The decision by the Northern Committee of ICTU not to call further strike action in the campaign to oppose the austerity measures contained within the Executive budget and the Stormont House Agreement marks a major retreat by the trade union movement.  Though there is continuing industrial action by workers it is at a much lower level than the co-ordinated strike action we saw on March 13th.  Rather than a unified movement, which had a single focus, we now have a series of struggles  concentrated only on how austerity impacts directly on workers in particular sectors, whether that be health, public transport or education.  
 
Limited opposition
 
One of limitations of the March 13th Day of Action was that it only involved workers in the public sector.  Now there are    divisions within even this group of workers.  This retreat into sectionalism means that the trade union opposition to austerity will be much weaker.  It reduces the potential impact of industrial action and makes it easier for the Executive and     employers to play off one group of workers against another.  Indeed, such fears were raised at the various public meetings that took place in the run up to the Day of Action.  
 
But while the dangers of sectionalism are present in any trade union struggle the breakdown we have seen in relation to the opposition to the Stormont House Agreement is not primarily down to organisation.  More fundamentally it arises out of different political views on how the trade union movement should operate within the north of Ireland and how it should relate to the political parties. 
 
Given ICTU’s history in accommodating to partition, and the full support it has given to the various political agreements over the years, it was a significant development when its Northern Committee came out publicly against the Stormont House Agreement.  That the trade unions came out against it was an indicator of the severity the onslaught on the working class it contained.  However, this opposition was limited to the financial elements of the agreement - the trade union leadership made it clear that they were not opposed to its political elements.  
 
The first premise of the trade union position on the Stormont House Agreement is that the policies of austerity and the       continuation of the political institutions can be separated.  The second is that austerity is just a policy option for the Executive rather than a necessity.  While these two beliefs are generally accepted across the trade union movement there is a dispute on how to bring about the alternative.  This centres on whether the existing parties can play a role in a move away from austerity or whether a new left political organisation is required.

Anti-austerity bloc?  
 
Within the trade union movement it is the positive view of the existing parties that currently holds sway.  This was very much in evidence in the speeches made from platforms on the Day of Action, such as that from NIPSA general secretary Brian Campfield, which urged MP’s from Northern Ireland to act as an anti-austerity faction within the Westminster parliament.  This has become even more explicit in the run up to the British  general election with trade unions publishing election guides for their members.  A guide produced by NIPSA makes the claim that; “Northern Ireland parties and other regional representatives” could “exert some influence on the main Westminster parties who may need support in order to form a Government.”  The assumptions here are that the outcome of the election will be a hung parliament and that MPs from Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales will operate as unified bloc within it.  Such projections, and the argument to wait for the outcome of the election, were undoubtedly factors in the decision to put off any further industrial action.
 
The problem for the trade union leadership is that their perspective in regard to the British election is completely bogus.  There is no reason to believe that local MPs will have any more  influence over a British Government then they have at present.  It is not a question of parliamentary arithmetic but of power - and that lies not in parliament but in the class structures and state institutions that surround it.  Within this framework the small number of local MP’s are very weak - Northern Ireland doesn’t set terms for Britain rather it is the other way around. This wouldn’t change even if they were part of a bigger bloc of “regional representatives”.  
 
Though it is unstated, the hopes of the trade union leadership for the formation of such a regional bloc leading the opposition to austerity rest on the SNP (which would be by far its biggest  contingent).   The problem is that the SNP, despite its rhetoric, is not an anti-austerity party.  As the governing party in Scotland it has imposed cuts that are completely in line with those of the Coalition. What the SNP demands is not an end to austerity but that it falls somewhere else.  This regionalism, which has increased across Britain in the wake of the Scottish independence referendum, is in no way progressive.  It is actually a very reactionary development that threatens to break up and weaken the labour movement even further.
 
The notion of an anti-austerity bloc appears even more fanciful when we consider that the Northern Ireland contingent would be dominated by the DUP.  They are not an anti-austerity party.  As the leading party within the Executive they have faithfully  following the cuts agenda.  Indeed, they have even gone beyond this and put forward plans for additional cuts in order to fund a reduction in corporation tax.  With the DUP support for austerity goes hand in hand with sectarianism - so among its list of  demands for an incoming Government is a “right to march” for loyal orders and protections for flag flying.
 
The reality is that whatever the make-up of the next British government the policy of austerity will continue and that the local parties (despite their protests) will go along with it.               
 
Sinn Fein 
 
The idea of an anti-austerity bloc is also projected onto the politics of the Northern state with the local institutions being promoted as a means to shield workers from the worst of austerity.  However, this notion has been dispelled by the Stormont House Agreement.  Its terms - which push the same level of cuts there has been in Britain into a shorter time frame - means that austerity in the north will be even harsher. 
 
While the trade union leadership hold out the possibility of persuading all the parties to take a different course Sinn Fein is the party that their hopes are most invested in.  This was made explicit in an  address to the Sinn Fein Ard Fheis by ICTU president John Douglas in which he described the party as “anti-austerity,” praised its “progressive approach,” and looked forward to the working with Sinn Féin in government "both North & South" next year. In fact much of the time of the trade union bureaucracy is taken up in preparing for a collapse of the labour party in the Dail and   opening links to Sinn Fein as an parliamentary collaborator. This strategy is made difficult in the North where they profess  neutrality between orange and green and pretend that the DUP can be won to support the workers.
 
Yet the evidence, apart from rhetoric, shows that Sinn Fein is a party that is completely committed to working within the framework of austerity, whether that is the Troika programme in the south or the Stormont House Agreement in the north.  This comes out most clearly when they are challenged on this by trade union and socialist activists.  At a recent INTO conference the Sinn Fein education minister contemptuously dismissed a protest by  teachers - saying that “placards will not end austerity”.    Obviously the slogan that was on the posters: “SF + DUP = Tory Cuts” - had hit home.  Eoin Ó Broin, a figure often active in presenting Sinn Fein as a left party, has accused those critical of the party’s role in implementing austerity in the north as “shouting in the service of the system”.
 
Political settlement 
 
While such ridiculous reactions demonstrate the sensitivity of Sinn Fein on this issue they also highlight how politics and     economics are totally bound up together.  It was made explicit in John O’Dowd’s claim (which was also part of his put down of protesting teachers) that the demand for his party to oppose cuts was a call to “end Sinn Féin’s participation in the executive.”  This actually goes to the heat of matter - that the continuation of the political institutions is dependent on the implementation of austerity.   For the local parties it is not about policy options but self preservation.  If you accept this political framework the prospect of persuading the parties to take an alternative course (even if one were available) is non-existent.  
 
The arguments being advanced by the trade unions in relation to austerity are therefore completely undermined by their own    support for the political settlement.  This is also true of those on the left such as the Socialist Party who quite rightly point out the shortcomings of Sinn Fein and argue for workers to have their own political voice yet remain within the bounds of that settlement. 
 
The distinction between the politics and economics of the  Stormont House Agreement is a false one.  They go hand in hand and one is just as rotten as the other.   The  political elements of the agreement - which seek to accommodate the most reactionary elements within unionism and entrench sectarianism even  further - are as much (if not more) a threat to the working class as the policies of austerity. 
 
Capitalism  
 
The more general flaw in the trade union perspective is the belief that there is an alternative to austerity within capitalism.  This completely misunderstands the capitalist crisis and also the particular restraints of the Stormont House Agreement.  If the crisis was just a question of debt or low growth then the Keynesian policies of the Better Fairer Way being put forward by ICTU might have some currency.  Yet they have not been adopted by any government in Europe.  This is because they fail to address the key issue in terms of the functioning of capitalism - that is profitability.  For the capitalist class the recovery rests on the restoration of profitability.   From this perspective the policies of austerity - of reducing wages, slashing public spending, privatisations and cutting business taxes - make perfect sense.  They make perfect sense for the current British government and any future government irrespective of the party it is led by.  They also make perfect sense for the recovery of  capitalism in the north of Ireland - this is why they are such a big element of the Stormont House Agreement.
 
Working class     
 
While there are many shortcomings in the trade union position their partial rejection of the Stormont House Agreement and the ongoing industrial action and protests against it are a significant development.  That workers see themselves as having an interest apart from the Government and employers is an essential precondition for the building of a working class movement.  In the north that means workers shedding any illusions they may have in the local parties and political institutions.  Though still at low level it can be said that this process has got under way.  The presentation of a socialist programme, advancing the needs of workers, in the trade unions and working class communities will be crucial in determining how far the current limited rebellion advances.