Ground Floor: If the boho skirts and wide-legged jeans of the summer were a throwback to the 1970s, other events of the past couple of weeks have reminded us even more of the decade that taste forgot.
Newspaper headlines give us daily updates on the price of oil which continues to reach new highs despite the downward moves that happen along the way. Analysts assured us that the $40 (€32), $50 and $60 dollar a barrel prices were all upward blips but demand still seems to outstrip available supply and the price of oil is now becoming a dinner party topic.
I'm old enough to remember petrol rationing in the 1970s, sitting with my father for over an hour in a snaking queue at our local garage. In 1973 oil went from just under $2 per barrel to over $11 per barrel virtually overnight, so Western economies didn't have time to adjust to increasing prices.
Government policies to deal with the issue included speed restrictions, restrictions on energy usage and promises that alternative sources of energy would be explored so that we would "never again" be held to ransom by oil-rich states.
What actually happened was that some companies went bust, others changed, people eventually adapted to higher costs and there was a lot of discussion about renewable energy which has gone on to this day without a whole heap of success. And now, in real terms, we are paying more for oil than during the 1973-74 crisis and are coming ever closer to the $80 per barrel average after the 1979 crisis.
Fears about supply, thanks to problems at US installations, security concerns and possible output reduction from non-Opec countries continue to rule the markets.
There was a queue at my local garage at the weekend, not because people thought prices were going higher (they assumed as much) but simply because there are so many more cars on the roads now and there is no let-up in demand. I'm very unsure about how the "because I'm worth it" generation can possibly cope with the idea of restrictions on petrol and reduced speed limits to save energy.
Another iconic symbol of the 1970s, the illegal strike, hit the UK with devastating effect as British Airways's baggage handlers walked out in support of fellow trade union members from Gate Gourmet. I'm pretty sure that most BA passengers, given the choice, would have elected to take a flight with no food rather than spend a few days on the tarmac outside Heathrow, but unfortunately travelling without luggage is hardly an option.
The employees of Gate Gourmet may well have a legitimate grievance against the company, but the strike was unofficial. The whole scenario was borne out of a type of conflict situation which was prevalent 30 years ago. Unofficial action, workers sacked, everyone out. And then another group of workers strike in sympathy initiating a domino effect.
The unofficial action of baggage handlers in BA who simply stopped work in order to support their union colleagues caused more chaos than action at Gate Gourmet itself. Currently, BA is estimating that losses due to the strike will be about £40 million (€58 million), which, in the cut-throat airline industry, it can ill afford to lose. In a radio interview, one BA striker said it sent a message to all companies that they couldn't mistreat employees.
That sounds like using a hammer to crack a nut. I can't see the point in the baggage handlers' position. Ensuring that BA loses millions for every day of the action, where the employees allegedly have no grievance with the company, hardly helps when it comes to pay agreements in the future. In reality, the baggage handlers' actions highlight the fact that there are serious industrial relations problems within BA.
Thirty years ago, a strike by baggage handlers would have affected the few people that could afford air travel. Now, thanks to competition within the industry, it affected more than 70,000 - many of whom, rather unfraternally, were calling for the immediate dismissal of the strikers. Winning the hearts and minds of the public used to be part of the strike process. Not any more, it seems.
Meanwhile, at home, the Labour Court ruled that Siptu members were not entitled to further claims under the union's agreement with Iarnród Éireann in relation to eight-carriage Darts. According to the union, eight-carriage Darts (as opposed to six at present) gave more responsibilities to drivers. Willie Noone, a Siptu representative, is reported as saying that workers had a genuine grievance and wanted recognition for their work - around € 20,000 apparently.
I'm all for extra money for increased responsibility, but the position of the union seems to be that increased carriages means increased revenue and that the drivers deserve to have some of it. Unfortunately I haven't a clue what the claim that "eight-piece Darts will dramatically affect disposal and pre-entry into service examination" actually means, but the union wants its members to be compensated for it anyway.
It seems perfectly reasonable to me that drivers should be able to receive some kind of bonus payments if they carry more passengers and the Darts still run on time. But that's what they should be - bonus payments, not arbitrary salary increases. Their job hasn't actually changed. Productivity should be measurable and then rewarded.
The whole notion of salary increases for everyone regardless of their input is as outdated as thinking that glam rock really was sophisticated music.
