Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)

Since I began my contribution on this Bill, I challenged the Taoiseach, Deputy Brian Cowen, during Leaders' Questions last week to rule out cuts to the statutory minimum wage. It was alarming that the Taoiseach failed to rule out such an attack on the lowest paid workers in our society. That is something that every political opinion, the wider public and in particular the trade union movement should note carefully. Instead, the Taoiseach attempted to justify the decision to exempt top civil servants from the full effects of pay cuts while lower paid public servants are punished. Last night the Government parties - I emphasise with all their Deputies in attendance - confirmed their support for the higher paid civil servants when they voted down the Private Members' motion that sought to address the inequity of the Government's approach.

Following the savage budget cuts to wages, social welfare and public services, there were immediate calls from some representatives of business interests for a reduction in the minimum wage. This is exactly as trade unionists, Sinn Féin and others predicted, namely, that an attack on the wages of lower paid public service workers would lead to similar attacks on workers in the private sector. Now the Taoiseach has refused to rule out a further attack on the least well off.

The Taoiseach also defended the Government's intention to table amendments to the Bill before the House, on Committee Stage, to allow employers to apply to the Labour Court for exemptions from the requirements of employment regulation orders, EROs, and registered employment agreements, REAs. For decades these orders and agreements have protected workers from exploitation and ensured there are agreed minimum rates of pay in industries across the economy. If these amendments are forced through, then we shall see pay rates across the economy driven down to the minimum wage level and below.

It will see the statutory minimum wage rate being slashed by the Government. If that happens, the Government will go on to reduce social welfare rates further, using the argument that they are a disincentive to work. - an argument we have heard used, all too sadly, in the past. Government policy is also encouraging profitable companies to lay off workers unnecessarily, as for example in Rye Valley Foods in County Monaghan or to impose unacceptable working conditions, as in Kingspan in County Cavan, both of which are in my constituency. A reversal of pay cuts for lower paid public servants must be put on the table if there is to be any hope of a resumption of social partnership negotiations. We need to see social partnership coming back, but only with the full realisation by Government and employers that the lower paid public servants must have those cuts reversed.

In the talks before the budget the public service unions were prepared to agree sweeping changes in work practices that would have had major implications for workers in the health sector in particular. This was thrown away by the Government, which is clearly determined to drive forward with a low pay policy in the public and private sectors regardless of the consequences. It is claimed by some that the minimum wage and agreements on overtime for Sundays are responsible for the recession in certain sectors. However, if one examines wages in certain sectors, such as hospitality, one finds not only are they low in comparison to others, but also that they have not risen to the same extent as other sectors. One reason for this has been the falling off in the level of union organisation but another, without doubt, is the fact that a significant number of employers found means to circumvent legislation on wages and were able to employ people on rates and for working periods which made a mockery of the legislation. It is also a fact that the prices charged for accommodation, food and drink rose far quicker than wages and this ensured good returns were earned for their management teams and owners.

It is not accurate, therefore, to claim that allegedly high wages are at fault for the subsequent falling off in business, nor should such a model be used to justify cutting wages and undermining work conditions as a means of stimulating economic growth. It is important not only that employers are obliged to comply with current agreements, but that a climate does not develop whereby a generalised claim of an inability to pay is used to justify agreements on wages that penalise workers. Unfortunately, experience informs us, and we see it again in several current disputes, that employers are able to ignore agreements and court orders and because of their relative strength, they are able to enforce cuts or ignore those agreements on the threat of closures or mass lay-offs. In that situation, workers are left with no option but to use their own strength and we are left in a situation of conflict in which the existing mechanisms are seen to be ineffective. However, the more employers flout those mechanisms and existing agreements, the less workers can be expected to have any real faith in the procedures. It is, therefore, crucial that when they are breached, the orders are enforced. Otherwise, measures such as those proposed here are powerless and ineffective.

This is the concern expressed by the trade union movement, which has pointed out that the good parts of this legislation are called into question by the current Government's attitude towards the trade unions and this was evidenced by the manner in which the Government, at the behest of the employers and a string of right-wing commentators, introduced the cuts in wages for public service workers.

Government spokespersons continue to refer to the virtues of social partnership but their actions indicate this is only a convenient slogan to be trundled out when it suits them and, obviously, the same applies to public and private sector employers. The manner in which the Government treated the public service unions before Christmas and the refusal of several employers to abide by Labour Court rulings indicate this Government and the employers are intent on using the recession to force workers to accept pay cuts and poorer conditions of employment. This point should be repeated time and again. I challenge the Government to refute that both it and employers are intent on and are using the current recession to force workers to accept pay cuts. The Government should have paid heed to the repeated march and cry of the people outside the gates of this institution during the closing months of 2009. Workers will not accept those pay cuts or poorer conditions of employment.

There is also a danger the provisions in this Bill will be emasculated in the same way as the Labour Court by employers simply ignoring things they do not like. That would be further encouraged if they are allowed claim an inability to pay as a means of opting out of agreements on wages. It suited many employers to abide by agreements during the boom because often workers were tied to increases that did not fully reflect the vast profits being made in many sectors of the economy. Now that those days have gone, the vestiges of social partnership are seen by those same employers as a barrier to their driving down wages and undermining conditions.

This is especially evident in what are already low wage sectors of the economy, where employers have launched an onslaught on the minimum wage. It was okay for workers in the hotel and catering sectors to live on lower than average wages while businesses boomed and consumers were charged among the highest rates in the world for food, drink and accommodation. Such workers were faced with price rises well in excess of any increase in their income. Any myth that lower paid workers benefited greatly, if at all, from the boom years is baseless. To add insult to injury, attempts are now being made to force such workers into a situation whereby they will have to work for less than the minimum wage.

All too sadly, this is the real background to the Bill. The proposals are positive, which I acknowledge, and this has been indicated by the Opposition during the course of contributions on the legislation from the outset. However, right-wing political and economic factions have indicated in their respective commentaries that the proposals will not be worth the paper on which they are written if the Government continues to ride rough-shod over workers and their trade union representatives. It is of great importance that the Government does not allow this legislation to be emasculated during its course through these Houses over the coming weeks. We wish to see the proposed measures included, carried through and upheld. Any amendments considered by the Government would only feed the furious appetite of employers and right-wing economists and amount to turning its back on the hard-won rights of generations of Irish workers and their working conditions. That would be an absolute betrayal. I urge the Government to hold to the Bill as presented and not to take on board or present amendments that would allow opt out on the part of those who seek only to have the minimum wage absolutely undermined.

See this speech in context