Analysis: The dispute at the airline can help us understand why employment in today's society carries overlooked uncertainties and risks
By Tony Dundon and Jonathan Lavelle, UL
A job entails being subject to a degree of risk for all employees. Uncertainty can manifest itself in relation to a decline in company profits, a change in living costs, economic shocks or pandemics. For almost all workers, there can be heightened risk with a job because of time and effort invested in it.
The ability to move jobs is often cited as a strength for employees, but the reality tends to be different. It is not easy for an individual worker to move and seek other work as it could mean retraining, moving to a new location and many other uncertainties. These risks can be heightened when the person is highly skilled and has invested a considerable amount of time, resources and energy in building a professional skilled career over a long timeframe, such as a pilot, in the case of the current Aer Lingus dispute.
We need to remember that workers and managers have different and at time divergent interests, which are deeply embedded within the employment relationship. Indeed, this has become forgotten in recent times thanks to managerial fads around talent acquisition or shared goals and visions.
We need your consent to load this rte-player contentWe use rte-player to manage extra content that can set cookies on your device and collect data about your activity. Please review their details and accept them to load the content.Manage Preferences
From RTÉ Radio 1's Morning Ireland, Clare Dunne from the Irish Travel Agents Association on how her members are dealing with the fallout from the Aer Lingus dispute
While it is more natural to support system that can mediate differences, a strike or some other form of industrial action is in itself not unusual in a competitive marketplace. This point of view has recently been noted by the Irish Supreme Court which stated that "the ability to engage in lawful industrial action is an important right in civic, societal, legal and constitutional terms (and one which is much valued by employees and trade unionists).
When workers decide and vote 'overwhelmingly’ to take industrial action, that is by no means a decision taken lightly by them. Despite arguments to the contrary, the taking of industrial action is generally a position of last resort with the dispute having gone through a prolonged period and various processes to reach that point. Nor is industrial action in any way purposely designed to punish customers or the public. However, much of the narrative when it comes to workers taking industrial action, in particular a strike, tends to focus on this very point – "what impact is this action likely to have on customers".
For example, Tanaiste Micheál Martin has framed the current Aer Lingus dispute in terms of the public being "ignored" in all of this. What tends to be overlooked is the core issues and intricacies as to why both parties have gotten to this point. Pilots at Aer Lingus not only voted in such a way once, but twice, after the initial ballot (electronic) result was questioned by management, with a second (postal) ballot reaffirming the original electronic ballot decision.
From RTÉ News, Tanaiste Micheál Martin says it's 'shocking' that the public have been ignored in Aer Lingus dispute
It is often forgotten that industrial action may also be taken by employers and management and not just workers. Employers often do the same by pushing forward with their bargaining advantage. That is what free collective bargaining entails under a market system, on both sides. However, for a company strike, it might mean laying people off or creating an investment strike by closing a factory or moving location. The key difference is it not leaving to find another job, but in the name of restructuring rather than calling it a company strike against workers when management press home their bargaining position.
It should not really be a surprise, then, when Irish workers strike, given the system relies on a market-led economy. It is quite logical under such a system to seek to defend your interests and pursue a bargaining position advantage that the system creates.
'Macho' management
Whilst playing hardball in negotiations is common on both sides, and indeed can yield results, it can also serve to antagonise the situation further. In the current dispute, it seems Aer Lingus management have opted to play a hard game. Management's decision to question the electronic ballot may well have added to a deepening of the dispute. Since the ballot result in the media, management have shown a much stronger macho discourse, alleging pilots have a 'total disregard for passengers'.
We need your consent to load this rte-player contentWe use rte-player to manage extra content that can set cookies on your device and collect data about your activity. Please review their details and accept them to load the content.Manage Preferences
From RTÉ News, Kieran Dineen talks to Aer Lingus passengers at Dublin Airport
Management also issued letters to individuals on the union’s executive committee, which could only be seen as antagonistic if not also targeted victimisation. Further twists centre around management's claim that there has been a significant increase in pilot sick absence over recent months. Whilst we have examples in past disputes of individual protest through illness, such as the Blue Flu action taken by Gardai in 1998, it is unlikely to be a form of industrial action undertaken by Are Lingus pilots: the context and sector is very different, and unlike Gardai, pilots are part of a union that can take industrial action.
Ending a dispute can be much harder than fighting one
Playing a hard game could mean management miss an important factor: it is not so much how to fight a dispute that is a main challenge, but how to end a strike and restore a collaborative long-term future relationship. Trust may not be a prerequisite for successful negotiation, but if trust and moral has broken down between workers and management, it can take years to rebuild. This has attendant performance and productivity problems that can beset a demoralised labour force post dispute.
Compared to most EU countries, Ireland favours a voluntarist system, where the State helps parties to come together, but does not directly intervene. The dispute brings to the fore how the State’s industrial relations institutions may not be provided with the necessary heft to help prevent industrial action, despite the Labour Court and Workplace Relations Commission enjoying a strong reputation among employers and trade unions. The Labour Court has made an effort to resolve the dispute, but claimed that a much deeper engagement by both parties is still required to ultimately resolve the dispute.
We need your consent to load this rte-player contentWe use rte-player to manage extra content that can set cookies on your device and collect data about your activity. Please review their details and accept them to load the content.Manage Preferences
From RTÉ Brainstorm, what goes on at the Workplace Relations Commission?
In France, Italy and Nordic countries such as Sweden, there is a greater role for State institutions that promote coordinated arrangements. These systems regulate to protect workers rights, including the legal right to strike and dispute resolution. For example in Sweden, the National Mediation Office (Medlingsinstitutet) allows for mediators to be appointed without the consent of the parties in dispute and a 14 day cooling off period before any action is taken. While not a foolproof way of preventing industrial action, such procedures certainly help to limit the amount of industrial action.
A resolution of the Aer Lingus dispute is still likely to draw on the Labour Court, illustrating the significance of the Irish industrial relations institutions, even within the constraints of a voluntarist system. This dispute may add to the debate for increasing power and resources to such institutions in an effort to minimise industrial action.
The last thing Aer Lingus pilots want is to destroy their own long-term livelihood
Management may learn that ending a dispute can be more difficult than fighting in the ditches. Refraining from antagonistic narratives on both sides can be a positive step. Another would be for all sides to recognise that no resolution can come without genuine social dialogue.
Going back to an earlier point, it is unrealistic to assume that Aer Lingus pilots are hell bent on showing ‘total disregard for passengers’. The last thing they want is to destroy their own long-term livelihood, or jeopardise the decades they have invested in their careers and skills. As the dispute develops, one option that may help to resolve the issue is for management to open their books and show what might be affordable rather than negotiate with a veil of uncertainty and limited transparency for the unions and workers.
Prof Tony Dundon is Professor of HRM and Employment Relations at the Department of Work & Employment Studies in the Kemmy Business School at University of Limerick. Dr Jonathan Lavelle is a Senior Lecturer at the Department of Work and Employment Studies in the Kemmy Business School at the University of Limerick.
Follow RTÉ Brainstorm on WhatsApp and Instagram for more stories and updates
The views expressed here are those of the author and do not represent or reflect the views of RTÉ
