III. The positions of the social partners on flexibility
C. Government policies
Favouring more active involvement in industrial relations, the Fianna Fáil partly decided to actively endorse a return to centralized bargaining in 1987. While there were initial reservations from Fianna Gael and opposition from the Progressive Democrats, when the first of the current national agreements was negotiated in 1987.(2) There is now unanimity among all political parties that the system of social partnership, which commenced in 1987 with the Programme for National Recovery (PNR), is at the root of the economic success which the Irish economy has enjoyed for some years now. This is the so-called Celtic tiger effect where inflation and interest rates are low, the debt/GNP ratio falling, economic growth high and unemployment, although high, is falling (see Table 2.3). This is a dramatic reversal of the state of affairs which existed in 1987. Social partnership is then seen by government as the main contributor to Irish economic success and this view is also now held by many commentators.(3)
Within the broad parameters of the system of social partnership, Irish governments have adopted a differentiated approach to aspects of flexibility. In general, they allowed the issues of functional, numerical or temporal flexibility to be determined by employers or negotiated at local level between the social partners. Governments have, however, introduced legislation in order to extend elements of the floor of rights, already enshrined in employment legislation, to temporary, part-time workers and agency workers. The extension of the regulatory framework has been intrinsically bound up with national bargaining and Irish membership of the European Union (EU). Sexton and O'Connell (1996:97) note that the programme of legislative review undertaken and implemented since 1989 has proceeded on the basis of priorities established under the PNR and the PESP and international commitments especially in relation to membership of the EU. The PESP, which was signed in January 1991, contained a chapter which committed the Government to either amending or reviewing legislation, much of which was concerned with atypical work (PESP, pp. 83-86).
Unlike in the United Kingdom, there has been no concerted opposition by Irish Governments to EU regulation of the labour market but neither have they been willing to see this regulation extend too far. Irish governments have generally had a position in favour of extending EU social legislation. This broad support has not, however, meant backing for the more radical proposals initially envisaged for the European Social Charter. For instance it is widely believed that Irish governments have not supported a right to collective bargaining, union recognition, a minimum wage or mandatory employee participation. A major concern in relation to the first three issues has been a view that inward direct foreign investment would be put at risk if collective bargaining and mandatory union recognition were to be required by the Social Charter. This concern has been echoed by the IBEC representative, Turlough O'Sullivan. However, the position of government on such issues cannot be treated as fixed. The current centre-right Fianna Fáil/Progressive Democrat coalition has set up a commission to study the introduction of a national minimum wage. The ICTU has made a submission seeking a minimum wage of £5.00 per hour while employers remain opposed to the proposal.