On the industrial relations scene in general we could do better. The weaker sections are suffering most in the present situation. I am not denying that the various people on strike have grievances but these grievances must be resolved some day, so why not resolve them today rather than wait for another week or for another month? The Minister in his brief outlined the procedures for negotiations, procedures that have the approval of all sides. We are much too poor a country to allow a situation in which essential services are withdrawn for many months. If we consider the situation in West Germany, for instance, we realise that it is possible to have industrial peace.
I am confident that when the Minister is reviewing the organisation of the Labour Court he will find ways in which improvements can be made. Perhaps we could appeal to all sections at this time to continue working on the basis of interim increases in wages pending agreement on a policy to replace the national understanding. This would appear to be the best procedure for the moment. The cost of industrial strife must be frightening in terms of the economy. The people have become disenchanted, not with the Government but with the democratic system.
Democracy is on trial. We have to take the whole thing very seriously. Yesterday we learned with regret that the national understanding had been rejected. I do not think it is a disaster, but we have to face facts and accept the fact that it has been rejected. This has caused grave concern throughout the country. The newspapers today in their editorial comments take the matter very seriously. The Irish Press has the headline “Where do we go from here?” Indeed, I wonder where do we go from here unless we have a touch of realism and inspiration to get over this obstacle on the way to progress. The Irish Times said that the term “national understanding” was a gauche term. It goes on to deal in a sensible way with what happens now. The Independent says “In a country potentially well-doing....” Indeed, most of us are doing very well, but there are strange anomalies.
As I came in this morning I saw in the window of an employment service office an advertisement offering 50 jobs for women manufacturing jeans, the type of clothes worn by younger people nowadays. Happily, the employer was able to offer £70 a week, subsidised bus services and subsidised canteen facilities. I am delighted to note that that employer can do that, but we know very well that all employments are not as happy as that. When we talk about unemployment and we see that there is one place which offers 50 jobs right away surely we would all be far better off if the Government, the Department, the trade unions and the employers were examining the possibility of having many more industries like that in this city, because that employer shows what can be done with good management and with work of a high standard.
The last thing I want to refer to is the comment in the Cork Examiner. They ask “Who rules?” and say in general terms trade unions or big business. The point is that these bodies do not rule. They are components of our society, but they do not rule. In a democracy the Government rule. Democracy is the best system we know of. There is an onus therefore on everyone to realise that democracy cannot exist or prosper unless we take our share of responsibility. We should especially remember that, although those of us who have jobs may have problems also, there are many people who have not got jobs and we must always try to redress that situation. We are not going to be able to create employment unless we show that we are capable of attracting capital, first of all, and then showing that the expertise of the Irish worker is as high as anyone else's. What may put people off is the fact that some of our bizarre industrial unrest is certainly not conducive to good relations between the new employers and the workers. I know that if the Minister could find the answer to these problems he would be a very happy man indeed, but there is no short cut to industrial peace. It has to be achieved by every sector accepting its full share of responsibility. I would like to see a system whereby the men and women who work on the shop floor and the management at the top would be vying with each other to show how that concern could prosper.
When we talk about trade unions or the men and women who strike we also have to remember that inefficient management is very often to blame for some of the industrial unrest. It may be because we have a tradition built up from former times where many a person in management was not trained to be in management but simply had that job because it was an old family business. We know that the Government, through their agencies, spend vast amounts of money in grants to industrial and commercial undertakings to train management to a higher standard. Lots of firms avail of this but many firms do not or, having availed of the service, they do not learn very much.
We very often have procrastination in deciding a claim for better conditions and higher wages and we sow the seeds of industrial unrest. The Minister, in his speech, gave details of the help the Government give the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. I would not grudge one penny of that money. I think congress are trying very earnestly to improve matters on the industrial relations scene. They tried very hard indeed and with an expertise that is commendable. The fact that the national understanding was not accepted can be put down to many different factors. As I mentioned earlier, I was never a believer in making long-term agreements. Factors change so rapidly nowadays that short-term agreements would be far better, because in a year many things change and therefore a good agreement made today may not be so attractive in three months' time.
This is where the unrest starts. A man who gets an increase today is quite happy with it and takes it, but because of various factors he later becomes dissatisfied. Human instinct being what it is, he wants to improve his position. If he has a small house, perhaps he wants a larger house. If he has a small car, he wants a bigger car. Naturally, a man with a young family wants to give his children a better education than he had, so the demand for greater income goes on all the time. But we know very well that income of any type, whether it is dividends or, wages or salary, must be governed by what is available in the national pool. The classic economist always refers to the national cake. If the cake is only a small one, then each person will get only a small amount; but if it is baked much bigger, then there is more for all the people. That may sound like a cliché nowadays but it was very sound. It is to be hoped that certain old values, disregarded today, may soon return.
The late Deputy Seán Lemass asked for old-fashioned patriotism at one time. We could do with a little of that today. We have become more sophisticated since we joined the EEC; we think differently and we are going through change. However, the old values are still valid. One of the old values was that we always thought of the less well off people. Today many people draw pensions from across the Channel and are badly affected by the Post Office strike. I visited one such old lady recently and she complained bitterly that because of the present trouble she could not get her pension. I asked her how she managed to live and she said that she lived simply with the help of relatives and so on. Why must we inflict so much suffering on people in her circumstances? Surely with goodwill all round we could end a lot of today's industrial unrest and the sufferings brought about by it.
Before we had such a Department we all thought that a Department of Labour would be a great Department. It turned out that way, judging by the amount of work done each day by the Department of Labour. The majority of industrial disputes, those that do not go to the Labour Court, are solved. The shop steward is very important to industry, and trade unions run courses for shop stewards. As we become more industrialised the shop steward will assume greater importance in relation to communication between the shop floor and the employers. Because of that more facilities should be made available for the education of shop stewards to enable them to explain matters on the shop floor and to monitor the needs and grievances of the workers and have them dealt with at union-management level. The shop steward has recourse to a rights officer of the Department and I compliment the Minister on increasing the number of rights officers.
The Government introduced worker representation on boards, which I welcome, but the essential thing is to deal with problems already in industry. We should have well trained personnel on the union side and on the management side to examine each claim made by a worker. If a claim is just the shop steward should fight it to the very last but, if not, the shop steward should be in a position to explain why. A shop steward is happier if he can accede to the requests of an aggrieved worker. If he does not accede to the request, he loses face and popularity among the workers. The shop steward should be given every possible facility to do his job properly because he is a very important and in some cases the most important person in industrial relations. His counterpart in management should also be well educated in industrial and human relations. It is, essentially, human relations that are in question. There have been terrible examples of strikes which could have been avoided had there been the right approach from both sides. There was an incident many years ago of a genuine grievance among industrial workers in the city and the management either could not or refused to solve the problem. This went on for seven months and then the workers decided to strike, whereupon the matter was resolved within three hours. Workers learnt a lesson from that. If one wanted a fast decision on a claim, one took industrial action. That has been going on for a long time and has become the norm. Experience in recent years has shown that we must remedy that situation.
The Minister in his speech mentioned that there should be some kind of control on unofficial strikes. We must face the fact that it is very hard to prevent unofficial strikes. In my younger days, passing a picket was unthinkable. You just did not do it, even if the picket was unofficial. As one grew older one realised that refusal to pass an unofficial picket could inflict untold harm on other people. I speak with reservation when I say that we have not the blatant abuse of unofficial picketing here that they have across Channel. We heard stories of patients being sent home from hospital because of abuse of picket power. That has not happened here and I hope it will not, but there is always a danger if we do not get down to an examination of the industrial relations situation. We should strive to create a situation which will make for a better standard of living of all our people, particularly taking care of the very young and the very old.
I do not think I exaggerate when I say our industrial relations situation is our greatest problem. One is tempted to go overboard on the subject, but that would not serve any useful purpose. However, if we show our concern here in the national Parliament it may help to ease things throughout the nation. Deputies who are also members of Dublin Corporation have been inundated with requests to do something about the dustmen's strike in the city which is causing a serious problem to many people. There must be goodwill on both sides if that and other damaging disputes are to be settled.
The Minister for Labour has an onerous task but not as difficult as his counterpart across Channel. However, the man holding similar office in the West German Republic has an easy job even if he has to deal with many more millions of people. People who go to the continent on holidays notice particularly the high standard of living they enjoy there. They have their problems there but there is one thing you can say about them: they have a dedication to their work.
We have had a survey on Irish attitudes to work and I am afraid it was not very flattering to us. However, I have found that whether workers are in the boardroom or on the factory floor, they give of their best, despite what people say about us. In Dublin there is one industry which has not had a serious dispute in the past ten or 15 years. The reason is that they got down to consider their difficulties and they never let a dispute escalate into a strike. None of their disputes has lasted more than a couple of days and they have never disrupted essential supplies.
As I have said, there are many difficulties facing us as a nation, including the oil shortage, but the greatest problem we have is the unsettled state of our industrial relations. We could be doing far better industrially if we did not look on the strike weapon as the ultimate solution to workers' grievances. Too many people adopt the fatalistic attitude that only a strike will remedy grievances. I do not accept that. This morning on my way here I spoke to people on picket lines. I asked them for ideas on how their strike could be settled, but of course I am not an adjudicator. However, I understood from them that they want to be at work. They seem to have become entrenched in their present position.
I should like to suggest a way towards possible preliminary talks in disputes before they escalate. There should be an adjunct to the Labour Court which could examine certain industries and make suggestions for improvements so that the rewards of all involved in those industries would be greater. We must strive to get a sense of partnership in industry between boss and worker because what is good for one is good for all —they are all in it together and the prosperity of one will bring prosperity to the other. Nowadays we have people from shop floors on boards of directors and perhaps this might bring about improvement in the long term.
We should have a look at the number of trade unions we have. The last time I counted them there were 93 to cater for a very small work force. It may be said that we are a very individualistic race and that is why we have so many unions. Some of the 93 would be more like friendly societies than unions. In CIE there is almost a score of unions. We have demarcation disputes, or what are popularly known as the who does what strikes. We must have some rationalisation, but the move must come from the trade union movement. They are the people to examine the structures and decide what they should be.
There are also human problems. A man who is the secretary of a small union may be doing very good work and he will not look with relish at the prospect of being absorbed into a bigger union. The biggest union in the country have as their slogan, "One big union". Our aim should be to have a grouped industry with one union catering for it. This would be to the benefit of the members and it would prevent a lot of unnecessary warfare. There would be no sniping between the members.
Recently on a disastrous occasion in Limerick we saw absolute open warfare between two unions. I do not know the merits of that case, but the outcome of that dispute was not helpful. I know there were other factors which caused the industry to close. The situation in the trade unions needs to be rationalised. Effort and money are wasted in supporting too many unions. There is more than one employers' organisation, but they are very few. A lot of work is being done on this question at the moment. We have had some amalgamations of unions. This is to be encouraged. In this of specialisation we cannot afford to have so many unions.
It is understandable that there would be a certain amount of rivalry between unions, but we must reduce the numbers by agreement and by amalgamation. That is why I suggest we should group our industries, for example, the brewing industry, the baking industry, and so on, with their own unions. This would be much more effective. Recently we saw one firm on strike putting pickets on another industry which was connected in some way with it, thereby causing further disruption.
I know the Minister, the Department, the trade unions and the employers have many problems. I suggested earlier that we should have a permanent council or body in continual session examining industries. Claims could be vetted quickly and decisions given. I would look on it as an adjunct of the Labour Court. That would enable us to make great progress.
I should like to see better communications between all concerned in the industrial and commercial scene. We should be open with one another. The employers should realise that there is more to industry than making a profit. I believe in free enterprise, but free enterprise has responsibilities as well as privileges. The unions also have responsibilities as well as privileges. The State must try to bring the two together. The Minister is doing that to a great extent. I hope he will succeed and that this time next year when he presents his Estimate the industrial scene will be much more peaceful than it is now, and that there will be much less suffering in this city and in the country.