Mr. Michael Taft:

I will make three points on some of the issues raised by Deputy Cronin. First, rarely if ever will employers' organisations come to the public debate. They rarely if ever provide evidence that business cannot afford something. They assert it and claim it but you will not find much in the way of evidence for these kind of generalised comments such as saying businesses cannot afford a wage raise or to take the minimum wage off the ground. I urge Deputies and Senators, when they hear this, to ask where is the evidence and where is the proof.

Second, let us be clear about what low pay employers do, because it is not just their employees on whom they have a negative impact. As a result of low pay, the Exchequer is not getting money as high income tax revenue and it may have to pay out subsidies. It is a cost to all of us through the Exchequer and might be called an opportunity cost. Had the employees been properly paid, there would have been more resources for the Exchequer to invest. Business that rely on the domestic purchasing power of Irish workers are also as impacted because they are relying upon workers having more money in their pockets. If they do not, the businesses do not have the turnover, which impacts on their workers, and so you get a cycle downwards. Therefore when we talk about low pay employers, the employee is the first one impacted but every one of us, through the Exchequer, and so many other businesses lose out. Low pay employers stay in business and make a profit essentially by imposing costs on others.

Finally, in terms of the minimum wage and many of the issues raised here like collective bargaining, the right to disconnect and the domestic abuse paid leave, this is about moving to a new business model. The whole idea of raising wages is not just about ensuring workers have enough to live on, although that is extremely important. It is also about making a statement about the type of business model we have. We will no longer tolerate low-paid exploitative employers or a low-paid or exploitative business model. We are going to move to a new model, and part of that new model is that business must be negotiated through collective bargaining. Part of that new model is that workers in especially difficult circumstances have access to the support they need, whether that is being able to take a few days off with a proper income or having to get outside support. That is the type of new business model SIPTU and the trade union movement want to see us going to.

It is not about talking about costs. We would argue the benefit accruing to business and through the wider economy is much greater than any kind of imagined cost. Certainly, it will be costly to those businesses that cannot play by the new rules. It will be costly for them if they refuse to do so, but where businesses are willing to move to the living wage or to move in these directions and if they are having genuine difficulties, the trade union movement is always there either locally at the enterprise level or at a sectoral level to work with those employers. We have done so in the past on many occasions. Therefore, in terms of an economy-wide shift to a new business model, the trade union movement will be found to be an active and constructive partner in that process. What we need is other active and constructive partners to work with.