Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, Independents 4 Change) | Oireachtas source

I apologise. I did not see any TDs from his party. It is a threat that I hear is made more and more against trade unions. The member representing the FSU said that it is finding it more and more the case and that it has a severe chilling effect on collective bargaining. The threat has been used repeatedly by some employers to bend trade unions to their will during negotiations with a threat.

If we want to address poverty and deprivation, lower the prevalence of low wages and deal with the crisis of falling or stagnating real wages, we must make it easier for workers to join trade unions, and for those trade unions to collectively bargain on behalf of the workers. All of this is recognised in the EU directive on adequate minimum wages. The directive explicitly states that its only purpose is to strengthen the factors that are universally recognised as underlining higher wages. It recognises the right of collective bargaining alongside not instead of statutory minimum wages. It notes in paragraph (4) of its preamble that:

the [European Social Charter or] ESC establishes that all workers have the right to just conditions of work. It recognises the right of all workers to a fair remuneration sufficient for a decent standard of living for themselves and their families. It also recognises the role of freely concluded collective agreements, as well as of statutory minimum wage-setting mechanisms, to ensure the effective exercise of this right.

The directive also recognises the effect the effect trade union density and collective bargaining coverage have on wages and living standards. Paragraph (25) of the preamble states:

Member States with a high collective bargaining coverage tend to have a small share of low-wage workers and high minimum wages. Member States with a small share of low-wage earners have a collective bargaining coverage rate above 80 %. Similarly, the majority of the Member States with high levels of minimum wages relative to the average wage have a collective bargaining coverage above 80 %.

It further recognises the role union-busting and anti-trade union tactics played in weakening collective bargaining and weakening wage protections. Paragraph (16) of the preamble states:

While strong collective bargaining, in particular at sector or cross-industry level, contributes to ensuring adequate minimum wage protection, traditional collective bargaining structures have been eroding during recent decades, due, inter alia, to structural shifts in the economy towards less unionised sectors and to the decline in trade union membership, in particular as a consequence of union-busting practices and the increase of precarious and non-standard forms of work. In addition, sectoral and cross-industry level collective bargaining came under pressure in some Member States in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. However, sectoral and cross-industry level collective bargaining is an essential factor for achieving adequate minimum wage protection and therefore needs to be promoted and strengthened.

This Bill would contribute to Ireland's obligations under the directive, in particular in regard to its recognition of union-busting tactics as a factor in the decline of collective bargaining coverage. Under the directive, there is a requirement for countries with less than 80% collective bargaining coverage to implement plans to increase coverage by November 2024. The 80% threshold is based on trends that clearly show most countries with a smaller share of low-paid workers and high minimum wages have more than 80% collective bargaining coverage. We will continue to need to implement plans until we reach 80%. Ireland has a collective bargaining coverage of 33%, which means that we would need real structural changes to more than double our coverage. This Bill would contribute to the structural change needed under the directive. It would go some towards addressing Ireland's high prevalence of low wages, poverty and deprivation and it would end an increasingly prevalent union-busting tactic.

I know we currently have a voluntarist system in Ireland when it comes to trade union recognition. As this Bill does nothing to change that, I do not know why there is a reference in the amendment to it being a constitutional issue. The Bill would not force any employer to recognise a union and to negotiate with it. It simply requires employers to pass along a subscription, as requested by an employee, just as employers do for pension contributions or other subscriptions. If an employer, as it is legally required to do, passes on a deduction from an employee's wage to a pension fund, that employer is not forced to negotiate on the employee's pay or conditions with the pension fund. If it does the same for a sports club, the employer is not forced to negotiate the employee's pay and conditions with the sports club. If an employer passes on a trade union subscription to a trade union, it is in no way forced to recognise or negotiate with the trade union. We know that this does not force an employer to recognise or negotiate with a trade union because we already have in law deductions at source to trade unions.

Under SI 110/2022, Employment Regulation Order (Contract Cleaning Industry Joint Labour Committee) 2022, we already have a legal example of deductions at source. Part IV deals with the deduction of union dues at source on page 10 and provides: "Each employer shall, on receipt of a written request from members, deduct union dues from workers' wages."

That is in the statutory instrument signed by the then Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Damien English, on 7 March 2022. We know this is legally possible because he signed a statutory instrument that required employers to deduct trade union subscriptions at source. This Bill is designed to strengthen trade unions and it has significant support from them. I met trade union representatives from major public and private sector unions yesterday. Representatives from Mandate, the Financial Services Union, FSU, Unite, the Communication Workers' Union, Fórsa and SIPTU all said they support the Bill.

The Bill will contribute to Ireland meeting its obligations under the EU directive on adequate minimum wages by strengthening trade unions' ability to organise and by ending a union-busting tactic. I really want to emphasise that point because it is a serious issue that is growing. There is significant time pressure as the directive requires action to be taken by November 2024. Most important, the Bill strengthens the workers' right to defend and improve their pay and conditions. Trade unions are central to making sure that those who experience poverty or deprivation, or who are at risk of them, can defend and improve their living standards. If we want to raise the standard of living and ensure a decent life for everyone, we need to make sure workers can join a trade union and stand up for and fight for themselves and their families.

The fact the Government opposes this Bill sends a clear message about where Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Green Party stand on union busting, strengthened trade unions and collective bargaining, and the benefit for workers, especially low-paid workers, as recognised by the EU directive. Major public and private sector unions say this legislation is needed and we have an EU directive that shows the effect union busting and weakened trade unions have on low pay and living standards, yet the Government has decided to oppose this Bill. It thinks it would be more appropriate to refer the matter to a law review group that does not exist as far as I know and that will be established by legislation that has not yet been introduced.

The reasons the Government gives for this are constitutional issues and administrative burden. Were there no constitutional issues when the Minister of State signed statutory instrument requiring deductions at source in the employment regulation order for contract cleaning? Was there not an administrative burden when the Minister of State signed the employment regulation order? Why is it that deductions at source are constitutionally and administratively sound when the Minister of State applies them to one set of workers, but not sound when applied to all workers?

The argument that it will cost the Exchequer money is bogus. Any measure that helps trade unions to organise will help workers to increase incomes, which, in turn, will lead to increases in income tax, PRSI, USC, VAT and excise duties. The Bill will not place any cost on the Exchequer; it will bring in more revenue, which begs the question why it is that during a housing crisis, a healthcare crisis and while services for children with disabilities or exceptional needs are under-funded, our Government is doing the work of big business and rejecting revenue for the State. The Government is arguing and voting against its own laws and sending a clear message about where the Government, especially Fianna Fáil and the Green Party, stands on union busting.

The benefit for workers, especially the low paid ones, of strengthened trade unions and collective bargaining are recognised by the EU directive. I ask the Minister of State to at least have some consistency in the Government.

I will make a point that was raised with me yesterday by one of the speakers from Mandate who spoke about the testimony of the workers who attended the AV room meeting yesterday, including the shop steward from Mandate who worked in Tesco and had been victimised and the trade union representative who spoke in support of this Bill, and that the Government had the absolute neck to reject it while saying it requires detailed consideration. It is clear where the priorities of the Government parties lie and it is not with workers. The American Chamber of Commerce says, "Jump", and the Government asks, "How high?" Now, this also exposes the position of the Government and the EU directive, which I am afraid will not be implemented in the spirit of the directive. The Government is happy to facilitate union busting and has no intention of addressing the key issues raised by the EU. I ask the Minister of State to reverse his decision to reject this Bill and to look at it as part of implementing the EU directive.

See this speech in context