Skip to main content
Normal View

Joint Committee on Gender Equality debate -
Thursday, 22 Sep 2022

Recommendations of the Report of the Citizens’ Assembly on Gender Equality: Discussion (Resumed)

Members may attend physically in the committee room or may join the meeting via Microsoft Teams from their Leinster House offices. I know that some colleagues are going to do the latter. Members may not participate in the meeting from outside the parliamentary precincts. I ask members joining on Teams to mute their microphones when not making a contribution and to use the raised hand function to indicate. All those present in the committee room are asked to exercise personal responsibility in respect of protection against the risk of contracting Covid-19.

I welcome very heartily the two representatives with us from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, ICTU: Mr. David Joyce, equality officer; and Dr. Laura Bambrick, head of social policy and employment affairs. They are very welcome. On behalf of the committee, I welcome them particularly for having made themselves available today at short notice due to a change at the last minute in our schedules. We really appreciate that. We also appreciate their being here early because we were ready to start early. That is how efficient the committee's business is. We really appreciate their co-operation and their facilitation of that.

Before I ask the witnesses to make their opening statement, I must read out an important notice regarding parliamentary privilege. Witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

I will now invite Dr. Bambrick and Mr. Joyce to make their opening statement before opening the floor to members for questions and answers. As I always say, this is a time-limited special committee. We were set up last December to explore the 45 recommendations of the Citizens' Assembly on Gender Equality, which we regard as presenting us with a blueprint for change on gender equality. Our view throughout our public hearings has been that we are looking at the practical implementation of those recommendations. We have asked all our witnesses to address that. I thank today's witnesses for having been so focused, in their fuller submission to the committee and in the opening statement we have been given, on how we achieve implementation of the recommendations. We have invited them to address in particular recommendations 32 to 36, on pay and workplace conditions, but we are conscious that in their fuller submission they have addressed a number of other recommendations that would have relevance for ICTU. We may well wish to explore some of those in the questions and answers. I thank the witnesses again. I invite them to make their opening statement.

Mr. David Joyce

I will deliver on our behalf the opening statement, and then we are both happy to chip in in the discussion. On behalf of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, I thank the members of the committee for the invitation to input into its considerations of the recommendations of the Citizens' Assembly on Gender Equality. I am accompanied by my colleague, Dr. Laura Bambrick, as the Chair said. As requested, we are limiting our opening remarks to the recommendations on pay and workplace conditions, that is, recommendations 32 to 36, but, as the Chair said, if time allows we are happy to stray into other areas covered in our original submission.

On recommendations 32 and 33, relating to the gender pay gap, I will not read them out because I think we are all familiar with them and for the sake of time. Currently, the most up-to-date EUROSTAT figure for Ireland's gender pay gap is 11.3%, based on 2018 data, below the EU average of 13%. We recognise the significant issues surrounding how the pay gap is calculated and measured. That was outlined by the Nevin Economic Research Institute in its submission to the committee. The Gender Pay Gap Information Act also acknowledges this and, in turn, requires employers to report using a range of indicators, which we welcome. We are very pleased that gender pay gap audits are currently under way in employments of more than 250 employees. Next week we will publish a guide for trade union workplace representatives participating in the process, to be launched by the Minister, Deputy O'Gorman. We have long called for the introduction of this type of reporting, and we await with interest the publication of these reports by employers in December. I acknowledge the role of the Chair in this area because she was the first person to publish a Bill of this type in the Oireachtas. We had wanted and hoped that the process would require employers to discuss any gap identified with workers and their representatives and to agree a joint approach to tackling the gap. That was not to be, but unions will be knocking on employers' doors from December seeking discussions and agreement as to how any gaps identified will be addressed in a timely and effective manner.

Moving on to the recommendation on the living wage, No. 34, we welcome the programme for Government commitment to eradicate hourly low pay from the Irish economy, which comes on foot of new EU rules on moving to adequate minimum wages. The European Commission, in its impact assessment of the directive, notes that women workers throughout the EU are almost twice as likely to be earning the minimum wage than men. Some 60% of all workers on minimum pay are women, including in Ireland, and the proportion is up to 70% in some member states. Addressing the inadequacy of our minimum wage, which is currently at 80% of the at-risk-of-poverty threshold, will positively contribute to gender equality, narrow the gender pay and pension gaps and lift large numbers of women out of in-work poverty. Specifically, the EU impact assessment estimates that Ireland's gender pay gap will decline by almost 10% when Ireland increases its minimum wage to 60% of the hourly median wage. Some member states are taking swift action to raise their wage floors towards more adequate levels. Earlier this year the German Government and Parliament took the decision to increase the minimum wage from €9.60 an hour in December 2021 to €12 by October 2022, a rise of 25%, which is approximately 60% of Germany's median hourly wage. In our submissions to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment consultation on the phase-in of the living wage and to the Low Pay Commission on the hourly rate of the minimum wage in 2023, we too recommended swift action and that the minimum wage becomes the living wage.

Congress reiterates this recommendation to the committee today. While we do not dispute that certain sectors will face a larger potential increase in their wage bill compared to the estimated 1% overall wage bill increase, we draw the committee’s attention to the European Commission’s impact assessment finding that the negative impacts on SMEs are expected to be limited.

A third area is collective bargaining and recommendation No. 35. From our point of view, this is a really important recommendation from the citizens' assembly. Collective bargaining is a key means whereby employers and trade unions can establish fair wages and working conditions and provide the basis for sound labour relations. Collective bargaining agendas have broadened over time to address issues such as workplace discrimination and sexual harassment, equal pay and opportunities, the care responsibilities of workers and the impact of domestic violence in the workplace. All workers should have the right to influence and shape the conditions under which they work, yet today in Ireland many workers are denied this fundamental right. Its importance is illustrated by the recent pay deal in the early years sector, which came into effect just last week. Some 70% of the 27,000 workers, predominantly women, in that sector received a pay increase after that pay deal.

A couple of processes are under way that have the potential to address this serious decent work deficit. The EU directive on minimum wages will strengthen and extend the coverage of collective bargaining by obliging member states with fewer than 80% of workers covered by these agreements to take active steps to promote this tool. This directive has the potential to positively transform the landscape for collective bargaining in Ireland. On foot of this requirement, work is very advanced on a high level group established through the Labour Employer Economic Forum, LEEF. If we are to achieve goal 8 of the sustainable development goals and provide decent work for all, we must grasp these opportunities to finally introduce a mature industrial relations system.

Increased resourcing of the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC, is an important recommendation. The WRC is currently operating with around 50 labour inspectors. There is an urgent need to increase this number. It was agreed as part of the previous social partnership agreement, Towards 2016, to increase the number of inspectors to at least 90. In the meantime, the workforce has grown to an all-time high of more than 2.5 million people.

On the statutory right to reasonable access to flexible working, Congress led the campaign for a statutory right to request remote working. As unions, we see daily the huge benefits remote working is having for workers and their families, businesses, communities and the environment. We welcome the commitment from the Tánaiste to introduce workers’ rights on how employers handle requests for remote working arrangements and we are working with the officials in his Department to amend his Bill to make it fit for purpose.

However, unions are concerned by the emergence of a work-life balance privilege gap between workers in jobs that can be done remotely and workers in jobs requiring a physical presence. To reduce the potential for a two-tier workforce between the remote working haves and have-nots, ICTU has been calling for workers’ rights in requesting all types of flexible working arrangements, not just remote, that is, arrangements such as flexi-time, part-time, job shares, split shifts, compressed hours, etc. This is already a long-established workers' right in the UK and in EU peer countries. We raised this in our evidence to the citizen’s assembly and we are delighted it made the introduction of a statutory right to request flexible working one of its recommendations.

A 2019 EU directive on work-life balance gives carers and parents of young children a right to request flexible work. It is our view that limiting this right is a lost opportunity and the right to request flexible working arrangements should be available to all workers. Earlier this year, the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, Deputy O’Gorman, published the heads of a Bill to give effect to the directive. We engaged with his Department on these, but unfortunately the Bill had not progressed further than pre-legislative scrutiny before the summer recess and Ireland has missed an EU deadline to transpose an important workers’ right into national law. We welcome reported Cabinet sign-off of the Bill earlier this week and we urge the Minister to prioritise the legislation. We reiterate our call for him to be more ambitious than the minimum requirements of the directive and make the right to request flexible working available to all workers.

I thank the committee members for their attention and we are happy to take any questions.

I thank Mr. Joyce for your kind words about the gender pay gap. I would like to acknowledge the success of the early years pay agreement, which was groundbreaking. I should have also acknowledged the announcement yesterday that the general secretary of ICTU, Ms Patricia King, is to step down. She has been such a role model for women, in particular, in the trade union movement and across Ireland and I would like to acknowledge her immense work over so many years and her public service and pay tribute to her.

I also wanted to welcome the citizens' assembly members who are tuning in and who follow our hearings remotely. Without further ado, I would like to invite members to indicate if they wish to ask questions or make contributions. I call Deputy Cronin first.

I thank ICTU for their presentation and submission. I would like to ask about domestic violence paid leave and International Labour Organization, ILO, Convention No. 190. ICTU sent in a submission on the ten days' annual leave for victims of domestic violence. Before the summer recess, the Joint Committee on Children, Equality and Disability, Integration and Youth published its pre-legislative scrutiny on the work life balance and the miscellaneous provisions Bill. The report acknowledged that the Minister was going to introduce domestic violence leave during Committee Stage consideration of the Bill, which is welcome. It recommends that it would be ten days, as provided.

Reference was also made in the ICTU submission to the domestic leave Bill introduced by Deputies O'Reilly and McDonald. While the Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, indicated that he might be looking for employers to be provided with some kind of documentation to uphold the fact that the worker has experienced domestic violence, the Sinn Féin Bill made certain recommendations, noting that there is a stigma attached to being a victim of domestic violence. Will Mr. Joyce comment on that? What would he recommend in this regard?

Mr. David Joyce

I would like to acknowledge the work of Deputy O'Reilly in this area. The introduction of that Bill was really important. I also welcome the Minister's signal that he is going to introduce this as part of the broader work-life balance Bill. This is an important issue for us and indeed for unions throughout the world. Deputy Cronin referenced ILO Convention No. 190. We fought long and hard to ensure reference to domestic violence was included in that convention. Article 10 does that and asks member states to take action to recognise the effects of domestic violence and, insofar as reasonably practicable, mitigate its impacts on the world of work. The Department is currently involved in a consultation on ratification of that convention and we will make a submission on that. We welcome the signals that they intend to ratify it before the end of this year. The issue of ten days' leave is welcome. We had detailed discussions with Deputy O'Reilly and the Minister. I agree with Deputy Cronin that, insofar as is practicable, providing proof in this instance is not the way to go.

A lot of relationships start in the workplace and some relationships might actually be with a co-worker.

Mr. David Joyce

Indeed, it could well be. We agree with the Deputy on that and hope that is the approach the Minister will take in any Bill that he brings forward.

Would that be Mr. Joyce's recommendation as well?

Mr. David Joyce

Yes.

Mr. Joyce also asked if the committee would support his call for the Government to ratify ILO Convention No. 190 as a matter of urgency.

Mr. David Joyce

Yes.

The Department is in consultation at the moment and the more submissions and recommendations it gets, the better. The Tánaiste has stated this will be done by the end of this year and we hope that will happen.

The Minister of State, Deputy English, has also confirmed from legal advice he has received that he does not believe any supplementary legislation will be needed.

Mr. David Joyce

That is correct.

Does Dr. Bambrick have any comment?

Dr. Laura Bambrick

This is definitely Mr. Joyce's area of expertise.

I will add that based on the media reporting about the Bill, which apparently was signed off by Cabinet this week, employers will pay salaries for those ten days. In our discussions around sick leave, the argument was made that workers needed to provide sick certificates from doctors because if employers were going to pay, they had the right to request proof of illness or that the employee was unfit to work. If we follow that argument in relation to employers paying for time off for domestic violence leave, should they require proof? However, it is being reported that while employers will pay for domestic violence leave days, a clawback will be put in place and the Government will reimburse the employer. The reason employers will be asked to pay initially is that the employee receives the payment in the next payroll and that does not become a barrier to a person taking the leave. If there is no actual out-of-pocket cost to the employer, this is further reason that it be based on an honour system whereby people approach their employer and state they need to exercise their right to domestic leave. Whether it is for a half day to see a solicitor or to look for accommodation, it should be an honour system and a person should be taken at her or his word. Systems will be put in place by this Bill to look back after a year to see how it has worked. There will be an opportunity to re-evaluate. However, in the first instance, especially where no out-of-pocket expenses are incurred by employers, we should move forward and start with an honour system. We can look back after a year.

Can I ask one supplementary question?

Dr. Laura Bambrick

Absolutely.

Did ICTU get involved with the public consultation? The Minister of State, Deputy English, said that stakeholders would be consulted. Was ICTU invited to that?

Dr. Laura Bambrick

Does the Deputy mean consultation on the domestic violence bill?

No, under the International Labour Organization, ILO, convention.

Mr. David Joyce

The deadline for submissions is Monday so it is on my desk at the moment.

A timely question.

Mr. David Joyce

As one of the tripartite constituents of the ILO we were involved in the negotiation of the convention as part of the workers group. Obviously we have a keen interest in it and the new national strategy on domestic, sexual and gender-based violence also references the convention and we welcome that too. I am hopeful that this will all get over the line before the end of the year.

That is very encouraging. I thank the witness for that update. It is very helpful.

I call Deputy Clarke.

I thank the witnesses for their time on what is a really wet and windy morning. It is the first of what I hope are few to come.

I will focus on two specific areas. The first is the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC. We now have the lowest level of unemployment, essentially, since records began. The WRC is a vital component of workers' rights sitting in tandem with those going to work. In the ICTU submission, it was recommended that the resources for more effective enforcement of current employment law be increased and that the number of labour inspectors needed to be increased from the current 50. Under the last social partnership agreement, Towards 2016, a number of 90 was agreed. I ask this question because we now have more people in employment and by default, a corresponding increase is needed in those reconciliation and conciliation processes. However, at the same time, this entity is charged with examining and enforcing housing discrimination. How can 50 labour inspectors under the WRC possibly be in a position to meet the needs of all those additional employees?

Why has that number not increased? It is a very specific number. It is almost double the current number of inspectors. Why has that not happened?

Making a complaint is an onerous experience and is not something I have seen an employee do on a whim. It is very stressful. It can be a daunting experience. From the witnesses' experience, what is the average time from the complaint being made to the conclusion, including the initial waiting period? What other resources does the WRC need to expedite cases, outside of labour inspectors?

New processes are in place. We have an increase in employment. We have equality complaints. These are all new since that Towards 2016 target was put in place.

Why has it not happened and what do they need to make it happen?

Mr. David Joyce

I will begin and Dr. Bambrick can chip in. Towards 2016 was the title of the last social partnership agreement which was agreed in 2008 or 2009. I do not remember exactly, but it was a number of years ago. Of course, it was never fully implemented because we had the financial crisis and all that transpired from there. Therefore the agreement fell into abeyance but it is the only target on the public record. We hope that there will be movement towards it. The Deputy is correct that 50 labour inspectors in completely inadequate for the size of our labour market now. It has long been recognised that an increase is needed. Getting to 90 would be a start and then we will see where we go from there.

I do not have the figure to hand of the average times of complaints. I do know that serious efforts were made to improve the system through the overhaul of those bodies. However, the Deputy is right that a body charged with hearing cases right across the employment field but also in equal status cases etc. needs huge resources. It is a challenging environment for people to take any case into and of course justice delayed is justice denied.

Obviously we work to try and ensure that cases do not reach that stage. We try to solve issues in workplaces through negotiation and representations etc. However, for people who decide that they have reached the end of that possibility, the WRC should be a place they can go to ensure their rights are vindicated.

And in a timely manner.

Mr. David Joyce

Yes. I am happy to follow up with the Deputy directly on the specific question which I cannot answer now, unless Dr. Bambrick can.

Dr. Laura Bambrick

No, it is not an area I work in, but I will give the Deputy a tip. The WRC publishes an annual report each year and that is rich in detail on the types of cases taken although it does not include the people who are frustrated by the system and who do not even get to bring a case. The report outlines the types of cases brought before the WRC and the timeline. As I said, it not an area in which I work, but in other fora I encounter colleagues who do work in this area and at every opportunity, they make the case for increasing the number of labour inspectors proportionate to the massive growth in the size of the workforce. It is not just that unemployment has decreased. We have more people than ever before at work and the number of labour inspectors should be proportionate. We regularly hear that the systems have changed, adapted and modernised. In theory, labour inspectors do not need to visit every workplace.

Labour inspectors do not in theory have to visit every workplace. Particular work spaces, where there are odds of non-compliance - the withholding of wages, people working above the maximum hours and not receiving their break and bogus self-employed - are heavily targeted. The Department and inspectors are now working across different agencies and Departments. That is to be welcomed but we still say it should be scaled up to be done proportionate to the workforce.

I absolutely agree with Dr. Bambrick. Even from the perspective of the rights of workers, as in the inspectors themselves, that level of workload has to lead to burnout. It is not the healthiest workplace to be in if you are constantly almost fire-fighting to get through the cases that are sitting in front of you. In the scenario where the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC, is under resourced, there is the employee from among the general public who is not getting being heard in a timely manner but on the other side there are the employees of the WRC who are under an immense amount of pressure. That does not seem to be the right balance that we need to strike to ensure employment rights are upheld.

Dr. Laura Bambrick

Absolutely. It is not enough of a deterrent to rogue employers, knowing that the system that is supposed to be there to protect employees, non-WRC employees, will frustrate them at every turn in vindicating their rights. It is not enough to turn rouge employers. It is worth taking the gamble.

It is a really interesting recommendation from the citizens' assembly that it included that under gender-related issues and pay and workplace conditions. I thank Dr. Bambrick for highlighting that. Senator Pauline O'Reilly, who is Vice Chair of this committee, is next.

I welcome the witnesses who have expertise in this area. The committee is delighted to have them here to help us in our work. It is interesting that the citizens themselves, the citizens' assembly, put so much effort into this issue. Most of us, men and women, have been in the workplace and have seen what the flaws are that lead to us not having the flexibility that we need or our rights upheld. I have been before the WRC as part of my professional role and it does excellent work. The inspectors do absolutely excellent work in putting the workers front and centre. You do not need to have representation. They take the worker through the whole thing. I agree with the recommendation to increase the numbers of labour inspectors there on the basis of the increased numbers of workers we have in this country and the highest ever level of employment.

I wish to go back to the domestic violence leave and to point out that it was in the programme for Government that there would be an investigation. We are two years in government and it is appropriate that we see the legislation passed. I would be concerned if it was delayed because for the first time ever domestic violence was put into a programme for Government and there are a number of commitments around that. Paid leave and social protection provision was part of that.

I take on board the issue. Having been a solicitor in the area of family law, there is a stigma around people talking about and showing evidence of abuse. People do not say it lightly because of that stigma. Something needs to be looked there but I cannot say what that is at this stage. However, it is welcome that it has come through Cabinet and has been agreed this week.

Is there anything else around the Bill the witnesses will suggest and bring to the committee? It would be good to hear that at the earliest possible opportunity as their statements have been somewhat broad.

The Chair, Deputy Bacik, mentioned childcare at the outset. This is the first time ever that childcare professionals are being paid appropriately and are being put on a professional level. I would like to hear witnesses' comments on that deal that was struck where for the first time ever State funding has underpinned that for a section of workers in Ireland. We will all be listening anxiously to the budget next week in terms of the childcare budget that will support parents to the same level.

The Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, Deputy O'Gorman, is one of our Green Party Ministers and he does a huge amount of work in this area. It is important to acknowledge that more has happened in the last two years in relation to gender equality in the workforce than ever before. I would like to hear witnesses' thoughts around that.

There are quite a number of issues there. I do not know which of the witnesses would like to go first.

Mr. David Joyce

On the issue of domestic violence leave, it is a really important development. As I said, we fought to get inclusion of that in the convention. I draw Senator O'Reilly's attention to recommendation 206 which accompanies the convention and goes into more detail in terms of providing advice to governments on the steps they might take on implementing the convention. As well as leave for victims of domestic violence, it references things like flexible work arrangements; protection for victims of domestic violence; temporary protection against dismissal for victims of domestic violence as appropriate; the inclusion of domestic violence in workplace risk assessments; a referral system to public mitigation measures for domestic violence where they exist; and awareness raising about the effects of domestic violence. There are areas there that could also inform how we address this issue.

Senator Pauline O'Reilly and the Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, have done great work in getting this on the agenda. As Senator O'Reilly said, the Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, has been very busy with a whole range of issues in his Department which has a very long title that also indicates his broad agenda. He has to work on including the transposition of the work-life balance directive. He has taken action to ensure the gender pay gap reporting system that is now in place.

On childcare, Senator Pauline O'Reilly touched on an important point in her intervention that the pay deal and the introduction of core funding went hand in hand. Without the increased levels of core funding, the pay deal could not have happened. Without the increased levels of investment put on the table by the Government, providers just would not have been in a position to pay the increase. The vast majority of providers have opted in to the core funding and to pay that deal. The Senator is right that it is the first step. It is only a step and it is not the end of the road because employment regulation orders can be reviewed. I am sure SIPTU, our affiliate which was directly involved in this, will do that at the earliest opportunity as well.

Dr. Laura Bambrick

We would agree with Senator Pauline O'Reilly about the urgency in getting this domestic violence legislation over the line. The good news is that it is part of the work-life balance Bill 2022. That is very time sensitive. In fact, we are already late with it and it should have been national law by August, which was the deadline. I would imagine that as soon as the budget is out of the way, which is no small feat, the Minister will be using the time to get that Bill through.

Therefore, as soon as the budget is out of the way, which is no small feat, the Minister will be using the time to get that Bill and we will see domestic violence legislated for.

The Senator mentioned childcare. It is hugely welcome that for the first time childcare professionals are being paid at a rate that reflects their expertise and the valuable work they do. ICTU will be looking closely at this budget. The next round is about reducing the out-of-pocket cost for parents. We will be especially focused on how those costs are reduced for working couples. Given the cut-off points under the current system, if two parents working outside the home have more than €60,000 in per annum reckonable income, that is, income after tax, plus child benefit, the childcare subsidy is the only State support I am aware of that includes child benefit as income coming into the house. Two parents in the same household who are working quickly become ineligible for those additional means-tested childcare support. That is something the trade unions will be paying especially close attention to in next week's budget.

Deputy McAuliffe is next and Senator Warfield will follow.

I thank our guests for being with us. I echo some of the comments made by my colleague, Senator Pauline O'Reilly, particularly on the progress we have made in the past two years. In the room next door to us one of the last groups of workers who have no protection for maternity leave, namely, local authority members, are being granted it through new legislation. Pre-legislative scrutiny on that Bill is taking place next door. Progress is being made but there is still an awful lot more to do.

It is interesting that the citizens' assembly recommendations were around gender-neutral recruitment. I am conscious of industries where there is a low number of people of one gender. To be very stereotypical, we might take the construction sector which has low female participation or some of the caring professions where there is low male participation. Does ICTU have any specific recommendations organisations could take on about gender-neutral recruitment?

On dispute resolution, does ICTU have any anecdotal evidence of whether those in the minority gender in a given field experience the dispute resolution procedures differently than their colleagues? I imagine there is discrimination at all levels but I am thinking about the understanding of how gender might play into the nature of any dispute, be it constructive dismissal, a Payment of Wages Act claim or whatever? Do the witnesses have any comment on that?

Dr. Laura Bambrick

On the Deputy's second point, I am not aware of any research that has been undertaken on multiple discrimination, such as grounds of race and gender, but we would expect to see it higher. It would emphasise the point that it is important we get migrant workers into trade unions and get them aware of their rights, especially if they are newly arrived or are coming in on employment permits and might not be aware of their rights in an Irish context. We say your union is your best protection for that. Am I aware of any hard facts and evidence percentages that it is more likely for a person? I am not aware that has been taking place. I imagine the UK has better evidence and usually that is a good indication of where we are.

The Deputy's other point was about a better gender mix and being gender-blind in reporting. The best way to attract men into predominantly female sectors is to improve wages because once a particular sector becomes feminised, the wages and conditions tend to be diluted; they go hand-in-hand. Attracting men into what is now a heavily female sector is about improving wages and conditions. In the reverse situations, some good work is being done through the apprentice system. Though more men go into apprenticeships, there has been massive improvement in recent years and we are seeing more women going into apprenticeships, though I do not have the figures to hand. That is partly because the range of apprenticeships has been broadened. If you are going to have a hairdressing apprenticeship and a healthcare one you are more likely to see women in them. There is much work being done by State agencies on getting women to come in and do their apprenticeships for bus driving and mechanical engineering because they are good jobs. If we can get young women, some of whom are early school leavers or have done the leaving certificate but are not interested in college, into apprenticeships or trades that is a family wage, so if their circumstances-----

I imagine though that pay alone is not the only tool we need to improve the gender balance in some sectors. I take Dr. Bambrick's point about predominantly female professions, though I do not like using the phrase, but professions that have a predominance of people of one gender, especially women, have lower pay and there is no doubt about that. I accept her point that if pay is improved, that will improve attractiveness but if the reverse was true, we would have more women in high-paying positions and that is not the case and, therefore, I imagine we need to have those apprenticeship and entry supports on both sides. Teaching, for example, is something that does not attract as many men as we would like to see. During the periods when there was very high unemployment especially, many men considered caring professions for the first time out of economic necessity but they found them hugely rewarding and found a real niche for themselves in that space because there were so few men there. Where personal care is required, often a man-on-man scenario was more comfortable than a female care assistant bathing a man or whatever. I found that really awakening because out of economic necessity they were applying for jobs they had never thought about before but if they had been supported and encouraged many of them would have seriously considered it. We need to look at some of the programmes that are available that Dr. Bambrick talks about to encourage female participation as we need have it on both sides, as such.

Dr. Laura Bambrick

Absolutely. When we are talking about the pay and the conditions, the conditions can be something broad similar to the flexibility involved in that work, the time commitment and the amount of travel. When we are making the decision around what career we will go with we are usually young, free and single so it is the bottom dollar that will attract us. As we move up - this tends to be more for women - then they are looking at what kind of work-life balance. Women were making those decision before we had the phrase "work-life balance". They were looking at something that would allow them to have a career to dip in and out of as their family needs and caring needs change.

My second question is on childcare. It is well-flagged there are three phases to childcare. The first is pay and conditions in year 1. The second is some attempt to reduce costs and the third is to try to improve public governance of what is effectively a model that utilises private providers. Lots of people would like to see a more publicly-provided model and great early childcare providers, especially in disadvantaged communities, are publicly provided. The difficulty is how we phase out a system where people are employed by private operators. Often these people are doing it because they love it and they are small providers. Has ICTU a view of what that public governance and perhaps removal of private operators might look like? If we want a public system, how do we do that without squeezing out good small providers that are providing private childcare? Have the witnesses thought about the balance in the final year of this three-year programme might look like?

I am aware that we usually have a time limit on exchanges but maybe Dr. Bambrick will address that specific question for Deputy McAuliffe, and then we will move on.

Dr. Laura Bambrick

The Deputy is right. Ireland is very unusual. We have 100% private delivery of childcare, 25% of which is the private not-for-profit care that was talked about in areas of disadvantage, and 75% is the private for-profit care. When we are talking about this to members, the model I normally talk about is that period when it was decided second level education was going to be free at the point of use for all teenagers. That was a private model, and over time the Government took over the delivery of that. How did it do it? Instead of new provision coming on from the private market, over time the public provision was provided. As people were retiring out of it, the Government took over then and it became public. It is not something on which we can cut the ribbon tomorrow. Publicly delivered childcare will be a long-term plan. It would be a commitment from the Government that where additional childcare places are needed they would be publicly delivered. It would not be a private model, whether that is private for-profit providers or private not-for-profit providers.

When Dr. Bambrick says that it could be delivered, it could still be provided by a not-for-profit operator, like schools are.

Dr. Laura Bambrick

Yes, exactly like the school model.

That is interesting. I thank Dr. Bambrick.

That is a very clear answer. It fits right in with recommendation No. 8 of the citizens' assembly, which we have been considering, and with the calls that I and others make for a Donogh O'Malley moment to take place in childcare and early years care. I thank Dr. Bambrick for that.

I thank the Irish Congress of Trade Unions for coming to the committee. I want to talk about the living wage, some of the recommendations that ICTU has made, and the reference to Germany's good reminder of the 25% increase in the minimum wage from €9.82 per hour to €12.00 per hour. What is ICTU's view on setting a living wage at 60% of median income, and what is the union's view on the four-year phase-in period from next year? I am interested to start with those questions and I will then ask about how we can look at exempting businesses that might be able to prove that they would face job losses. We know that a reduction in hours is evidenced there. I am not sure that a reduction in job losses is evidenced there but certainly there is evidence for a reduction in hours. My questions are around the 60% of median income and the phase-in period.

The sound was not great there. Did Dr. Bambrick get the question?

Dr. Laura Bambrick

Yes. I thank the Senator. The way we calculate a living wage can fall into two areas. I am sure the committee is aware of this. Do we go for the basket of goods and see what are the goods and services a person needs to be able to live an adequate and decent life, how much does that cost and how much does that work out at an hourly limit, or do we do it in a way that we tack it to a certain percentage of all wages in the economy? ICTU has come on for the fixed threshold approach, which is the percentage approach. We feel that going for the basket of goods approach is open and very subjective. It would be based on focus groups deciding what the low-income worker should buy. It would not be responsive enough. When we consider the cost-of-living crisis we are in now, one would have to gather together a lot of focus groups, get them to agree what should be in the basket of goods and price it up, and then calculate it. Whereas, if we peg it to what is happening to wages in the economy it is much easier and it is much more responsive. It gives better certainty to employers and employees. ICTU's recommendation would be that instead of it being 60% it would be 66%. Why do we say that? It is because 60% of the median wage is just the poverty line, whereas 66% is the low-income line. If a person is earning below two thirds of the median wage then he or she is considered, by all of the research and statistician agencies both national and international, to be a low-income worker. If our goal is to eradicate low pay from the economy, the living wage should be at 60% median wage. The benefit of this is that at 66% of median wage it is very close to what the level is for the basket of goods. We would be getting the best of both worlds. We would be pegging it to a fixed threshold approach, but we know at that level it would be high enough to eradicate low pay from the Irish economy and, in turn, the EU. We know that it would also be sufficient to provide that minimum essential standard of living, that minimum essential standard of living approach basket of goods.

I am sorry to interrupt, but I hope the committee will hear that loud and clear. I hope that will be reflected in our final report.

Dr. Laura Bambrick

I will address quickly the timeline of the living wage. The Report on the Living Wage by the Low Pay Commission recommended no more than five years. The Tánaiste has come out and recommended in a public consultation that it will be four years. Since then, however, as the Senator has highlighted and as we mentioned in our submission, the German Government, which is not known for its spontaneous economic reaction to things, has come out to say that they would move to a living wage over a ten-month period. This will be a 25% increase in Germany's living wage. Through the labour employer economic forum process, LEEF, we are working with the Tánaiste and his officials to get more information on how Germany is doing this, how the country will support those sectors and employers that would have large numbers in the context of this instant uplift in the minimum wage to a living wage over that short period, and the implications for that. We hope to have information on that within the coming weeks.

That is great. Many thanks. The living wage coalition will be in with the committee in a couple of weeks' time, and indeed the Tánaiste will be in next week. Does Senator Warfield have another question?

The Senator has two minutes, and we will give him a little leeway.

That is very helpful. The ESRI was before the committee last week and spoke about potential job losses, for which I do not see the evidence. The ESRI spoke about a potential reduction of hours, and there is some evidence for that. Is it possible for us to look at legislation to allow companies to prove that there would be job losses, and to exempt those businesses if they could prove this?

Dr. Laura Bambrick

There will be an exemption in the legislation as it is. With the minimum wage legislation, if an employer can prove that it would be detrimental to their business to pay the wage floor, they can go to the Labour Court with that evidence. To date, no employer has ever gone to the Labour Court. The main thing is that this is not a national policy. We are policy takers in this regard. The EU rules are telling us that this is the direction of travel, and that we must ensure our minimum wages are adequate. As mentioned in our opening statement, Ireland's minimum wage is currently only at 80%. It is 20% under the poverty line. Ireland is not alone in that, with 19 of the 21 EU countries having minimum wages set below the poverty line.

That is why the EU had to step in and give firm guidelines on how to set our minimum wage at an adequate level. In doing so, the EU did an extensive impact assessment of the wage uplift, not just for workers but also for employers who will have to pay. It found there will be very minimal job losses and, where there is job loss, the effect will be as follows. If the Senator were to lose his job paying €10.50 per hour, because the new minimum or living wage is at €12 or €13.10, as recommended by the Low Pay Commission last week, any new job he secures will be paid at that rate. The Senator might not have the same job but the new job will be significantly better paying. The European Commission is confident there will be very little employment impact from the move to a living wage or adequate minimum wage.

I thank Dr. Bambrick. I appreciate that.

That is very helpful. As Senator Warfield said, we dealt with this issue in last week's hearing with the ESRI.

The ESRI clarified that even where there were hour reductions, research shows employees' wages stayed the same. They may have been working slightly fewer hours but they received the same or greater pay than previously. That is important to note.

It is useful to clarify that we already have a mechanism for companies that show an inability to pay. It is time we moved past the anecdotal narrative about what might happen and instead pointed out that we have a mechanism for these exceptions and that the rule needs to be adequate.

I do not want the meeting to get lost in this question but I have a concern around the median approach. A great mistake was made by the Low Pay Commission when it was established. I was on the National Women's Council of Ireland at the time and we pushed to get the word "adequacy" included in the terms of reference. We did not succeed in having "adequacy" made a consideration of the commission when deciding the minimum wage. The effect of that would be seen later. I will be very concerned if we end up with living wage legislation that does not view adequacy as being how people can live well, especially when we talk about pinning the living wage to the median wage. I always highlight the median wage because it tells us half of the population earn below that level. Usually, especially when it comes to tax policies, we only hear about the average wage, which is usually much higher because it is pushed up by those on much higher incomes. It is interesting that when it comes to pinning something to a percentage that is determined by the median rather than average wage, the median wage suddenly makes an appearance.

My concern is that a percentage of the median wage does not work well in circumstances where over half the population sinks into poverty wages, which we can unfortunately see happen in different parts of the world. Even in Ireland at times, 50% of the population has been at risk of poverty. I am concerned about using a blunt market figure as the determinant of the living wage. We need a belt-and-braces approach of looking at that but also checking it against adequacy measures, such as minimum essential standards of living.

The living wage legislation is in the programme for Government but not in the priority legislation for autumn. I ask the witnesses to give their sense of when that legislation is likely to come through. It will need further discussion and I am interested to make sure it gets over the line. While the Tánaiste said it would take four years, the citizens' assembly said it should be done by 2025, so it clearly expects it to be done in the next three years. The cost-of-living crunch pushes it further up the line. The minimal essential standards of living are an important tool in tackling the cost of living because they allow us to look at collective and public services that can address some of those costs.

We may have gone too deep into this so I will pull back and ask two or three specific questions on gender issues. On collective bargaining, the witnesses mentioned the EU directive. Will they comment on the importance of ensuring a right to collective bargaining is enshrined in national law? That has been sought for a long time and it is important. On a related issue, the tax relief for trade union contributions was removed, while members of a business and professional body still get tax relief. I ask for comment on enshrining the right to membership of a trade union in law and supporting it as a public good that leads to better outcomes for society.

We had a discussion with the ESRI about the importance of collective action in sectors with a large number of women, which are often areas of low wages. It is not just about individual rights but also collective thresholds. The sectoral order on childcare was mentioned but I am concerned that this only came about because the funding to the sector comes from the State. Will the witnesses comment on the joint labour committees, which were important but have been pushed back, and the need for something similar in areas like hospitality, which have a high proportion of women workers and are low paid? It is not a matter of State subsidy in this area; we just need to look at the hard measures for bringing a sectoral pay scale up. In childcare, the State is the largest customer so we have a particular lever. In other areas, we may need legislative measures.

The pensions issue is related to the pay gap. The pay gap knocks on and becomes part of a wider pension gap. A number of the citizens' assembly recommendations were around pensions. The ESRI noted that we are seeing a great deal in the media about the PRSI fund running out. The Commission on Pensions gave no consideration to the large amount of money spent every year - I think it is €2.9 billion - on private pension tax relief. Will the witnesses comment on that relief and the need to factor it into our public spending on pensions? What do they think is key to ensuring gender equality in terms of the pensions pay gap? The ESRI acknowledged that the private pension tax relief as currently constructed is regressive and predominantly benefits men. How can we ensure we route that money into what the citizens called for, namely, a universal State pension?

There is a lot there so perhaps the witnesses will divide up the questions for answer.

Mr. David Joyce

I can kick off on collective bargaining. I thank the Senator for her questions. We will do our best to get through them all quickly. Of course we would like to see a right to collective bargaining in our legislation. The EU directive on an adequate minimum wage - the Senator also used the word "adequate" - and strengthening collective bargaining is an important step. It is the first ever EU legislation to explicitly aim to strengthen collective bargaining, which is welcome. It also talks about collective bargaining as a prerogative of trade unions, not the vague workers' organisations in the original Commission proposal. It guarantees a right to collective bargaining and protects workers who engage or wish to engage in it from discrimination.

It is an important step. There is also a requirement for member states with less than 80% collective bargaining coverage, which includes Ireland at approximately 34%, to take measures to increase collective bargaining, including the development of a national action plan in consultation with the social partners. Clear timelines and concrete measures are required. The national action plan is also to be reviewed every five years. We are on the cusp of something very important. The LEEF is keeping a close eye on this European development and discussing how it might be implemented in Ireland. This work is very well developed. We will all be aware of it very soon.

Dr. Laura Bambrick

I want to make a point on pensions, in particular the gender pension gap. Very recent figures, from yesterday, acquired by colleagues in the Irish Nursing and Midwives Organisation under freedom of information shows that in 2020 the gender pension gap for nurses and midwives was 42%. Male nurses and midwives, on a month-to-month basis, receive a pension that is 42%, almost half as much, higher than female nurses and midwives. As shocking as this is, only two years earlier in 2018 it was at 63.7%. This will give an idea of the road to travel on the pensions gender gap.

It was mentioned that the Pensions Commission did not cover tax relief on private and occupational pensions. To be fair, it was it outside its terms of reference. Last week, the Commission on Taxation and Welfare, which was looking at this, made no recommendation for changes to the tax relief except for reducing the size of the pension lump sum that would be taxable and the rate at which it would be taxable.

Senator Higgins also asked a question about joint labour committees.

Mr. David Joyce

That will all be very much part of the discussions in LEEF. There will be proposals on it. The Senator is right that sectoral bargaining is very important. The combination of the directive and the work of the LEEF will address these issues.

I have a follow-up question on pensions in the context of what ICTU is saying about them. It is not so much about what the Government or others are saying. We know that tax relief at a marginal rate predominantly benefits men. There is talk of increasing the number of years of contributions required. When the requirement for contributions was increased in the past, it pushed a huge number of women onto a partial pension. They got a reduced-rate State contributory pension. We know that previous changes moved things backwards for many women and led to many cuts for women in the actual pensions they received every year. I would really like to know what ICTU proposes and what it thinks on the proposals for pensions with regard to ensuring gender equality. It is one of the key demands, and one of the key areas in respect of which we have recommendations. It is one on which ICTU will have a very important voice. What does ICTU propose in terms of gender equality in pensions?

Dr. Laura Bambrick

For the occupational pension, we support the recommendation that we move to an exempt-exempt tax model. On the State pension, we very much welcome the announcement by the Minister Deputy Humphreys this week on the requirement to have ten years' worth of paid contributions to be able to cash in credit contributions. The Government will move to work around the barrier for parents, in large number mothers, who care for children with profound disabilities who do not get an opportunity to return to work to build up their contributions. This is a very welcome and long overdue policy that has the full support of ICTU.

I am conscious that the witnesses were invited to speak on other recommendations and perhaps we could get a follow-up to this question in writing. The cohort Dr. Bambrick mentioned is very specific. Massive changes are proposed, as has been mentioned. Unless people have a large number of paid contributions, they will not be able to actualise their care contributions. The threshold has moved from requiring ten years to get a pension to needing 20 years, and now we have proposals to move to 30 years or possibly 40. It is almost like we will acknowledge care credits but we will move the goalposts so people still end up with a half pension. We need to look beyond vulnerable cohorts or worthy cases. It is a good move in this regard but we need to ensure we do not have another generation of women going into pension inequality. To be honest we need to have stronger leadership from unions on this. Perhaps they have policies. I very conscious that today we are addressing other questions on specific recommendations of the citizens' assembly. It would be good to have ICTU respond to the recommendations, including those on a universal pension. If it is possible perhaps it can be done in writing. I am conscious I am springing it.

I thank Senator Higgins. We had asked our ICTU witnesses and colleagues specifically to address recommendations 32 to 36, inclusive. The Department of Social Protection will come before the committee to address the social protection recommendations 13 to 19, inclusive. Recommendations 17 to 19, inclusive, relate to pensions. On foot of Senator Higgins questions the witnesses are free to make a response now but we might invite them to submit a short written follow-up on ICTU's views on the specific recommendations 17 to 19, inclusive. We are not straying beyond our remit as a committee because we are confined to the recommendations of the citizens' assembly but it made quite broad recommendations on the impact of gender equality of pension rules. Any commentary the witnesses have on this would be welcome, but I am conscious we did not ask them for it when inviting them before the committee today. They may wish to respond to Senator Higgins now. A response by way of writing in follow-up would be good.

Dr. Laura Bambrick

We can do an in-depth follow-up. For the record, ICTU does not support the universal pension model. We support a contributory model based on people's work record that is supported with a credited contribution system for people who must take time out of work.

That is very interesting.

With regard to the number of years, the key question will be how many credited contributions. I am sure this can be included in the detailed answer.

Dr. Laura Bambrick

We made a comprehensive submission to the consultation on total contributions in 2018 or 2019. It would be a good place for the Senator to start. From memory it is approximately 15 pages long. There is a lot of detail in it regarding the ICTU policy decision on the move to a total contributions approach.

It is interesting for us to know the ICTU position in respect of recommendation 19 to introduce a universal State pension. We may delve further, therefore, into the rationale the assembly had for coming up with the recommendation.

I do not see any other colleagues indicating. I have some questions, so I will take up the next slot. I thank the witnesses for the broad array of issues they have covered in response to the queries of colleagues. We can see the high level of engagement we have among the membership of the committee, notwithstanding that many of them are also on other committees with parallel hearings today, including the Committee of Public Accounts and the British-Irish forum. I apologise to the witnesses that members have not been able to attend.

I want to raise a number of issues, one of which is the gender pay gap. As Mr. Joyce said it is an area in which I have a real interest. The Bill I produced had a different mechanism in it. I am very interested in the Act that will be coming into effect. Like Mr. Joyce, I am disappointed that we still do not have quite a sufficient level of detail as to how it will be implemented. I want to follow up on the more detailed recommendations about the gender pay gap and how gender pay gap audit systems would evolve.

Are there good models elsewhere as to how we can audit progress? How can we ensure action will be taken on foot of disclosures of the gender pay gap? I have looked at models elsewhere, in Australia, Britain and so on, to see how it is done. It is crucial to ensuring the legislation will be effective. How can we build on the legislation to make progress on narrowing the gap?

One of the issues relates to the living wage and one of ICTU's comments, which was helpful, concerned how the gender pay gap will decline when Ireland increases its minimum wage to 60% of the hourly median, which is a helpful approach in itself.

I was taken by our guests' submission on the work-life balance privilege gap, that is, the vast gap between those who can work remotely and those who cannot, which was very important earlier during Covid. How can we best address that? I am looking at the citizens' assembly recommendation No. 36, concerning a statutory right to reasonable access to flexible working. Our guests pointed out that in our peer countries in the EU, there is a recognition that flexible working does not just mean remote and there are flexi-time and part-time job shares, split shifts and so on. How can we ensure that is done? The assembly is looking for a statutory right; how can we build that into legislation most effectively?

Colleagues have talked about the domestic violence leave provision. While this is not specifically referred to in the assembly recommendations, it could be encompassed under the domestic and sexual and gender-based violence recommendations. I also have a Private Member's Bill before the Seanad on reproductive health-related leave, which, like the domestic violence Private Member's Bill, builds on the Organisation of Working Time Act and has a similar provision regarding the right to time off work for early miscarriage and for reproductive health-related treatments. The Bill was prompted by Irish National Teachers Organisation, INTO, work, with Alison Gilliland and her INTO colleagues surveying members to find that this was badly needed, not least in a highly feminised sector such as primary teaching. Our guests might comment on that.

Finally, there was a recommendation that parental and maternity leave, and family benefits in general, be paid as a percentage of earnings, and I am very interested in that. It is not covered specifically in the assembly recommendations but I am interested by our guests’ suggestion that that would be the most effective way of encouraging stronger take-up, by men and women, of family leave provision.

Mr. David Joyce

On the gender pay gap, we will learn a lot over the coming months. It is welcome, as the Chairman noted, that the Gender Pay Gap Information Act is now in place and applies initially to organisations of more than 250 employees, with, importantly, an indication that will decrease to 150 or more in 2024 and 50 or more in 2025. There are also plans for an online reporting system in 2023, as I understand.

This is a new area for us and we have not been involved in it before. We looked to the experience in other countries, such as the UK and elsewhere, where similar legislation is in place. From our point of view, a key area in this is that there will be a narrative attached to the figures. The figures are very nitty-gritty and our guide, which we will publish on Monday, goes into some detail on how they are all calculated and what is involved, so I will not go into all that here. The figures will be accompanied by a narrative whereby the employer will have to indicate what it intends to do to address any gaps that are identified, and that is the key.

Disappointingly from our point of view, the regulations talk about a statement setting out, in the employer's opinion, what this is and how it might be addressed. We had hoped employers would be required, or at least strongly encouraged, to discuss any gaps identified with workers and their representatives. We do not claim to have all the answers in this area but, likewise, employers do not have them either, so if we combine our efforts and discuss any gaps and what might be done to address them, that would be important. While the regulations do not require that, most good employers would recognise it would be important to discuss the findings of any audit with workers and their representatives. Once we go through the first cycle, we will learn from that and next year, we will all be a little more knowledgeable as to how to go about it. It is a welcome change and one we are keen to get involved in, as are our affiliates.

We strongly support the reproductive health-related leave Bill. As the Chairman mentioned, the INTO was very involved in advocating for that change. That is something we support and our women's committee has been very engaged on it.

Dr. Laura Bambrick

On how we can make a statutory right for flexible work, Ireland will be very unusual, when we get the Tánaiste's Bill on the right to request remote working, to have legislation that just looks at remote working as a stand-alone right. In the case of other countries throughout Europe, including Britain and Northern Ireland, that have rights to request flexible working, they are built in as part of a flexible working Bill. When we met and gave our evidence to the citizens' assembly, it was before the Tánaiste's commitment to legislating. We had assumed that the vehicle for giving a right to request remote working would be about extending the EU directive that gives the parents of children up to the age of eight - the Minister is going to extend that to parents of children up to the age of 12 - and people with a caring responsibility this right for flexible working.

ICTU argued it should be given to all workers, who would then have the right to work remotely but it would also mean workers in jobs where remote working is not practical or cannot be facilitated would be able to have the work-life balance premium that those of us who are lucky enough to be able to work remotely can have, whether that is about working term-time hours when children are in school or taking off time when the worker does not work part time. Of course, this has to be done hand in glove with the employer making sure that can be facilitated. We are going to have legislation on a statutory right to flexible working. Our only difficulty with that is that it will apply to a narrow group of workers.

On the issue of earnings-related parental and paternity leave, the take-up of these new leave options, important as they have been, has been disappointingly low among new fathers. Where we see better take-up is where the employer tops up the €250 allowance. Having a new baby is one of the most expensive times in a family's lifetime, and having two parents out of work on a flat €250 is just not practical. If the mother is in a job that does not provide a top-up, the father will not be able to take leave. We believe that both maternity and paternity leave should be income paid as a percentage of the parent's wage, exactly as it done throughout Europe. We spent a lot of time talking about the tax recommendations of the Commission on Taxation and Welfare, but it has made some really good welfare recommendations, one of which related to the fact that if we are to introduce pay-related jobseeker's benefit, that should extended to family leave, which we very much welcome.

That is very important.

I very much agree with Dr. Bambrick's last point. The €250 flat rate is a real wall to fathers in particular being able to take that leave.

I had to leave earlier to attend another appointment so I am not sure if this question on collective bargaining has been asked. The EU directive on adequate minimum wage and collective bargaining rights will come into operation the next few months. It will then have to be transposed into Irish legislation. Is Irish domestic legislation adequate? Will the ICTU representatives comment on that? Collective bargaining is such a gender issue. I was contacted recently by a young woman. She had started a job five months earlier and was on a six-month probation. She moved department in the same company and was told that her probation would be extended. I asked if there is a union, and there is not. There is no right to collective bargaining where she works. If the right was there and there was a union representative in the company, and someone could go to a shop steward or union rep, in many cases the employer might not chance doing something like that. There was no change to her job and she was still in the same company; she had literally just moved desks and has the same manager. This is a gender issue and important one for Irish people.

Senator Higgins asked about collective bargaining and the EU directive already. The representatives may wish to say a little more.

Mr. David Joyce

Senator Higgins did touch on some of that. We were pointing out that the EU directive is really important in making the changes Deputy Cronin mentioned. It is the first ever EU legislation to explicitly aim at increasing collective bargaining. That is really welcome from our perspective. It also talks of collective bargaining being the prerogative of trade unions and not a vague workers representative-type thing. That is really important from our point of view also. It guarantees a right to collective bargaining and protection for those who engage or who wish to engage in collective bargaining too. Any country with coverage of less than 80% in terms of collective bargaining agreements will also have to take a number of actions, including the development of a national action plan to promote collective bargaining. The work that is going on in LEEF is to consider how some of those issues might be addressed locally here in Ireland. I understand that it is very well developed and will address many of the issues the Deputy mentioned. I think we are on the cusp of a very important moment in terms of improving collective bargaining rights here and it is very welcome.

That is great. It is good to emphasise that.

I forgot to ask about something last time although I did have quite a lot of questions so I can be forgiven, namely the four-day working week and looking at flexibility for everyone. I ask because of the importance of caring. As I said at last week's meeting, children are often seen as hampering women in the workforce in circumstances where we have not organised our society to take account of the fact that people want to spend time with their children. If we were to look at reducing the work hours that everyone does in general, particularly as we come to a more digitised society with less manual labour and full employment, that we could see full employment and more time to spend with families.

Dr. Laura Bambrick

Reducing the working day was part of the raison d'être of the trade union movement: eight hours work, eight hours rest and eight hours play. It is no surprise that our colleagues in Fórsa have been central to and leading on the Four Day Week Ireland campaign. It is doing that with a range of civic society groups including the National Women's Council of Ireland, recognising as the Senator said, the need for more care time with family and other caring responsibilities. There are also the environmental benefits if we do not have to travel. As we were discussing, not everyone will have the benefit of remote working. It is important, and very important for those with caring responsibilities, but we should be careful not to create a hierarchy of workers that are more deserving of flexibility, such as people who have children or aged and dependent parents. Workers should have the right to as much free time as is possible and to get the benefits from technological advances so that we are working smarter and we are all getting that free time and that the amount of time spent in work is reduced but not the amount of work output. That should not be just for those that have caring responsibilities. It should be there for whatever way people chose to spend their free time whether it is sea swimming, baking banana bread or whatever. The more flexibility we get into the workforce the more it will benefit, especially in keeping women in those caring years in work.

While the Minister is introducing the flexibility directive for carers and parents of young children, we think it is really important that the first move should go to workers aged 55 years because that is often when women come under a great deal of pressure. They may have an older spouse that needs care and then parents are living longer. They are being forced out of work, and forced to retire, earlier than they would have chosen. If they had a right to flexibility they could have a right to request part-time hours or maybe flexitime, so start later in the day or end earlier so that they can check in on the aged parents and things like that. We think that if we have to do this as a step-change it should be to give flexibility to those over 55 years of age because that is where the workers start to drop out of the workforce. People might not be able to do nine to five, five days a week but they could do a shorter working week, whether that is a four day working week or shorter days. Flexibility is something we will be talking about for a long time.

It is a very important and interesting point about the over 55 cohort. To clarify, I am not talking about differentiating between one type of worker and another. I am saying that, at a macro level, less time needs to be spent overall to reach the output that we require to sustain ourselves and, therefore, spreading that out and having everyone, whether you work in digital services or something else, makes most sense to me. We do find there is more flexibility in some of those roles compared with those where you have to be in a location in order to carry out your functions.

Dr. Laura Bambrick

If you think about it, only a few short decades ago, there was the idea what you would not work a half day on Saturday. It was a five-and-a-half day week. We were told that the wheels of industry would grind to a halt if we introduced the 40-hour week. That did not happen. Over time, we will see more and more reduction in the working week and the working day.

Except for us, Réada.

That is a really positive note.

Mr. David Joyce

This is also really important in the context of flexibility for women with disabilities accessing the labour market. A five-day full time job may not be possible or practical but if there is real flexibility, the possibility of their gaining decent work is really improved.

That is important too.

I am excited about the focus on flexibility and the four-day week has been mentioned. We know that the right to request remote work Bill has gone through pre-legislative scrutiny. I agree with the principle that we do not want to have a two-tier approach on flexibility. The citizens' assembly recommended flexible working in the wider sense and not solely remote working. Should we try to enhance the right to request remote work Bill and deal with some of the issues there or should we bring forward other legislation and put that in train as early as possible? Do the witnesses have further comments as to the instruments that would give effect to this? The flexibility directive was mentioned, which was useful. Can we tackle some of these points through the right to request remote work Bill?

As a follow-up to the pensions piece, I have read the total contributions submission. I was on the social protection committee when we produced our report on those issues. I am looking for a short follow-up note on the gender analysis, the issues of gender equality and the recommendations. There is a valuable perspective to be added on that.

We talked about the question of addressing the gender division in terms of professions and who is employed in what sectors. When we talked about terms and conditions, it was mainly about flexibility. What perspective does the ICTU have around the measures on progressions, which came up throughout the citizens' assembly recommendations? This was mentioned in respect of the Irish Nurses and Midwives Organisation figures. It is not just around ensuring women or men can access areas of employment. It is about ensuring that progression opportunities are built in, in order that people get equal chances to move up the ladder and that the situation does not arise whereby women are pooled at one level of a sector, facing additional obstacles in moving up. We look leadership and entry roles but that mid-level piece is often left out. The witnesses' perspectives on that would be valuable to gain.

While it is great that we might come up with a big action plan on enhancing union membership, it is something everybody should be looking at. Part of a good democracy is the encouragement of union membership. A measure that we should not have to wait for a new task force to come up with is the tax credit for union membership, which was previously in place but was removed as a cost-cutting measure. It was cut as part of an bord snip and the general recessionary cost-cutting measures. Membership of a professional body is still a tax relief one can access. I have been pushing for this for years. We are now at another budget. Would it not be a positive step in the right direction to restore the tax relief for union memberships?

Many of us have been calling for that. I call on Dr. Bambrick and Mr. Joyce for their final response.

Dr. Laura Bambrick

On the tax relief, to nobody's surprise we have that as part of our pre-budget submission. We made that exact point, that there is disparity between workers being allowed to make their subscriptions taxable versus the employers' subscriptions to their organisation. It was not looked at by the Commission on Taxation and Welfare. That one escaped.

On flexible working, the Senator is right. Two items of legislation are making their way through the Oireachtas, namely, the legislation to transpose the directive, the work life balance Bill, and the Tánaiste's right to request remote work Bill. As I mentioned, we were quite surprised that the Minister went with a stand-alone Bill on remote working. All other countries that have the provision for the right to request remote working have it as part of their flexible working rights. In our meetings with the Ministers and officials in both Departments, we have stressed that there should be no difference in the way workers access remote working, be it through the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment's legislation or the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth's legislation. The requirements should be the same on in both Bills. However, it seems very inefficient to have two items of legislation that could be done in one. In order to provide for remote working in the flexible arrangements, they would have to give the right to flexible working to all workers which, of course, we want. That would also be the most efficient way to do it and the way we would welcome.

Again, that is clear.

Will anyone comment on the progression piece? We focus a lot on entry and women in leadership roles. However, we know from when Athena SWAN tried to transform the university sector, much attention was paid to the mid-level roles. As part of the terms and conditions that unions can help, enhance and improve, it is about ensuring there is gender equality around the rungs on the ladder.

Mr. David Joyce

It is an important issue and one we are looking at within our own movement. Many women are officials at middle-range level in the movement. We have started running leadership courses that aim to develop a space for them to consider how they might move up if they so wish and what would be required, to examine their own style of leadership, and to figure out if that is something they want to do and how to progress. That is one side of the coin. We also have to look at structures and how we do our own business in terms of ensuring the way we design our business does not preclude women from doing that. It is an important point.

I like how Mr. Joyce referred to their "own style of leadership". It is not just about women going into leadership but leadership itself being redefined.

Mr. David Joyce

Absolutely. One of the things we discovered during that course is that all the women who come in are leaders already. They may not be heads of their union, but in the course of their work they have strong leadership roles in dealing with people in various workplaces where they might be the official responsible. The Senator is right. Leadership is not just about the boss. It is about people working in their own spheres as well.

That is recommendation No. 25 of the citizens' assembly, which is focused on progression and ensuring workplaces promote gender equality in leadership. Therefore, it is useful to hear the trade union experience.

That brings today's hearing to a conclusion if no other colleague wishes to come in for a final point. We thank our guests for giving of their time. I thank Dr. Bambrick and Mr. Joyce for engaging with us today, for coming in at short notice to represent the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and for giving us such valuable insights based on their experience and expertise within the trade union movement. In particular, I thank them for being so focused on the practical implementation of the recommendations of the Citizens' Assembly on Gender Equality. Their insights have been very valuable and helpful to the committee as we deliberate. We will publish our final report on 1 December in accordance with our tight timeframe. We only have a small number of public hearings left. As I have said, we will hear from other witnesses, including the Tánaiste next week and WorkEqual, IBEC and the living wage coalition the following week. We are considering the workplace and pay related recommendations, but we thank our guests for their insight on other areas.

Mr. David Joyce

I thank members for this opportunity and for their engagement and questions. I wish them well in their work. It is sustainable development goals, SDGs, week. The committee's work can make a significant contribution in terms of achieving goal No. 5 on gender equality, but also goal No. 8 on decent work for all. I thank members for giving of their time.

I thank Mr. Joyce for mentioning the SDGs. I should have done that. I again thank the witnesses for their attendance.

The joint committee adjourned at 11.10 a.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 29 September 2022.
Top
Share