Spending Plans for 2007

[pete]

There's at least a certain chunk of the population that are technically employable but due to pathetic work ethic and general incompetence can't hold down a job for long and aren't of much use to any employer.

There is no excuse for anyone between say 18-25 being unemployed. Excluding drug addicts clearly too many not willing to work. Thats why emigrants have come in here. Would be better to reduce hand outs & push people into training & education.

[holidaysong]

I could be wrong on this and am open to correction from someone of a more economistic (?) background than me, but I'm nearly sure that 3% is viewed as de facto full employment, that it's almost impossible to get the figure below this.

There is no set percentage at which you can say there is full employment. It is generally between 2-7% depending on the natural rate of unemployment in the country. You need to have this unemployment to make sure inflation doesn't go bananas.

[onceahoop]

Honestly you are way off about the unions. The union leaderships don't want real power, just the trappings of power - the high paid jobs etc.
Thats why they sell their members up the river in these deals and then propose them as something good. Fact is actual UNION MEMBERS have lost out big time under Partnership.

I'm with you on this one BP. Union Officials have become part of the establishment. No extra claims are allowed under partnership and if the workers start kicking up they get the no industrial action clause shoved in their faces. Unfortunately a lot of workers didn't read the small print and only saw the bottom line.

As regards the unemplyment figures, back in the late nineties there were about 130,000 unemployed and I was told that the Government accepted that there was full employment and that the remainder were unemployable. Cant rcall what percentage it amounted to.

[pete]

I presume union leaders do better if the workers are not striking. Striking workers means union has to pay them money? Less strikes means more pay increases for the unions bosses. I've always suspected unions only run to keep union bosses in jobs.

[Macy]

The national wage agreements have been bad for Trade Unions, despite it being them that originally called for the start of such a process (don't let the politicians kid you it was them that institgated it). Obviously it's going to weaken the Union's locally if more decisions are made nationally - one of the big things was collective bargaining, which is gone. Not sure why you'd expect workers to be anymore proactive than the general population though. Numbers in Trade Unions is increasing, it's that as a percentage of employed it's coming down - and a lot of that is to do with recognition by the multinationals.

As for the wage agreements themselves, Government are part of that along with Congress and the employers union IBEC. Other even less representative groups are around the table - IFA and CORI. It'd be wrong to say their strictly just between ICTU and IBEC, and wrong to say Government don't have a say.

Personally I'm totally opposed to the national wage agreements, and the current one gives away some fundamental rights imo, for a modest wage increase. I've not voted in favour of one, and niether has my branch. Unfortunately, like the rest of the country, the general membership is blinded by the money in their pocket, not the wider issues.

[BohsPartisan]

CPSU is holding a ballot to withdraw from the partnership process (they voted against the current deal) and negotiate their own pay claim. It will be difficult for them going alone though.
BTW Macy Which union are you in?