Madam, - Kathryn Mulready (August 28th) suggests that my use of language in referring to the grip of trade unions on the so-called partnership process was a "bit strong". I can only agree: strong language for strong sentiments.
As Ms Mulready correctly points out, I am a young person involved in politics, a member of Fine Gael to be precise, who is rapidly becoming disillusioned with the manicured politics of our time, where governance of the country is determined by populism and crass political expediency.
The benchmarking deal, with its supposed targets for productivity and flexibility, is a prime example of this. I do not blame the recipients of the increases for taking advantage of the deal. What I do object to is a Government that fails to negotiate the best deal possible for the Irish people as a whole.
Logic suggests that large public sector pay increases are unsustainable as the economy slows down. It is unacceptable and unfair that the private sector alone should be forced to suffer the effects. The ESRI has made it clear that because of benchmarking the unemployment rate by 2005 could be 1.2 per cent (about 24,000 people) higher than it would otherwise have been.
Not only is this deal flawed due to its "pay first, earn later" element, and the consequent disincentive for the public sector to deliver on tangible targets; there are also clear effects on incentive in the private sector. Why should anyone invest in small or medium-size ventures, at their peril, when their success is of secondary importance to a Government that is under the hypnotic spell of trade unions which are better able to fight their corner.
Any move to curtail benchmarking will meet opposition and remonstration.But if the Irish economy is to be put back on the rails, brave measures will have to be taken. - Yours, etc.,
LUCINDA CREIGHTON,
Lower Grand Canal Street,
Dublin 2.