James O'Connor (Cork East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In relation to speaking arrangements, I suggest we invite our witnesses to speak for approximately ten minutes. We will allow members to ask questions or make comments for approximately seven minutes and they may have a second round of questions, time permitting, when they will be allowed to speak or ask questions for approximately four minutes. Members will be called as they appear on the week 1 speaking rota, which has been circulated, and members may substitute within their party or group. Members who are not members of the committee or substitutes may speak after members of the committee or substitutes. Is this agreed? Agreed. Thank you very much.

We have two sessions today and I propose the following arrangements. Session 1 is at 12.30 p.m. and the agenda items are the right to request a remote working arrangement and AI in the workplace, with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. Its representatives are very welcome to the committee. We will have a short interval at 1.50 p.m. and then session 2, which will take place between 2 p.m. and 3 p.m., is engagement with the chairperson of Enterprise Ireland, Mr. Jim Woulfe. Are these arrangements satisfactory? That is agreed. Go raibh maith agaibh.

Session 1 is on the statutory review report on Part 3 of the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023 and AI on the workplace. I propose we publish the opening statement provided by ICTU on the committee's website. Is that agreed? It is. Go raibh maith agaibh. I am delighted to welcome the representatives of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions to the meeting. We have Dr. Laura Bambrick, social policy officer, who is accompanied by Mr. Kevin Donoghue, director of campaigns for Fórsa and Mr. Brian McDowell, head of public affairs for the Financial Services Union. You are all very welcome.

I invite Dr. Bambrick to make her opening statement.

Dr. Laura Bambrick:

On behalf of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions Unions and our affiliated unions I thank the committee for the invitation to discuss the statutory review of the operation of the legislation providing the right to request remote working, as well as AI in the workplace. It is pertinent we are meeting in the week May Day falls to discuss seismic changes in how work gets done. The 1st of May is an important date in the trade union calendar. It commemorates the power struggle for, and widespread adoption of, the shorter working day and improved work-life balance for workers as our share from the productivity gains from new technologies in the industrial age. It will be celebrated as a public holiday in over 80 countries this weekend, including Ireland.

Unions were the first to identify the gap in Irish employment law for employees requesting remote work in the summer of 2020. We worked tirelessly with Department officials and business representatives throughout the legislative journey and in the development of a code of practice to provide accessible guidance on the provisions of the Act. For large numbers of employees, remote and hybrid working arrangements are highly prized. According to the CSO’s latest figures, one third of the workforce, which is around 1 million people, work from home at least some of the time, with over 500,000 people working more than half of the time. The overall figure has remained high and stable since the Covid-19 restrictions ended.

The right to request remote working provisions under the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023 commenced in March 2024. The vast majority of remote and hybrid working arrangements are not made using this formal process. Instead, employees and employers rely on a company policy or collective agreement that is tailored to fit that employment in compliance with the legislation. However, ensuring the legal framework - that is, the rules - for making and managing requests is fit for purpose is key for setting minimum standards and for where there is no workplace policy in place or when the parties disagree.

On 5 March, the Minister, Deputy Burke, and the Minister of State, Deputy Dillon, published a statutory review of the operation of the legislation as required by section 29 of the Act. The review process comprised three strands, namely, a public consultation, a nationally-representative survey of 1,041 employees and separately a survey of 517 employers, as well as a series of one-to-one stakeholder interviews on the operation of the Act. Congress and our affiliated unions engaged in good faith with this review. We did so first by promoting and encouraging participation in the public consultation through our networks, at the request of the Department. The response was one of the highest ever for a Government Department public consultation, with a total of 8,181 survey responses received. Some 7,861 came from employees and 320 from employers or others, who were most likely members of the public. Second, representatives from four unions, two of which join me here, participated in face-to-face, in-depth interviews on their first-hand experience of the Act.

The review concluded the legislation is delivering and amendments to the Act are not proposed on the basis of a key finding of the national survey, which is that outright refusal is a rare event when the formal process is used. The refusal rate was 7% in the employee survey and 3% in the employer survey. There was a high incidence of approval, with 61% of employees requests being fully approved as submitted and 33% partially approved. This headline-grabbing 94% approval rate was reference four times in the Government press release. What was not mentioned was that it is based on a subsample of just 124 employees. The only reference to sample size was to the "more than 8,000 consultation responses" to the separate public consultation strand. Predictably, the two got conflated in the media reporting of the review. The review’s "most conclusive [finding]" that "when the formal legislative process is used, it is overwhelmingly effective" does not tally with our experience. Employers have not been overly perturbed by anything that is in the legislation.

It is at most an administrative inconvenience for an employer who does not want to give their permission or when they change their mind. This is not unions railing against an awkward truth. Recent high-profile examples of return-to-office mandates or changes to the minimum in-person attendance level and the close to 0% success rate for WRC cases taken by employees make abundantly clear that the right to request remote working as currently legislated is failing to deliver for far too many employees. My colleagues joining me today can share their members’ experience of the legislation. To be clear, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions acknowledges that no employee worldwide has an automatic right to freely choose where they perform their job. The 2023 Act provides a legal framework for making and managing requests to work remote, bringing us in line with statutory flexi-work rights across the EU and the rest of English-speaking world. However, we have legitimate concerns about the existing rules on refusing and withdrawing permission. The rules need strengthening and adding to the 32-page code of practice, as the review recommends, is not going to put the brakes on employers’ unchecked power to say no.

Turning to AI in the workplace, another national representative survey, a European Commission Eurobarometer survey of 1,006 people in Ireland - 26,400 in total across the EU - about their attitudes to the use of AI and the future of work in February 2024, found that two thirds of people are totally positive about the impact of new technologies including AI on their jobs while at the same time the survey reveals a strong appetite for protections on the use of AI in the workplace. Some 84% say it is important to have rules which protect workers’ privacy; 80% say it is important to have rules which involve workers and their representatives in the design and adoption of new technologies; 77% say it is important to have rules which enforce more transparency in the use of digital technologies to handle HR decision-making; 76% say it is important to have rules prohibiting fully automated decision-making processes; and 76% say it is important to have rules limiting the automated monitoring of employees. People in general and trade unions in particular are not looking to hold back the tide of progress. Most acknowledge the immense potential AI systems offer for improving their work and workplace when used in the right way, which requires guardrails around these largely invisible technologies and employers to consult with employees and their representatives. My colleagues joining me today can share their unions’ experience of consultation and agreements struck to secure AI protections for their members.

To ensure AI delivers for workers as much as for business, we need to equip employees with the skills required to keep pace with dramatic developments in the way we work. We also need to prepare for technological unemployment. We will need a just transition approach whereby policies are put in place so that where parts of jobs, whole jobs or whole industries become redundant, workers’ living standards are protected through pay-related income supports, retraining opportunities are available and the jobs of the future are quality jobs for displaced workers to move into. I thank members for their attention. We are happy to take any questions.

James O'Connor (Cork East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Dr. Bambrick.

Linda Nelson Murray (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is all really interesting. Why are employers not jumping on this to offer it? Employers could be making it known to their employees that it is available. What do they say is the reason they do not want it? I am thinking of friends of mine who work in banks who worked four or five days from home and are now being called back in. They are able to do maybe two days from home and three days up there or vice versa. They felt working from their home offices worked for them. They got a lot of work done and the commute takes a bit out of people as well. What is the reason employers say it is not working for them? I am an employer so it would be nice to know why employers say no to this.

Dr. Laura Bambrick:

Before I hand over to my colleague who represents members in the financial services sector, to keep it to the review, the review asks us to believe that when employers receive a request, there is a 97% approval rating and only 3% outright refusals. That is, within the margin of error, saying no employers are refusing a request. We do not accept that because of our experience but I am sure the Senator as an employer and from engaging with other employers will know not all jobs can be done remotely and not all businesses, perhaps given their size, such as micro-businesses, will be in a position to offer remote working. A review saying only 3% of employers are turning down a formal request lacks credibility.

Linda Nelson Murray (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The review also says employees do not seem to know they can ask their employer to have this. Is that not what the numbers say?

Dr. Laura Bambrick:

There are two things. It looks at the approval and refusal rates of those who have made a request and the employers who have received a request. Another finding as the Senator said is awareness of their legal right. Our understanding is most workers will use the company policy or collective agreement. They will not make an application for a hybrid arrangement based on the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023. They will go to the company employee handbook and find out how to make an application. That is one of the findings. Before I take up all of the Senator's time talking about the review, I will hand over to my colleague, Mr. McDowell, who represents members in the financial services sector.

Mr. Brian McDowell:

As Dr. Bambrick said, I work in the Financial Services Union. We represent people in all of the main retail banks, the tech sector, fintech, games and animators, the sectors really affected over the past 12 months by hybrid and remote working and changes imposed on staff. I would first like to highlight the difference between remote and hybrid. The banks are working hybrid. Very few are working fully remotely. When an employer makes the case that it will be better for collaboration, teamwork and so forth if people are in the office, it is not making a productivity case but it is saying it must be better but people in the banks, for example, are doing that. People in AIB were in two days a week anyway. Is that third day imposed on staff going to make such a difference to collaboration? They are having collaboration over the two days anyway. There is a big difference when talking about hybrid and remote. I do not want to get into the banks element of it because we are still in negotiations with both banks and in talks to try to resolve the issues that have come about. I have been in the Financial Services Union for five years. I have colleagues there 30 years and this is the biggest issue since the strike of 1992, I think, which has been quoted back to me. This issue, the imposition of more days in the office, is the biggest in the sector since then. We have people driving from Kerry, passing by their local hub and going to a Dublin office.

Linda Nelson Murray (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I assume the biggest issue for those people is the commuting time, taking away from family time and all of that.

Mr. Brian McDowell:

Absolutely.

Linda Nelson Murray (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Covid opened our eyes to lots of that.

Mr. Brian McDowell:

One can see it on the M7 and different roadways coming into Dublin in particular. They were working perhaps in the local branch or hub for their two days rather than travelling from Galway or Cork or wherever to Dublin.

Now if a contract states that the head office is Dublin, they need to come into Dublin. People are now making a decision that they do not really want to be travelling, as it probably means spending two nights in Dublin, so they leave. It may be easier for a person to leave and look for something else. That is the kind of effect it is having on our members.

I will make that case again on remote and hybrid that people are working in the office on a hybrid arrangement. When the case is made on the collaboration bit, they are collaborating, they are meeting their colleagues, they are doing everything that is being asked of them over the two days or whatever it might be. As members can imagine, we did a lot of surveys on this throughout the sector. We did one before Covid and one after Covid. In one example, when we asked our thousands of members how many worked fully remotely at that stage before Covid, we got 2%. That figure jumped during Covid straight away to 52%. These employments have been making enormous profits since then so they cannot make the case for productivity when they are making €2 billion in profits. I think it would be very difficult to make that case.

However, we are here from the unions, and I will make the case that we are looking to resolve these issues with the employer. That can only be done, and those negotiations can only happen, if we can collectively bargain with those employers. Employees in other companies, particularly the multinationals that have said to their employees they now need to be in for five days, have no trade unions and nobody representing them to try to negotiate with their employers. Across the sector, particularly the multinationals, they are calling employees back where they were fully remote or may have been on site for one day or two days. Now, employees are told they are wanted in the office for the full five days. Part of it comes down to training, where it seems easier to manage somebody when they are sitting in front of you rather than on a Teams call. Again, upskilling and everything else is involved throughout different organisations when they do that. A Government hub strategy has been published, or is due to be published. Why can employers not use those hubs for their employees rather than making them travel 200 km or whatever it might be?

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

While the unions are here, I will ask about AI, the outsourcing firms and the outsourced workers at Covalen. Do they have union representation?

Mr. Brian McDowell:

The Communications Workers Union, CWU, has represented a lot of workers in Covalen over the last 12 months and has done great work in recruiting a lot of members there as well. The CWU is representing those people there.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As Sinn Féin spokesperson for enterprise, tourism and employment, I am very concerned for the workers there and about the global announcement by Meta. Has the Government been engaging with the unions? What do the unions need the Government to do at this stage to ensure that the voices of the workers are heard?

Mr. Brian McDowell:

This goes back to collective bargaining and to a union being recognised and being able to negotiate on behalf of its members with the employer. I am a member of the Respect at Work campaign of a number of unions, the CWU being one of them. We put a pledge to everybody, probably including everyone here, before the election to support collective bargaining legislation. Without that the employee is left in limbo like those people in Covalen. Covalen will not talk to the CWU. We will absolutely push very hard. I know that Owen Reidy on behalf of ICTU has been pushing very hard for collective bargaining legislation. There is an EU minimum wage directive, which we feel was not fully transposed, but there is now a national action plan. As part of that national action plan, we would certainly ask every Senator and TD here to support that legislation for collective bargaining to allow an employee to at least have representation from a trade union.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Absolutely.

Mr. Brian McDowell:

The world will not end if that happens and when it does happen. We have it in the banks and it works very well.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is Mr. McDowell saying that the management at Covalen will not talk to the union?

Mr. Brian McDowell:

I do not want to talk for the CWU but my understanding is that they will not.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay. Certainly, this committee would encourage them to do that. We are all concerned for the future of the employees there. The Minister needs to meet and engage as well with the unions to ensure that everything possible is being done in terms of-----

James O'Connor (Cork East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry to interject but I just want to be careful because we are discussing a specific case that is not on today's agenda. I hate to be rude but I just wanted to put that on the record.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I appreciate that but it is in the public domain and I think it would be remiss of us here not to mention it. The witnesses are here engaging with us as unions. As they rightly say, it is about the power of collective bargaining. That is why we brought the motion, with the support of ICTU, to the Dáil last night. I am terribly disappointed that the Government sought to put in an amendment to that. It really focuses minds on the legal right to collective bargaining and the legal right for unions to have access to workers. It has to be recognised that Ireland is the absolute outlier in this case. As we go on and we transition, and there is a transition there in terms of AI and other things, workers have never worked so hard and struggled so much, yet too many workers are in such a precarious position. We have workers who are earning a very decent salary, but to go with that they have huge commitments with huge rents and mortgages and everything else. Were those jobs to be lost without having a plan in place to protect those workers and their families, it really brings it home to us all why that legal right to access and to collective bargaining needs to be to the forefront. We need action on it and we need action on it now. We cannot just let it continue.

If work can be done from home but the employers are refusing the request, what do unions believe should be the next course of action for the employee?

Dr. Laura Bambrick:

Their course of action when they are refused is the legislation. They can take a case to the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC, but the WRC and the Labour Court can only look at the procedures. Were the procedures followed in a timely way? Were they done correctly? Did the employee get a written response? Did that employee get it within four weeks or eight weeks? The WRC and the Labour Court cannot make a decision on the grounds for refusal. Our case is that the rules around refusing a request have to be strengthened.

One of the simple ways is in one example where we looked at the late responses. In the employee survey, 4% of employees were waiting longer than eight weeks, which is a requirement in the legislation, and another 4% had no formal response. In the public consultation, that went up to 8% longer and 11% with no formal response. In the Dutch system, if an employer does not respond to the employee within the time set out in their legal framework, it is automatically conceded that the employee gets the right to remote working. We are not looking for a definitive right to work remotely. We are looking for a strengthening of the rules around how requests are made and managed. There are plenty of examples of how different countries do it and how we could do it well.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a very short time left. I know this is quite new, but is there any evidence to show that if a worker is part of a union they have a better chance of having their request heard favourably?

Dr. Laura Bambrick:

We would like to think that we are able to get them the remote working arrangement or hybrid working arrangement, before going to the WRC, because we know the ins and outs of the legislation. We do not advise employees to take a case to the WRC or the Labour Court because we know the limitations of it. If a person cannot rely on the legislation, collective bargaining from a trade union is the only thing a person can fall back on.

John Clendennen (Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chair for accommodating my tardiness and I welcome the witnesses. I was in the Chamber, so I was not asleep in the office or anything like that. I want to pick up where Deputy Conway-Walsh left off. In relation to working from home and the determining factors and giving employees the option to choose where to perform their duties, where do the witnesses see the line in terms of those determining factors from an employee's perspective versus an employer's perspective?

Dr. Laura Bambrick:

We are saying that we have to strike a better balance. At the moment, the cards are all in the employer's hand. That is coming from a place where we recognise that not all jobs can be done remotely, not all employees are suitable for doing remote working and not all companies are in a position to provide it, given their small size. It is around tightening up the rules of engagement. If employers were in any way hamstrung by this legislation, we would be hearing from individual employers or their representatives. None of the employer representative groups are looking for any amendment to this legislation and that alone should be an alarm bell ringing. They are never behind the houses in asking for more time or a dilution of rights when it is causing them to do something where they feel the balance has been tipped too much in the favour of the employee. While we have time, I will hand over to my colleague, Mr. Donoghue, who represents public and civil servants. and he can point to some first-hand accounts.

Mr. Kevin Donoghue:

Our view is that the legislation as it is currently put together is remarkably weak, in that there is no recourse. If someone submits a request to work remotely or in a hybrid setting and the employer denies it there is no recourse that results in the person securing remote or hybrid work. That is extremely frustrating. I asked a number of officials in Fórsa about this and their view is there is no point in taking a case on it where the right to a request has been denied, because the remedy that the person would be seeking is not available to them as a result of that. It is better to pursue it under existing policies or through negotiation or whatever. As I said earlier, the interventions today through the legislation or the consultation are inadequate. We are left in a position whereby workers' only recourse if they want to demand better remote working policies or expand existing remote working policies is through collective action. Fórsa is prepared to participate and support members in that, whether that is in the public sector, where we have seen examples of employers issuing mandates to return to the office without adequate consultation or evidence, or in the private sector, where employers are essentially totally unencumbered by legislative obligation to provide access to remote or hybrid work. We did a survey of members' working arrangements of people who work remotely, hybrid or fully on site. Mr. McDowell mentioned a moment ago that it is largely a hybrid thing and that is the case. Some 19,000 people responded to our survey and when the results are fully concluded and available I would be happy to make them available to the committee. This is a critical issue for out members. They really care about it and they are really willing to do something about it. The report on the consultation that says there is essentially nothing to see here is not something we agree with.

John Clendennen (Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To get a greater insight into the issue. if a request from an employer to return to the office was based on overall business performance and productivity, would Mr. Donoghue see that as a reasonable request?

Mr. Kevin Donoghue:

It was mentioned a moment ago that we are mostly talking about hybrid working, so people are actually already in the office in the vast majority of cases. If employers want to have a conversation about anchor days, productivity or collaboration, that is one thing. However, it is not reasonable to say that people are needed in the office 20% more, 40% more, or 80% of the week with no evidence to support it or no metrics to measure whether or not it is successful.

John Clendennen (Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is productivity and business performance sufficient evidence?

Mr. Kevin Donoghue:

At the moment, employers just have to cite business needs but there is no need to provide evidence.

John Clendennen (Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What kind of evidence?

Mr. Kevin Donoghue:

The survey we have conducted would suggest that people are actually better at doing their job when they have focus in remote working. For example if we are talking about-----

John Clendennen (Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I appreciate that, but the question is in relation to the employer. If the employer was to show adequate evidence, what would that evidence look like?

Mr. Kevin Donoghue:

It depends on the individual employment.

John Clendennen (Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Give us one example of evidence that would be used to make a compelling argument.

Mr. Kevin Donoghue:

That an employer would make?

John Clendennen (Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Mr. Kevin Donoghue:

If they wanted to talk, say, about increased levels of collaboration among team members and they were to say that Wednesday might be an anchor day or there might be a particular anchor day where we ensure that people are working collaboratively because more of the team are in. We have seen situations whereby people are being told that in order to increase teamwork and collaboration, they need to come into the office more. They come in on a Wednesday and it turns out the rest of the team are actually working from home or working remotely that day. It is not as if we are opposed to the issue of talking about how we can improve performance or whatever else in an individual employment but what has been happening to date is that employers are stating that they just want people back in the office more often and it is not backed up by evidence. That is my point.

We have done a survey, as I mentioned before, and we will provide the results when they are available. It is talking about the experience of workers who are working remotely, hybrid, or fully on-site.

John Clendennen (Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I just want to play devil's advocate for a moment. There has been an element of churn in an organisation and the employer is concerned about the culture. Would Mr. Donoghue see that as an adequate reason to bring people back to the office more?

Mr. Kevin Donoghue:

It could be looked at but a survey of what the culture is like now would have to be conducted and where is it that it needs to be improved.

John Clendennen (Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When Mr. Donoghue talks about rules, what metrics are we working off?

Mr. Kevin Donoghue:

It depends.

John Clendennen (Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It cannot really depend; we have to set a clear direction.

Mr. Kevin Donoghue:

Sure, but I am anxious not to say that this specific way of looking at culture is the only way we could possibly look at culture.

John Clendennen (Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am just giving one example of culture. We need flexibility but we need an element of clarity as well in integration and direction of travel.

Mr. Brian McDowell:

Would it not be great to be having these conversations?

John Clendennen (Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are having these conversations.

Mr. Brian McDowell:

We are not against having these conversations with the employer but the employer is not having those conversations with their employees. Absolutely, make the business case, recognise the trade union, let us go in, let us sit down and let us talk about it. Of course everybody wants employment to grow and to flourish and for good jobs to be created but the employers are not having those conversations. The employers are issuing a diktat to their employees saying for business needs they need to be in three days a week, without making any case whatsoever. We would all love to be having those conversations with employers if that is the direction they want to take but they are not having those conversations and that is the difficulty.

Dr. Laura Bambrick:

Under the legislation-----

James O'Connor (Cork East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise for cutting across you but we are out of time. We are under pressure today because we have two sessions, so I apologise.

Mary Fitzpatrick (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for being here for this important discussion. It is one that a lot of workers and employers are really engaged in. I was taken by Mr. McDowell's point that it would be good for employers to have this conversation with the unions and employees. I think it is a conversation that is taking place in an awful lot of workplaces already. I hear it from both sides, from workers and employers. Will Mr. McDowell elaborate on his assertion that a diktat is coming from employers to return to the office? How would he quantify how widespread that diktat is?

Mr. Brian McDowell:

I can only speak for the sector that the FSU represents. For example, if we look at the two banks, AIB and Bank of Ireland, where it blew up over the summer months, that was a diktat to their employees where they said by email that they would go from two days a week to three days a week and similarly from two days to eight days a month. They were diktats. A number of multinationals told their employees – they did not go to the trade unions because they do not recognise trade unions - they wanted them back full time. Again, all you have to say is “business needs”. There were no conversations. We represent people in a lot of the multinationals. They did not have one conversation with us. We represent them. They pay their money to us so that we can represent them.

Mary Fitzpatrick (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What does Mr. McDowell think is driving the diktats?

Mr. Brian McDowell:

The Senator would probably need to get the employers in here to answer that. I can only speculate and maybe this is not the place to speculate on that. I think it is partly that people think it when you see someone in front of you it is easier to manage that person rather than managing on Teams and so forth.

Mary Fitzpatrick (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Have the unions done any investigation or survey of it to try to quantify what is driving that behaviour? I can see a lot of benefits for employers in terms of facilitating hybrid working and remote working. There are a lot of benefits in terms of talent retention. That is a huge one in a full employment market where there is a lot of competition to secure talent and where recruitment is a very significant challenge and retention is a big priority. Hybrid and remote working is a relatively low cost retention mechanism. What investigations have the unions done to understand what is driving the behaviour from the employers’ perspective? Is it a cost issue? If so, how is that quantified?

Dr. Laura Bambrick:

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, if we look at the CSO figures one third of the workforce is working in remote and hybrid mode, so it is a success. Like all employment legislation, it is only there to set a minimum standards and for when things go wrong. What happens if an employer is refusing permission for you to work from home or withdrawing that permission and calling you back for more office days? The legislation, as currently drafted and enacted, only requires the employer to state a reason. They do not have to provide evidence that that reason is being caused by the remote or hybrid arrangement or how by bringing you back into the office, or bringing you back more days is going to resolve their problem. Also, they only have to provide that one word, if it is culture, in a written letter. There is nothing in the legislation that requires them to have a one-to-one conversation with the individual employee. Whatever about not recognising us-----

Mary Fitzpatrick (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Dr. Bambrick really think we need to legislate for employers to have a conversation with their employee?

Dr. Laura Bambrick:

But that is where the diktat is coming from. Staff get a letter that states the organisation is having a full call-back to the office with a five-day in-work mandate”. Last night, there was the example that appeared in The Journal where they are returning Aer Lingus workers to four days in service. Previously it had been three and before that it had been two. It is very hard to get behind that when only one word or two words, “business needs”, has been given for the reason behind it and they do not have to have individual conversations with people around it. If you bring a case, the adjudication officer cannot decide on the credibility of what is being cited. It is really difficult to look and do any robust legislation from what is behind that diktat.

Mary Fitzpatrick (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In the last minute and a half I have, the witnesses have called for a strengthening. Will they elaborate? Will they give some specific examples of how the process needs to be strengthened?

Dr. Laura Bambrick:

Again, a tightening up around the response time and there has to be a reason. My colleagues here in the FSU took the single successful case to the WRC. It was the one case on this that has ever been found in favour of an employee and that was for a late response. The only thing that was available to the adjudicating officer was a fine and it was decided not to fine the employer because it was not going to change the outcome of the case – they were still not going to get their hybrid working arrangement.

We could have better enforcement. I mentioned the Dutch case whereby when an employer long-fingers or refuses to engage with the process, that automatically is seen as a “Yes”. It is really around there being more engagement first. If they are going to withdraw or deny permission, there has to be face-to-face engagement to have a conversation exactly like we had here with the Senator's colleague about what is justifiable to bring people back. We have to tip the balance of power a bit more in favour of employees because at the moment, they have no power in this conversation.

Albert Dolan (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for being with us today. I know a lot of the conversation today has centred around remote working and the right to be in the office or the right to be at home. I guess it is the right to choose.

On a separate note, does ICTU have concerns about potential AI job losses or job losses resulting from the development of AI? Does it have any idea what percentage of the workforce it represents are considered knowledge workers? Has it done any assessments on that?

Dr. Laura Bambrick:

I will hand over to both of my colleagues who have been involved in representing their members who are more exposed than most to AI and have had negotiations on that.

Mr. Brian McDowell:

From a financial services point of view, we have done research with our members across the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland on the effects of AI on the financial services sector. I am happy to share that with everybody on the committee. The results were stark, to say the least. I will give a few of them: 88% of our members fear job losses. There is a notable statistic that by 2030, the share of financial services tasks completed by technology is expected to outpace the share of tasks completed predominantly by humans. We are in 2026 so we are four years away from that. This is a runaway train. As Dr. Bambrick pointed out, we are not against this. AI has many advantages as well but 63% of jobs in financial services in Ireland are at risk from AI, particularly clerical and administrative. We have huge fears that those jobs, without proper regulation, proper oversight and without the legislators actually acting, that it will be like social media and they will be gone and there is no putting it back because AI is changing by the day – nearly by the hour – in relation to what you can do and so on.

Albert Dolan (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

From a productivity point of view, what I see and hear from employers, is that people who are high performers are becoming orchestrators of multiple AIs and multiple agents to fulfil many tasks that their team could fulfil. Mr. McDowell kind of said that he wants to pull it back from running away-----

Mr. Brian McDowell:

No, what I am saying is it is like every change in the workplace – it needs to be managed. Without that management and that regulation around it, it will be a runaway train and we will not be able to pull it back so that it actually benefits the employee and the employer. It has to benefit both.

Albert Dolan (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How does ICTU envisage protecting employees throughout what will undoubtedly be an incredibly turbulent time? On that statistic that 88% of people who are working in the financial sector fear job losses, from what I see coming out of companies like OpenAI or Anthropic and Claude, the products they are developing not only on a monthly basis but on a weekly basis are incredible. It is incredible innovation and this is a new era. The question is, how does ICTU navigate that?

Mr. Brian McDowell:

It is incredible. There is no doubt whatsoever this has great opportunities, but there are obviously challenges to it as well. The FSU has done an agreement with Bank of Ireland, for example. We have done an AI agreement and collectively bargained with Bank of Ireland on how that change will be managed. We are not saying to Bank of Ireland that it cannot bring in AI or utilise it. We will manage it together. The employer then needs to make sure the employees it is asking to manage that are skilled, trained, ready and comfortable using AI. There is a human-centric approach to it. Who makes the final decision? Going back to my own sector, looking at the cyberattacks, scams, fraud and so on, we need a human-centric approach.

Albert Dolan (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree 100%. A huge concern I have is around youth unemployment. I was fortunate enough to go through a graduate training contract and to learn the trade as an accountant. That gives you knowledge and understanding and you learn it from the ground up, so you would be in a position to utilise AI. What about the young people who are coming out of college now, if they do not get the opportunity to ever learn the basics? Does the FSU represent younger employees who are starting out in their careers? How do we ensure that they get the experience over the coming years?

Mr. Brian McDowell:

Training and upskilling are vital to the implementation of AI in the workplace. It is vital that the people using it are comfortable using it and are able to use it. You cannot give somebody an AI manual, tell them to read it and tick the box at the end, and that is their training done. There has to be time given to this, including time off, and training schedules put in, to ensure people are comfortable to use it. We are not saying AI has not got advantages. We are saying that the change AI brings to the workplace needs to be managed. It needs to be managed properly in the colleges and all the way through, from young graduates coming in. It has to be done through collaboration between the employer, the employee and the employees' representative, which is the trade union. That is the best way to do it.

Mr. Kevin Donoghue:

The Deputy touched on this himself. It is a technology with enormous potential but there is enormous risk associated with it as well. Even the report from the National Economic and Social Council, NESC, yesterday, said that "the trajectory of AI capability remains genuinely uncertain, and that regulatory approaches must be agile, anticipatory and continuously updated", rather than static responses to already embedded technologies. We agree with that. Fórsa recognises that we have a role to play in being agile and responsive to that. We think that successful deployment of AI in the workforce requires open, active consultation and co-design between workers, unions and employers.

The current public sector pay agreement acknowledges a leading role for the public service in embracing and adapting to developments in digitalisation. We would welcome that but, in practice, we have not seen the level of consultation we feel is required for the deployment of those new technologies. Even the Department of public expenditure's own guidelines make insufficient reference to the need to engage with employees, unions and so on. We represent workers in the public and private sectors but it is largely public sector. The State has a role to play in providing leadership on what consultation and co-design look like and so on. That will be really important.

George Lawlor (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses who have come forward today. To go back briefly to the discussion we were having on collective bargaining, I am reminded of a company in Wexford. When you joined the company they insisted that you join the union. That was back in the old days. They insisted on the basis that if there was an individual dispute or question mark over an issue, they did not just want to talk to the individual or group involved but they wanted to talk to representatives in a structured way. They did not want to have Johnny or Mary in the corner having a difficulty and no one representing them. Effectively, the unions were doing the negotiating for them and doing all the arrangements. Some 55 years later, that is still one of the most efficient companies in Wexford, employing people in really good jobs, and is a really good employer. It is an exemplar of how collective bargaining works on the ground and the benefits from it.

In respect of remote working, I get very frustrated when this discussion comes up. I recently proposed a Bill in the Chamber for remote working. "Where practical" was one of the key points in it but I also had a lot of protections for the employer in it, in respect of the likes of GDPR and confidentiality. If it was compromised, they could refuse. Site suitability, health and safety of the employee were also taken into account. With some of the responses I got in the Chamber, I thought I was after asking the employer to chop his leg off. That was the reaction of some of the people who were speaking against the Bill. The Government was full force against it. It said the right to request was there, which is meaningless in the context of what was being asked. If 94% of requests are being acceded to, why not introduce the right? If it is successful and the Government is that confident in the figures it is peddling out, why is the right to remote work not enshrined in everything we are doing? Why not strengthen it and give that assurance to workers? I think it is because so many lobby groups are influencing from outside. There was almost a fear from the Ministers involved. One back-bencher from one of the Government parties said we were spreading false hope to employees that this was available.

This is about improving the quality of life of the employee but also the productivity. If you have someone sitting in a car for two hours to get to a job in Dublin, the productivity when they get there is going to be an awful lot less than after they drop the kids to schools and log on. Suddenly you have a happier employee. The Department of enterprise, for example, is calling people back to the office. We are talking about the request for remote work. That Department is asking them to go back - I think it is in Ringsend - somewhere it is difficult to get to. Public transport is difficult in the area. Ironically, my colleague, Deputy Mark Wall, proposed a right to flexible work Bill in the Dáil. He left Athy at 6.30 a.m. and was late to propose the question because of the traffic congestion on the N7.

This is about enshrining initiatives in the way we do work. The notion in this country that, God forbid, we protect employees is often sent out with an air of suspicion: why are we doing this? This is not compulsory either. There is this notion sent out that the right to remote work will become compulsory and people will have to do it. It is about the employee making the decision for themselves in alliance and in consultation with the employer. It is about good relations. Employers talk about the mental health of employees not mixing or interacting with colleagues in work. Let them decide what is best for them, in alliance and in consultation with employers. Mr. McDowell spoke about the fact they would love to have these conversations. That is part of the problem. These conversations are not being had, not just in this but in other areas. The notion that you would request employers to turn up at a joint labour committee, JLC, rather than having a veto is anathema to some people.

This has to be looked at far more seriously than just glib statements being made by Government parties when a proposal is made. Deputy Gibney is about to bring a similar Bill before the Houses.

Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A better Bill.

George Lawlor (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will have a look at it. We really have to start thinking seriously about how we treat each other, employers and employees, if we are to become that European country that we aspire to be. I find the reaction of others frustrating at times.

James O'Connor (Cork East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will just remind members to be careful of time if they expect a response.

Mr. Brian McDowell:

We look forward to looking at Deputy Gibney's Bill.

If I was able to do a job in a hybrid fashion for a couple of years, productivity was good, there were no issues and I was being managed properly, would it not be fair to say that I could do that going forward, too? The Employment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2018 deals with banded hours. We would look for an amendment to that Act such that if people are working two days remotely for those two years, then that should be put in their contract and they should be entitled to have that in their contract going forward. That is a reasonable request. If people are able to do it for two years and the business has not raised any issues with it, and there are no issues with the productivity levels, surely that could be put into their contract? That is something that legislators could look at too.

Mr. Kevin Donoghue:

It is fundamentally about balance. Bringing people back into the office more frequently can have a materially negative impact on their lives and their communities if they have to commute from Wexford, Galway, Mayo or wherever. Employees should be able to make a case for why they are able to work remotely or in hybrid situations in a much more balanced fashion than is currently facilitated.

James O'Connor (Cork East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Our minds are normally on equine matters this week, Senator McCarthy, but it is great to see you.

Aubrey McCarthy (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am delighted to be here, even though the Punchestown races are on. I have been listening about the remote working policies. I am involved in much charitable work, but also in the haulage industry, a number of businesses and a café. I feel bad for the employees because they are not entitled to remote working. Last year, RTÉ had a focus on Denis O'Brien in May and November. He criticised it and said it is wild nonsense, that we have made a big mistake and that it has destroyed the work ethic and Irish competitiveness. What are the witnesses' views on that? It is not to criticise an individual, but there is certainly a viewpoint on that. What are the justifiable and fair reasons for people working remotely or flexibly rather than their going back to the office?

Dr. Laura Bambrick:

It is interesting that the Senator mentioned two very different sectors that he is involved in, namely the charitable sector and the haulage sector. We are finding that the charitable sector is one of the bigger users of remote and hybrid working, because it allows them to compete pretty costlessly with the big glass-box employers. If a charity is looking for somebody in financial services, it might not be able to give the very inflated pay that a glass-box employer can give. If it can offer more remote and hybrid working, however, that whole package becomes much more attractive to employees.

For the Senator's colleagues in the haulage industry, who will not have the opportunity to work remotely, because the type of job does not allow it, when congress recognised that gap in our employment law regarding employees' rights to request remote working, we initially asked that all employees be able to request a flexible working arrangement. Remote working is only one type of flexible working. Flexible working more generally might relate to job-sharing, part-time work, or maybe term-time work, which would involve not working during summer or Easter when children are on holidays. Because we got that limited right to request remote working, only one type of flexible working, we are seeing a work-life balance privilege gap evolving, opening up between those who are in jobs that can be done in a remote, hybrid way, and those who are in jobs that cannot be done that way.

Aubrey McCarthy (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is there such a big gap between the views there and remote working? The charity I am involved in is all hands-on. That is because it is about feeding the homeless, through the Lighthouse, and rehabilitation. They are jealous of other people in the charity world too.

Dr. Laura Bambrick:

There are probably lots who do part-time work-----

Aubrey McCarthy (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Dr. Laura Bambrick:

-----or flexible start times. That is flexible work.

Aubrey McCarthy (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think it is a case of sitting down and asking what works best. I know life is short, and I realise that people have to enjoy work. It has to add to their life rather than just providing a salary. I am fully on the same page regarding that. It is a pity there is such a gap between the views on RTÉ, saying this has been destructive, and it is a pity we cannot bridge that gap. Maybe we are working at that.

I spoke to an architect who was doing work on a women's refuge about AI. He said that his job will be at risk over the next years. In their statement, the witnesses call for a just transition approach to AI-driven job displacement. What clear focus and what policies, such as retraining, income protection, and so on, need to be prioritised, and what is ICTU pushing?

Dr. Laura Bambrick:

I will mention one before I let my colleagues in. Irish workers currently do not have a right to paid leave for training, upskilling and reskilling. In other rich European countries, people can get it paid for out of their social insurance. It is similar to taking paid time off for family leave, where people get a certain payment from their social insurance contribution. At the same time as us not having the right to paid training leave, we have a training levy, the national training fund, of close to €2 billion, and we are not facilitating people like the Senator's architect friend to take time off, assuming they are an employee and not self-employed. Even self-employed people are making a contribution into the national training fund.

Aubrey McCarthy (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would say that is why many of congress' members are worried, because their jobs are at risk with how fast AI is moving. What protection is there for them in how fast-paced all of this is?

Mr. Brian McDowell:

AI will create new jobs. I represent people working in our financial services. There is no doubt that AI will create new jobs and replace jobs. I have gone through how that change is managed. How can people whose jobs will be affected upskill and move into the new jobs that are being created? How is time being put aside to ensure that they are being trained, upskilled, and will be the ones moving into those new jobs? They are conversations that do not happen when the AI has been introduced, but should be happening now, with the trade unions. I go back to the Bank of Ireland AI agreement that we did. That change is to be managed through collective bargaining, through our normal procedures. We are having those conversations. We are looking at some jobs that AI may affect. While we are looking at those jobs that may be affected, we need to upskill and train those people so they can take the new jobs that are coming in.

Aubrey McCarthy (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I hear Mr. McDowell. I would say the jobs that will be created will not be in the same numbers as the jobs that are being lost because of AI, but that is just speculative.

Mr. Brian McDowell:

That is possible. It is not about being against the change that AI will bring. It is about looking at whether people are comfortable doing it, but even in AI, if you look at the bias in it-----

Aubrey McCarthy (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The bias.

Mr. Brian McDowell:

There is a built-in bias in AI, particularly regarding gender. I have attended many conferences, and even spoke at one. The main people building AI are young males. There is a gender bias online. That is where AI is getting its information. There is a clear gender bias. Without that human-centric approach and a human being in control, that bias will be developed and grown as things go on. There are many regulations and accountability. Who is in charge of that AI? The decision is not made by a human. It is made somewhere else. Who is accountable for that decision? That is why everything needs to be done. Stakeholder engagement needs to be enormous. There is an AI committee. We briefed the chairperson in our own research and we look forward to coming in and having the conversation. Those are the conversations that need to be had between the employer and employee.

Change always happens in the workplace, and the best way of managing it is through dialogue and stakeholder engagement.

James O'Connor (Cork East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

One of the witnesses wrote a very interesting article that was published in the Irish Independent. I wish them well, and I think everybody in the committee feels that way. It is interesting that they highlighted it. I thank them.

I want to come back in on what Deputy Dolan spoke about, that is, challenges in the labour market from a young person's perspective. I meet a lot of bright, talented people who have just graduated and they speak to me of their concerns and struggles, the lack of opportunity to get into the private sector and the impact AI is having.

Ms McDowell said something interesting about the 88% of respondents in the financial services sector who are concerned about AI. Does he think the Department of enterprise is fully dialled in when it comes to the pace of change? I spoke about this with the Department. From looking at US modelling, there are expectations. For example, Anthropic's chief executive predicts that up to 60% of blue-collar jobs in the United States could be redundant by 2030. Other governments are planning for a future without income tax. Are we moving at the pace we need to move at? In South Korea, for example, they have a tax on robots. What does the near future look like for employment here? We are dealing with a period of four or five years here.

Mr. Brian McDowell:

Every day, we see another piece of research on the effects AI might have on the jobs market, employers and employees. Most of them say the same thing: it will have an effect on employees, particularly graduates. It is normally at entry level in organisations that AI will take over in the first instance.

The Deputy asked if the Department is dialled in. There is an AI committee set up. It has been going since the start of this Dáil. It has not heard from one trade union regarding what workers think. Given that it has not done so, you would think that there is an issue here. It can get employers in who are to benefit dramatically from AI, more than likely, with less overheads and so forth, but it is about the employees who are fearful for their jobs and graduates coming out of college who are unable to get into the jobs market because a machine is doing the job they went to college for four years to do. We have to look at this differently. We need a holistic approach where every stakeholder is involved. This is part of the future.

I said at the start we need regulation and legislation to ensure this is managed properly. We met with the Central Bank and have gone through this. The Central Bank is conscious of the offshoring and onshoring of jobs, which was mentioned earlier. Without stakeholder engagement and discussion, we will only hear one viewpoint. Our concern is that it will move so quickly that the opportunities for young graduates - and there will be opportunities with AI - will not be resolved. We need full stakeholder engagement and the Department has to be dedicated to ensuring that, in the next couple of years, the AI committee looks at this with real involvement from different stakeholders.

James O'Connor (Cork East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is very interesting. I will definitely mention it to the Cathaoirleach of that committee. Our committee will be doing pre-legislative scrutiny of any future AI legislation as well.

I have a comment, and it is not a question. I have huge concerns for gen Z generally because of the level of disruption from going through higher education and having to deal with the pandemic, the Covid lockdowns and the impact on people's lives, and now from the AI cutbacks coming down the tracks. Huge companies like Meta and others with operations located not far from the gates of Leinster House have started to cut back. I wonder if this will come at us like a tidal wave and we will not be ready. The national AI office is not fully functioning yet, which is a concern.

In order to accommodate our guests, I will cut my remarks short. I am delighted to see Deputy Gibney here from the Social Democrats. She is very welcome.

Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Cathaoirleach for cutting his time short. I appreciate it. I will focus on flexible and remote working arrangements, but I want to pick up on the comments relating to AI that Mr. McDowell finished on. I am a member of the committee in question, so I will defend it. We are approaching the matter in modular fashion. Part of the reason for that is the rapid advancement of AI and technology. We do not want to do a two-year piece and then do a report on it. We have done AI in the State and are finishing AI in defence. There is no question but the unions will be in to that committee. I came into this with huge concerns around AI and labour displacement, but we have not been able to get near it because there are so many fires to put out in terms of what is happening on social media platforms, the online harms being inflicted on society and the failure of regulation to deal with that. Grok and all that means, for example, took up everybody's thought space in the past few months. Labour displacement is a big thing. I am screaming it from the roof tops and I think it is something for now. I would love a separate conversation on that but I will focus on this.

As Deputy Lawlor mentioned, I have legislation. I was joking with him there but I think it is more substantial legislation because I have worked through the OPLA to get to this point. It is much beefier legislation and deals with a lot of existing legislation that needs to be amended. I was interested to hear the witnesses' comments because I think some of the features they are talking about are there; others might be lacking but perhaps we can get to that on Committee Stage, should the Government support us. On two occasions yesterday, I had exchanges with Government representatives on this. We are being told there is nothing to see here, legislation was introduced, it is all working fine and we are grand. I do not feel that is the picture on the ground. I want to get as much information from the witnesses to back me up on that as possible. That 94% statistic is positive but it applies to 70 cases - 34 in 2024, 33 in 2025 and only six so far this year. That is a crazy statistic and there is no mention that it is such a small number when we hear that statistic from the Government.

The other statistic the Government mentioned twice yesterday, and I ask the witnesses to speak to this, is there were 1 million cases reported from the CSO - I think they said in quarter 4 of last year, but from the CSO stats I think it is quarter 1 they are referring to - of people sometimes or occasionally working from home or accessing remote or hybrid working. That either means they are spending 50%-plus time working from home or have more than hour. Those are quite different ends of the spectrum to jumble together. When you look at the breakdown of that, it is about 500,000 each. I started thinking how many people are employed in the public sector. It is 400,000, roughly. They make up the bulk of that working-from-home access, as far as I am concerned.

The issue I have with all this, as we were discussing in the Chamber yesterday, is none of this legislation will work as long as the power imbalance between employer representative groups, trade unions and employers continues to exist, particularly in the private sector. I have worked in the private sector and public sector and been self-employed, so I know how this works.

Those are my thoughts on it. I will hand over to the witnesses to give me as much information as they can behind those figures and tell us about the picture on the ground.

Dr. Laura Bambrick:

I will deal will the CSO figures and hand over to Mr. Donoghue to discuss the public service. The Government mentioned around 1 million, and that is correct. In quarter 1 of last year, it went just over 1 million and then was clawed back slightly. We are seeing some changes but they are around the margins. If you look at where jobs are lost over a particular quarter, that usually explains where the drop around the margins is for those doing remote working. The headline a few weeks ago when the most recent quarterly report came out was that there have never been more people not working from home. That was about the growth in the labour force overall and was driven by construction and education, which are not necessarily sectors in which we will see remote working. The 17,000 loss was in financial services and professional services, which are areas with high rates of remote working. That is where the marginal change was. It is in and around 1 million and is made up of those mostly or sometimes working from home.

It is important that the committee realise that that is both employee and self-employed. That is not near around a million employees. That is an important caveat. In addition, pre-2019, before the outbreak of Covid, there were between 400,000 and 500,000 employees already working hybrid. NESC is doing a larger piece of work looking at remote working and it is drilling down into the figures. I sit on the group and we have not finished the report yet. What I believe will come out of this is that that 1 million figure is over-egged at the moment because when we look at the employee and the employer, when we look at the number of agricultural workers who say they sometimes work from home, most of their work might be out and about doing what agricultural workers do but they are doing the accounts at home on the kitchen table and then being captured in that figure.

Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That CSO figure surely does not capture formal arrangements, for example, versus-----

Dr. Laura Bambrick:

No, and to go back to this review, it looks only at the formal arrangements. I was looking in at proceedings here last night. On two occasions, the Private Members' Bill and the Deputy's parliamentary question, I saw that 94% approval rate, which is based on a subsample of 124 employees who had made a formal request. The number of employees, the 97% success rate from employers, is based on a subsample of 72 employers. There are over 500,000 employments in this country and we are looking at 72. That is the narrative at the moment, that this legislation is working, and it is hinging on that 94% based on those tiny subsamples.

James O'Connor (Cork East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Unfortunately, our time has expired because we have a second session today with the new chairperson of Enterprise Ireland. Before we conclude, I express my gratitude and thanks to all of you for your time. It was an exciting discussion. Dr. Laura Bambrick, Mr. Kevin Donoghue and Mr. Brian McDowell, you are all very welcome here and we look forward to future engagement with you.

The committee will suspend for a number of minutes while we allow our next witnesses a chance to come in.