Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank Teachta Munster for bringing the Bill before the House and facilitating this important discussion. It is timely that we are discussing organising, trade union membership and workers' rights because it is obvious to anyone who cares to look that this pandemic has shown up the way in which successive Governments have failed to safeguard workers' rights or ensure that workers' terms and conditions are protected.

Indeed, the terms and conditions of workers have been diluted over time. I refer to precarious work and zero hours contracts. When I was growing up, such practices were something we thought might happen in America or somewhere else far away. When Margaret Thatcher came to power, we thought that would be part of her agenda. However, we now have precarious contracts in the public service. Tutors, lecturers and nurses are hired but when they wish to turn up for work they are told to register with CPL or another agency. Direct employment is becoming less and less the norm.

It has never been more important for us to have a conversation about workers' rights because workers are facing the twin threats of the fallout from the pandemic, which we know will be substantial, and the threat of a no-deal Brexit. In a statement released this evening, SIPTU stated that the time is now for us to have that conversation about workers' rights.

I wish to be clear, because sometimes there can be some misunderstanding about these issues. It is not our job as Deputies to organise or bargain for workers or do the job of a recognised trade union but it is our job to create the conditions necessary for trade unions to organise and thrive. There is nothing to be feared from a well-organised and well-run trade union movement. We, as legislators, must create those conditions. We are not here to organise unions. Rather, our job is to allow them to get on with their work.

I would ask anyone who thinks there is something to be feared from the Bill two very simple questions. Are they afraid of decent wages? Are they terrified of fair practices in work? Those are the only reasons I can think of for opposing the Bill. If there are issues with the Bill that need to be teased out, the committee is the appropriate place for that to be done. The Bill can undergo pre-legislative scrutiny. It is extremely important that that be done and that engagement take place on the Bill.

Employers and their cheerleaders on the right tell us things such as workers want flexibility. In all my years as a trade union organiser, I never met a worker who wanted a precarious contract, but I often heard employers state that workers love precarious contracts as they do not wish to be tied down by a contract. The employers contended that workers do not want all of that; rather, they want the right to come and go as they please. All Members know that is simply not true and that it is anti-worker and anti-trade union rhetoric, but it has been allowed to grow. We need to challenge that.

The Bill is around strengthening the power of trade unions to organise and collectively bargain for their workers. Trade union organisation is a matter all Members should stand behind and about which they should be concerned. Members are aware of the disputes on big State projects such as significant construction projects. I will not name the companies in question in the Chamber because some of them are run by people who are quite litigious. Deputies are aware there have been recognition disputes. The State is spending money on these projects but it is not safeguarding workers' rights. Surely that is wrong and is something we must tackle. Is there any reason not to include a social clause in State contracts? That is extremely important.

As Teachta Munster outlined, employers can simply walk away. The voluntarist system of industrial relations can and does work well in many instances but it does not always work well. When a boss can simply shrug his or her shoulders and decide not to turn up at the Workplace Relations Commission, there is very little power left for workers, apart from taking industrial action. The burden is on workers to do so.

There is a role for the State in ensuring that the conditions are created to facilitate union organising and a growth in trade union membership because there is no better defence for a worker. I do not think there is a worker in the State who thinks it is my job or the job of any other Deputy to go in and protect them at a workplace level, but there is no better defence against the race to the bottom than a union card. A union card is a worker's best weapon in that fight but we need to be able to create a strong, vibrant trade union movement. It is our job, as legislators, to facilitate that. It is the job of the unions to organise.

At a SIPTU conference I attended many years ago, Tony Woodley, the then general secretary of the Unite the Union, then known as the Amalgamated Transport and General Workers Union, stated that the choice for trade unions in Ireland is simple: they must ask themselves whether are they a partnership union or a fighting-back union. That is the conversation trade unions need to have with their members. They need to make the decision. The conversation for Members of this House is whether the Government is on the side of workers and workers' rights and whether it is willing to facilitate a strong and well-organised trade union movement. Will it stand up for workers? Will the Minister of State, Deputy English, use his voice and platform and his powers as Minister of State to vindicate and stand up for workers' rights?

I will conclude with this simple observation. During the debate on the leadership election within the Minister's party, the man who now leads that party spoke about wishing to bring in compulsory recognition of Labour Court recommendations such that they would be binding. We could spend all day debating the intention behind that statement, but I know a good old-fashioned Thatcherite strike ban when I hear one. To workers, I say to join their trade union and get active in it. To the Minister of State, I say that if his party wishes to lose its reputation as being anti-worker, it can do so by facilitating the passage of the Bill and by working with us to create the climate for workers to get organised, to be able to bargain and to have their rights at work vindicated.

See this speech in context