Martin Ferris (Kerry North-West Limerick, Sinn Fein)

-----the reality is now dawning on postal workers that the directive is a charter for all the things the Labour Party claimed it was not. I look forward to revisiting this issue shortly and hope the Labour Party in government will take cognisance of my comments on it.

As I indicated, the restoration of the national minimum wage is welcome. No one who knows my party's record on the issue will be fooled into believing that our opposition to the Bill is because we support lowering the minimum wage. While the restoration of the minimum wage is welcome and fulfils at least one of the Government parties' election promises, low paid workers continue to be under threat. The recently published Duffy report on joint labour committees and wage orders was supposed to form the basis for consultations involving the trade unions. However, comments by the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Richard Bruton, and others indicate that it is intended to go beyond the report's recommendations. Low paid workers could still find their hard won rates and conditions undermined in one way or another. The Duffy review arose from the EU-IMF bailout. It is clear that when the IMF and EU ask for or order a review, whether of employment rights, credit unions, pensions or the sale of State assets, they have in mind a specific outcome which will not benefit the majority of citizens. As with the Duffy report, the findings of a review can be set aside if they are not as the IMF and EU wish and measures that are more inimical to workers' interests can be pressed ahead with.

People should not be lulled into believing that the restoration of the minimum wage means that the threat to low paid workers has been lifted. When the restoration was announced, some employers' spokespersons let it be known that it would be much more valuable to them if the outcome of the review of the JLC rates was favourable to their view. Given that the JLC rates affect 200,000 people, one can see the reason they adopted such a position on the matter. Approximately five times as many workers are covered by wage orders as by the minimum wage. The financial gains to employers if wage orders are undermined and other conditions are altered, for example, those governing overtime, are much greater than those that would accrue to a small number of employers who pay the minimum wage. If linked to legislation to allow employers to opt out of an inability to pay clause, such measures could result in a race to the bottom in which tens of thousands of workers find their already modest incomes slashed.

I will give an example to the types of workers covered by the current arrangements to cut through some of the propaganda being spread by those who advocate going beyond the recommendations of the Duffy report. Under the employment regulation orders set out in July 2008, a hairdresser in Dublin is entitled to a basic rate of €303.59 for a 39 hour week or only €268.07 if under the age of 18 years. This amounts to €7.07 for a person aged over 18 years, which is less than the national minimum wage. The rate set in June 2007 for contract cleaners was €370.50 for a 39 hour week, which is marginally above the restored minimum wage. I could list several other areas, including security, clothing and the hotel sector, where special rates apply.

Even with the modest increases that have occurred since then and with overtime of time and a half and a Sunday rate of double time, we are not talking about people living in the lap of luxury. They are simply trying to exist. It is hard to imagine that Dublin hairdressers will be sponsoring any Fine Gael gold classic in the K Club any time soon. These are the type of people who, it has been decreed, are to bear the brunt of paying for the gamblers' debts. While those responsible have been pensioned off, protected and allowed to escape the consequences of their actions, low-paid workers are being targeted at the behest of the IMF. Under this Bill they will have the dubious pleasure of working longer for less.

See this speech in context