Fourthwrite .......................Issue No. 7

Interview 

Brendan Ogle of  ILDA (Irish Locomotive Drivers Association) talks with Fourthwrite editor, Tommy McKearney

BO: Some people have referred to the organised labour movement (generally speaking the ICTU and affiliated unions)  as more a policeman on workers than a representative. From our particular perspective as train drivers, we don’t have any particular problem with that description. Certainly the role of trade unions in Ireland in respect of representing workers interests and workers rights seems to have moved very much to the centre in recent years. I was listening recently to a debate on RTE’s Morning Ireland. The Department of Enterprise’s Individual Employment Rights Enforcement Section was making it known that they had been inundated with queries from workers in all sorts of employments asking about the individual rights of workers and whether their employers were upholding these individual’s rights in the manner required. The individual rights of workers and how those rights are upheld by employers is traditionally the role of the trade union movement. What we now find is that state agencies such as the Dept.. of Enterprise are dealing with complaints formerly dealt with by the trade union movement. What was particularly interesting was when the ICTU’s information officer, Oliver O’Donohoe, was asked for his suggestion as to how this particular difficulty could be resolved. Rather than outline how ICTU affiliated unions intended to correct the situation and take the traditional role in upholding the individual rights of workers, Oliver’s answer was to provide  Government Departments with increased funding  so they can deal with the number of complaints. In other words; provide the Dept.. with  funding to fulfil the role formerly taken on by the trade union movement.  We don’t believe the big unions are organising, we don’t believe they are acting in the interests of  rank and file workers. On the contrary, we believe  they are working  hand in hand with Government under the umbrella of partnership, ensuring that barriers are erected  and that strictures are put on workers who now feel that the trade union movement isn’t giving them the service they pay for. Another example of that was at the ICTU conference in Bundoran where the rules governing the movement of union members from one union to another were changed so that a worker dissatisfied with a service in one particular union can not now leave to join another union unless he gets  80% of his own grade, group or category to agree with him and he also gets permission of the union he wants to leave. I think regulations such as that will ultimately lead to the death of the trade union movement.

TMcK: John Mitchell, the former secretary of IDATU, said that he knew of one instance where management used to send  workers to the trade union organiser for discipline. Are there elements of that remaining within the Irish trade union movement?

BO: In the last few weeks we discovered that in relation to talks involving  railway workers in SIPTU and the NBRU that management chose the representatives to attend  talks with management. So that type of thing does go on. If we look at the organising of trade union membership what we find is that in the private sector, organised trade union membership is now approaching 20%. Based on current figures, we will find  less than 20% of workers in the private sector organised in a trade union sense at the end of the next five years . While membership overall is very gradually  increasing, it is not increasing in proportion to the number of people entering the work place in a booming economy.  So are people in the private sector employed by  multi nationals likely to join a trade union in an environment where the trade union movement and the ICTU are erecting the sort of barriers I spoke about earlier. From our perspective I would have to say that anyone in the private sector considering joining a trade union would want to be very careful what trade union they join. Because if after six months of  joining, they discover that that union is not providing the service for which they are paying, they can’t leave to join another one.

TMcK: Is it a case  that the interests of some component parts of ICTU are  at variance with the interests of other sections. The wage earning people rather than the salaried  people for example.

  BO: Many people start out in the trade union movement at grass roots level and work their way up. The challenge for such people is to remain at all times  in constant touch with and have an affinity for the place and people from whence they came. If they lose the plot, the temptation is that the lunches in Dublin Castle and with the Partnership become just as important (if not more important) than what they are actually producing for their members on the ground. What we have found in the booming economy is that while the poor  may have a few bob more in their pockets than they  had fifteen years ago, the gap between rich and poor is ever increasing. There is more money to go around and it is not being distributed in an equal and fair manner. What is also a problem is  the way  most trade unions are structured. They are structured as  bureaucracies. They have buildings, they have staff, they have equipment, they have cars. All that costs money. Look at unions such as SIPTU and  the amount of money from members which goes on the bureaucracy rather than the training of shop stewards and workers, rather than campaigning and research. You will find that 60% of  money coming in is actually being spent on maintaining a bureaucracy rather than on representing members and that is a very fundamental problem.

TMcK: Is it time therefore to consider the creation, once again, of the one big union with the spirit and concept of Connolly and Larkin that would be willing to challenge the status quo rather than acquiesce to it.

BO: With respect to our trade union leaders, the spirit of Connolly and Larkin is something we tend to hear of during Mayday speeches and see very little of throughout the rest of the year. The experience of workers is that the spirit of Connolly and Larkin  is not being carried on. There is a debate  taking place among some trade union members,  with some among those who take a specific interest in these matters, arguing  that the trade union movement as we know it can be reformed from within.  Now as a representative of ILDA members, I have specific experience of that. We had an experience in 1994 whereby we felt our members had been provided with a very poor service. We set out then with two objectives as members of SIPTU. The first objective was to ensure that what had happened to us did not happen again. The second objective was to find out what exactly had gone wrong. And we spent four years trying to do that and what we found was that as union members we weren’t welcomed within the union bureaucracy as people of vision or people with real concern about the movement. We were seen as a nuisance, as people asking awkward questions, as people to be shunted off committees, as people to be talked about in private meetings with unions and managers, as people to be isolated within their employment by the unions themselves. This was within SIPTU and I, as the elected representative of train drivers in this area of the midlands, found myself coming under constant pressure from my union officials for articulating the views of our members because the views of our members were contrary obviously to the views of management on a number of serious issues. It is interesting now to find that SIPTU wants our members back into SIPTU. Because when we were in SIPTU, all they wanted was to get rid of us. My personal view is that the trade union movement as we know it, is beyond reform in Ireland. We tried it for four years and then we tried to set up an alternative union for train drivers.  In trying to set up an alternative for train drivers we really got an education. We found ourselves dragged through the high court by our employer and nobody in the trade union movement appeared bothered by that. Our private houses were under threat since we were sued as individuals by our employer. We obviously had to obtain a legal defence and this  involved us having to go to credit unions and take out loans to hire barristers and so forth.

TMcK: You had to go to the Credit Union to take out loans to defend yourselves without any help from the general trade union movement.

  BO:Yes. There was total silence from the general trade union movement. The more cynical among our membership believed that behind the scenes there was even assent from the trade union movement. In other words, Irish Rail was given the nod that  if  they sued us they would get a free run from the trade union movement Certainly no one ever made any statements or  moved to support us at that time. Thankfully, we successfully defended ourselves. It cost us a lot of money but  we managed at least to hold on to our homes.

TMcK: Clearly you are still a committed trade unionist and still see the need for workers to be represented in an organised fashion. 

BO: Yes I do but it has been my view for a long time that trying to change from within will be a failure. Look at one issue such as union recognition. Over a number of years the trade union movement, SIPTU in particular,  decided to campaign for trade union recognition and to make it part of the Partnership programme. IBEC and the employers raised the objection that to afford that type of trade union recognition  would frighten off the multinationals. Thereafter, the trade union movement sold out the principal of recognition for the much more mundane principal of an individual’s right to take a case and trade union recognition is now off the agenda as a result of that.

TMcK: Is there a risk that we are moving into a situation where  we are now bordering on corporatism in this country.

B.O: Well Tommy, you are the one who used the phrase ‘bordering on’. I would not even use the phrase ‘bordering’ to qualify the statement. What we have in many peoples view and I share this view  is corporatists going around dressed up as trade unionists and under the umbrella of partnership, kicking the hell out of the workers. That has been our experience as train drivers and I think other groups of workers are seeing that too. We now have SIPTU workers in Aer Rianta taking SIPTU to the High Court for the manner in which a ballot was allegedly conducted. A few weeks ago we had SIPTU  bus workers from Dublin picketing Liberty Hall and  pointing a finger at  officials who allegedly interfered with balloting procedures. I have the expectation that that too will go to the high court. Our experience of 1994 is being replicated throughout the movement. As I say, I would not make the qualifications you make; I would be quite blunt about it.

TMcK: If this is happening in a relatively buoyant economy, what would be the implications for liberty if we were to go into an economic decline.

B.O.  If the trade union movement  stands by at a time of economic boom and allows employers free range to use legalisation against workers, then I think workers have every right to fear. I personally think the situation is very dangerous and that one example of the use of legalisation by employers against workers with no comment or defence from the wider trade union movement is a very dangerous example. I think a lot of this goes on behind closed doors and some things just could not just happen  without the assent of people in the trade union movement.  The Mick O’Reilly thing is probably an example of that.

TMcK: What is your reading of the Mick O’Reilly case?

B.O:Well there has been a lot of speculation and there has been a lot of guessing as to what the factors are behind what has happened to Mick. I think there are a number of factors that have led people to take a negative view of Mick O’Reilly and Eugene McGlone. Mick has consistently opposed partnership and has caused great embarrassment to the mandarins of the trade union movement. They tell us that inflation won’t rise and then it does rise. They tell us that the wage increases they have negotiated will be sufficient over the term of the partnership agreement and these turn out not to be. And on issues such as the Nice Treaty when they didn’t take any alternative view to the Government and some of their attacks on Mick, in the lead up to the referendum, were very personal and very vicious. Of course lLDA joining the AT&GWU has been pointed to as the straw that broke the camels back in Mick’s case and I think that is probably a fair description.

TMcK: Lets be clear. Are you saying that ILDA’s admission to the AT&GWU caused the ‘powers-that-be’ to expel Mick O’Reilly?

B.O.Yes, last year we fought a recognition dispute and Irish Rail refused to talk to us on the basis that we had no negotiation license. Forty five percent of Irish train drivers is quite a vital section of the Irish economy and the AT&GWU took a view that it was much more logical to have those people within the trade union movement than outside it and entered into discussions with us on that basis. We joined the AT&GWU and were very happy to do so. However, SIPTU had major difficulties with it and claimed us as their members. We now hear all sorts of things and one is Peter Cassells, as general secretary of ICTU washing his hands of the Mick O’Reilly incident at the ICTU conference and pointing out to the delegates that he had no  part in his demise. What Peter didn’t point out was that he had met with Ray Collins, a senior trade union executive from the AT&GWU head office in London, and  provided Ray Collins (without Mick’s say so or indeed knowledge)  with documents specifically relating to Mick.   We also know that as the ICTU constitution stands it prevents interference in political or industrial matters affecting Irish workers by trade unions based in the UK. We know that the ICTU has failed thus far, and I expect them to continue to fail to point out, to the AT&GWU  leaders in England that they are not complying with the ICTU constitution. There seems to be a conspiracy of sorts. Some people say that it goes to the very top and that it involves clandestine telephone calls between Berty Ahern and Tony Blair. We will never know the truth about that. From our own experience and taking into account some of the forces arrayed against us train drivers for four years,  nothing would surprise me. I was talking to a very senior journalist  and his view of it was that ICTU people including SIPTU, contacted Bill Morris and they wanted Mick to have one hand tied behind his back. But Bill Morris for personal reasons – he doesn’t seem to like Mick – decided he wasn’t going to tie one hand behind his back, instead he was  going to chop his head off. The ICTU hadn’t looked for  that strong of action to be taken and are now getting a bit concerned as to what it could lead to. The journalist put it to me in such a way that the ICTU people contacting Bill Morris in England was understandable given the circumstances. My view of  that is, that it is not understandable for Irish trade unionists to contact the boss of another Irish trade unionist in London and to effectively try to neuter that Irish trade unionist.

TMcK: It seems to be the case that  some union leaders don’t recognise one of the key concepts that lies at the heart of the trade union movement and that is an injury to one is an injury to all.

B.O: An injury to one is an injury to all, is a concept upon which the Irish trade union movement – every trade union movement I suppose – is built. But that just doesn’t fit however with the sort of populist  nonsense we hear in relation to the Partnership project. When the teachers had difficulties, when the nurses had difficulties, the bus drivers, the train drivers, whoever are in difficulties at any particular time, they are accused of threatening the economy, threatening growth, threatening the prosperity of the nation. So that group of workers are supposed to sacrifice their rights their entitlements and suffer their injuries for the broader good. It seems to me that that is the very opposite of what the trade union movement is built on. In our own specific case we went into dispute and because the eight workers have been isolated in their employment by Irish Rail and have been victimised in a most disgraceful manner, our members decided to take a stand on behalf of those workers. It was portrayed in the media and accepted by a broad section of the populace that pay to read newspapers that it wasn’t justifiable for us to take action in defence of eight workers. I would say it is justifiable. I would say it is justifiable to take action on behalf of one worker who was treated in such a manner by their employer and I would say that that is the principal upon which the trade union movement is built on or should be built on.

TMcK: What is your view then of Partnership and what has it delivered?

B.O.: It is beyond doubt that the economy is in an historically buoyant state and it is beyond doubt that employment levels are at extremely high levels. I think the question really is: what has contributed to this?  In the initial stages, in the late Eighties, workers agreed with their trade unions to accept what were paltry increases or no increases at all and that played a big part. And if that is called Partnership then it has to be acknowledged that workers made the sacrifice. What has also played a part attracting  international employers and multi-national employers, was low corporation tax. So there are a number of factors. What has happened now is that the economy has turned and the sacrifice that workers made has paid a dividend but workers are not benefiting from that dividend. Certainly they are not benefiting to the extent that the middle and upper classes are. So this is really a distribution of wealth issue,  and distribution of wealth under Partnership is not being dealt with very effectively.

TMcK: Is it a question of how we plan rather than have the plan a one sided partnership?

B.O. I have a difficulty with the free market model because  in modern Ireland the model is applied very selectively. Business and employers enter into competition with each other for consumers in order to afford the consumers what we are told is the best service on the basis of competition. However, when I as a consumer of a service offered by a trade union seek to have that service provided by another trade union, the trade union movement in  cooperation with the employers  restrict the availability of that alternative service to me. That is the way it is operating at the moment and that has got nothing to do with the free market. The trade union movement has not sat down and  planned how partnership is to deliver the goods to all the workers. And not only workers but people outside the work environment, people in all sections of the economy, in working class housing estates and living in the ghettos. In boom time we have; ghettos, people in hospitals who can’t get beds, a transport infrastructure falling apart and yet anytime we put on the television, we are told that things couldn’t be better. Things have never been better for the middle and the upper classes who can afford health insurance and big cars. But  times have certainly have been better  in a relative sense for workers and yes; I think the trade union movement has lost the plot.

TMcK: This brings us to the question of socialism. Is it still relevant today or has history left it obsolete?

B.O.  Well it depends what you mean by socialism. It means different things to different people. I consider myself to be a socialist and I think socialism should mean a fair distribution of wealth and a society based on the principle that whatever is in society should be distributed as fairly as possible. Is that concept relevant to today? It has to be relevant because if it isn’t relevant we get the sort of difficulties we have now when even in boom time, people suffer and the people who suffer become increasingly marginalized and isolated. That creates difficulties and will continue to create difficulties. Public Relations plays a big part in the world we live in and I think that anyone in the current climate running for election under an aggressively socialist banner will need extremely good Public Relations because the system seems to be structured in such a way that socialism has become a dirty word for no good reason. This has probably spread from the UK where the British Labour Party has had to drop  the word socialist in order to get re-elected. Personally I have no problem with that as a tactic providing once they get elected they deliver the goods. A lot of people in the labour movement in the UK were prepared to swallow their pride and some of their rhetoric to get the Labour Party back into power on the understanding that once back in power, the Labour Party would deliver the goods. And there is frustration that this didn’t happen.

  Do we have a Left in Ireland? I don’t think we have an effective Left in Ireland. I don’t consider the Irish Labour Party to be on the left. They have obviously incorporated the Workers Party or whatever they call themselves now and I don’t consider them to be on the left either. I don’t think that ultra left politics will necessarily work either so I think social democratic principles are the way forward.

TMcK: Is there a case then for having a minimum programme that deals with the issues that are to be addressed?

  B.O. Recently the unions had a programme for union recognition and decided to pursue that programme quite aggressively. Yet once they got into Social Partnership and the employers said; “ if you deliver this programme it is going to turn away the multi-nationals which could effect employment and the economy and we will all suffer”. The unions rolled over and lay down and union recognition as an issue was buried. So let’s imagine now that there was a socialist programme designed to deliver on; the re-distribution of wealth to the poorer sections of society, to deliver the improved infrastructure, to deliver the hospital beds, to deliver pay rises, to help the poorly paid people  for whom  the current tax rate is very high. Let’s imagine that there was such a programme. First of all, who would carry that programme? And supposing that we had somebody, are we then going to find IBEC and the social partners jumping up again  and saying that if we deliver on this programme that we are going to turn away multi-nationals if we  pay the lower paid people more money. I fear that is what would happen to a programme -that it might not be implemented.

TMcK: What should we do?

B.O. We have to go back to the start and reassert  the principle that we are only as strong and only as good as the lowest person in our society – not as the highest. We are only as good as how we look after the guy sleeping in the church door on the Quays in Dublin and not by how many millions Michael O’Leary and Denis O’Brien can make. We have to take a very fundamental look at how we judge ourselves.I don’t know if people will allow themselves to do that or if the establishment will allow them to do that. But I know that those of us who think like that have to keep on trying because there are people out there who rely on us doing it.

TMcK: Is it necessary to have it organised into a political movement?

B.O. A political movement or the trade union movement, if there is a difference, has to be organised. We have to look to workers because workers can be the conduit for a lot of this. People in employment don’t happen to be represented properly and we have to see how we can build up a movement that actually brings them on board. It has to be organised and people have to look at how it is going to be organised. We have to stop thinking we can change the system from within. Stand back and look at the system. Look at how legislation is invoked and how rules are changed. Look at how every supposedly independent agency that is supposed to look after my rights - courts, labour courts, LRC etc. are actually funded by the Government. We must stop expecting impartiality and  confront things for what they are. It is a very difficult task but just because it is difficult doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.

TMcK: What is your view of  the international anti-capitalist movement?

B.O: I thing globalisation is a problem, I think it needs to be challenged but I think resistance begins locally.  Change begins locally and I hope that the movement that is building up which has been helped by a lot of people in Ireland is also keeping one eye on what is going on in Ireland.  Because that is a major difficulty and that is something that we can affect.

TMcK: Is there anything you want to say to Fourthwrite readers?

B.O:  I have read the magazine on a couple of occasions.  I think from our particular agenda that we need some help.  I certainly know that our members need a lot of help. The kind of help they need is people starting to say; “Hold on. This is wrong. You can’t treat people like this. You can’t demonise people like this. You can’t take peoples’ good name and reputation from them for  an immoral purpose. This is wrong and I will stand up and say it is wrong.” We need help and we need people who know how to organise and pull all the strands together in relation to the building of a trade union movement and a workers movement which together can deliver what I imagine the readers and subscribers to the magazine would like to see. If there are people out there who feel that they can help workers organise in that way, there are workers out there who would like to talk to them. If your magazine can carry such an appeal it would be appreciated  because that sort thing is needed. We all need to talk and move the situation forward.