Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the fact the Government is belatedly moving to bring in some improvements in respect of work-life balance for some workers. However, people should be aware that the Government - and this is a consistent feature of this Government's approach - is doing the bare minimum of what it is legally required to do under an EU directive on work-life balance. That is what the Government is doing. It is looking for a clap on the back for doing what it is legally required to do under the EU directive and for which it has decided not to go any further, even though it could, than the minimum required. Unfortunately, the Government does not deserve congratulations or a clap on the back. The only ones who are really applauding are the employers' IBEC represents because the Government is following what IBEC wanted to happen with this Bill. Representatives of IBEC told the relevant Oireachtas committee, "It is vital that the transposition exercise goes no further than necessary in transposing the minimum requirements of the directive." That is why we have the minimal Bill we have. It contains no more than the minimum required by the EU directive. That is why the medical care leave provided for looking after sick children or relatives in the Bill is entirely unpaid and is only for five days per year, regardless of how unwell somebody is. Contrast that with People Before Profit's proposal two and a half years ago for unlimited paid care leave on full wages as part of statutory, employer-paid sick pay. Contrast it too with the arrangements in Germany, where ten days' children's sick pay per parent per year is provided at up to 100% of wages. During the pandemic, that was increased to 20 days. This Bill falls far short of that.

The Bill fails to introduce even a minimum social welfare payment for employees taking medical care leave. As with parental leave currently, medical care leave will be entirely unpaid. Everyone knows that means it will overwhelmingly be taken up by women rather than men. So much for work-life balance. So much for gender equality. It also means it will not be an option for very many low-paid workers who cannot afford to lose any of their income. That includes the majority of lone parents. The Bill, in a miserly, penny-pinching way, discriminates against lone parents by failing to allocate them an additional five days' leave to account for the absent parent. Single parents just get their five days' leave and do not get another five days. It is children who are ultimately discriminated against as a consequence. It is yet another way the State discriminates against the children of lone parents.

The Bill continues the Government's kowtowing to employers throughout the provisions on the so-called right to request flexible working. A fair bit of attention was paid to the right to request remote working proposed by the Minister and Tánaiste, Deputy Varadkar. That was really about the right to refuse remote working. A better name for this provision is the right of employers to refuse flexible working. It is exactly the same situation as the right to request and the right for an employer to refuse. It is even more stacked in favour of the employers than the right to refuse remote working proposed by the Minister's colleague from Fine Gael.

Unlike with remote working, this right is limited to employees with certain caring responsibilities. Of course it should be available to those with caring responsibilities but there is no reason to limit it to them. All workers should have a real right to flexible and remote working arrangements unless there is a good and genuine reason why that cannot be reasonably facilitated. Surely that is precisely at the heart of what work-life balance is supposed to be about.

Under section 6, employers are to "provide a notice in writing informing the employee that the request has been refused and the reasons for the refusal". However, there is no limitation on what those reasons can be and there is no facility for a substantive appeal against a refusal.

The only appeal that can be made is on procedural grounds if the employer does not respond to a request quickly enough. Grounds for an employer to postpone access to flexible working are at least listed but are so broad that, once again, it is carte blanchefor bosses to do as they please. They include the wonderful phrase “any other relevant matters”, which ICTU correctly describes as a highly problematic catch-all ground. Clearly, again, it is simply a right to ask and then a right for the boss to say “No, I am not going to facilitate flexible working.” Perhaps the lack of any appeal against a boss’s decision is because it is mainly women workers who are envisaged as applying for flexible working and they should be grateful for whatever they can get, just like the survivors of the mother and baby homes.

I also noticed that the Bill in its current form does not include domestic violence leave. Obviously, I welcome that the Minister has said it will be legislated for through amendments on Committee Stage, although it is telling that we do not have that at this stage. We will be watching this very closely, particularly given IBEC’s outrageous demand that victims of domestic violence be forced to somehow prove this to their employer in order to avail of the leave. We will be watching to see what pressure it manages to successfully apply on the Government to concede to its, in reality, complete opposition to domestic violence leave. We will be pushing and fighting for proper recognition.

See this speech in context