For peace, unity, and socialism. ISSN 0791-5217

SOCIALIST VOICEMonthly publication of the Communist Party of Ireland, DublinĻ

No. 38 November 2006 €1

far they have secured compensation totalling €390,000. In the latest development, the Employment Appeals Tribunal has found in favour of the thirteen mushroom-pickers under various employment laws. All were found to have been dismissed “for mere mem-

THE gross abuse of migrant workers in the “Celtic Tiger” economy continues to be uncovered. The latest case concerns the exploitation of thirteen female

mushroom-pickers from Lithuania by Éamonn Murray of Co. Cavan, a typical gombeen-capitalist mushroom-grower. Last January the workers approached SIPTU for help in expos-ing their appalling working con-ditions and low pay. When the workers returned from the meeting with SIPTU (having worked the pre-vious night up to 2 a.m. and having to be back on the job at 5 a.m., three hours later) all were sacked by this hero of Irish entre-preneurship, leaving the women not only unemployed but homeless. These Lithuanian workers were working seventy to eighty hours a week, working seven days a week and earning on average €230 per week—that is, just over €3 per hour. (The legal minimum wage is €7.65 per hour.) The women also live in accommodation provided on the farm, for which they pay rent to the owner. (Murray, who hails from just across the border, was renting from the farmer.) The women’s union took a case for unfair dismissal and non-compliance with employ-ment law, and they won. So

SIPTU exposes abuseof migrant workers

bership of a trade union”—a situation that the tribunal described as “flag-rantly unfair”—and were awarded compensation of €26,000 each. The other awards related to minimum notice, annual leave, and pay for public holidays. The Minister for Enterprise,

Trade, and Employment, Mícheál Martin, stated in November that his depart-ment had managed to secure more than €1 million in back money for migrant workers whom the inspectors had dis-covered to be underpaid. He claimed this as a victory for the Government’s strategy of encouraging rogue employers to mend their ways, which, he claimed, was more beneficial than bringing them before the courts. (If the shoe was on the other foot workers would face the full rigour of the law—as the people of Ross-port know to their cost.) The truth is that one dili-gent union official secured in one settlement almost half the total that the

I have never met in Russia, the country where the inevitability of suffering is preached as the general road to salvation, nor do I know of, any man who hated, loathed and despised so deeply and strongly all unhappiness, grief and suffering as Lenin . . . Lenin was excep-tionally great, in my opinion, precisely because of this feeling in him of irreconcilable, un-quenchable hostility towards the suffering of humanity, his burning faith that suffering is not an essential and unavoidable part of life but an abomination that people ought, and are able, to sweep away.—Maxim Gorky

“ ”▸▸

whereby untreated toxic materials extracted from the raw gas at the pro-cessing terminal are to be released into the air. High levels of leukaemia and respiratory complaints accom-pany this procedure. The only option that would satisfy these legitimate concerns of the Erris residents is the offshore processing of Corrib Basin gas—an option that Shell spokespersons are at pains to rubbish, without giving a single con-vincing reason other than that it would be “uneconomic.” What does “uneconomic” mean for the Corrib Basin oil cowboys? The market value (December 2005) of the Corrib and surrounding fields for Shell and its partners is in excess of €50.4 billion. With a fossil fuel short-fall in the coming years, this value is certain to increase appreciably. The managing director of EEI in Ireland, Andy Pyle, holds that processing the gas on a shallow-water platform is not economically viable, estimating its cost at €360 million. In other words, out of the megaprofits it will make from the Corrib Basin reserves Shell is unwilling to concede the microchunk needed to guarantee

2

Government claims it has secured, with its battery of inspectors. In a separate case a rights com-missioner has awarded €79,000 to four of the employees who worked for previous employers for breaches of the legislation on transfer of under-takings. Two other cases against the same employer are pending with the Rights Commissioner Service. In a lot of cases, winning a monetary award and securing rights is a long and hard process. Many of these gom-been employers choose to shut up shop rather than to pay. The SIPTU official who cham-pioned the workers’ cause, Irene Donegan, assistant organiser of the Cavan Branch, said: “The decision vindicates the right of every worker to join a trade union . . . Hopefully the decision will mark the beginning of the end of the flagrant disregard

for the rights of employees, particu-larly non-nationals, by rogue employers and will provide inspir-ation and encouragement to all those vulnerable workers who are reluctant to speak out against exploitative employers for fear of reprisal.” A number of Polish mushroom-pickers have also come forward and spoken about their pay and con-ditions. It has emerged that these workers are also working seventy to eighty hours a week for less than €2 per hour. Before the enlargement of the European Union in 2000 one of the mushroom-growers’ associations had a meeting at which it was proposed that the Government should main-tain the work permit system, as this provided the farmers with the means of controlling the workers’ work permits.

There are thousands of migrant workers here in Ireland working and living in very poor conditions, work-ing long hours for much less than the legal minimum wage. The next time you go into your local supermarket or vegetable shop, think before you buy your mushrooms. Who picked them? What wages did they receive for this back-breaking work? Did they get at least the legal minimum wage? Do they work seven days a week? If they are on piece-work, how many kilos did they have to pick to get that €3? Many commentators and indus-trial relations “experts” continue to repeat the mantra that unions are a thing of the past and that workers no longer need to combine. The truth is that only union membership can provide the necessary protec-tion and solidarity to workers; and life continues to confirm this fact.

Dempsey dances (again)to Shell’s tune

NOEL Dempsey’s recent refusal to allow another public inquiry into the exploitation of the Corrib Basin fossil fuel reserves presents us once again with the unedifying

spectacle of an Irish ministerial marionette dancing to the tune of his Shell puppet-masters. Dempsey’s arrogant assertion that there is “nothing new” in the proposal of the Shell to Sea campaigners is dis-ingenuous and gives us to understand that all options have been fully con-sidered, when clearly this is light years from being the case. His posture demonstrates once again his blatant disregard for the health and safety concerns of Erris residents and a contempt for democratic procedures that should worry all citizens. Briefly, Rossport residents argue that their health and lives are being placed at risk by the running of six miles of piping carrying toxic and cor-rosive gas close to where they live, from the Corrib Basin to an inland processing terminal at Béal an Átha Bhuí. Independent expert analysis of a highly technical and scientifically competent nature fully justifies their fears. This analysis, by the American company Accufacts Inc.—which brought a wealth of expertise in the area of pipeline design to bear on the Rossport problem—also warns of the health risk to local residents inherent in the “cold venting” procedure,

the well-being of the local population. Should we be surprised, though? According to The Other Shell Report, 2004, Shell’s commitment to human rights and development is “paper thin.” “Shell continues to hold on to an industrial infrastructure that is hazardous to people and the environ-ment, to operate ageing oil refineries that emit carcinogenic chemicals and other harmful toxins into neighbour-hoods, to neglect contamination that poisons the environment and damages human health, to endanger the survival of species and negotiate with local governments for substantial environment controls.” Is the fear that the general public may become aware of these facts the real reason why Noel Dempsey is at such pains to stifle public debate on the Shell to Sea issue? (The Accufacts analysis and the whole background of the Shell to Sea dispute are available in The Great Corrib Gas Controversy, a publi cation of the Centre for Public Enquiry—mandatory reading for all who would be fully informed about this question.) [TMS]

• Irish history • politics • Marxist classics • trade union affairs • feminism • environmental issues • progressive literature • philosophy • radical periodicals

Connolly Books7 Bloom Lane

(off Lower Ormond Quay)Dublin 1

(01) 8747981connollybooks@eircom.net

CONNOLLYBOOKSĻ

3

Seastar le muintir Ros Dumhach!NACH iontach a thapúla agus a dhiúltaigh an tAire Comhshaoil do mholtaí measartha

agus réasúnta na heagraíochta Shell chun Sáile fiosrú tomhasta a dhéanamh faoina bhfuil taobh thiar d’aighneas ghás na Coirbe! Níl an t-aire sásta glacadh leis gur féidir an dara tuairim a bheith ann seachas dearcadh Shell. Cá bhfuil neamhspleáchas agus aitheas an stáit imithe? Tá trí phrionsabal bhunúsacha i gceist san aighneas seo. I dtosach tá buncheist sábháilteachta agus sláinte. Táthar ag iarraidh píopaí ollmhóra a mbeadh ola ag sníomh tríothu faoi bhrú uafásach ard a chur faoi thalamh na ndaoine i ngar do thithe cónaithe. Píopaí táirgíochta iad seo nach ionann iad agus na píopaí aischuir nó píopaí seachadta a bhfuil taithí againn orthu. Níl a leithéid áit ar bith eile in Éirinn, agus bheidís thar a bheith contúirteach. Ní haon iontas é go bhfuil tuismitheoirí agus feirmeoirí glan ina gcoinne. Is é an dara prionsabal atá i gceist úinéireacht ar acmhainní nádúrtha. Séard atá san ola-réimse seo amach ó Iorras acmhainn de chuid na hÉireann a thug an polaiteoir cam Ray Burke saor in aisce do Shell. Ní bhfaighidh muintir na hÉireann oiread agus pingin (nó cent) rua ón saibhreas seo. Tá an Rialtas ag tabhairt le fios nach bhfuil an stát ná cuideachtaí Éireannacha in ann an láthair ola a

shaothrú. Ní hí sin an cheist. Is ceist úinéireachta í. An le muintir na hÉireann talamh, farraige agus mianraí na hÉireann? I gcónaí is féidir linn cuideachtaí a ostú ar chonradh leis an obair a dhéanamh ach gan an úinéireacht a thabhairt dóibh. Is í an tríú gné den ghnó seo an chaoi ar féidir le Shell an dlí i náisiúnstát a athrú nó a shárú de réir mar is mian leo. Ní ceart a dhearmad gur corparáid é seo a bhfuil aige buiséad—go deimhin, geilleagar iomlán—atá i bhfad níos mó ná mar atá ag go leor tíortha. Agus is cumhachtaí é dá réir ná an-chuid de náisiúnstáit an domhain, go fiú is stáit de na críocha gustalacha (nó an “chéad domhan,” mar a thugtar orthu coitianta). Bíonn Shell, ar nós corparáid ar bith dá leithéid, gan trua gan trócaire má sheasann daoine idir é agus an brabach mór. Réabfaidh sé tírdhreach, scriosfaidh sé pobail, dúnmharóidh sé daoine. Tá gach gníomh díobh sin déanta aige, an dúnmharú san áireamh. Sin slat tomhais ar mhisneach mhuintir Ros Dumhach. Nach ag muintir na hÉireann atá an t-ádh

gur roghnaigh Shell teacht i dtír in Iorras! Fúinn uile atá sé luí isteach taobh thiar díobh. Ábhar mórspéise í an chaoi a bhfuil Michael McDowell tar éis an Garda Síochána a chur ar an láthair le stop a chur le hagóidí síochánta. Mar is eol do chách, bíonn iompar póilíní in aon tír ag brath ar an mionteagasc nó cur síos a bhíonn tugtha dóibh roimh dul i ngleic le léirsitheoirí. Tá an chuma ar an scéal gur tugadh le fios dóibh gur dream gránna amach is amach iad muintir macánta na dúiche agus go gceadófaí brúidiúlacht ina gcoinne. Léiríonn iompar an Gharda Síochána in Iorras Mhaigh Eo feidhm an stáit sa chóras caipitlíoch. Is léiriú é ar cé chomh imithe amú maidir le coincheap an stáit is atá daon-sóisialaithe. Nuair nach mbíonn toil an phobail ag teacht le leas rachmas-óirí caitheann an stát craiceann an daonlathais de agus téann sé i mbun lámh láidir ar mhaithe le lucht gustalachta trasnáisiúnta. Sin atá taobh thiar de na hionsuithe gránna ar mhuintir Ros Dumhach agus a dtacadóirí.

[CdeF]

4

Re-established Assembly will bea focal point for struggle and progress

Reg Empey, leader of the UUP, has stated that the proposal by the Brit-ish and Irish governments in relation to the development of an all-Ireland economy would change the North’s economy “from being a region of the UK into a region on the island of Ire-land.” It is a strange logic that believes that moving from being less than 1 per cent of the population of the “United Kingdom” to being 30 per cent of an all-Ireland economy, so giv-ing yourself greater economic and political influence over these vital decisions, is somehow weakening your ability to influence events. The DUP and the UUP are com-pletely opposed to an all-Ireland econ-omic approach, preferring to be a small regional economy as part of the wider British economy. They fail to grasp the economic reality—which the business interests have done for some time—that in order to build a vibrant Northern economy we need to develop an all-Ireland approach, maximising and building the home market, as the basis for moving for-ward. By adopting this position, unionists are jeopardising the econ-omic future of their own constituents. The recent meeting in London between all the Northern parties elected to the Assembly and the Brit-ish Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, to discuss a financial package for the North, though it was an important step in having all the parties united in a shared approach to the British, in reality has failed to deliver any significant shift in the British government’s approach to overall economic policies. If the unionists read the signals they would be able to see that the British govern-ment does not care about their priorities. Brown’s package to the Northern parties included• £52.37 billion, available over four years, beginning next spring;• £18 billion allocated during the

period 2007–2017;• £1.8 billion for an innovation fund to promote research and develop-ment; and• establishing a Belfast office to advise overseas investors on tax policy. He also gave a commitment to looking at• cutting corporation tax to 121⁄2 per cent (the same as in the Republic), and• examining the possibility of cut-ting fuel duties to counter cross-border smuggling.

Although reducing corporation tax to a level comparable with that of the Republic appears to be a reasonable demand (whether we support such a demand is another question), it is diffi-cult to see Brown conceding it at this point, when he knows that the Scot-tish and Welsh Assemblies would be very keen to have similar tax rates. The economic package now on the table will not be enough to overcome the years of neglect of infrastructure investment, to grow and build a modern manufacturing base. It is estimated that current spending runs at about £8 billion a year, and this new money would only come to about £3 billion between 2007 and 2011. All this is very much dependent on meeting the deadline of 28 November for re-establishing the Assembly and Executive. This is the old carrot-and-stick approach: it is the British apply-ing economic and political muscle on unionism to move. The Northern economy is domin-ated by the public sector, which accounts for more than 60 per cent of gross domestic product, making it very dependent on economic and

political priorities established in London. We have had decades of Brit-ish government industrial and regional development policies that have failed to make any impact on widespread poverty and high un-employment. Where decisions are made, and the point of their delivery, has a direct bearing on social develop-ment and the quality of life. Unionism is aware that a shift in the economic relationship away from control and orientation by London, to an economic and social policy that responds to and is shaped by the econ-omic and social priorities demanded by the people who live here, will begin to undermine their own power base. In a world dominated by economic policies shaped in the interests of transnational corporations, it is abso-lutely necessary to maximise controls that ensure the well-being of all our people. An essential starting-point is public control over all natural resources, on land, under the sea bed, and in our coastal waters. As the Northern economy at the beginning of the twentieth century was structurally connected to the for-tunes of the British empire, so also its decline mirrors the decline of that empire. There were strong economic, political and military grounds then for imperialism’s partitioning of Ire-land; but the British empire, once described as the “workshop of the world,” is now a centre for finance capital, with manufacturing reduced to a secondary position. Today the British have new and more important allies in Ireland: the political and economic elite in the Republic. Unionism is no longer the sole ally but has been reduced to a role secondary to that of the establish-ment in the South. A re-established Assembly and Executive can and must become the focal point for struggle on issues that bring unity and co-operation in shared concerns to both sections of the Irish working class.

S the Northern parties inch closer to re-establishing a functioning Assembly and Executive, the pressure is mounting, particularly on the DUP and the other unionist parties, to step up to the mark. The recent policy statements from the British direct-rule ministers on such issues as rates, water charges and cuts in education and health show the urgent need to re-establish a functioning regional government with real economic and fiscal powers.

A

Unionists are jeopardising the economic future of their own constituents

5

Update on Mandate’s pay claimMANDATE is in the throes of an active and robust pay campaign against the

country’s huge retail profiteers. Ably led, the union has sidestepped its business opponents and led its brothers and sisters in the trade union movement in striking a blow for local collective bargaining. With the advent of the new “social partnership” dates—1 November 2006 and following—Mandate has engaged with its membership in the many relevant employments to deter-mine the validity of their position. All the resulting balloting exercises have provided a resounding rejection of the employers’ pay proposals, i.e. to award the first stage of “Towards 2016” at 3 per cent on all rates. The next stage for Mandate is argu-ably to follow the state procedures in the form of the Labour Relations Commission and Labour Court, where the union will undeniably have to face down the defenders of “social partnership.” After this, Mandate will be compelled to return to its members and unleash their collective will and muscle, as demonstrated by their full validation of the union’s pay stance.

While IBEC has directed its members not to break the line, some have signalled their intention to engage with the union in respect of its pay claim and how best this might be facilitated. None of these employ-ments are, in any shape or form, small or insignificant. In fact one is a major global company and, if continu-ing negotiations prove successful, might be the initial crack that breaks the IBEC dam. That said, Mandate is loath to store all its eggs in one basket and has wasted no time in rolling out the pay claim strategy in all employments, both local and national. At present it is too early to determine success, but there have been some notable results. One employment in the south-west acceded to the divisional organiser’s

claim of an increase of €1 per hour for a period of twelve months, with effect from 5 October 2006, followed by an increase of €1 per hour for a further period of twelve months, with effect from 4 October 2007, fol-lowed by an increase of €0.25 per hour for a further period of three months, with effect from 4 October 2008. It was further agreed that the employer’s contribution on behalf of employees to the defined-contribution pension scheme will increase from 81⁄2 to 121⁄2 per cent, with effect from 5 October 2006.

The country’s partnership protagonists are united against the vision of this union In another employment in the south-west the union successfully negotiated a potential 9 per cent pay increase on all rates of pay from April 2006, with considerably enhanced percentage increases on long-service pay entitlements. Similarly, one of Mandate’s local organisers in the north-west negoti-ated an increase on the previous hourly earnings of €11.60 to €13.30, with all future partnership and retro-spective entitlements intact. This resulted in members receiving back pay of approximately €1,300. Another employment in the north-west has recently agreed to increase hourly rates by 7 per cent, with an agreed pay review in nine months’ time. Before Mandate’s pay claim the union negotiated a new national wage structure with a major national retailer. For many Mandate members this resulted in wage increases ranging from 41⁄4 to 29€ per cent, aver-aging a weekly pay increase of €58 (and again protecting all current terms and conditions, current and future partnership increases, and retrospective entitlements). Common to the latter results is the

fact that they were all achieved with-out exercising any industrial action and in fact on occasion enjoyed the services of IBEC and the Labour Rela-tions Commission. With all this said and done, Mandate’s position on the pay and partnership radar and its success or not remains to be seen. It is clear that the country’s partnership protagon-ists are united against the vision of this union, which, while maybe having to punch well above its weight, has ideologically responded to the will and interests of its members. These members have consistently and uniformly argued that partner-ship agreements do not deliver, not only for them but for the country’s low-paid. Repeated representations from the few remaining left-wing trade union leaders at partnership talks have fallen on deaf ears and stony ground. If the might and threat of Irish retail business and its ”social-partnership” collaborators dumb down or even see off Mandate’s collec-tive bargaining impact, the union still deserves credit for its efforts not only to be heard and seen but to do the right thing for its members. The struggle continues!

[CC]

6

Battle lines drawnin the struggle to defend pensions

THE question of pensions is now looming large on the political horizon for the trade union movement. The monitoring arm of the national partnership agreements, the

National Implementation Body, is facing its second serious test in less than a month after the ratification of the “Towards 2016” agreement. This agreement was sold by the Government, the employers and some leading elements in the trade union movement as the vehicle for dealing with what is called the “loom-ing pensions problem.” The NIB will have to deal with a growing dispute between Bank of Ireland and its trade unions—the Irish Bank Officials’ Association and Amicus—over the bank’s determi-nation to introduce a new hybrid pension scheme for new entrants from October. Both unions have referred the dispute in relation to the change in pension conditions to the NIB, while also waiting for a date for a formal Labour Court hearing. The normal procedure in the case of referrals of any dispute has been to pass them on to the Labour Relations Commission or to the Labour Court. Both parties would be expected not to take any action that would worsen the situation. The NIB has still not said any-thing about the dispute, which reflects one of the central weaknesses of this body, made up of representa-tives of IBEC, the ICTU, and the Department of the Taoiseach. This body’s employer and union sections are required to reflect the interests of their members, which implies that the state is neutral in industrial rela-tions, while in reality it is an active participant on the side of the

employers. In this case the Bank of Ireland is an important member of IBEC, and if it decides to move ahead with its plans there is little that IBEC can do. Independent Newspapers led the charge in relation to changes in pen-sion arrangements for its workers, despite hostility by the unions, fol-lowed by Bank of Ireland. With Tony O’Reilly’s media empire leading the charge, the defence of workers’ pension rights will find little support but rather outright hostility within the mass media. The differences between the two cases are important. In Independent Newspapers there is little the unions could do to prevent the change, as existing employees acted to accept individually the changes imposed by the management. In the Bank of Ire-land case the issue concerns new entrants only. Existing employees are not affected, but they are threaten-ing action should the plan be pushed and are demanding that the bank await the involvement of the NIB and the Labour Court. The trouble for the “social partners,” however, is that the new provisions for handling pension dis-putes was one of the main selling-points of the new agreement by lead-ing elements within Congress. Following an emergency meeting

of the IBOA’s Bank of Ireland Com-mittee, the union decided to ballot its members for industrial action. The general secretary of the IBOA, Larry Broderick, accused the Bank of Ire-land of “breathtaking arrogance . . . in contemptuously proceeding with their plans without allowing the industrial relations institutions of the state to complete their deliber-ations . . . and illustrates the con-tempt the Bank has for its staff, cur-rent agreements and the very insti-tutions established by [the] Govern-ment to promote industrial peace.” He added that the IBOA would also be lodging a claim for a substan-tial pay increase to bring Bank of Ireland salaries “up to that of their main competitor, AIB, and to compen-sate staff for the reduced pensions that will be available as a result of the Bank’s short-sightedness.” This is a claim that the bank is likely to reject. Amicus, which has five hundred members in the Bank of Ireland Group, has said that it has a mandate to serve notice of industrial action and has organised meetings to ballot members regarding the specific action to be adopted. The outcome of the Bank of Ire-land dispute will establish precedents for the future of employee pensions, both for existing and future entrants in many company pension schemes.

Facts about our worldTen years after the rulers of the most power- ful capitalist countries committed them- selves to eliminating poverty and reducing the number of badly nourished people around the world, nothing has changed for the better. Today more than 1 billion people live below the poverty limit, exist- ing on less than $1 a day. Nearly 3 billion live on $2 per day. Six million children die each year of starvation. 852 million people suffer from hunger, and this number

increases by 4 million annually. Today starvation has more victims than AIDS, TB, and malaria. Only nineteen countries qualified for the boasted 100 per cent debt cancellation promise by 2005, while the remaining twenty-nine poor countries are still burdened with crippling debt, which means massive cuts in their health and education budgets. In fact the 100 per cent debt cancellation is a mere 10 per cent of the total debt of all fifty-two heavily indebted countries.

7

First-hand experience of Israeli terrorism

Appeal fundWE ask all friends and supporters

of Socialist Voice to contribute to our appeal fund. To build your Voice and expand its coverage we need your material support. We are relaunching our appeal fund, and every contribution will be recorded in the following issue of Socialist Voice. October: H. Doyle €20; J. Nolan ¤10; Donegal €10; Bookshop €50; B. O’Brien €10; others €20.

International

I will say one thing for the Israeli soldiers: they were completely and utterly in- discriminate. They launched the blast grenades against men, women, and children.

The first grenades were launched into an area that contained some of the international media and some Irish observers. At 8:30 a.m. and again at 9:30 on 13 October the Israelis, using blast grenades and a jeep, attacked groups of Muslim pilgrims and other Palestinian civilians who were attempting to cross the wall through an Israeli check-point between Bethlehem and Jerusalem.

They repeated the exercise at 11 a.m. Among the crowds, which numbered not more than a few hun-dred at any time, was a group of about fifteen Irish people who were in Palestine on a study tour. I captured the entire episode on video, and as soon as I got home I gave it to RTE television news (16 October). I also contacted the Middle East Section of the Department of Foreign Affairs. At this point, we have to forget about the Muslim pilgrims and the other Palestinian civilians who were

attacked. In an e-mail message (23 October) Cathy Milner of the RTE Foreign Desk stated: “While your foot-age was very dramatic, it’s not news in that we know it goes on,” while the Department of Foreign Affairs refused to even view the video, on the grounds that they “know what goes on out there” (16 October). The similarity of the argument was quite shocking, and revealing. However, having lowered my expec-tations to the lowest possible point, and concentrating on the fate of the Irish, I implored the official in the Department of Foreign Affairs to check with a supervisor whether or not the department wanted to view the film for the purpose of using it to seek an explanation from the Israeli Embassy as to why a group of Irish observers were attacked and endangered in this way. No. They did not want to see it, and there would be no letter to the Israeli Embassy, though she was in the middle of writ-ing a letter to me (18 October). Still waiting for that letter.

I have to admit that I was frus-trated at my lack of progress. I wondered what would happen if I had some interesting video footage from Cuba. On 19 October I contacted the Americas Section of the Department of Foreign Affairs and told them that I had just returned from Cuba and that I had video “of the Cuban security forces manhandling some Cubans and manhandling myself.” Would they like to see it? Yes! I asked that this person also check with a supervisor that they actually wanted to view it. I gave my name as “John Williams.” She phoned me back inside fifteen minutes, stating that they wanted me to send in the film, along with some written information on the lead-up to the “incident,” the outcome, and any other information. The Irish Times columnist Eddie Holt was doing a piece on the study tour while all this was going on, and he included these facts in a feature article. The Department of Foreign Affairs immediately responded. “We are aware of difficulties at the Qualandia checkpoint (between Jerusalem and Ramallah) on Friday, October 13. We did not however know of any Irish involvement at checkpoints. We will be pleased to meet any representatives of the group next week and raise their issues with the Israelis.” Wrong checkpoint (a deliberate error); no knowledge of Irish involvement (a lie); pleased to meet us (they made no attempt to contact us); will raise the issue with the Israelis (a complete U-turn). The department collapsed under the weight of one phone call from the Irish Times. Do we need to imagine how they react when the boys from the Israeli and US embassies call round for a chat?■ Declan McKenna was part of a group of twenty-six Irish partici-pants on a study tour in Palestine from 7 to 14 October.

8

Book review

7 Bloom Lane · Dublin 1(01) 8747981 · cpoi@eircom.net

SOCIALIST VOICEĻ

Bill Harley, Jeff Hyman, and Paul Thompson (editors), Participation and Democracy at Work: Essays in Honour of Harvie Ramsay, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005 (ISBN 978-1-403-90004-3; £25.99).

THIS book is dedicated to the late Harvie Ramsay, an inuential Marxian theorist and leading critic of the vogues of “partnership,” participation and democracy at

work so beloved of the right and “third-way” social democrats.

Convincing critique of fashionable theories

His most famous contribution was on employer “cycles of control,” which criticised the idea that workers’ participation is a natural product of a gradual and continuous “democrati-sation” process within capitalism. Instead Ramsay argued that what the chimera of partnership and workers’ participation showed was a cyclical phenomenon that emerged when employers’ authority was under challenge and it was necessary to gain workers’ compliance. Such schemes were therefore located within an inherently expan-sionist and power-hungry capitalism that has always sought to corrode the forces of workers’ resistance through cyclical strategies of accommodation and coercion. Workers, even when strongly organised in their unions and able to assert and claim many of their interests, in time come once again to face the advances of capital when the economic tide turns in the employers’ favour. Since the 1980s the cycle has turned again, as labour has retreated before the imperative of globalisation and the power of the transnational corporations.

In such contexts, offers to unions of “partnership” agreements are no more than a fig leaf to hide the fact of the management being once again firmly in the saddle. While this theory has its problems —it might be that employer-driven involvement is both durable and con-tinually expanding, rather than cyclical—it has nevertheless provided a far more scientific and class-based understanding of “partnership” and “work-place democracy” than is typi-cally found in the inflated fantasies and evidence-free zones of right-wing and social-democratic thinkers. Indeed Ramsay’s core thesis is represented strongly throughout the book by a number of international researchers. Some chapters provide useful empirical evidence on the out-comes of work-place democracy schemes in a variety of countries, while others are of a more weighty theoretical nature. Chapter 6, for example, draws on evidence from empirical research into work-place partnership in the aerospace industry in Britain. This research found that work-place partnership was consistently under-

mined by the realities of employers’ capital accumulation regimes. Evi-dence was found that work-place partnership arrangements were an inherently one-sided affair, threaten-ing not only any control of jobs by workers but also independent forms of work-place trade unionism. Other chapters, using similar kinds of empirical findings to discuss more meaty theoretical issues, debate the nature of workers’ involvement in capitalist enterprises. For the most part, the assess-ment is one of scepticism: pseudo-participation dominates because of an ingrained conflict of interest built in to the very fabric of capitalist work relations. Of course for most people subject to the realities of working life, such out-comes are hardly news. Anyone who has spent time on a factory or office floor will be familiar with the instinc-tive scepticism and ridicule that greet the latest participation gimmick from the management. The battery of “human relations” schemes rarely brings with it any more than greater work loads and longer working hours for the workers subject to them. In this regard, this book will supplement what many working people instinctively know about such schemes, informing our experiences with a theoretical and political under-standing. This collection of essays, therefore, is a useful read; though at €40 a copy it might be best to order it from the local library!

[NC]

Please send me information about membership ofthe Communist Party of Ireland.

Name: ..............................................................................................

Address: ...........................................................................................

.........................................................................................................

......................................................................................................... ▶ CPI, 7 Bloom Lane, Dublin 1 ▶ CPI, PO Box 85, Belfast BT1 1SR

Join the struggle for socialism!Join the Communist Party.

For the latest informationabout coming events, policy documents and publications

visit the CPI web site:www.communistpartyofireland.ie