Eamonn Maloney (Dublin South West, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I will be as brief as I can. To the relief of my colleagues in Fianna Fáil, I will confine my remarks to the position of some of the other people on the left of the House on this issue.

Given the subject matter of this motion, I have to declare an interest. I joined a trade union when I was a teenager and was a member of Jim Larkin's Workers Union of Ireland and, subsequently, with the merger, a member of SIPTU. I am very proud to be able to say that. Obviously, I was not a member of a public service union but was a member of a general workers union but I still retain my solidarity for all trade unions.

I say this because, for a newcomer, I find the debates here often take strange directions. In the debate before the ballot on Croke Park II, as a union man I thought we had some strange contributions from the Opposition side of the House and we have had some strange comments in the days since the ballot was announced. It galls me to an extent that I have listened to people here who I know were never in a trade union in their life, never stood on a picket line, never attended a union meeting and perhaps may never have worked for a day in their life - I am sure I will be corrected. It galls some of us that some of these people came in here prior to and following the vote, giving lectures to the Labour Party and, in some instances, lecturing trade union leaders who did the best they possibly could for the people they represent in a very difficult situation, given the country is bankrupt.

No negotiations ever end up in a win-win situation. As somebody who has been around unions for a sizeable part of my life, I know it is in the nature of things that people do not get everything they want. However, whatever about the merits of this agreement that has been rejected, I want to compliment people like Jack O'Connor who, in the first place, protected the people who are on the lowest wages. Whether one is a trade unionist, a Labour Party person, a believer in socialism or whatever the case might be, it is fundamental to look after those who are the weakest. People like Jack O'Connor should be complimented for this, although I will argue the other part of it with them. However, to take stick from people who, as I said, never stood on a picket line in their life is a bit much.

Of course, I do not mean all of those in the House as I know there are those here who are staunch union people, and I respect them. However, why is this done? The previous speaker, Deputy Kevin Humphreys, alluded to it. On the part of some, it is not done because of solidarity with the trade union movement. It is done for naked political opportunism, that is all, so that this deal with not take place, things will get worse for the Government, perhaps we will have more evictions and perhaps we will have higher unemployment. It is naked political opportunism, not solidarity with public service workers.

In conclusion, I notice some of those who have been lecturing us and lecturing those in the trade union movement are very selective in terms of public service issues. One would expect people who purport to be so radical, when they are criticising the cuts in the public service, would include those at the very top of the public service - those like judges and retired judges, retired Ministers and other politicians who are on very lucrative pensions. However, I notice some of these people did not allude to that, and I know why. It is because, despite the fact that, when it suits them and depending on the speech, they refer to themselves as public servants, some of them are on a salary and allowances here. What they have not told the public service is that a handful of them are getting €40,000 tax free. That is why they do not allude to it. It is naked hypocrisy to lecture the Labour Party or trade union leaders when they themselves will not tell the full story.

See this speech in context