Protection of Employees (Trade Union Subscriptions) Bill 2024: Second Stage [Private Members]

Deputy Joan Collins

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

On behalf of the Right2Change party, I am delighted to introduce this simple but impactful Bill, which will strengthen trade unions, make it easier for workers to join a union and take a trade union-busting tactic off the table when workers are negotiating for their own pay and conditions. This Bill recognises both the importance of trade unions to the livelihoods of workers and the difficulties trade unions face when organising and representing those workers. It has a few simple provisions. The Bill would require employers to facilitate trade union deductions at source when requested by the worker, would require the employer to pass on the information of the worker paying the deduction and sets out the provisions of how this process should work.

It would also go some way to Ireland fulfilling its obligation under the EU directive on adequate minimum wages. It is a simple but effective Bill and that is why I think the Government is opposing it. It simplifies the process of joining a union. It simplifies the administration of a trade union by providing a straightforward way of managing information on members and their subscriptions. It would also prevent companies from threatening workers and their trade unions with the withdrawal of deduction facilities in times of dispute, and simplify collective bargaining.

There are no provisions in this Bill to force an employer to recognise or negotiate with a union. It does not force employers to bargain with a trade union. It simply enables workers to request to pay their union subscriptions from their own wages. It works in a similar way to a host of other deductions made from workers' wages on request, such as pension contributions or subscriptions to a sports club or other club, the Hospital Saturday Fund, the bike to work scheme, which are among the numerous deductions that workers request employers to make.

The Bill reflects a real need to strengthen the rights of workers in Ireland. Ireland has among the lowest trade union collective bargaining density in the EU. The implications of that are that Ireland has among the highest prevalence of low pay, and among the highest market inequality rates in the EU. We have growing deprivation, an increased number of people being at risk of poverty and consistent poverty rates. In 2009 there were 91,407 adults living in poverty while working. Despite the economic recovery, by 2021 this had increased by more than 42,000 workers to 133,627 living in poverty while working. This is an increase of 42,000 people working quite literally for poverty wages. Those are the people this Bill would help the most by reducing the obstructions trade unions face in the work they do.

In recent years, through the Covid pandemic, the cost-of-living crisis and the worsening housing crisis, we have seen real wages fall as costs rise. Inflation, heating costs, and rent have all eaten into workers' wages. This has affected the most vulnerable the most, namely, single parents, those with disabilities or those caring for someone with a disability and low-paid workers. They are among the groups that are most at risk of poverty in Ireland. They have seen their costs go up while their wages have failed to rise to meet them.

Strengthening trade unions, collective bargaining, and the right of workers to negotiate their own pay and conditions is central to making sure that those experiencing poverty or deprivation or who are at risk of them can defend and improve their own living standards. This will not just require making it easier for a worker to join a union but it will also strengthen the hand of unions when facing employers threatening to use union-busting or union-avoidance tactics.

This Bill directly addresses a more and more common tactic of union busting by some employers. We know that certain employers have adopted union-busting strategies that include unilaterally ceasing deductions when a worker takes industrial action. They also refuse to increase subscriptions when requested by a trade union. In addition, they refuse to provide details of workers when remitting payment, which makes it difficult for a union to allocate payments to its members. I know of a multinational company that has ended deduction at source but only for the branches that went out on strike during an industrial dispute. I also know of a company that for at least 18 years has refused to pass on increases in trade union subscriptions, which means that every trade union member employed by that company is automatically in arrears and must pay the difference before they are entitled to union representation. This puts a burden on trade unions at all times. That has been explicitly introduced by a number of companies.

I am also aware of companies that withhold information on workers, which means unions must go back out and gather that information all over again. I am aware of companies that have unilaterally ended deductions at source. I also know of companies that have withheld subscriptions from a trade union for months at a time. More than that, I have seen plenty of examples of companies threatening to employ these tactics. Deductions at source are used as a bargaining chip during negotiations. I hear that threat is being used more and more against trade unions.

Not one member of the Minister of State's party came to a meeting in the AV room yesterday that I organised to facilitate Members.

Deputy Neale Richmond

My office was represented there.

Deputy Joan Collins

Neither did one member of Fianna Fáil or the Green Party come along to it.

Deputy Neale Richmond

In fairness, my party had a number of people there, including staff from my office. To be clear, I have a detailed note of the meeting. I was attending to ministerial business. I think that is an unfair charge.

Deputy Joan Collins

I did not know that.

Deputy Neale Richmond

Deputy Collins should not make such a charge.

Deputy Joan Collins

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.

Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Deputy Neale Richmond)

I genuinely thank Deputy Collins for tabling this Private Member's Bill-----

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I do not wish to interrupt the Minister of State, but-----

Deputy Neale Richmond

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:

Dáil Éireann declines to give the Protection of Employees (Trade Union Subscriptions) Bill 2024 a second reading on the basis that it places an administrative burden on businesses; that there are a number of policy and constitutional matters and potential regulatory impacts, including the cost for the Exchequer and businesses, that require detailed consideration in advance of progressing legislation in this area; and it is more appropriate for such proposals to be referred initially to the employment law review group, once established, for expert, independent consideration and recommendations to ensure the law remains proportionate, evidence based and in line with the Constitution..

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Yes, I ask him to move the amendment and for a copy of his speech.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

May I have a copy of the speech?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Yes.

Deputy Neale Richmond

It should have been sent over last night. I do not have one with me.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If we could get it as it is normal practice.

Deputy Neale Richmond

I know; I am sorry. It was sent over last night. I will get one sent over as quickly as possible. I apologise. I thought it had been sent.

I thank Deputy Collins for organising the briefing which I was not able to attend personally, but I got a good note on it and a number of people from my colleagues' offices also went. To provide clarity, we think it is a good thing to organise in the AV room. I have met the FSU, admittedly not about this issue, but I have not had an opportunity to meet Mandate and I hope to be able to do so directly in the coming weeks in my role. I meet the leadership of all the unions the Deputy mentioned in her contribution, both individually and collectively through the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, ICTU.

While I welcome the opportunity to speak about this Bill, the Government cannot support it for a number of reasons, including, as the Deputy laid out, the reasons we cited, which include potential costs for businesses and policy and legislative issues that would require detailed consideration in advance of progressing any proposals in this area.

I will go through that now. The Bill would place a statutory obligation on employers to deduct trade union subscriptions at source from wages on the request of an employee. These deductions would have to be remitted to a specified trade union within 21 days. Should this Bill be introduced, effectively under law an employer would have no choice when it comes to agreeing to remit trade union subscriptions and would have to bear any administrative costs of same. Even a small number of requests would place additional administrative burdens, especially on small and medium-sized enterprises. This could be considered to have an impact on the rights of employers to decide how best to run their businesses. Any such blanket requirement that employers should facilitate deductions would require additional detailed consideration to assess whether it is appropriate, proportionate and in line with constitutional principles.

Furthermore, the Private Member's Bill has a number of deficiencies in drafting, including the lack of a sufficient definition of an employee and the Long Title of the Bill refers to “the written notice of the information required under section 6” when the written notice is required under section 5.

Ireland’s system of industrial relations is based on a voluntary approach to agreements. Implementing the Bill would elevate remittances to a trade union to statute above all other employee-requested deductions, which would remove the long-standing voluntary nature of employer-employee agreements to make deductions from wages. There is no evidence that the provisions in the Bill would increase trade union density or enhance workers’ rights. The Payment of Wages Act 1991 already allows for lawful deductions with consent and mechanisms exist for addressing contraventions through the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC, and the Labour Court. In many workplaces, workers already have the option to pay trade union subscriptions by wage deduction or can avail of other voluntary means such as direct debits to pay them. Indeed, my trade union subscription comes out of my wages every month.

The Oireachtas is currently examining legislation to establish an independent employment law review group, ELRG. The ELRG, once established, will be the appropriate body to provide expert, independent consideration and recommendations on the State's suite of employment rights protections, as required, to ensure the law remains proportionate, evidence-based and in line with the Constitution.

As the Deputy mentioned when she introduced this Bill on First Stage, one of the goals of the EU directive on adequate minimum wages is to increase collective bargaining coverage in member states and facilitate the exercise of the right to collective bargaining on wage-setting. The directive asks member states with a collective bargaining coverage rate of less than 80%, which includes Ireland by some amount, “to provide for a framework of enabling conditions for collective bargaining, either by law after consulting the social partners or by agreement with them”. It has been the consistent policy of successive Governments to promote collective bargaining through the development of an institutional framework supportive of a voluntary system of industrial relations that is premised upon freedom of contract and freedom of association.

The high-level working group on collective bargaining was formed in March 2021. The group agreed to explore mechanisms that would enhance existing industrial relations frameworks with a view to encouraging greater collective bargaining coverage in Ireland. The final report of the group was published on the 5 October 2022. The group made recommendations on a number of areas for reform, which, if implemented, could assist Ireland with its impending obligation to develop an action plan that will increase collective bargaining coverage. The group’s recommendations rest on its recognition of the continued necessity to respect the autonomy of social partners in collective bargaining.

On collective bargaining, we are at a stage where we are holding a number of direct meetings, which I organised, between the social partners. They met again a few weeks ago and, as discussed with Deputy O'Reilly either at the most recent session of oral questions or the one before, this work will be increased and we hope to hold meetings every two weeks until we get a resolution, well on time to meet the deadline of the directive, because the Government supports it.

I have said in this Chamber and in committee rooms a number of times that we support the increased use of collective bargaining. We are deadly serious about that and will meet our full obligations under the directive. The Government also fully supports the right of any worker to join and be active in his or her trade union. Indeed I am on record in this House as saying it is a good thing and I would encourage it. Employees have the right under the Constitution to form associations and trade unions. I remember setting up an association that in due course became a trade union in a previous life in Brussels. Under Irish legislation, an employee cannot be discriminated against or dismissed because of he or she is a member of a trade union.

The WRC introduced a code of practice on victimisation in 2015. The code provides practical guidance on procedures for the resolution of disputes between employers and trade unions and how to operate them effectively. The principles contained in the code are appropriate for employments in the public and private sectors of the economy irrespective of their function, nature or size. Victimisation in the context of this code of practice includes victimisation arising from an employee's membership or non-membership, activity or non-activity on behalf of a trade union. Complaints of victimisation can be taken up with the WRC. For all the above reasons, the Government is not supporting this Private Members' Bill.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

I thank Deputy Joan Collins for bringing forward such important legislation and to her staff for all the work they did on this. I fully support this legislation to oblige employers to make contributions from the wages of an employee to a trade union of his or her choice if requested just as they already do with pension payments and other voluntary contributions as has been outlined by the Deputy in her contribution. This is a very simple Bill that would make it much easier for employees to join a trade union. I am extremely disappointed that the Government is choosing to vote this Bill down. It makes clear exactly where the Government stands when it comes to supporting and facilitating trade unions in this country and it gives a clear indication on this Government’s stance on union busting.

This legislation would allow us to meet some of the obligations under the new EU adequate minimum wage directive and the fact that meeting these obligations is clearly not a priority for this Government is very concerning. The directive seeks to reduce working poverty and inequality by improving the adequacy of statutory minimum wages as well as the promotion of collective bargaining. The directive aims to give recognition to the important role that social actors and collective bargaining institutions play in building social market economies in EU countries and it must be transposed into Irish law by November this year.

The Bill would help to achieve the goals of this EU directive so it does not make sense for the Government to fail to support this legislation. It is worrying that a Government that is usually so keen to kowtow to Europe and implement EU directives seems to be dragging its heels on this particular one but, strangely, that is how the Government seems to work regarding the stuff that benefits people in Ireland. It delays and delays. Ensuring the protection of workers should be a priority, not a consideration.

Workers need protection now more than ever. We have heard many reports recently of multinational retailers and companies utilising union-busting tactics. Companies like Amazon and Starbucks are known for their anti-union practices. These companies make it very difficult for workers to unionise and fight for better working conditions. It is evident that legislation is badly needed in this country to address this issue.

We are seeing the same situation time and time again - workers going up against billionaires and billion-dollar companies with endless resources while labour laws are too weak. We have seen it with Debenhams workers and Iceland workers. I raised the issues faced by Iceland workers in the Dáil last July but, unfortunately, when it comes to looking after the rights of the workers, the Government has been very slow to intervene and, again, is dragging its heels on this very important legislation and refusing to look after worker’s rights. This is something that, hopefully, workers will not forget come election time.

Trade unions play a very important role in society and employers should be supportive of employees’ rights to join a trade union should they wish to do so. The Constitution protects the right of all employees to access trade union membership and employers should be obliged to facilitate this right.

Trade unions are often portrayed as anti-employer but this could not be further from the truth. Trade unions empower workers and act as representatives to employees in their relations with employers making it much easier for employers to communicate effectively with their workers as a whole, especially in large companies when employee needs may vary.

Employers should strive to have a working environment that employees can work well in and feel empowered in. A happy work environment leads to better outcomes for everyone and the anti-employer sentiment that some associate with unions is extremely unhelpful for both employers and employees. Employers should be encouraged to view the unionisation of workers as a very positive step, especially if they want to provide good working conditions for their staff and that is probably the question.

Too many people in Ireland hold the view that workers are a burden on employers and that view is held by the Government as well. The reality is that a successful business is one that will look after its employees and have a good relationship with them. Many employers seem to believe that workers are only a hindrance to their business and that business be great if they did not have to deal with workers.

The reality is that in many cases, the customers that the business might be dealing with are the same type of people on the minimum wage that the employer is complaining about having to assist. What we are missing in this country is the realisation that workers are as important to employers as the tax system, a favourable environment and a so-called pro business environment, which does not mean employers can screw workers for all they can get out of them. Workers are what makes a business a success but our system and Government does not believe that. It believes that workers are a hindrance that employers have to put up with in order to continue making money for themselves.

I will address the Government's reason for not supporting this legislation. It is a bit disingenuous to just vote it down. The Government should be more honest. The reason stated is that it places an administrative burden on businesses. The Government seems to select which measures place an administrative burden with regard to whether it can turn a Bill down. It accepts Bills from other Opposition parties all the time that could be a burden on the State, yet when it suits, it will not be done.

Another reason cites policy and constitutional matters along with the potential regulatory impacts, including costs to the Exchequer and businesses - to cite the cost to the Exchequer does not make sense - that require detailed consideration in advance of progressing legislation in this area. It would be better if the Government just said it was not interested and does not want to do this rather than coming up with excuses that do not stand up. Any reasonable person or anyone involved in union or workplace activity who has a look at this will see that the Government basically does not want this legislation and this is why it is rejecting it - not because it will be too burdensome for it to implement it.

The Minister of State spoke about the EU directive. The directive has probably been flagged for a year or more so surely somebody in the Department would have looked at it to see what we need to do to put it in place. It should not be a burden. This Bill complements the directive, therefore, it should not be a burden to implement but, of course, it is. This directive probably will not be implemented for another four or five years like most directives in this State. It will be legally enforced by Europe and we will have to do to implement it. We have seen it so many times in this House. In the past couple of years, we have been threatened three or four times with being taken to court by the EU and, therefore, we implement directives that have been sitting around on a shelf in Departments for years waiting to be implemented. That is the reality. We will see what happens. It will be interesting to see if the Department is true to its word and brings this legislation forward in a timely fashion. Based on history and knowledge of how it works, that certainly will not happen, which will be to the detriment of workers and employers because it will continue to maintain a system where employers and workers are at each other's throats, employers feel workers are a hindrance to them making money and employees will see employers as a hindrance as well, which is wrong. We should be working together to build a situation where everybody benefits from everybody else. That would be better in the long run.

Deputy Louise O'Reilly

I sincerely thank Deputy Joan Collins not just for this legislation, but for the work she does in general on workers' rights, her group and her staff because it is very obvious from reading the legislation that not just a lot of work went into writing it but a lot of consultation went into formulating it. This is very practical legislation that is intended to make a real and meaningful difference to the lives of working people, which is incredibly important.

It also fits very neatly with the EU directive and I am genuinely mystified as to why the Government cannot see fit to support it. I have heard the reasons given by the Minister of State, but he will forgive me if I say I am not quite convinced by them.

He mentioned that there is no evidence this proposal will enhance workers' rights. Let us imagine I present him now with evidence that it will enhance workers' rights, which is what I am about to do. If I do so, would he then be in a position to reverse his opinion?

I refer to a letter we received from the Mandate trade union. It states the union, which represents almost 30,000 workers in the retail, bar and administrative sectors, had noticed a marked increase in employers using deductions at source as a union-busting tool. This is direct evidence from Mandate, which represents 30,000 workers in the private sector, that it is aware that employers are using deductions at source as a union-busting tool. Logically, then, anything that combats that union-busting tool is good for workers. To be fair, the Minister of State has put his own bona fides on the record on more than one occasion regarding his view of trade unions. We know it is a good thing that workers are in trade unions. In fact, we know, and I do not think there is any dispute about this, that this is something that enhances workers' rights. The trade unions say this legislation will help to combat union busting. They refer to it as a tool to be used against union busting that will enhance workers' rights. The Minister of State is saying there is no evidence this proposed measure would enhance worker's rights, but there is. It absolutely will do so because workers do need this protection at work. Enough evidence has been presented for the Minister of State to reflect on his position and, I hope, maybe change it regarding this legislation.

We do not know when auto-enrolment for pension contributions is going to be in place. Perhaps the Government will enlighten us. It is the same kind of administration that goes into processing deductions at source for subscriptions. The Government is gung ho about the introduction of pension auto-enrolment and is telling us it is on course. Of course, this new requirement will be an additional administrative burden, but not a huge one. I have been at briefings where the Government's representatives have been very anxious to play down the administrative burden this measure will have for businesses. It is extremely important that the burden is managed, etc., and that businesses can cope with the additional administrative burden. This proposal, though, is the same. The same systems would be used.

Deputy Collins is not asking businesses to go out and invest in new software, reinvent any wheels or set up an entirely new department or anything like that. This proposal is simply concerned with the use of administrative tools that are in place, except this time they would be used to ensure trade union subscription deductions are taken and remitted in a timely manner. Where such systems are in place to take deductions at source, it works fairly seamlessly when these deductions are remitted in a timely manner. I know this because I used to work in a trade union. When they are not given in such a timely manner and are withheld, that can represent a catastrophic threat to trade unions. This proposed legislation would ensure that the capacity to use the deductions at source method would remain because it is a decent way to collect union subscriptions, while removing the capacity for this approach to be used, to quote Mandate, "as a union-busting tool".

This is a good thing. It does not force anyone to join a trade union. We could debate all day whether that is a good thing. My view is that the best place for people is in a union, when they want to be in and active in one and not forced or compelled to be there. This proposal, however, does not force companies to recognise a trade union; it simply obliges them to collect the subscriptions. They do not have to engage in collective bargaining. There is nothing like that in the proposed legislation. It simply guarantees that trade union subscriptions will be taken and remitted to the union in a timely manner. I genuinely do not see what the resistance to this is. As I said, the introduction of pension auto-enrolment is going to place exactly the same burden on businesses, and I doubt if any Minister will come into this Chamber, or any similar forum, to argue auto-enrolment will be too burdensome on businesses. The Government will not do that because it knows it is simply not the case and that every effort will be made to minimise the burden. Equally, of course, every effort would be made to minimise the burden in this context as well if this legislation were to be passed.

This is one element of what I believe workers need. This is my opinion and that of Sinn Féin: workers need a legislative right to organise. This must include access to the workplace for trade union officials for the purposes of organising health and safety inspections, workplace rights inspections, etc. It must also include facilities time and the provision of information to people on their first day in work, not just about their rights at work but also concerning how to access the relevant trade union, encouraging people to use the trade union connect website and to avail of the information there. The right to organise is essential for workers and this proposed legislation is a part of it. It is not all of it, and all of it certainly will not be delivered by the EU adequate minimum wages directive. Work will be required on behalf of unions and employers. An intervention from Government will also be required, but this intervention will not come from this Government. However, a Sinn Féin-led Government will introduce the right to organise for workers and ensure they can vindicate their rights at work through membership of a trade union.

I circle back to the Minister of State's comments regarding there being no evidence this legislation will enhance workers' rights. I respectfully suggest the required evidence, to which I referred, has been provided by Mandate. In its letter to us, the union referred to victimisation as having become widespread and having impacted more than 1,000 of its members. The Minister of State is aware of this next point, but I will say it again just for completeness. These are some of the lowest-paid and most vulnerable workers in the system. They are retail and front-line workers. They are the workers we were all clapping for during Covid-19. They were front-line workers then, but they appear to have disappeared out of the headlines since. When Mandate, however, is telling us this situation could have impacted more than 1,000 of its members, this is the evidence that stopping this type of practice will represent an enhancement of workers' rights.

The evidence, therefore, does exist that this proposed measure will enhance workers' rights. Even at this late stage, I encourage the Minister of State to change his position and to support this legislation. If he has concerns about aspects of it, then he should use the wonderful system of committees, debates, amendments, etc., that we have here to bring forward any changes he may believe are required. The evidence that this proposed legislation will improve workers' rights has been presented. I believe it will improve workers' rights and I encourage the Government to support it.

Deputy Thomas Gould

I am appalled by the Government's last-minute decision not to allow this Bill to progress. Deputy Joan Collins has received support from Mandate and the FSU. The Bill is credible, but the Government is refusing to allow it to move to the next Stage to be scrutinised. It is just not good enough and shows where this Government stands on workers' rights. We can all agree that the strength of the trade union movement mirrors the strength of workers' rights. Where the union is weaker, workers fare worse. Deductions of trade union subscriptions at the point of pay increase union strength and prevent union busting. I am proud of my track record as a union member and shop steward for many years. I speak to many young people and the one thing I say to them is to ensure they join a trade union. In a trade union, they will have strength in numbers. We are not where we need to be on workers' rights and there is a long path to travel yet. Deputy O'Reilly has put several proposals to the Minister of State. These are credible and represent Sinn Féin's vision for a dynamic and vibrant trade union sector that has the strength to negotiate for workers across all sectors.

I wish to briefly raise two issues concerning workers' rights. The workers in Activision Blizzard in Cork city face redundancy. It is expected that 136 jobs will be lost. These workers are represented by the FSU. Microsoft has indicated it is willing to engage with the union. This needs to happen now and the engagement needs to be constructive. I ask the Minister of State to make clear that this needs to happen because it is vital that it does so. I also ask him to intervene directly in the case of the Cork University Hospital housekeeping staff. They have been treated terribly for more than 12 months. Last week, they received notifications their annual leave would be denied because of the recruitment embargo the Minister of State's Government has brought in. This is a direct result of the Government's policies. As the Minister of State with special responsibility for business, employment and retail, I ask him to intervene and ensure these hard-working people, who keep the hospitals running, are allowed to take their well-earned breaks and will not be unfairly punished by Government decisions.

I finish by paying tribute to the Debenhams workers. Years after that dispute, the legislation that needs to be passed to protect other workers from ending up like the Debenhams workers has still not been finalised. I know the collective redundancy Bill has been moving through the Dáil and that Deputy O'Reilly has submitted amendments which would seek to prevent another situation similar to Debenhams. We are asking the Government to look at these constructive amendments. We have seen this not just with Debenhams, but also with Coca-Cola in Cork and Clerys in Dublin. This Bill needs to be passed and we need the Minister of State to take on board the constructive amendments that Deputy O'Reilly will introduce.

Today, the Government has sent a clear message to workers all over this island that it does not respect workers' rights.

Deputy Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire

I echo what Deputy Gould has said about the Microsoft workers and I urge dialogue there to ensure that those jobs can be protected to the greatest extent possible.

When the Government approaches Private Members' Bills and motions, it is sometimes right and sometimes wrong. Sometimes it can be frustrating, sometimes it is outrageous and sometimes it is just plain silly. This is a bit ridiculous. The first and main point about this legislation is that deducting union subscriptions is not hard; it is extremely straightforward.

Deputy Joan Collins

Absolutely.

Deputy Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire

When I was 16 and started working in Roches Stores, all I had to do to join Mandate was to tick a box. I never thought any more about it. It was as simple as that. I ticked a box and that was the end of it. Union subscriptions were deducted and I thought no more about it. That is the way it is with good employers. That is the way it is with many employers.

Regarding the cases we are talking about, this is not a phantom. Mandate has direct evidence of more than 1,000 of its members who were impacted by this. What we are talking about here, namely, ceasing to deduct or remit the money without remitting the information of the worker, is actually harder work. There is more involved in that than deducting union subscriptions. It is vexatious and antagonistic behaviour designed to discourage participation in industrial action and membership of a trade union. That is what we are talking about here.

Táimid ag caint faoi fhostóirí atá ag dul as a slí féin chun dualgais bhreise a chur ar oibrithe agus chun é a dhéanamh níos deacra dóibh a bheith páirteach in agóid, i stopadh oibre nó i gceardchumann. Níl sé sin ceart. Ní dhéanann sé ciall ar bith. Ní aontaím leis an loighic atá ag an Rialtas agus é ag cur i gcoinne é seo.

It has always been my view that the best way to guarantee decent work and the best advice I could give to any worker to improve their terms and conditions is to join a trade union. It is welcome that there is now an impetus from Europe. Not everything that comes from Europe is pro worker, but the EU adequate minimum wage directive is positive legislation which requires us to try to encourage a vibrant strong and fairly treated trade union sector. This legislation coheres with that entirely. It is very straightforward, simple and good legislation. I highly commend Deputy Joan Collins, Mandate and all the other trade unions involved in it. This is extremely straightforward. I cannot comprehend why the Government is opposing it. Businesses engaging in these practices are going out of their way to make life difficult for their workers and their trade unions. I do not see any problem in prohibiting that kind of behaviour. It is the easiest thing in the world.

Deputy Martin Browne

I also thank Deputy Collins for bringing this legislation to the House. The Bill aims to standardise the deductions of trade union subscriptions at wage source for presentation to the union. This would be a positive development for workers who may encounter employers who take advantage of trade union disputes, seek to prevent the establishment of trade unions or attempt other trade union-busting measures. The Government has tabled an amendment to frustrate it by declining a Second Reading for a number of reasons. If the Government has any concerns with the Bill, what is its problem with addressing them on Committee and Report Stages? I oppose the Government amendment.

We regularly hear in this House criticism of the wage disparity between the private and public sectors because of the public sector having a much higher level of collective bargaining than the private sector. This Bill, which has the support of Mandate and the Financial Services Union, trade unions that have experience of employers withholding subscriptions and adjustments for other member information, would only strengthen the hand of workers in the private sector. To see the Government attempting to prevent the Bill from going any further is deeply disheartening for many ordinary workers in a country that has among the lowest rates of collective bargaining and trade union density in the EU.

What message is the Government sending out to workers? There is no indication in its amendment that it has any intention of addressing the issues it has pointed out. Time and again, the Government trots out figures, yet consistent poverty rates and levels of deprivation in certain areas and among certain groups reveal the inequality that exists in this country for workers. The Government, however, is obviously resistant to addressing this.

Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú

I thank Deputy Joan Collins for introducing this sensible legislation. Deputy Ó Laoghaire put it perfectly in explaining how easy it was for him to pay his union subscriptions. We have all read the history books and we all know the story of what happened in 1913. We know how bad things would be if we did not have the power of unions and collective bargaining. We are talking about making something that is very simple much easier and making it somewhat more difficult for bad employers to engage in what could be described as union busting. The Government's proposal to kick the can down the road does not make any sense. This proposal is straightforward.

I have spoken to the Minister of State and other Ministers in his Department about the issue of PayPal. I have spoken to a number of workers who have suddenly become representatives of other workers. They are very worried about whether they are covered from the point of view of knowing the ins and outs because there is not a unionised workforce in the company. While I hope the outworking of that will be a good package for the people affected and I hope the number of redundancies will be lower than what has been mentioned in the public domain, it would be much easier if these representatives were not just people coming from the general workforce but included someone with a union background, even if just to make these sorts of proposals.

I wish to raise an issue which I hope the Minister of State will be able to address to some degree. I have engaged with a number of workers in the building sector. Many of them are paid through the relevant contracts tax, RCT, system and are subcontractors. Often when major projects, including State projects, go through procurement, a worker can end up being the fourth level of subcontractor. In some cases, these workers also employ people directly. They had no intention of becoming a subcontractor but were forced into that set of circumstances. This has created anomalies whereby sometimes there is a race to the bottom. That needs to be dealt with. I have engaged with these workers and there is also ongoing engagement with Deputy O'Reilly's office. It is an issue we will be chasing up to a greater degree. A considerable amount of work has been done but there has been an absence of action by Government.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Michael Ring)

I thank the Deputy; his time is up.

Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú

I would like to think the Minister of State would look at this issue and address how we will deal with it.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Michael Ring)

The time is up. The Sinn Féin Deputies got their 20 minutes.

Deputy Ged Nash

I often find myself following my constituency colleague Deputy Ó Murchú. I am always happy to give way to him if he needs additional space to elaborate on a point. I agree with him on the treatment of the PayPal workers in Dundalk.

All too often in the past couple of years, local Deputies have had to advise, individually and collectively, Paypal workers on their rights and entitlements in the context of a statutory collective redundancy consultation process because that is an employment where trade unions are not recognised and employers - not just Paypal but across the economy - are openly hostile to trade union organisation. While I am always happy to provide the benefit of my wisdom and knowledge on trade union matters and employment rights legislation to workers, it is best that workers are collectively represented by their trade unions because there is not an equality of arms in negotiations around collective redundancy. Employers often exploit that lack of knowledge and the gap left by the absence of a trade union.

The Labour Party actively supports this important legislation. I commend Deputy Collins for introducing it to the House. The Labour Party is the party of the trade union movement and at all times we seek to represent the interests of working people. While it is clear all parties that purport to be of the left in this House, as well as Independents, support this legislation, I am deeply concerned by the position adopted by the Minister of State and Government. I was not here to hear the Minister of State's remarks but I understand the proposal is to send the legislation to the employment law review group. We are in a peculiar situation when a Minister of State intends to send legislation from this House to an expert group which has not yet been established. That illustrates the hostility of the Government to progressive legislation and moves towards enhancing the rights of working people. The Government has always had to be dragged kicking and screaming to introduce progressive legislation and improvements to the conditions of working people. It is quite extraordinary that we are in this position.

I understand an argument may have been put forward that elements of the legislation may not be in compliance with the Constitution. That is an extraordinary statement to make given that, for example, the employment regulation order giving effect to the joint labour committee agreement for the contract cleaning industry - a joint labour committee system I reintroduced in the 2010s - included direct reference to an agreement whereby union dues can be collected at source and remitted in the way we would like to see. That proposition in the employment regulation order has not been constitutionally challenged by anybody. Rogue employers in certain industries where JLCs apply have shown themselves only too willing to take challenges around the constitutionally of our wage-setting mechanisms. If there is a vulnerability there, I imagine it would have been challenged already. That has not happened and will not happen. I do not believe the Minister of State should hide behind the argument that there is a constitutional issue around the straightforward position of putting it into law that somebody's trade union subscriptions should be taken at source and sent to the person's trade union. That, as Deputy Ó Laoghaire has indicated, has happened routinely throughout our history.

We know from the Tesco dispute in 2017 and 2018 that there are employers who are willing to stop the remittance of trade union dues from workers to frustrate the work of the trade union. That was at the heart of that dispute. Mandate has a clear position on that. We heard from Mandate, the Financial Services Union and Unite about how important this legislation is to stop union-busting. We have union-busting in this country. It is illegal but it happens subtly. It happens through employers deciding unilaterally to stop taking union dues from salaries directly, remitting them to trade unions and informing trade unions of that. We have blacklisting as well. Officials in various Departments will say we do not have blacklisting because we have laws against it but it is done extremely subtly, and is effective in its subtlety.

Coming down the tracks is the EU minimum wage directive, which is required to be transposed into law before the end of the year. We will be watching carefully the way in which the Government transposes that important legislation. Over the generations, governments have taken a minimalist view of transposition of directives that apply to working people. We will have a requirement to reach 80% collective bargaining coverage under the directive. We have systems in place that would allow us to meet that ambition. We have the sectoral employment order system and the JLC system. One way in which the Government could assist itself in meeting Ireland's EU law obligations would be to adopt this legislation, which would allow for greater membership of trade unions, make membership much more straightforward and reach the level of collective bargaining coverage required under the directive.

The EU minimum wage directive is not a panacea. We understand it will not give the right to organise and so on. That should be a matter for future governments with a different complexion from this Government. I ask the Minister of State to review the Government position on this legislation and allow it to proceed to Committee Stage for further interrogation. Working people in this country require it.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

I, too, thank Deputy Collins for tabling this straightforward but worthwhile legislation. The Bill will:

impose an obligation on employers, when requested in writing by an employee, to make deductions from the wages of such employee, and, not later than 21 days, remit the amount deducted, along with the written notice of the information required under section 6, to the relevant trade union that is specified in the written request.

That is very straightforward. The Bill aligns with the Social Democrats' values and seeks to strengthen workers' rights. We are very supportive of it. The Government amendment effectively does not permit this to move to the next stage on the basis that it places an administrative burden on business. That is astonishing. It is not greatly different from the auto-enrolment pensions, of which I am in favour, yet the Government makes this argument. This clearly demonstrates what the Department and Minister of State value above all else. The employer comes first and it is dismissive of union representation and the workers unions represent.

It is useful for an employer to have someone to negotiate with. We are not talking about the benefits, even from an employer's perspective. There are benefits in dealing with a group rather than a collection of individuals.

As Deputy Collins mentioned when the Bill was introduced, the purpose of the legislation is not to be overly complex. It simply looks to standardise a process such that an employer, when requested in writing by an employee to make deductions from that employee's wages, must remit the amount deducted to the appropriate trade union.

Reference has been made to this being a burden. It could not be more straightforward. This is why pension deductions happen at source, and there is no hullabaloo about that.

Ireland is one of the only advanced economies in the world where the state does not provide any route for employees to gain union recognition from their employer. Improvements to workers' rights have happened not because, for example, this House has afforded workers additional rights. Rather, they have happened because collective action has demanded those rights. That is where improvements come from.

For many workers, the current position makes the democratic right to union representation illusionary. The consequences of this are most severe for those in low-paid and precarious employment, such as the retail and hospitality sectors where there is an almost anti-union stand taken by employers. It is in these sectors that we see some of the lowest rates of pay and protections are traditionally poorer. These sectors are staffed by young people, women and migrants who may not have a good standard of English. That is all the more reason to make sure that people who are most at risk are those who have the highest levels of protection.

In-work poverty has become increasingly common. It is a critical situation and needs to be addressed. We are constantly lectured about how work takes people out of poverty. Work only takes people out of poverty if they are paid enough. Where does the demand for wage increases and organisation come from, except through collective action and membership of trade unions?

For the vast majority of Irish citizens, trade union membership is the most effective way to have their views represented in the decision-making process which governs their working lives. The Social Democrats advocate that responsibility for increasing collective bargaining coverage be assigned to a Minister of State so there can be no excuse to maintain a very poor rate of coverage.

I am fairly sure I recollect correctly that the Minister of State said in the House that he is a proud member of a trade union. I would have thought he would have been an advocate for others being able to simplify the opportunity to become involved in a trade union. It is quite a leap to object to something for others when he has advocated for it for himself.

All too often, the State is eager to please Europe and tries to be the best in class, although sometimes I have to question that in respect of the transposition of certain legislation. In September 202, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment published a note indicating that the deadline for transposing the directive on adequate minimum wages in the European Union was 15 November 2024 and that the Department was working towards that date, rather than earlier. That is the deadline.

Other jurisdictions have much higher rates of coverage and the world has not fallen in on top of them. They function well. They are good economies and societies. I do not know what the fear is. In part, the directive seeks to address collective bargaining and Ireland is miles behind in terms of coverage. Europe wants to get collective bargaining coverage up to 80%. The European average is around 60% at the moment. However, the figure for Ireland is just 35%. I again reaffirm my support for the Bill. As I said, the Social Democrats will support it.

Deputy Paul Murphy

I thank Deputy Joan Collins for bringing forward this very important Bill. We live in a world of growing, galloping and deepening inequality. Since 2020, about two thirds of the new wealth created in the economy went to just 1% of the population, almost twice what the bottom 99% got globally. The same process is happening in Ireland, where the richest two billionaires now have as much wealth as the bottom 50% of the population. They are the vast majority who, according to a recent survey, struggle to feed their children. They have to cut back on their meals in order to eat. We live in one of the richest countries in the world, yet over 4,000 children are homeless. All of that is a consequence of growing inequality, which has been rising and accelerating since the 1980s. Why is that? We have Governments that implement right-wing Thatcherite neoliberal policies, designed to ensure that instead of wealth supposedly trickling downwards, it floods upwards. Corporation tax rates are declining, and Ireland plays a leading role in that race to the bottom.

One of the crucial factors is the decline in the power of trade unions. Not only do trade unions win higher wages and ensure better and safer working conditions for workers, but, by their very existence and strength, they decrease inequality and increase the social wage, social welfare, healthcare, education and so on. Trade unions have been consciously undermined and attacked by right-wing governments, from air traffic controllers in America and miners in Britain in the 1980s to the Industrial Relations Act in Ireland, which was designed to tie the hands of workers and reduce their power to combine collectively to take on the very large economic and political power of the employer class in this country and globally. This Government, along with successive Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael Governments, have been a part of that.

If we do not rebuild strong, fighting and democratic trade unions, we will see a picture of the kind of society we are going to have. Let us consider Elon Musk's comments, when he said he is against unions because he does not want to see a lord and peasant sort of thing. Of course, in reality Elon Musk is a new lord and does not want to see the peasants getting organised. That is why he is in such opposition to trade unionists and workers in Tesla in Sweden who oppose his agenda. If we do not rebuild strong trade unions, we will have more and deeper inequality and poverty and more workers working in extremely poor conditions.

The Bill is a very simple and modest measure, designed to partially redress some of the decline in the power of unions. It does not give workers the right to have their union recognised by their boss or interfere with the Government's much coveted and supposedly voluntarist model of trade unionism and industrial relations in this country, which ignores the massive power of bosses, meaning the relationship is anything but voluntarist because workers have to work in order to eat. It does not force workers to join trade unions or have their trade union subscriptions taken off in a check-off system. It is extremely simple. It gives workers the right to say that they want their trade union subscriptions to be taken off at the point of payment. That measure would cut across some of the trade union-busting activities of employers, such as their ability to make it difficult to for workers to join unions and taking action when faced with the potential for industrial action by workers.

The response of the Government to an extremely modest measure to help workers be in unions is to oppose it. It can dance around this all it likes and refer to the need to have this and that discussion and so on, but this an anti-trade union and anti-worker Government. It is on the side of the billionaires in this world and not on the side of ordinary workers. It makes a joke of the EU directive on minimum wages, which contains a commitment. The Government is meant to produce a plan to explain how we are going to significantly increase the number of workers covered by collective bargaining by November of this year. It clearly has no intention of doing anything about that because it does not want to see the number of workers covered by collective bargaining increase. If it did, it would agree to this extremely simple measure.

I want to make a point about another aspect of the Industrial Relations Act, which needs to be repealed. Workers who want to follow the heroic example of the Dunnes workers in blocking and boycotting South African goods could today face persecution from their employers.

They would not be covered, because the Industrial Relations Act would say that is outside the realm of what is covered in respect of trade union action. That is scandalous. Workers should be encouraged to take action against Israeli goods. The trade unions should encourage them and fight for their right to do so, and we need to repeal the Industrial Relations Act.

Deputy Mick Barry

Union busting is a term we associate with the United States of America, but it is an international practice and it is very much alive and well in the Republic of Ireland. In 2015, Tesco employed the union busting legal firm Eversheds Sutherland as it prepared its union busting strategy Project Black. Attacking union subscriptions and the check-off system was very much part of the project. When Tesco workers who were members of the Mandate trade union went on strike in 2017, company deduction of union subscriptions was halted at all stores where Mandate had placed pickets. "We never collect trade union subs in stores on strike", a Tesco spokesperson said. Holding back tax and pensions would be illegal. If this legislation can prevent this tactic being repeated, it is valuable legislation that I will support. Any legislation that combats strategies such as that is to be welcomed but, at the end of the day, advances for trade unions and trade unionists will only happen on the basis of workplace organisation and building up union power from the shop floor.

I note the attitude of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael to this legislation. Both parties, in their own ways, try to portray themselves as friends of workers. Well, here they are, siding not just with employers but with the worst of employers, and against workers and worker organisation.

While we are discussing trade union matters, I will make two other comments. I express my support for the housekeeping staff at Cork University Hospital, who have been threatened with having their annual leave denied with the recruitment freeze used as a pretext. That is wrong. It needs to be reversed and they will have my full support for any action they take to stand up for their rights in this manner.

Second, I note the comments of Adrian Kane, representing the Cork Council of Trade Unions, who told the Munster rally for Palestine in Cork last Saturday that he was calling on the trade union movement throughout Ireland to immediately campaign for legislative change to ensure workers in trade unions who choose not to handle goods from a country under a charge of genocide from the ICJ will be able to do so free from prosecution from regressive employers. I welcome and endorse those comments.

Deputy Seán Canney

I am sharing time with Deputy Tóibín. I welcome the opportunity to speak to the Bill and commend Deputy Collins and her group on having introduced it. At face value, it seeks to protect workers who want to have their union fees deducted at source, checked off and submitted to the union. That is fine but I want to speak about the implications it might have for small business.

A huge proportion of small businesses in this country have their backs to the wall. We in the Regional Group tabled a Private Members' motion last week seeking supports for the small business and enterprise sector. They are the backbone of our economy. Not every shopkeeper, butcher or plumber follows the Elon Musk philosophy. They are trying to make a living for themselves and maybe for two or three workers with them. That is the backbone of our economy and we need to respect and protect it.

I often cringe when I hear politicians take credit for increasing the minimum wage, as if the Government or the taxpayer were paying for it. The fact is all small business people have to stump up this additional money and while I do not disagree with the minimum wage being increased, we have to take into account the cost of doing business for shopkeepers and so on and wonder why they are closing down, and for the little restaurants, coffee shops and so on that we have all come to expect, see and love. How many sole trader butchers are left in our towns at this stage? There is a wake-up call in the context of this debate whereby we have to take care of people who are trying to make a living and to help people.

No doubt, trade unions have a vital role to play in the economy, such as through collective bargaining. As somebody who worked in the construction industry for over 30 years, I appreciate the impact and the support of trade unions in that industry. Nevertheless, we cannot have the same rules and regulations for every industry and there are so many small industries here that we have to take cognisance of that. We can use the debate to deride businesspeople and call them billionaires and whatever else but most of the businesspeople in this country are hanging on by a thread with the working conditions they have now and the costs of doing business that have been thrown at them. These are indigenous, hardworking people who might have to work 70, 80 or 90 hours a week to keep open the doors of their business.

We have to call that out for what it is. It is a dedication and a commitment, and it is also something we often do not speak about because we lump all employers together and compare global companies and the Elon Musks with the butchers and bakers in our towns and villages. We have to be careful to show respect to and commend people who are keeping open the doors of these businesses through thick and thin. They are trying to provide for their families and do not take anything from the State other than whatever supports they can give back.

This should not be an anti-business or anti-employer debate, because there are too many small businesses to which we need to show respect.

Deputy Peadar Tóibín

The importance of trade unions in this country cannot be overstated. They provide an enormous bulwark against the specific objectives of some businesses to push down workers' terms and conditions and a balance within the labour system.

One example of that is Tara Mines in Navan. As we know, it is the largest lead and zinc mine in Europe. A company called Boliden had been making massive profits out of an Irish natural resource for many years and all of a sudden, last June it started to turn the screw and squeeze the workers in respect of pay and terms and conditions. It is an incredible situation where nearly 700 workers lost their jobs directly and up to 2,000 workers in total had their jobs completely pushed aside. In that eight-month period, the management of Tara Mines has done its damnedest to bring a wrecking ball to the pay and terms and conditions of those workers. It has used the labour resolution infrastructure of this State to harry and push the trade unions to relinquish the rights of those workers in that scenario.

At the time, Leo Varadkar promised that everything would be done to protect the workers, but nothing has been done. In fact, Tara Mines has sought to renew its mining licence, put in applications for solar farms and gone on with business as usual with the State, yet it has been fighting and hammering its workers. Even the local Intreo office, I understand, has been inundated with requests for transfers from its workers, because that office has been hammered with all the new people looking for income supports from social welfare. The only bulwark that has existed for the rights of those workers has been the trade unions, namely, SIPTU, Unite and Connect. They have been the only line of defence for those workers.

Time is running out, however, because the social welfare for most of those workers will change in four weeks, meaning their payments will be means tested. Many of them will see their incomes fall to maybe €15 or €20 a week because those payments will be means tested. Time is rapidly running out for hundreds of workers in Meath. In fact, many of those workers who have taken part-time jobs have had to relinquish their social welfare because of the small income they are receiving for those part-time jobs.

There needs to be a rebalancing of the relationship between trade unions and workers. Otherwise, there will be a race to the bottom in terms of the rights of workers right across the State. This Private Members' Bill offers strength and support to workers who wish to be members of a trade union and have its support. It is a small and simple step in helping workers to make that choice. There are many other things I would like to see done in terms of trade union rights. There needs to be an absolute and real right to collective bargaining in this State but that does not exist at the moment. As a result, workers' rights are weakened in the context of achieving justice. We need to make sure that life-long learning is provided to workers and that they have a right to that within the system. If the Government continues to stand on the sideline and allows large companies such as Boliden to flex their muscles and reduce the rights of workers, we will see devastation among families right across the State.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

I have reservations about this legislation. I understand and respect the bona fides of Teachta Joan Collins but as a small employer running a family business employing up to 25 people, I know the relationship between workers and their employers is very important. We see so much going on today with big businesses. I also accept the bona fides of the Minister of State but there is a front page story in The Irish Times today about a care company called Ideal Care Services which got €8.9 million from the State. TUSLA has uncovered a major scandal there involving bogus employment and falsified Garda vetting and God knows what else. What is going on with the State that it is paying this kind of money to companies, through the HSE, that are involved in downright abuse and blackguarding of workers and abuse of the Garda vetting process? The Garda vetting process is valued by everybody but this rogue company allegedly, according to the newspaper article, abused the system. TUSLA has prepared a report on it and The Irish Times has seen a copy of it. There are many cases like that throughout the country.

Ordinary employers cannot and should not be penalised. We must value SME owners who are trying to put bread on the table, feed their families and themselves and ensure they have a good record with their employees, which the vast majority do. Deputies talk about globalisation and it is the big global employers that abuse workers, put them under appalling pressure and give them very few rights. We have brought in more legislation here in the past couple of years to crucify small employers and businesses. We have new bank holidays, more sick pay, domestic violence leave and so on. Who is going to pay for all of this in a small business? Business owners cannot afford to pay and we must conduct impact assessments on any legislation we pass here. We are downright killing the spirit of the people out there who want to provide jobs for themselves and others, have a good relationship with their employees and support their local communities at every turn. We have to make hay slowly and the jury is out on this Bill.

Deputy Danny Healy-Rae

I thank the Independent Group for bringing this Bill to the House but I have my doubts and reservations about taking money out of people's pay packets and handing it over to trade unions. For too long now people have been coming to me from different sectors and walks of life to tell me that trade unions have let them down very badly. Cork University Hospital was mentioned earlier and the fact that the housekeeping staff there are not allowed to take their annual leave but their supervisors can do so. Supervisors are facilitated but the ordinary workers are not. They are under savage pressure and that is just one example.

I have been employing people for almost 40 years now and am proud to be an employer but there is a constant bombardment and attack on employers by those on the left in here. It is continuous. Small employers in rural places are under pressure like never before. Many of them are closing down their businesses because they cannot continue and if we place more rules and regulations on them and require more paperwork from them it will only hurt them further. If we do not have employers we will not have employees. If employers have to give up then their employees will not have a job. I know as well as anyone how quickly Friday evening comes around when one has people to pay and one has families depending on one. I always did my best to meet that wage bill and my family always does that. I am sorry I cannot support this Bill.

Deputy Michael Collins

The proposed Bill will impose an administrative burden on employers, including those running small businesses. They will need to manage the deduction and remittance of trade union subscriptions, maintain open lines of communication with employees in trade unions or potentially face legal consequences. Not only will this increase the cost of doing business here, it will also push up the cost of goods and services. The high cost of living and housing in Ireland exacerbates the challenges for workers. While nominal wages have risen across most sectors, in reality most workers are experiencing real wage reductions due to higher prices. I wish we were discussing employers and the people giving employment out there today. For the hospitality sector the increase in VAT and the minimum wage has pushed some people over the edge. Pubs, cafés and restaurants throughout the country are closing but there is no sympathetic ear from the Government. Government members have completely blindfolded themselves. The Taoiseach more or less said to me a couple of weeks ago when I raised the issue of cafés that most of them were going to go anyway. That was an incredible statement to make when these businesses are struggling because of the increases in VAT and the minimum wage. They cannot cope, cannot keep the door open and cannot put it on a plate.

As Deputies McGrath and Healy-Rae just said, there is sick pay, exit days, people are entitled to more days off, and there are more bank holidays. All of this is put on top of the employers who are trying to keep their businesses afloat. We have little or no sympathy in this country for employers but that is where our focus needs to be today. We should not be putting extra costs and difficulties on them. I also have grave reservations about this Bill.

Deputy Richard O'Donoghue

I am an employer myself and have been self-employed for nearly all of my life. I was lucky that a small employer took me on in the building trade when I was 15 years of age. That is when I went out on the buildings. I learned my trade and then I became an employer. I am still in employment and providing employment and I understand how hard it is to be an employer. The problem here is that this Government does not consider small businesses. It does not consider anything apart from international businesses where trade unions are involved but the statistics show that SMEs provide 50% of employment in Ireland. That is what the Government has to consider and it has to ask how it can help these people. The people who go out there, set up small businesses and are self employed take all of the risks. What if something happens to them? A friend of mine in Kerry had a bad accident and will be out of work for at least six months but might never get back to work. He was an employer. The Government does not consider the employers who do without wages themselves to make sure others get paid when legislation and regulations are changed. The only way they can recoup money is by increasing their prices but that drives inflation. We said this when the VAT increased from 9% to 13.5% and, at the same time, the minimum wage went up, which I welcomed. If the Government had left the VAT rate at 9%, that would have counteracted the minimum wage increase and people would actually have gotten more wages. Instead, the Government increased the VAT. It then took more income tax from employers and all they could do was increase their prices because money does not come out of the sky. Every product has a price. If an employer has employees, he or she has to cover employment costs as well as the running costs of the business, which drives inflation. The Government does not look at this. It is basing policy on big international businesses and has forgotten about the SMEs in local areas which employ 50% of the workforce in Ireland.

Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Deputy Dara Calleary)

Gabhaim buíochas as an Grúpa Neamhsplách agus An Teachta Collins as an Bhille seo. The Minister of State, Deputy Richmond, has already highlighted some important difficulties with this Bill.

While the intention behind the proposals is understood, it is important to acknowledge the policy and constitutional matters and potential regulatory impacts, including potential costs for businesses, that require detailed consideration in advance of progressing legislation in this area.

It is unclear how the measures set out in this Bill are supported by evidence or will provide any specific additional beneficial or additional protections to workers. The Payment of Wages Act 1991 already provides for lawful wage deduction arrangements between an employer and an employee with the prior written consent of the employee, albeit on a voluntary basis. Section 5(1)(c) of that Act states that an employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of an employee, or receive any payment from an employee, unless in the case of a deduction, the employee has given his or her prior consent to it in writing. Section 6 of the Act deals with complaints by employees in relation to contraventions of the Act under which redress can be sought through the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC, and on appeal to the Labour Court. As was set out earlier in the debate, if this Bill was introduced then effectively, under this law, an employer would have no choice when it comes to agreeing to remit trade union subscriptions and would have to bear the administrative costs of same. The reality is that even a small number of requests would place additional administrative burdens on small and medium-sized enterprises. In the context of rising costs, particularly for SMEs, and when legislative protections already exist both to make such deductions on a voluntary basis and to protect workers if subscriptions are mismanaged, placing an additional administrative burden on SMEs in this way is neither necessary nor appropriate.

Deputy Collins cited the implementation of the EU directive on adequate minimum wages in support of introducing these legal measures. However, in light of the multiple payment methods that now exist and the mobility of our workforce, it is unclear how deducting trade union subscriptions at source would increase collective bargaining coverage or trade union density.

Given the protections that already exist in law for deductions based on agreement between employers and workers it is also unclear how these proposals would enhance employment rights for workers. The Deputy mentioned instances where so-called union-busting tactics have been used by companies. I encourage anyone who is of the view that he or she has been victimised for being a member of a trade union to seek redress by formally making a complaint to the WRC, which has had a code of practice on victimisation in place since 2015. If Members of this House have specific instances brought to them involving companies illegally retaining or mismanaging trade union subscriptions deducted by agreement at source, I encourage all of them, in responding, to highlight the existing protections available to workers under the Payment of Wages Act, which also provides for redress through the WRC.

A number of Deputies mentioned the contract cleaning ERO. It is different to have a sector-specific agreement that has been agreed between worker and employer representatives placed on statute than it is to place a legal obligation without agreement on all employers, regardless of size, to deduct at source on request. It is reasonable that a proposal would require consideration for proportionality as it could be considered to impact on the rights of employers as to how they run their own business.

I also wish to highlight the supports that have been put in place for small businesses by this Government, since our election to office in 2020, through various Covid-19 protections. Moreover, through the forthcoming costs of business rebate grant, supports are being given directly to the smallest of businesses. I ask all of those calling for more supports to outline how they would pay them. They claim to have business experience. They claim to be employers, yet cannot seem to grasp basic accountancy in putting forward how matters proposed will be paid for.

For these reasons and for the reasons advanced earlier by the Minister of State, Deputy Richmond, the Government is not supporting this Bill. The Government had formally moved to amend the motion, as Deputy Richmond outlined earlier.

Deputy Catherine Connolly

Ar dtús báire, ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a chur in iúl don Teachta Collins, a foireann agus foireann na hoifige, as an sárobair atá déanta aici chun an Bille seo a chur os ár gcomhair. Is é bun agus barr an scéil ná an próiseas a éascú ionas go mbeidh oibrithe in ann ballraíocht i gceardchumainn a ghlacadh, ma tá se sin ag teastáil. Is é an rud atá i gceist ná dualgas a chur ar na fostóirí, más é sin an rud atá ag teastáil. Níl i gceist ach Bille thar a bheith gearr agus simplí, agus deich mír atá i gceist. Ar a laghad, má tá deacrachtaí ag an Rialtas ó thaobh an Bhille seo de, ba chóir dó an Bille a ligean don chéad Chéim eile agus na fadhbanna sin a oibriú amach. I thank Deputy Collins and her team for this Bill. It is a short Bill comprising ten sections. Is bun agus barr an Bhille to make it easier for workers to become members of unions if they request that to the employer. The employer has a certain time within which to do that and pass on the subscription.

I attended a presentation in the audiovisual room yesterday. Most of the unions were represented there and I understand they are all behind it, as is the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, ICTU. I actually sat there with my mouth open because it is such a basic entitlement, we really should not be fighting for this. If there are practical difficulties, as the Minister of State has now outlined, these should be teased out on Committee Stage. It is quite easy to table amendments. I shared the concerns of the Rural Independent Group Members when I was at the audiovisual room yesterday regarding the burden on employers. However, there are many ways of dealing with that. We were talking about bigger employers, I understand from Deputy Collins, so there could be an amendment to state it applies to businesses with more than a certain number of employees. We would not put an unnecessary administrative burden on small businesses, which I fully support. They are all over the city and county in Galway. That is one easy way of dealing with it.

The Minister of State, Deputy Richmond's, speech earlier never mentioned union busting. Minister of State, Deputy Calleary, has thrown it back to Deputy Collins for using the words "union-busting". That term comes directly from paragraph (16) of the preamble to the EU directive the Government has to make sure is law by November. There was no mention of it from either Minister of State. Is that going to happen? Is that deadline going to be met? We could look at paragraph (16) and discuss the huge problems faced by the reducing number of unions in Ireland where only 33% of employees are in unions. Paragraph (16) talks about the difficulty caused by union-busting. Will the Minister of State read that? Paragraph (4) of the preamble discusses conditions and paragraph (16), some of which Deputy Collins already read out, states "in particular as a consequence of union-busting practices and the increase of precarious and non-standard forms of work" and so on. That is where the phrase came from. It is the EU, that bastion of neoliberalism, telling us that this practice of union-busting is going on. We know that anecdotally in Ireland. We have many examples of a company being set up or coming to Ireland specifically to bust unions. It is disingenuous in the extreme to table an amendment like this which is anything but an amendment because it is saying the Government does not agree with this.

The Minister of State then gives reasons of constitutionality. Good Lord, there is nothing in the Constitution in regard to this. It is not about collective bargaining. It is not about forced recognition. It is about easing the process of allowing members to join a union. The irony of that is that Deputies and all the staff here benefit from unions fighting on our behalf. All of us in the public sector are about to get an increase of 2% to 3%, albeit some of us will get more than others, which is an argument for another day. What we want to do here is extend and make it easier for all workers to benefit from that. There is nothing here asking for instant recognition or collective bargaining, just an easing of the process. What is more, the evidence has come from the unions, from the figures of declining union numbers and from all the stories we hear about it being made extremely difficult.

In regard to those companies that passed on the subscriptions but not the increased subscriptions, can Members imagine using that tactic? It meant the union members fell into arrears. In other cases, when somebody exerted their rights or went out on industrial strike, the union subscriptions were stopped. That practice is totally unacceptable. I know the Minister of State's heart is not in this yet he is standing over an amendment that is totally without grounding and not allowing this to be presented and debated at a committee in order that the concerns expressed by Deputies Mattie McGrath and Seán Canney and their colleagues could be teased out.

Deputy Joan Collins

I will first thank my PA, Naoise McTeirnan and David Gibney, who assisted in developing this Bill. The Bill addresses a problem that the Minister of State has failed to deal with. Employers are using the removal or threat of removal of all or some of a deduction at source agreement as a bargaining chip in collective bargaining negotiations.

If the Minister of State had been at the meeting yesterday, he would know the FSU said clearly that through collective bargaining, the bosses can threaten to cut off the deductions at source as a bargaining tool in those negotiations. The major private sector and public sector unions say this is a problem they are facing more often. As pointed out by Deputy Connolly, it is in the EU directive that union busting is an issue. There is direct testimony from workers about how their agreements were targeted when they took industrial action, when colleagues who did not take industrial action had their agreements confirmed. Specific branches of retail companies were able to stop union dues during a dispute. For 18 years, one employer has used deductions at source as a way of automatically putting every employee who is a member of a trade union into arrears by refusing to pass on subscription fees and refusing to implement increases.

The Minister of State has not addressed that. For all his talk of supporting and encouraging collective bargaining, he made no reference to the fact this is being used as a union-busting tactic, or he referenced it only very briefly. In 2017 and 2018, I raised in the Dáil that during the Tesco dispute, the company brought in a union-busting company, Eversheds, which implemented an operation, Project Black, to deliberately cut across the rights of those workers to take industrial action, on which they had taken a vote. The Minister of State cannot claim to support collective bargaining if a major trade union says this is one of the biggest hurdles that unions face when bargaining and the Government then votes down a simple Bill that would remove that hurdle.

The fact is that it is already in law because a Minister signed into law the Employment Regulation Order (Contract Cleaning Industry Joint Labour Committee) 2022, which requires employers to make deductions at source. The Minister of State did not address that. Did that employment regulation order put an administrative cost or burden on employers? Did it put a cost on the Exchequer? Does it cause a constitutional issue? This is already in law and this Government put it there. I do not buy the issues raised by the Minister of State when the Government already has this provision in law.

He said there was no evidence it will improve workers’ rights but the opposite is true. We have direct evidence and testimony from Mandate, the FSU and other unions that this legislation is needed and directly improves their ability to negotiate for better pay and conditions. I am glad the Minister of State, Deputy Richmond, has his union dues paid from his wages. However, I am not glad about how many workers in this country have had their ability to have deductions at source taken away from them, have had their subscriptions not raised to deliberately put them into arrears when unions are not entitled to representation, or have had deductions at source held over them as a union-busting tool when they were negotiating for a better deal.

The Bill reflects a real need to strengthen workers’ rights in Ireland. Ireland has among the lowest trade union and collective bargaining density in the EU. The implications of this are that 42,000 extra people were living in poverty while at work between 2009 and 2021. This Bill seeks to right that wrong and strengthen those workers’ ability to negotiate for something better than poverty wages. The Government is sending a clear message to those workers and I did not think I would hear it from Fianna Fáil or the Greens. People can get a deduction at source for the bicycle scheme but not for being in a trade union subscription scheme. It is outrageous. I am amazed that the Government is not supporting the Bill. I ask the Government to reverse this decision, stop doing the bidding of big business and union busters, and vote to increase workers’ rights and their ability to improve their own livelihoods. It sends a clear message when the Government, in particular Fianna Fáil and the Green Party, stand for improving workers’ rights and providing a decent standard of wages.

The Minister of State said that the definition of "employee" was not clear but we have a definition in the Bill and, in any case, I would be open to an amendment to that. He said the Bill defines the “Act of 1977” as the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 and we have that in section 8 of our Bill, although he said it is not there. The Minister of State said the Long Title of the Bill refers to “the written notice of the information required under section 6” when the written notice is required under section 5, and I have no problem amending that. These are simple things. The proposal to extend the period of 21 days to 30 or 40 days to facilitate smaller companies would not be an issue for me and I would be happy to have that amended. Deputy Connolly referred to extending the definition of "small businesses" to those with more than 20 or 25 employees. It is a simple Bill and that is why big businesses in this country fear it, and the Government is reflecting that and supporting them on it.

Amendment put.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Michael Ring)

The division will be deferred until the weekly division time this evening.

Cuireadh an Dáil ar fionraí ar 11.45 a.m. agus cuireadh tús leis arís ar meán lae.

Sitting suspended at 11.45 a.m. and resumed at 12 noon.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 28 Feb 2024

Protection of Employees (Trade Union Subscriptions) Bill 2024: Second Stage [Private Members]

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 28 Feb 2024