Mr. Gerry Light:

I thank Senator Quinn for that brief history. It was productive for us to be able to do business together as a worker representative body in a very successful and indigenous retail business in Ireland. In many ways that epitomised what is good about what we are seeking here, which we hope will become the norm within the retail grocery business and on a broader footing across the employment scene in Ireland. We agreed on many points during these years and were very clearly tuned in to the needs of business but we could also prove when we came to the table that we had a realistic mindset in respect of everybody's needs. In many ways we were not greedy and were prepared to take whatever we needed to take out of the business to justify our participation. That can be achieved and in many ways it is what we are talking about today.

I will take the Senator's last point first before coming back to what he spoke about in respect of balancing the books. Over the past seven years we have become more proactively engaged, in very difficult circumstances, working with certain businesses since the impact of the recession has hit. Some very difficult decisions have had to be taken by our members under our guidance. I am of the view that those businesses will come out of the recession stronger and better for having such an approach, compared to those businesses that reduced everything to the bare minimum of statutory entitlement. Nobody knows better than Senator Quinn that ultimately, when there is a workforce that is regarded properly and is in tune with the needs of the business, it is more likely to be a successful business. The opposite is also the case. When people come to work every day feeling it is a drudge and that they are being exploited, without seeing any real tangible benefit for the fruits of their labour at the end of the week, what one will get from them is only a basic involvement in the business, nothing more. Every successful business needs more than that to be successful.

We have been very proactive on the rents issue in appropriate circumstances and working with certain employers, aligning ourselves to certain campaigns where we believed the situation in which some businesses found themselves was clearly unfair, given the extortionate rents and rates that were being applied, particularly within the context of upward-only reviews. Some work has been done on that in recent times, which must be welcomed. A greater degree of common sense is being applied to the whole area of rents, as opposed to rates. Rates are very much within the gift of the Government and the local authorities and they know what needs to be done. Some public representatives were very much to the fore in saying it was ridiculous to have increasing rents applied to businesses that were in decline. At the same time, only last week I read that certain local authorities are raising their rates in respect of those same businesses. There are double standards here. We must all get real and focus on the battle. The price is huge but it will benefit all of us.

How do we balance the books? It is the classic scenario - how far does one go and when does a job become not worth having? That is the key question, the core of what Senator Quinn has posed. All of us around this table have been around long enough to know and accept the basic principle that being at work should be a route out of poverty. However, on an increasing basis, having a job is not proving to be such.

This is apparent if one looks at some of the figures indicating the rate of people at work and the risk of poverty, which increased by 18% between 2009 and 2011.

These figures pose some interesting questions. It is a dilemma for workers as to whether a job is worth having and in many ways it is a dilemma for business people who attempt to flog business - to the detriment of individuals - and who pretend there is some chance that business will survive. This is a key issue in respect of balance. Some businesses go to the walls because they must. A business should not stay in place one moment longer than necessary if that is to the detriment of and through the exploitation of low paid workers. That is key. We all know this is not an easy situation, looking at the same sets of figures from different perspectives and circumstances. We must focus on the key considerations for all of us, employers, workers and workers' representatives alike, whether having a job or a business is worth it and what it takes to keep that business going.

One of the key issues in regard to the under-employment figure is the issue of part-time workers. The CSO has only recently started to focus on the importance of distinguishing part-time workers from full-time workers. It seems safe to assume now that many part-time workers are involuntarily underemployed. This is a result of what has happened in our economy over the past number of years. The figure we quoted in this regard is 46% and the question is how we can change this in a positive and effective manner. We change it by introducing a range of the measures we have put forward for consideration here today so as to ensure we start lifting some boats. We may not necessarily have a rising tide at this time, but some would have us believe there are positive signs on the horizon.

We need to ensure we introduce some, if not all of the measures we have put forward. For example, we alluded in our presentation to the issue of banded hours. In other words, we should sit down and address the needs of the business, assess what it can afford to pay in current circumstances and put provisions in place to ensure that whatever the business has required in the past to keep it afloat and to keep it open, the hours needed will be given to workers. In that way, they will have a certain degree of certainty in regard to their hours and can build some certainty around that. As I said already, this certainty would have a significant impact across the economy, from basic purchases to the purchase of houses. We are all aware of the dilemma facing people now when seeking a loan from a bank or a building society. They are asked for their contract. Notwithstanding the fact they may be working 30 hours a week regularly, if their contract says they are contracted to work 15 hours a week, which is the reality for many of these workers, they are told it is not possible for them to get the mortgage. We can effect change from the basic level of participation in work right up to more detailed participation and the serious purchases people must make.

To answer the question asked, the first way we impact change is by identifying the problem. We should not convince ourselves or let ourselves be hoodwinked into believing that everything is grand because somebody has announced there are 400 new jobs. This announcement may have a net effect of taking that number of people off the live register, but what our campaign highlights and will hopefully achieve, is an awareness of the precariousness of work and the extent to which part-time working has become - unnecessarily - the norm. Within the retail sector, even where we are organised, some of the most profitable retailers operate with 80% part-time workers. I alluded to a code of practice earlier, and if it was implemented in spirit, that would not be the case. The hours would have been distributed in a much fairer way, before a level of 80% part-time workers would have been reached.

No one thing alone will solve the issue of the precariousness of work hours. Multiple approaches must be taken to deal with the areas we have highlighted here. If nothing else, it is good if we manage to highlight the problem at committees such as this and in areas of employment where workers are properly and formally represented, and in areas where they are not. Hopefully, they will get the confidence to speak out and ask whether others have seen a debate on it, seen it mentioned in the paper or seen Mandate's report. I hope they will be able to ask whether they should go to their employer and make a case for more hours. The reality is that far too many of them would be afraid to do that, because the consequences would be dire for them. This is about information, awareness building and coming up with credible suggestions and alternatives. It is about discussing these and getting the needs and perspectives of all parties discussed in the debate.

We must ensure that what comes out of this is that we come up with a fair and objective solution. We must all approach this in a realistic fashion. None of us should do what was probably done during the boom years- not by workers I hasten to add - which was to get ahead of ourselves and engage in disreputable practices in regard to the price of services, from property to basic commodities. If we learn nothing else from the economic doom, it is that we should come through this more in tune with what is required to build the economy and society of the future. It would be a terrible travesty if we just fixed the economy and forgot about citizens.