Marie Sherlock (Labour) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the motion. The ability to work remotely and the use of such technology have thrown a lifeline to hundreds of thousands of workers and businesses across the country. While remote working is not new, we are all fairly certain that it is going to become more widespread after this pandemic. The motion refers to the national remote work strategy and the need for additional data.

We need to pay tribute to the Central Statistics Office, which has worked hard at putting together data as to who is and is not working from home, as well as what type of work people have done from home over the past 12 months. We know that before Covid kicked off just under 500,000 workers did some or all of their work from home, with 5% of workers doing all of their work from home. A much larger number of us, over 800,000, one in three of workers, are now working from home. There is an understanding as to how big this is.

While there is no doubt that the ability to work remotely has brought significant advantages, such as cutting out the long hours commuting, more time with children and less in childcare costs, it has also exposed many challenges such as inadequate workplace provision, people having to work from the edge of the bed and the failure of some employers to make proper provision. We know from extensive research conducted by Eurofound that remote working has led to longer hours and fewer rest periods, along with the corrosive mental and physical health impact of feeling that one is always on.

Do policymakers promote remote working first and then protect people afterwards? The clear message from the national remote work strategy is very much about taking a step back with regards to protections and promoting first.I do not think that is good enough. We are told the tax treatment of remote working will be reviewed in the next budget. We knew there was an issue at the previous budget and yet there was a failure to do anything. We are told that a code of practice will be put in place on the right to disconnect. If any employment lawyers in this Chamber will tell me that will do any good, I am open to those arguments. However, I do not believe that will be worth the paper it is written on. We are told there is a commitment to gathering more data on the incidence of remote working trends. I will point people in the direction of the Central Statistics Office. We are told there is a legislative commitment on the right to request remote working. That was going to be foisted upon us anyway because of the EU directive on work-life balance.

There is, therefore, a big difference between my party's approach and that of Fine Gael with regard to remote working. We want to protect first before we start to promote even greater levels of remote working. That is why my party produced a Bill on working from home last November. I was delighted to see the Government did not oppose that Bill. It seems now, however, that view has changed and the remote working strategy will take a much more hands-off approach towards the protection of workers.

Our Bill set out to do three things. It is important to state it here. First, to ensure employers adequately provide for workers in terms of a workstation. We have a raft of health and safety legislation in this country governing the responsibility of employers towards their employees in terms of their workstation. However, we know that enforcement is a huge issue. The 2007 legislation is out of date. Therefore, the reality at the moment is that employees are very much at the mercy of their employers regarding what resources are put in place as regards a computer, desk, chair and so forth.

The second point is with regard to a flat rate payment in respect of the cost of the utilities of working from home. We have seen the cost of working in an office shift from the shoulders of an employer to a worker, and all the costs associated with that in terms of broadband and increased heat and electricity. There is a huge difference between being able to claim back some of the share of those costs from the Revenue Commissioners and what some good employers do, which is pay up to €3.20 per day as a tax-free allowance. The difference can be between €24.52, as one calculation put it over a six-month period, versus €576 as a tax-free payment. We conducted a survey last summer of those working from home. To me, the important point is that while for many it is a really positive experience, those who are renters are almost twice as likely as owner-occupiers to say they do not want to continue remote working into the future. That is a clear reflection of the obstacles and challenges for those who are younger and less economically secure.

The third key proposal we put forward was the right to switch off. Many of us are seeing a blurring of lines. While it is fine for those of us in the Chamber, and for me with three small kids, to say I want to log on at 10 p.m., for others, it is not a choice. They are under pressure to respond to their bosses' emails. We need to put those protections in place. France, Belgium, Italy and Spain have all moved to put in place legislation on the right to disconnect and yet this Government says it cannot do so and wants a code of practice.

I want to finish on a positive note. I know there is a line here about a stated commitment to equal opportunities in the context of working from home. We need to make certain it is about ensuring people working from home are treated just as equally as those in the office. We know from research, particularly in the United States, that those who work just as diligently at home are treated unfairly. They receive less of a pay increase and a poorer performance appraisal relative to those in the office because being in the office is equated with a sign of commitment. We can have all the codes of conduct in the world but we need legal protections in place for workers, otherwise the commitment to equality will not be worth the paper it is written on.