of Bertie Ahern as a way of preventing real unions from emerging in the public service. Faculty in other Irish universities join IFUT, which did a goodish job in negotiating provisions for tenure in the 1997 act. SIPTU had no part in this, and wrongly declared the 2001 DCU statute to be legal. For that alone, they should be kicked out of DCU. Since DCU was the only university with a SIPTU closed shop for faculty, it was the wedge for faculty summary dismissal; IFUT would have won this case way back.

However, that is just the start. The most maddening thing about this is that staff voted to strike in 2002, and none of the disasters visited upon the lives of talented and sensitive people since then should have happened. The Labour court verdict of 2002 was another point at which everything should have ended, as also the EAT verdict of 2003. Finally, the Cahill (2006, 2007) and Fanning (2005, 2008) verdicts afforded the opportunity for closure, as did the no-confidence vote of Nov 2008 and the further formal strike ballot of 2009. At any point, a real strike threat would have forced management to rescind the "summary dismissal" statute, and get back to the negotiating table for real. That is not what SIPTU wanted apparently; a phony war can be kept going for longer than a real one; indefinitely, in fact, with many opportunities for them to get jobs for their boys and girls, and posture politically.

SIPTU's history was recently analysed in one of our yellowish papers;

The Colombian connection

Note the reference to the grandiose lifestyles of the "union" top brass, who have taken about $5 million since the 1997 act was conceived from their “members” at DCU to fund their extravagant sybaritism . Many of them and the associated “Labour” party (I have yet to see any of these do a real job) are ex-members of the paramilitary-connected “Workers' Party” (see previous parenthesised comment). It seems rather that, for whatever reason, like Fianna Fail (FF)they believe that the rest of us owe them a living. Their central political aim is political power, in government with FF.

So let's look at the tactics here. Every time a victory has been won at DCU (usually by an act of individual brilliance a la Cahill), they attempt to gain control of the process, and string it out as much as possible with their rising stars like Alex White and Chris Rowland being parachuted into our lives. They have perfected the “Duke of York” strategy; call a strike ballot, and then rescind the strike action, thus wearing out their members' will. At all these points, they are nodding and winking to their handlers in FF, who after all inflicted them on us.

Yet, given the weekends' political results, with the Ahern mafia gone,this repellingly immoral strategy may prove to be too clever by at least three-eights (SIPTU will call their boys in to negotiate the final 1/8). At the end of this process, they will be either ejected by their "members' from DCU (if both Cahill and I win) or by management (if either of us lose). Even the win/win scenario still allows an occasional "individual" dismissal; this is a loophole we must close, at least by insisting on procedural correctness, as well as a temporal definition of "individual"(Dismissals two minutes apart? two years? etc)



Seán O Nualláin Ph.D. 4u Meitheamh 2009