Maurice Quinlivan (Limerick City, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank everyone for their presentations. I will begin by addressing my questions to USI. I thank it for supporting the Bill. I am happy with the first paragraph of its submission. Previous witnesses have come here and said that it would be very difficult for students if we put this in and USI says quite clearly that it is constantly dispelling the myth that students want these precarious contracts. It is very useful that it has said that. I also commend USI for its stance that student workers are workers. It is very important that is said here today and I agree with that.

Many students work under unfair and precarious conditions as they are worried about asserting their employment rights with their boss for fear of losing their jobs. If this legislation is passed, it would provide students with more rights but these will be of no use if student workers do not assert them. In USI's opinion, what can be done to encourage students to make use of their employment rights to allow them to work in fair conditions?

The issue of students not getting notice of working hours in advance is another issue which the Bill aims to address. As USI has noted, this issue results in students not being able to organise personal study plans, as a result of not knowing their work hours often right up to the day before. Does USI think the Bill will successfully address this issue that affects many students?

I was very moved by the Migrant Rights Centre of Ireland contribution, particularly in light of the programme broadcast on RTE last night about Irish migrants in America. We have about 50,000 over there. In this country, we have between 20,000 and 26,000 undocumented and it is something we ourselves need to look at and legislate for. It is very important that MRCI said that.

In its submission, MRCI said that non-compliance with employment legislation by employers is a key focus of its work. If this is the case, more employment legislation will fail to address the issues for these workers already because if the employer does not adhere to current legal requirements they are unlikely to start doing it now. In MRCI's opinion, what can be done to ensure greater compliance by employers with employment legislation?

I thank TASC for its presentation. Many previous witnesses said the Bill would place additional burdens on small employers. I am delighted that TASC has said clearly that "this Bill does not appear to impose any additional burden on employers in relation to employees claims for being moved to a specific band". This is in contrast with what we have heard from employer organisations. Would TASC agree that if employer organisations adhered to existing requirements, such as providing a payslip reflecting workers hours, that no major additional burden would be imposed? It will be those employers who currently fail in the requirements that would be most affected as they will now be under renewed obligation to follow prescribed standards.

From TASC's research, has it identified the practice of some employers using the offer of hours as a form of control over an employee to be widespread?