THERE WAS an air of celebration at the introduction of "Partnership 2000 for Inclusion, Employment and Competitiveness" in Dublin Castle yesterday, but many trade union leaders are privately concerned that the new national agreement may still be rejected.
Some unions, such as Mandate, have already advised members to vote against the proposals. The Mandate general secretary, Mr Owen Nulty, took the opportunity yesterday to tell the Taoiseach, Mr Bruton, and his brother, the Minister for Enterprise and Employment, Mr Richard Bruton, exactly why his members were not impressed with the deal.
Under it low-paid, casual workers, like the sales assistants Mr Nulty represents, will receive around 10 per cent (including tax concessions) over 39 months, compared with 14 per cent or more for higher-paid workers. Nor does the agreement hold out any prospect of legislation to control the spread of unsocial hours and increased casualisation.
SIPTU is the largest union in the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, with 40 per cent of the State's organised workforce. Its general secretary, Mr Billy Attley, has been one of the architects of national agreements. However, this has not prevented him from expressing scepticism at their long-term viability if the Government and employers do not address issues like partnership in the workplace and union recognition.
His colleague, SIPTU's vice-president, Mr Jimmy Somers, accepts that while the union is recommending Partnership 2000, many of its members in low-paid employments may be swayed by the same arguments as the Mandate members.
SIPTU's large public service membership might be expected to vote the other way, but a malaise seems to be sweeping the public sector, brought on by the difficulties in negotiating local restructuring deals under the Programme for Competitiveness and Work.
Partnership 2000 proposes even tougher criteria for any increases based on restructuring. Over 2,000 SIPTU members in the State-training agency FAS have repeatedly rejected settlement proposals for their dispute over restructuring, and SIPTU members in semi-State companies like CIE and Aer Lingus are to the fore in disputes over pay.
Even public service unions such as the Association of Secondary Teachers, Ireland, the bulwarks of national agreements in the past, have decided to recommend rejection of Partnership 2000 or, like the Civil and Public Services Union, have abstained from advising its members on how to vote.
However, most trade union leaders are still talking of how tight the Yes margin will be, rather than what will happen if it is rejected.
SIPTU remains the key to the situation. As it aggregates its votes, they will all be wielded either for or against the deal.
If the deal is rejected it does not necessarily mean a return to the "free-for-all" of the 1980s. A more likely scenario is that there would be a determined effort to retrieve the situation through improving the package.
However, as one senior trade unionist put it, this would not be like fine-tuning a local settlement that had been rejected on its first outing by the workers.
Partnership 2000 is extremely complex, and it would be hard to amend it without creating new anomalies or problems that would alienate as many trade unionists as it would appease.
There is the additional problem that the employers might walk away from any attempt to improve the pay elements of the deal. However, the comparative silence of the employer organisations suggests they are happy with the present outcome.
Yesterday the Construction Industry Federation formally endorsed the terms and the Small Firms Association said it would be good for small businesses. The final version of Partnership 2000 includes a new chapter on initiatives to help small firms, not in the original version published last month.
The "social pillar" also seems reasonably happy with the outcome. The general secretary of the Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed, Mr Mike Allen, saw it as the best possible deal in the current political climate.
As the ICTU general secretary, Mr Peter Cassells, put it: "The executive council recommended it and we wouldn't have if we thought it wasn't the best deal possible. It's now up to 500,000 individual workers to give their verdict."