The industrial unrest in National Toll Roads, Aer Lingus, and threatened at ESB - companies that have employee share schemes - has led some people to question the value of share schemes.

Some believe mere workers should not have shares, while others believe these schemes are a panacea and, once employees have a few shares, they should suddenly be happy in their work.

Those commentators opposed to employees and particularly manual workers getting anything, especially shares, are upset that the Employee Share Ownership Trust (ESOT) in Eircom is negotiating to the best advantage of its beneficiaries in the current takeover battle.

Of course, Employee Share Ownership Programmes (ESOPs) are not a panacea, but they do oil the wheels of industrial relations, give workers a tangible stake in their company, help develop partnership, allow a say in corporate governance, and have led to a workforce better informed on the nature and practice of business. This is good for the long-term wellbeing of companies and employees, although such interest and knowledge also make employees less tolerant of poor management.

The bigger the shareholding, the greater the interest of employees in the company's performance. The 15 per cent held by the ESOT in Eircom is sufficient to block an asset stripping predator and its trustees are correct to use their shareholding tactically.

The 16,000 employees of Bank of Ireland have a reasonable ESOP, built up over 19 years and worth almost £60 million (€76 million). However, a small number of executives have share options of at least twice that amount.

The 36,000 employees of AIB have a good scheme too, but more than 2,000 executives have outstanding options worth £375 million. It is not difficult to guess who is the most exercised by their options.

Some of the larger ESOPs exist because they have been vehicles in the privatisation process. While employees like the warm embrace of state ownership and access to ministers, they have been willing to trade these for shares and for some say in corporate governance, particularly as they have recognised the growing impotence of the State and ministers because of EU competition rules.

The shareholding gained by employees of some state companies - such as ICC, TSB, Eircom and, perhaps, ACC and BGE - has been extraordinarily high. It is interesting that the guardian of the public purse, the Department of Finance, has been most generous with the companies under its sole aegis, the State banks, ACC and ICC, and also the TSB.

These employees have done exceptionally well compared to employees in other companies under, say, the Department of Public Enterprise, probably because of the high asset value to employee ratio.

The introduction of ESOPs in the public sector has worked well because the Government took steps whenever necessary to ensure their success, including making tax changes.

Private sector ESOPs, on the other hand, have not benefited from the same attention from the Government (with the exception of the tax breaks for the dotcom executives in the last Budget), and the tax regime is extremely inflexible, mitigating against innovative schemes in private companies.

A more flexible ESOP tax regime is needed for private companies so that ordinary employees in these companies can have a chance to share in their success.

Interestingly, NTR is the sole private operator in an area that is totally within the non-market public sector, operating two toll bridges. It is an extraordinarily profitable company and it has an ESOP.

NTR is likely to be joined by many other companies with the growing marketisation of traditional public services and with the growth of public-private partnerships, contracting out, de-regulation and privatisation.

The employees in these soon-to-be-privatised areas will be seeking shares in the companies that win such public contracts. They and their union representatives would be naive if they did not seize the opportunity to get both a share and a say in the governance of what may be highly profitable companies, operating in areas once the sole preserve of the public sector. This, along with the introduction of employee works councils in all companies employing more than 50 persons, should help strengthen enterprise partnership.

The real cause of the industrial unrest is the tight labour market, catching up with Europe, housing costs and the inexorably lengthening working day because of congestion and poor public transport.

Paul Sweeney, a business and economic adviser, has negotiated many ESOPs in the public and private sector.