Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I will raise a new point. It was interesting to hear in respect of the right to remote working that it would be the exception to justify a refusal of it rather than just the right to request. Will the witnesses comment on the right to disconnect as potentially an important part that links with that? There have been concerns about the overtime expectations that sometimes come with remote working. I asked the IBEC representatives, who may wish to come back in again, about the point that we already have an inability-to-pay mechanism, for example, where an SME is struggling. Do we not already have a mechanism for the exception? We should not seek to delay progress on the general raising of the bar because of those few exceptions.

I will follow up on what I see as a fundamental mistake being made. When the Low Pay Commission was founded it did not include the word “adequacy” in its terms of reference. It does not have a track record of looking to the adequacy of wages. It looks more to an appropriate market point on wages. It would be an improvement to move to 66% of the median wage as a minimum wage. That is the task. If we did that, there would be a greater chance of the minimum wage aligning with the living wage. I make the point again that the living wage is not just a nice phrase that is available to be taken. It is an internationally established concept used in many countries and by many people in different ways and directly relates to whether people can live on it and, specifically, whether one can live a decent life and participate fully in society on it. There are well-established mechanisms for measuring and calculating that. We have had them in Ireland for seven years but other countries have had them for longer. I suggest that we call the 66% idea what it is, namely, a better minimum wage, and let us have it checked against its alignment with the living wage. It is a presumption to brand it as a living wage. That is an important point. We have a duty to the international movement on the living wage not to dilute what it means. That is a concern.

I was going to ask about progression but it was very well addressed by WorkEqual. We talked about changing who takes up care so that employers are not as prejudiced. Is it not also the case that we need new mechanisms in workplaces to ensure that when people take periods of time off for care or go part-time for a period, it is not seen as stepping off the progression ladder? Will IBEC and WorkEqual explain how important it is to ensure progression opportunities for those who have reduced hours or move to flexible working for a period of time? They should be maintained actively on the ladder of progression. That is not just a matter of prejudice in recruitment. It is a matter of designing workplaces better so that we do not lose out on good people.