Mr. Gerry Light:

I will endeavour to cover all of the points raised by the Senator. He raised an extensive range of issues, all of which I will attempt to address because they are very important in their own right, in the context of the broad issue being discussed here today, namely, decent work.

To address the last question first, Mandate is very active in making submissions in respect of all of the live issues before the current Government. We do so in our own right and also under the auspices of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. I have with me, for example, the detailed submission that Congress made to the Minister in March of this year on the issue of collective bargaining.

It can act in a really meaningful way to assist the plight of the increasing thousands of workers who are in precarious jobs. It is not just that alone. If the problem was that simple we would have solved it a long time ago.

The first question asked about the impact of part-time working and precarious jobs and how this creates difficulties for individual union members, their families, their role in the community and, most important, I suggest, as consumers. Consumers have the capacity to make a contribution to refloating the economy. We have identified that some of the current economic strategies that are being followed are flawed. Essentially, we are cutting off our nose to spite our face. The effect of the cutbacks on the unemployed and under-employed workers causes deep hurt to the lives of ordinary people and does not allow them to make a valuable contribution as consumers and as citizens genuinely to play their part in refloating the economy. One only has to read the report to see the extent of the impact. One then only has to dig down in any field to see a multiplicity of other impacts, such as on people's health or on domestic relationships, all of which is probably immeasurable at present but in all likelihood will bear its fangs in the years to come. Our concern about this issue was largely the reason we commissioned Behaviour & Attitudes, B&A, to conduct research on our behalf. What is even more frightening, and we alluded to it in our presentation, is the extent to which the rights of people are being abused. We in the Mandate trade union are on the cusp and are giving serious consideration to reaching out to those who are not members of the union and conducting in-depth research with them to see the impact the recession and the precarious working environment is having on them.

Individual Acts were mentioned, which are all important in their own right, but the logical starting point for Mandate is a review of the current code of practice on access to part-time working. The 1997 directive on part-time working and the code of practice that was introduced in 2006 largely focus on the right of employers to reduce hours from full-time to part-time. Very little mention is made in the code of practice of how one might assert one's right to increase the number of hours worked.

A clear principle enunciated in the original directive was to try to achieve, where possible, a sense of balance between the needs of an employer on the one hand and the needs of the employee. In many ways certain employers overreacted when the Mandate trade union discussed the need for a beefed-up code of practice, and contended that it was too much involvement in the running of their business and that they could not have a sense of interference from trade unions and workers. The key words are "where possible", that where possible, employers should be obliged to offer increased working hours to their workers. I do not think the code of practice on part-time working goes anywhere near that. It falls a long way short of it. In so far as one can give teeth to a code of practice, because we are all aware that a code of practice is not legally enforceable but can be relied on as evidence in certain cases, we need to ensure a mandatory code is put in place so that if a worker seeks additional hours from his employer, the employer must follow a set mandatory code and set out in clear terms the reasons additional hours cannot be offered.

I see claims that an additional 200 or 300 jobs have been created, and only yesterday there was another announcement of hundreds of jobs being created, but I think we must make a habit of asking how many of these jobs are full-time jobs, how many hours of work will be available, and what other protections, privileges and entitlements are being afforded to these workers. If we ignore the conditions of work, it is because it is convenient to do so on the one hand and it is an act of folly to do so on the other. In some circumstances, at the stroke of a pen, one full-time job can turn into four jobs overnight and the employer can claim that four new jobs have been created. That is how easy it is. We need to get the code of practice beefed up and give workers mandatory rights. We suggest in our report that workers should have the right to challenge decisions when it is clearly evident that an employer is engaging only part-time workers for very obvious cost saving measures, with no regard for the equality of employment that the workforce is being offered.

Another issue that is attracting a great deal of discussion is zero hour contacts. It was horrendous to hear a major fast food chain admit freely that zero hour contracts were the practice in its business. The fast food industry bankrolled the challenge against the joint labour committees, JLCs, and had them removed from the Statute Book. I suggest, but let me preface all my remarks, that this is the audacity that some employers have. This is further evidence of the need to beef up the area governing the zero hours provisions in the current legislation, the Organisation of Working time Act 1997. As was pointed out, an employer can retain a worker for a certain number of hours per week, but does not have to give him or her those hours and must pay only 25% of the promised hours if they are not given to the worker. At the same time, however, the employee cannot make him or herself available for other work. In some ways, a worker, by keeping him or herself available for the promise of those hours, may not be able to access social welfare benefits either. It is ludicrous.

Mandate suggests that such contracts cannot be seen in isolation but are interrelated with social welfare and taxation. The report commissioned by Mandate highlights the ludicrous position that if an employer hires two part-time workers instead of one worker, the employer PRSI contribution will be cheaper to the tune of 2.25% . That is a clear incentive to create part-time jobs. To increase that ceiling would send out a clear message to employers to do their best. We need people on board not only as workers but as consumers. We regularly drive home that message to the major retailers, asking them never to forget that a sizeable proportion of the workforce are also consumers. One needs consumers to prop up the business.

In respect of the broad plethora of employment rights legislation, one does not have to look beyond the National Employment Rights Authority, NERA, report, to which I alluded earlier, that in our sector the level of non-compliance is 55%, rising in some cases to 70%. The number of inspections are down by nearly 1,000, which is worrying, and that is the reason we need to resource the implementation and ensure that whatever bodies are in place, an adequate number of inspections are carried out on the ground. Before the inspection stage, we need to ensure the provision of adequate information. Workers need to know their rights. The basic starting point is that if one knows one's rights, one is more likely to seek the implementation of those rights. Far too often, workers are kept in the dark. There is a need for information, inspection and appropriate penalty for breaches. An employer will keep doing things in breach of the regulations for as long as possible and pay the penalty when caught, but will start the wheel all over again. It is vital to deal with this.

I refer to the new measures in place for collective bargaining and what the Government has in mind in that respect. It should read and re-read the Congress submission, to which we had an input, because that is the road we need to go down. There are fairly detailed reasons given as to why collective bargaining is essential in this society-economy, now more than ever. What amazes me about this - it is ironic in many ways - is that only last week we heard the main employers' representative body say that collective bargaining is not the way to go. In name that body is only a union; it used to be called the Federated Union of Employers. It understands the importance of collectivism. It represents individual employers in a very effective way but when it comes to workers' rights and needs, and the right for a worker to be able to enforce those rights legitimately, employers say they do not need it. If my memory serves me right, last week workers were referred to by one of the employers' senior officers as "individual capitalists selling their labour". That is the difficulty we have as trade unionists, and not only as trade unionists alone but as people who have a genuine moral interest in society and what we want to build coming out of this recession. It is fine to have a nice, fixed economy, looking sparkling and bright and ready to go again, but what we need is a society of which we are proud. We cannot afford a legacy from this recession that will affect individual workers, their families and communities for many years to come.

Those are all the important points. We have a comprehensive or holistic view in that respect. The jury is out on the new employment rights body. We subscribe to the general description the Minister has outlined on a number of occasions, namely, that is to allow workers to vindicate their rights more easily and quickly and of course we subscribe to that. At present there is a waiting list of up to three years for a person to get to the Employment Appeals Tribunal, which is ridiculous. That applies to all workers. As a general principle, therefore, we will subscribe to that and see how it works out, given what is said about the proof of the pudding.