Dirty dozen architect is back

In 1992 McCreevy and the Fianna Fáil/Progressive Democrat government chose to target those who were suffering most to make the budget balance.

What a difference four and a half years can make. Or can they? Four and a half years ago Charlie McCreevy architect of the Dirty Dozen social welfare cuts left office as probably one of the most contentious ministers for Social Welfare in the history of the 26-County state.

McCreevy's cuts in social welfare spending came at at time of record unemployment figures and social hardship for hundreds of thousands of Irish people. It was also a time of huge growth in the wealth of the state and the profitability of companies in Ireland. Yet in 1992 McCreevy and the Fianna Fáil/Progressive Democrat government chose to target those who were suffering most to make the budget balance.

In the subsequent Labour/Fianna Fáil government McCreevy was in the much less contentious ministry of Tourism and Trade. Here was a transformed man, gone was the tough-guy advovcate of fiscal rectitude.

Since 1994 McCreevy has been Fianna Fáil spokesperson and now Minister for Finance. The still unanswered question is which McCreevy do we have back. This week the minister began to unveil his 1997 image. He let slip on Tuesday after a meeting with employers and trade union representatives that the much hyped election promise of tax cuts might not be delivered because of fears about fuelling inflation.

The argument being made by the government is a simple one. If the promised tax cuts were made, they would increase consumer spending, which could outpace economic growth leading to a prices rises, not unlike what is happening in the housing market. These price increases could start a spiral where employees would look for wage increases and employers would hike prices again to pay for the increases and the whole economy would be caught in a damaging inflationary spiral.

The Dublin Government will keep commitments made in the Partnership 2000 agreement with the employers and unions, but the election promises of greater tax cuts might not be kept.

We contacted the minster's press office to find out whether this meant that all tax promises would not be kept or just the ones relating to income tax. It could be that workers would not get their tax cuts but that their bosses would and corporation tax would be cut to the promised level of 10% of profits. As it is, corporation tax is substantially lower than income tax.

The Finance press office didn't want to comment on what the minister said. However they did admit that we were ``probably right'' to say that income tax cuts would be seen as contributing more to inflationary pressures than changes in corporation tax. They also maintained that they ``can honestly say that he (the minister) doesn't know what is going to be in the budget yet''.

However one thing is clear is that when it comes to a contest between the needs of firms in Ireland versus their workers it is highly unlikley that the workers will be in with a shout.


Companies bigger than countries


General Motors who closed down the Packard plant in Tallaght are bigger than Denmark. Ford is larger than South Africa, Toyota is bigger than Norway
 
Just how big and how powerful are corporations that make up the economies we all live and work in? Well wonder no more. A new publication from the Washington Institute for Policy Studies titled The Rise of Global Corporate Power details the comparative wealth of the planet's top 200 companies. For example of the largest 100 economic units in the world 51 are now corporations.
The retail giant Walmart is larger than 161 states. General Motors who closed down the Packard plant in Tallaght are bigger than Denmark. Ford is larger than South Africa, Toyota is bigger than Norway. The annual sales of the top 200 corporations are greater than all the combined economies of the world minus the biggest nine.

Finally the most insightful detail is the fact that the top 200 companies have combined annual revenues of $7.1 trillion compared to the $3.9 trillion that is the combined wealth of 80% of the world's population.


Paying your way


No one, not even those who support privatisation of the public service, can argue that its effects on these privatised companies are not substantial. We in An Phoblacht have become conditioned to the announcements of seven figure salary deals for executives and huge profits for the newly privatised companies whose parallel cost cuts lead to a reduction in the quality of services they offer to the general public.

However recent events at the Great Eastern train company have shocked even us. The company who run services between East Anglia and London are trying to recruit their passengers to work as train guards.

The plan is simple. In return for free travel and £5.25 an hour, all you have to do is arrive at the station a little earlier than your train. Then you change into your uniform and catch the train to work. Your jobs on the journey include checking doors are closed making announcements and signalling to the driver that the train can move off. While not being responsible for collecting tickets the part time guards will be expected to deal with any emergencies.

Rail unions in Britain have protested to the Health and Safety Executive but the HSE have no problems with plan designed by Great Eastern commercial director Mike Turner.

Turner saw the plan in action in that bastion of social progress -Hong Kong and decided to launch the plan in Britain. The only worry is that the management of CIE currently in the throes of their own path to capitalist competiveness will try and introduce such a scenario here. You have been warned.


Farmer jobs


With the formal ratification of the merger between Avonmore and Waterford co-ops there is still a question mark over the security of jobs of the workers at both plants. Trade unions at the companies have been promised that there will be no compulsory redundancies but the media is awash with rumours that jobs are not guaranteed.

Whatever about the redundancy issue another serious question is who will actually run the newly merged corporation. The merger was approved by 18,000 shareholding farmers, all of whom benefitted financially in the short-run at least from the vote. The Kilmeaden Committte who lobbied against the merger maintain that it would mean ``loss of farmer control''.

Now that the merger has been ratified, it is being described as a ``catalyst'' for the rest of the dairy industry, which means preparing for another round of mergers and take overs. In almost every other industry that has gone through this process it has resulted in bigger companies but much less jobs.