John Halligan (Waterford, Independent) | Oireachtas source

It has been predicted that in 2015 we could see one of the highest levels of workplace stoppages since pre-recession times. Disputes in the transport, education and retail sectors alone will bring to more than 65,000 the number of days lost this year to work stoppages. This compares to 33,748 between 2010 and 2013, according to CSO figures. The high levels of disaffection do not come as a surprise to many of us. One in five workers now earns less than the living wage of €11.45 per hour, a level of income on which it is impossible to make ends meet in modern Ireland, something that has been accepted by agencies in Ireland and Europe.

We currently have the weakest legal protection for bargaining in the Western world. Hence, the broad aim of the Bill - that is, to provide an improved framework for workers who seek to enhance their working conditions of employment where collective bargaining is not recognised by their employer - is commendable. As the economic recovery continues, as we are told it will, it is important that the right to collective bargaining is in place and that employees who seek improvements in pay and conditions are not victimised for doing so.

However, I am greatly disappointed that the proposals fall short of statutory union recognition. From my interpretation of the Bill and those who have read it with me, I understand it does not require employers to engage in collective bargaining. Rather, it provides a framework through which employers who fail to do so may be brought before the Labour Court by trade unions. I am also confused - perhaps the Minister of State could offer an explanation - as to where the term "voluntary engagements" in the definition of collective bargaining came from. I remind him that I am currently dealing with FÁS supervisors in Waterford who won their case in the Labour Court but still have not been paid. They have been told that because the money is not available they cannot be paid. Therefore, going to the Labour Court does not necessarily mean that one's rights are vindicated.

I welcome the fact that the determination of the Labour Court may be enforced by the Circuit Court if an employer refuses to engage. I ask the Minister of Sate to clarify that when the Labour Court makes a recommendation that is not upheld, such as in the case of the FÁS workers I mentioned, workers can go to the Circuit Court.

I acknowledge the enhanced protections against victimisation by employers of workers who invoke their rights under the new legislation. However, my interpretation of the Bill, together with some people in the trade union movement, is that it is disappointing that the Bill does not apply where the number of workers party to the trade dispute is considered insufficient, having regard to the total number of workers employed by the employer. If that is correct, it immediately removes the recognition of collective bargaining as a fundamental right, as it is under international and European law, if the numbers are considered too small. Why should a worker be discriminated against just because he or she is in a minority in their workplace? It is a very important part of the Bill and needs to be reconsidered and perhaps amended, unless I am misreading the Bill, which I do not think I am.

The Bill was designed to provide significant strengthening of laws to protect and promote workers' rights and the low-paid. However, it fails completely to recognise the plight of workers on zero or minimum-hour contracts with no hope of the economic stability that is necessary to build a future for themselves or their families. Many of us have spoken about the plight of the Dunnes Stores workers, but this problem is not confined to one company. I was recently contacted by a constituent in Waterford who works for Penneys and was recruited on a 11.5 hour contract. At the time, she made it clear that she was available for work seven days a week in the hope of getting full-time employment. In reality, her average working week is four-hour shifts spread over four days, and because of the way the hours are spread out she cannot claim jobseeker's allowance. Her average weekly take-home pay is €169, and last week she came home with €124. That is slave labour and it is an issue that is not being dealt with. It is the essence of the problem here, where many workers are on the minimum wage or below or have zero-hour contracts. They are the people we should be trying to help in this Bill.

The company to which I referred continues to recruit staff in Waterford while at least 30 of its workers are on these contracts and available to work full-time. It does not make any sense at all when we are discussing a living wage and respectable conditions for employees. I know the women I mentioned and she is living in poverty. There is no way that somebody who wants to work full-time - who has work available but cannot avail of it because the employer wants to keep him or her on a minimum hour or zero-hour contract - should be living without a decent quality of life. It is demeaning and demoralising for people who want to work hard, and the Bill fails completely to deal with the many such workers.

In Frederick Court, which is run by the HSE and the Government, four women have had their hours cut back to six hours a week in the past couple of weeks. Their wages have been cut dramatically. We now have workers on contracts of 1.5 hours a day facing cuts. Where in the Bill is provision made for the workers who most need to be protected? This is very important because it applies to workers everywhere, including those in the public service and the private sector.

We do not know what will happen in years to come as we privatise contracts in hospitals and so on. Private contractors are contracted under the lowest possible amount of money; therefore, wages have to be cut.

Their contracts could be up in two years while another contractor could come in and do the same work. There are thousands of workers across the country feeling this way.

Over 16% of employees are estimated to be living below the poverty line. The pattern of recovery in wages is uneven across sectors and occupations, not to mention the precarious work contracts and conditions. This, coupled with cuts and a tightening of eligibility conditions in social welfare along with increases in taxation, have increased poverty even further to the extent that the think tank, TASC, is warning that inequality in Ireland will edge closer to US levels unless there are changes in economic and social policy. I would go further. If this country does not dramatically, not to mention urgently, rethink its stance on employment rights and the rights of workers to secure employment, a liveable wage and defined hours, we are heading for income inequality that will have catastrophic implications for future generations.

I know the Minister of State, Deputy Nash, means well for workers and has met the Dunnes Stores workers. While not a criticism of him, this Bill may have been different if the Labour Party was not in coalition with Fine Gael. However, we should address how those workers on zero-hour contracts and similar contracts are treated. It is appalling and degrading for them. I have workers telling me they want to work 40 hours a week full-time but do not want to be on social welfare. I gave the Minister of State the example of a worker in Penneys coming home with less than what they would get from social welfare. There is something fundamentally wrong with a system where a worker can earn €125 for working a week spread over four days but cannot claim social welfare. Those are the workers that need the most protection.

The Bill is commendable in many areas. For the first time, legislation is being introduced which would protect workers in some ways. However, it has failed and is a missed opportunity to deal with workers on low incomes and zero-hour contracts.

See this speech in context