The reality is that trade unions have been agents of change. In Poland and South Africa, Solidarity and Cosatu were in the vanguard of the most extraordinary political events in our lifetimes. At present the one hope of peaceful change in Zimbabwe is Morgan Tsvangari and his Movement for Democratic Change. And in the week we celebrate the Easter Rising let us reflect on the role of the Citizen Army.

There is always resistance to the unknown. Despite all the demonisation, trade unions are simply organised workers, the same as everybody else. They will support change if it is consistent with their interests and makes sense. We comprise the biggest group in civil society and, as such, reflect its values.

The first pre-requisite for radical change in a unionised environment is that it is consistent with the interests of the people affected. After that there is no alternative to sharing information and dealing with questions comprehensively so workers are accepted as stakeholders rather than mere factors of production. Trust has to be earned, on both sides, and agreements honoured.

There is a high degree of utilisation of recognised forms of new work organisation in both union and nonunion employments in Ireland. Despite the scepticism, major change has been achieved with the co-operation of unions in companies like Aer Lingus and Bord na Mona. Few companies can rival the scale of change they have achieved.

We don't have to look beyond the economy, which has a high proportion of people in unions, to recognise that organised workers are 'up for change'.

In fact, countries with the highest levels of people organised rank at the top of international productivity tables. Ordinary people, through their unions, play an integrated role in their development and have developed strong social infrastructures that support radical change and minimise the risks involved.

I hold diametrically opposing views to the Progressive Democrats on many issues.

One key difference is that they see social development as a consequence of economic growth . . . I see it as an intrinsic component of it.

The rest of the world is not prepared to sustain Ireland with a trade deficit of more than 6% of GDP, as is the case with the US. Conditions do not exist here for the kind of productivity bounce generated by the 'Walmart effect'.

The Irish response is termed 'Social Partnership'.

Despite its failings, and there are many, it has provided a reasonably successful problem-solving mechanism.

There is great pride in our economic development. We undoubtedly face further challenges. But they must be borne by all sides of the employment equation and the benefits must be distributed more equitably.

The key to the future rests in innovation and skills enhancement. According to FAS, jobs requiring thirdlevel qualifications will constitute 60% of employment growth over the next four to five years. Yet, 70% of our workforce lacks third level education and 30% never completed second level. How is the task of reskilling to be accomplished, whilst maintaining full employment, against a background of inadequate childcare and eldercare? Surely we have something better than replacement strategies and consigning those who spent their lives contributing to the economy to the prospect of ending their days scouring the lower end of the labour market.

Indeed, I think Leas Cross brought home that, even if you can afford NUMBER_STRING48,000 a year, you have no guarantee of being looked after properly in a private system of elder care.

If we are to have decent public services we have to provide the resources. We are also entitled to efficient delivery of those services.

There is no dichotomy between the best possible standard of employment and the highest quality of care.

During the recent past a lazy route to competitiveness through the exploitation of vulnerable migrants has emerged. We campaigned strongly for a 'yes' vote in the Nice Referendum. That was right but we also sought changes in our labour market policy to combat the exploitation of those coming to work here or placing indigenous workers at a disadvantage.

This is what we are trying to achieve in the Social Partnership talks and it is remarkably hard . . . it seems both the government and employers are finding it hard to change old attitudes. If we do not succeed it will put back the cause of progressive change management a long way.

If change is about innovation, if it's about adapting in a way that prioritises the enhancement of family life and the dignity of human beings while recognising the imperatives of economic reality instead of simply pandering to those who already have far more than they could ever possibly consume, then we'll work for it, defend it and fight for it. You see our objective is not to oppose change, it is rather to shape and influence it in the interests of our members, in the interest of workers generally and for the public good.