Since the current round of national agreements came into being in 1987, the public service unions have been their leading advocates within the trade union movement. This year, many private sector workers have become increasingly restive at the pay restraint agreements have imposed during a period of record profits, while there are also major divisions emerging within the public service on how to negotiate a successor to Partnership 2000.
The problem is one of their own making. A division has emerged between the "early settlers", who made modest pay agreements under the Programme for Competitiveness and Work, and "late settlers", who did substantially better by a combination of holding out longer and threatening industrial action.
This weekend, the general secretary of the Association of Higher Civil and Public Servants, Mr Sean O'Riordain, a leader of the "early settlers", spelt out the implications this contained for any new agreement. It was "totally unacceptable that unions which respected the 5.5 per cent guidelines agreed between the Government and Irish Congress of Trade Unions" be "penalised" for their moderation.
His own members have voted for a reopening of the restructuring clause of the PCW so that they can "catch up" on more militant nurses, paramedics and prison officers. The teachers' unions and the Public Service Executive Union, which represents civil service supervisory grades, have been making similar noises.
The PSEU general secretary, Mr Dan Murphy, has already sought a joint approach by the public service unions of the ICTU to removing the "inequities" that emerged from the PCW. He wanted the "late settlers" to stand aside while his members' relativities were restored.
Not surprisingly, the "late starters" were not prepared to endorse Mr Murphy's approach. The general secretary of the Irish Nurses' Organisation, Mr Liam Doran, went a step further and wrote to the ICTU condemning any approach to the Government that sought increases for "early settlers" on the basis that groups such as the nurses had breached the pay guidelines.
While nurses have undoubtedly attracted a lot of attention by their highly militant - and successful - campaign for higher pay, it has been the success of the Garda in securing "a second bite of the cherry" from the PCW which has attracted most ire from the early settlers.
Gardai received their original 3 per cent due under the PCW in 1994, in the form of bigger pensions. After their "blue flu" protest they were allowed re-enter talks and secure a further 9 per cent. Another two or 3 per cent is expected to emerge from talks due to begin shortly.
Of course, the Garda Representative Association is not affiliated to the ICTU, but the INO is. There is no doubt that any further pay increases secured by staff nurses in the current negotiations will lead to an avalanche of claims from other public service workers.
Delegates at last week's INO conference in Letterkenny seemed blissfully unaware of this. In fact, several delegates said they had secured "nothing" since the Labour Court award in 1997, or dismissed the £1,500 awarded since by the Labour Court as minuscule.
Many pressed for a strike next month to coincide with the June elections. It was with considerable difficulty that Mr Doran drew them back from the precipice, to allow the Labour Court to conclude its hearings on the latest phase of the talks. He held out the hope that the court would make reasonable awards on pay increases for supervisory and management grades.
Significantly, he did not dwell on the merits of the staff nurses' claim to a further 18 per cent in long-service increments. Instead, he emphasised nurses' long working week, 39 hours and shorter holiday leave.
Conceding significant improvements in such areas might be possible without generating large scale "knock-on" claims. That is the only chink of light in the ongoing saga of the nurses' claim. Whether it is enough to avert a national strike is another issue.