I watched a woman from one of the unions explain how much work had been done to settle their claim. 

The allied health workers have signed off their deal. That’s 12,000 physios, social workers, etc. There was more work to do, she said. 

I bet there is. Unions are dreadful things and they're full of people who are full of hate and misery. 

The health workers got about 2.5% this year and a bit over 2% next year. 

The principals got something similar and the secondary teachers got the same thing. The primary teachers are holdouts, but that’s over the Treaty. Money wise they appear to have been offered what everyone else has. 

In other words, all the angst and upset, hot air, back and forward, the strike, the stop-works and the waving of placards on picket lines has resulted in, pretty much, the same for everyone – two point something percent this year and a bit less next year. 

Months and months and months' worth of aggro for the same result. 

What is the point in that? 

At all times the state had no money. We are in debt. When you have a collective that covers thousands, the offer will always be affected by the scale of the outcome. 

Sir Brian Roche would appear to be the unsung hero, quietly and patiently beavering away with a bunch of myopic ideologues who believe that threats and withdrawals of labour is a good way to do business. 

If one of them had got 8%, if one of them had been able to point to a material gain by their seemingly never-ending barrage of industrial action, they may have had a point. 

But they can't. In a nutshell, they got pretty much what they got offered. 

The state were never looking to rip anyone off. Good people and good order is a valuable asset in the public service. But in a country with no money you can't magic up riches. 

So all that union apparatus for what? All those fees for what? All those days off for what? 

2% this year and 2% next year for everyone. How much time, energy and noise could have been saved if the approach was less adversarial and more adult?