Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Questions remain concerning the assumptions behind the rationale the Minister of State outlined. He implied there is no policy case although we have a direct public policy imperative to move from 22%. The analyses he referred to are previous to the transposition of the directive. Obviously, it was not regarded as the case that there was a public policy imperative to increase union membership. On what basis was it determined that there would not be an increase? What assumptions underpin that? It is not a fact but an assumption. The suggestion, which was made once and that was lent on to the next report and the next after that, is that we are continuing to assume a change regarding the tax relief will not have a meaningful impact on trade union membership. Such assumptions need to be examined. It is not simply about the amount of money, although the €70 can have a significant role, but it is also about the signal the State would send by valuing and incentivising trade union membership. There are a number of activities, such as cycling, for which there are tax reliefs because they are regarded as public goods. We give grants and so on because they incentivise behaviour we believe to be positive and that sends a very positive signal. There is a push factor, not a pull factor, when the State introduces a tax relief measure in this regard. Now in a new context – that is why the report is relevant now – the directive to be transposed or required to be transposed imminently literally states the State needs to have an action plan to get from 22% to a higher level. An average level of 70% was talked about. Any country below 80% is regarded as having a problem it needs to address and that requires an action plan. Ireland will be in a space where it needs an action plan to get us from 22% right up to 80%, at which point the EU directive will no longer regard us as having a problem with a lack of trade union membership that needs to be addressed. This is a very strong policy incentive and case, and every measure that can be taken should be taken.

With regard to the assumptions being made to the effect that there will be no benefit, there are a few things that happen when the State sends signals that it does not value trade union membership. One example, which we heard from the Respect at Work campaign, concerns multinational companies that came to Ireland in the 1980s and 1990s to set up. These were unionised but the same companies now own other facilities in the State that do not recognise unions. This is attributable to the shift from a mindset in which the State was seen not just by employees but also by employers as actively promoting and expecting the recognition of collective bargaining and support for union membership to a mindset that involves a very active culture of pulling away from these. There are companies that recognised trade unions 15 years ago that have new branches that no longer recognise them. Part of this comes from a culture and signal sent by the Government. Therefore, an important message needs to be sent through this legislation. There is an extremely strong public policy incentive to do what I suggest.

I am confused as to the kinds of measures the Government is planning to come up with. This matter seems to be one of the easiest to address. I am wondering what will populate the action plan the Government will have to come up with and that it states it will publish if something as simple as a tax relief is not to be included. What kinds of measures, including fiscal measures, will be put in place to try to drive trade union membership from 22% to 80%?

A few other legislative ideas have been floated to tackle union busting, which is important, but I respectfully suggest that if the public policy case for what I am suggesting is not recognised, all the factors have not been fully examined in respect of it. I do not know. The assumptions may need to be re-examined, particularly in the context of the changed public policy context entailed by the EU directive.