Increasing scepticism among private sector unions that these deals can deliver real cash for their lower-paid members, a yawning split between public and private sector unions as to the disproportionate share of the partnership cake going to public servants, and disagreement over the softer social items on the union's shopping list, have seen several unions abandon partnership before the talks have even begun.

In addition to there being more legroom on the union side of the table, we are also promised a 'slimline' version of partnership when the parties get down to the real business at government buildings.

Ictu leader David Begg has said he favours fewer, more targeted issues that have a realistic chance of being addressed rather than the scattergun approach of past deals, which included everything from digging ditches to the peace process.

Under this new, no-nonsense approach to partnership, the parties expect to have a deal wrapped up in just six weeks, the aim being to have it in the bag before the teachers can take potshots at it during their conferences at Easter.

Siptu started the rush to the door late last autumn when union leader Jack O'Connor refused to open talks until the Irish Ferries dispute over the displacement of Irish workers by cheap foreign labour was resolved.

Though a solution of sorts was managed, at least to the extent that it allowed Siptu back in, the doubts had taken root that the partnership process could handle the more difficult problems of a buoyant economy, such as globalisation, immigrant workers and outsourcing.

Mandate, which represents about 40,000 shop and bar workers . . . and, more than Siptu, bears the brunt of displacement, with thousands of immigrant workers employed in the retail and leisure sectors . . . has decided to quit the process. Mandate union leader John Douglas said pay rises of 2% to 3% mean nothing to his members, who are on 8 to 11 an hour.

At the other end of the wage spectrum, Larry Broderick of the bankers' union, the IBOA, gave effective notice to quit when he said he would not be able to support a deal that offers anything less than a basic 10% increase over two years, plus the flexibility to allow highly profitable companies to pay more. Nothing above 2% to 3% a year is likely, which could force the IBOA out the door.

But Peter McLoone, Ictu president and leader of the biggest public sector union, Impact, pointed out that free collective bargaining has, in the past, favoured the strong at the expense of the lowerpaid, who simply do not have the industrial muscle to extract more money from employers.

It is also worth pointing out that the market will ensure you do not get anything better by venturing outside, something the secondary teachers' union, the ASTI, found to its cost last time out.

Yet the real problem the private sector unions have with national agreements is that they are sharply skewed towards the public sector, at the expense of private sector workers. They argue that it is no wonder the public sector unions are prepared to do a deal for around 2% or 3% when they can double that with their own custom-made benchmarking pay deals, included in the national pay agreements.

The last benchmarking deal gave public servants an average 9% increase on top of the national pay increase of 12.5% under the Sustaining Progress agreement. Private sector workers, who make up 85% of the workforce but, critically, just 50% of unionised workers, had to make do with just the basic 12.5%, which was noted by the ESRI last week. Another concern for many of the private sector unions is the growing list of social issues that crop up on national deals to the extent that they overshadow the main concern, pay.

On the highly publicised issue of employment standards that will have to be dealt with before the pay talks begin, one union leader said he fears that the employers will use any concessions as a bargaining chip to reduce the final wage deal.

He said that while the abuse of migrant workers is taking place, it has been exaggerated and that the dispute at Irish Ferries, in particular, was blown out of all proportion.

On employment standards, the unions will be pushing for more labour inspectors, possibly working from a new agency, to enforce legal minimum working conditions, and a substantial increase in the maximum fine of 3,000 when the inspectors unearth any wrongdoings.

Childcare has dropped down the unions' list because finance minister Brian Cowen stole their thunder on that in December's budget.

Pensions will be a big issue, but unions can hope only to tinker around the edges of this multibillion-euro problem, which even social affairs minister Seamus Brennan admitted was beyond his brief alone.

Though there is certainly a growing opposition among private sector unions to partnership, this does ignore the biggest prize of all from such deals: the kudos, power and influence that the deals hand the unions.

Pro-partnership unions argue that, with union membership in the private sector down to around one in four workers, quitting the partnership process would be suicidal, and unions would never be able to regain the "silent seat at cabinet" they have had over the past 20 years. They also point out there may never again be such a union-friendly taoiseach as Bertie Ahern.

For that reason alone . . . and barring a surprising irreparable breakdown . . . a deal will be done by Easter. The unions will resume their positions at the right hand of Bertie Ahern and all will, once again, be right with the world . . . at least for another few years.

HAS PARTNERSHIP HAD ITS DAY?

HAVE the social partnership talks outlived their usefulness?

"The early wage agreements were absolutely critical to the turnaround in the '80s. Indeed, how they did it is still a mystery to me, " said Ulster Bank chief economist Pat McArdle. But like many of his peers, McArdle believes the talks are now of limited relevance.

"For once there is a fair degree of unanimity in the profession, " he said. "Is it making a big change to the economic life of the country? I don't think so any more".

Capping wage increases below in"ation was a major, and crucial, achievement in the late 1980s. With a heavily unionised workforce buying into partnership at a time of high unemployment, it made a huge difference Slowing wage in"ation helped reduce costs for employers and had the perhaps unintended consequence of boosting employment.

Now the goalposts have shifted. Fewer than 30% of workers are in unions and those who are are mostly in the public sector. Private sector employers, meanwhile, are "nding it dif"cult to recruit staff, with virtually full employment. McArdle said, unlike the position in 1987, the partnership talks now were "effectively setting a public sector wage agreement".

"It will be pretty meaningless in terms of dictating wage levels, " said Friends First's Jim Power. "I think that back in the late 1990s it should have been given a Christian burial" said.

"As a citizen and a taxpayer of this country I did not vote for Fr Sean Healy, Turlough O'Sullivan and David Begg to run the country on my behalf.

I voted for politicians to do that and I think politicians are abdicating responsibility."

Like Power, Bank Of Ireland's Dan McLaughlin said ultimately market forces would dictate wage levels, regardless of any agreement at Dublin Castle. "In a buoyant labour market with relative "exibility you're going to get pay moving at different levels [in different sectors].

Some people "nd that unpalatable but "rstly, that's life, and secondly, how can you prevent it?"