Maybe

Maybe the GWU has given up. Maybe it believes the MCESD has become irrelevant. Maybe it believes there no longer exists a role for tripartite social dialogue. Maybe the union's suggestion that the government should move out of MCESD is the result of a desire to withdraw from such a dialogue. Maybe they want to give birth to the classical headless chicken.

I struggled to try and understand the logic, if not the motivation, of their suggestion that the government should withdraw from the MCESD. Assuming there is no political subterfuge, I could find none. I did eventually get hold of a copy of the paper prepared by the GWU. In its pages I tried to look for the logic but, again, I could find none. If anything, this rather brief paper raised more questions than provided answers. Does the GWU really believe in social dialogue or is this a projection of its vision of the future?

According to the GWU "A council (MCESD) without the direct involvement of the members of government will give a greater voice and more freedom to the members of civil society". This statement, if anything, left me puzzled. I cannot fathom how removing from the MCESD the only player with real decision-making powers (at least for the time being) will give the social partners a greater voice.

If anything, this idea risks making that very same voice as irrelevant as a whisper in the wilderness. If we were still in the 1970s, working with a particular type of government, I would understand this idea but, times and attitudes have changed dramatically since then.

If the government is not present during the MCESD meetings, how on earth will the other members ever get that same government to commit itself to anything that is discussed and proposed in that forum? If the government is not to be present within MCESD, how exactly are the social partners together as one, going to influence the government? To me this idea is strange, to say the least.

What is equally strange is that in the very first line of their document, the GWU makes reference to social dialogue in the EU. It is a social dialogue in which the GWU also participates and does so actively. It is a social dialogue in which employers, trade unions and the Commission/Council (as representatives of the decision-making authority) participate.

It is a dialogue that is working well and produces significant and important results in areas such as health and safety, worker rights, life-long learning and job creation. It is a dialogue in which the social partners have the possibility to directly influence the introduction of new legislation.

Of course, in parallel to this tripartite dialogue, there is also a healthy bipartite dialogue but this is in parallel with and not in exclusion of a formal dialogue between the three parties. Drawing a parallel with how they see social dialogue, does the GWU similarly wish the Commission to withdraw from the well-established model of European Social Dialogue?

Maybe the real relevance of the MCESD to the GWU emerges from statements such as "the opinions produced should in no way tie down the organisations involved..." and "the council will have a consultative role and no decision, opinion or resolution will tie down the government or any organisation forming part of the council". If this is the stance the GWU really wishes to adopt, then some obvious questions must be asked.

What, for example, is the GWU doing in the MCESD if it believes that no one should feel tied down by decisions taken within the forum? With an MCESD like the one suggested by the GWU, where one can talk and take positions without any commitment or indeed responsibility, why have an MCESD at all? Of course, the GWU has every right to put forward its own ideas and should be congratulated for doing so. Indeed, other organisations too have put forward other ideas. One must respect such ideas and evaluate each one of them on its own merits.

I, however, struggle to believe that the way forward as suggested by the GWU is the one that will help the social partners to effectively meet the challenges of the future. What is certain is that the GWU have created a debate. The future of the MCESD and, indeed, of tripartite social dialogue are firmly on the agenda. This could be what the GWU wanted to achieve all along. Maybe.