Joint Committee on Gender Equality debate -
Thursday, 6 Oct 2022

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

Chairman

Members have the option of being physically present in the committee room or joining the meeting via MS Teams from their Leinster House offices but they may not participate from outside the parliamentary precincts. I ask members joining on MS Teams to mute their microphones when not making a contribution and to use the raise 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.

Today, we are considering the recommendations of the Citizens' Assembly on Gender Equality regarding pay and workplace conditions, specifically, recommendations No. 32 to 36 of the assembly report. We are delighted to welcome representatives from three organisations: WorkEqual; IBEC; and SIPTU. I would like to welcome the following witnesses joining us in the committee room: Ms Angela Smith, CEO and Ms Sonya Lennon, founder WorkEqual; and Ms Ethel Buckley, deputy general secretary and Mr. Michael Taft, senior researcher SIPTU, who will join us shortly. Joining via MS Teams are Dr. Kara McGann, head of social policy and Ms Pauline O'Hare, senior employment law manager, IBEC.

Before we begin, I must read 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 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 them identifiable. Participants who are giving evidence from a location outside parliamentary precincts are asked to note that the constitutional protections afforded to those participating from with parliamentary precincts does not extend to them and no clear guidance can be given on whether, or the extent to which, the participation is covered by absolute privilege of a statutory nature.

I will invite witnesses to make their opening statements before opening the floor to members for questions and answers. Our focus throughout our hearings has been the practical implementation of the recommendations of the citizens' assembly. We have asked witnesses to focus on how to implement these important recommendations. We are grateful to them all for their submissions, opening statements and engagement with us. We also have time limits on participation to ensure the maximum number of Oireachtas colleagues can engage in questioning. There will be a six-minute time limit on each exchange. We may then be able to go to a second round of questions and discussion. We ask witnesses to keep opening statements relatively short - five minutes or so, if they can. I thank them all again for coming before us today. I will call WorkEqual first, followed by IBEC and then SIPTU. I call Ms Smith and Ms Lennon to make their opening statements. It is a pleasure to have you here.

Ms Angela Smith

I am the CEO of WorkEqual. The mission of WorkEqual is to promote the economic independence of women and build an Ireland that champions workplace equality. We are a registered charity providing free supports nationally to women entering or re-entering the workforce. This includes professional styling, mentoring and career development services. Our clients are very diverse, but we work in particular with women who face challenges accessing the labour market. We partner with grassroots community groups and specialist support services such as the Irish Refugee Council, the Liberties Training Centre and Empower in providing our services to those most in need.

Our work is supported by a range of corporate partners including Permanent TSB, SOLAS, Oracle and Indeed. They provide funding and volunteers to support our service provision and campaigning. At WorkEqual, we help women to access labour market opportunities but through client feedback, we became increasingly aware that women face additional challenges and barriers in their career progression. This is particularly true of women from less advantaged backgrounds and women who have been out of the workforce for long periods.

This has informed our campaigning work. Since 2016, we have run an awareness campaign every November to highlight and tackle gender inequalities in Irish workplaces centred around Equal Pay Day, the date on which women effectively stop earning relative to men because of the gender pay gap. As many committee members will be aware, a WorkEqual Oireachtas all-party group was formed in 2018 and is currently co-chaired by Deputy Bacik and Senators Lorraine Clifford-Lee and Emer Currie. We have also established a strong working relationship with colleagues in Iceland, particularly the Icelandic Women’s Rights Association, to understand and learn from global gold standard.

Within the workplace equality landscape, we occupy a unique position because we bridge the gap between employees, employers and policymakers. We have followed the progress of this committee keenly and we very much welcomed the report from the Citizens’ Assembly on Gender Equality. I will pass over to Ms Lennon to speak about how our work specifically relates to recommendations No. 32 to 36 of the citizens’ assembly report.

Ms Sonya Lennon

I thank Ms Smith. I am the founder of WorkEqual. First, I would like to share relevant market research we commissioned on public attitudes towards gender equality, conducted by Behaviour & Attitudes Limited last October. We found that 74% of people believe that closing the gender pay gap is important and should be a priority for Government and employers. The other, and bigger, piece of the research was the impact of caring duties on career progression. Some 35% of people said family caring duties impacted on their careers, with 45% of women feeling that they were impacted, compared to only 25% of men. The finding that 33% of women with teenage children said their careers had been impacted, compared to 0% of men, was particularly striking. In summary, the research we commissioned showed that, while there is strong support for Government and employers to tackle the gender pay gap, the wider public do not fully understand the root causes or diverse factors that feed into the pay gap. We also found that 85% of people did not really understand what the gender pay gap was and thought it was more to do with equal pay. There is a big piece of work to do there.

On career progression, the associated factors such as job security and earning power are hampered by caring duties and this impacts much more on women than men. Public sentiment and changing behaviour are two very different things and, backed by our research, we believe that a public awareness campaign is needed to build understanding of the causes of the pay gap and the importance of addressing it. Building wider public understanding will ensure full buy-in and long-term support for the Gender Pay Gap Information Act 2021, which was initially brought forward by Deputy Bacik.

In addition to the public awareness campaign and based on our ongoing collaboration with relevant groups in Iceland, we recommend the establishment of a State-driven, consumer-facing quality assurance mark for organisations that meaningfully commit to gender equality and follow a prescribed framework to promote and achieve equality in their workplaces. A similar mark has been introduced successfully in Iceland, where it has become the norm for companies to secure that quality mark and adhere to its principles in the same way that companies adhere to health and safety and best practice regarding sustainability. It is a consumer-facing mark on products and services.

In conclusion, we must grant cultural permission for everyone to advocate for equitable cultures in work and life. Proactive and holistic communication is key to changing the narrative, normalising new behaviours and embedding real change.

Chairman

I thank Ms Lennon. It has been a pleasure to co-chair the working group in the Oireachtas with WorkEqual. I thank her for her focus on the practical implementation. I would like to welcome our colleagues from SIPTU. I will call IBEC next and then SIPTU for their opening statements before we move to the exchanges with members. We will have time limits on exchanges with colleagues. We hope, therefore, to cover a wide range of issues. I call Dr. Kara McGann.

Dr. Kara McGann

I thank the joint committee for the opportunity to address them following the comprehensive recommendations of the Citizens' Assembly on Gender Equality.

IBEC has a long track record of working on the issues of gender equality and developing policy and resources to tackle barriers facing women in the labour market. While progress has been made in many areas, there continues to be more work to do. Regarding recommendations No. 32 and 33, the roots of a gender pay gap are multiple and complex, symptomatic of how we think of men, women and gender across society. The gender pay gap calculates the difference in the average hourly wages of all men and women across a workforce, not just those in same jobs, with the same working patterns or the same competencies or experience. It does not indicate discrimination or bias, or even an absence of equal pay for equal value work, but it does report a gender representation gap.

IBEC supports the aim to reduce the hourly gender pay gap through targets, but it is difficult to see how this will be achieved if only the business community is targeted given the underlying structural, policy and cultural causes. Effective policy development must consider how men and women participate in the labour market, including pre-labour-market areas such as education; culture and biases around the jobs and careers men and women have; the responsibility for child and long-term care and how this impacts on outcomes.

We welcome the introduction of the Gender Pay Gap Information Act 2021, but it has been a difficult journey, because while organisations have known about reporting for some time, the Irish methodology, which is very different from other jurisdictions, was only published in June. In addition, major concerns regarding clarity within the reporting requirements have been raised and have needed significant and ongoing follow-up.

Gender pay gap reporting alone will not identify or solve the myriad challenges but has the potential to offer a real diagnostic tool to highlight the relevant issues for targeted interventions by all stakeholders. However, without a whole-of-society approach, progress will be limited and an opportunity for real change will be wasted.

With regard to recommendation 34, IBEC believes that a five-year timeline with a high degree of flexibility in determining annual rates, while still challenging, would be realistic if Ireland is to transition to a living wage. The effects of moving to a living wage on both total-hours-worked and employment should be reviewed by the Low Pay Commission, LPC, annually over the timeline of its introduction with a particular focus on any loss of employment or hours of work resulting from an increased living wage. We share the view of the Parliament that consideration should be given to the impacts on small, and indeed all, businesses, particularly those within the most affected sectors such as hospitality and retail.

Proposed changes would impose a greater regulatory and administrative cost burden on companies, particularly on SMEs, in inputting hours on a payroll basis. The ability to make these changes and the phasing of them must be borne in mind when initiating the transition to a living wage.

With regard to recommendation 35 Ireland has a strong voluntarist industrial relations framework which has been effective in times of both economic growth and recession. Reform of the legislation has introduced sectoral employment orders; affirmed joint labour committees and registered employment agreements; and clarified the circumstances in which a trade union may refer a trade dispute to the Labour Court for a legally binding outcome. Therefore, while employers can choose whether or not to negotiate with a trade union or engage in collective bargaining, there may be real consequences for refusing to do so, namely a legally enforceable determination by the Labour Court.

In parallel with reforms, Ireland has introduced a significant body of statutory employment rights governing everything from working hours, to sick pay, so it is increasingly difficult to identify traditional areas of collective negotiation that are not now regulated by statute. While IBEC, does not support the proposal, we have been working progressively with the trade union movement, under the auspices of the Labour Employer Economic Forum, LEEF, collective bargaining group, to promote and address any obstacles to collective bargaining in our current framework. This work has proposed a set of recommendations that demonstrate the best aspects of our industrial relations, IR, systems and recognises the success of the voluntarist model underpinned by a highly developed dispute resolution mechanism.

We strongly support an effective enforcement framework across all aspects of regulation. It is imperative that regulation is equally applied to ensure a fair and balanced competitive environment. The resourcing needs of the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC, should be kept under regular review to ensure that they are adequate.

I move on finally to recommendation 36. It is questionable whether it is necessary to introduce a statutory right to access flexible working. If the intention is to provide a framework for employers and employees, then best practice guidance in a code of practice would provide a much more agile and flexible way to address this area.

Business recognises the benefits that flexible working solutions can bring to a workplace, including sustainability; attracting and retaining best talent; and promoting a healthy work-life balance, to name but a few. However, it is imperative to balance the importance of reconciling professional and private life with the need to sustain employment and economic competitiveness. While many employers can and will offer remote working conditions to employees, remote working simply cannot be facilitated in some sectors and by some employers.

The business case for gender equality is well established and while much has been achieved, momentum seems to have stalled in recent years. IBEC looks forward to engaging further in this work towards gender balance and supporting an Ireland that enables women and girls to fulfil their potential including in the workplace.

Chairman

I thank Dr. McGann for those very focused submissions on the recommendations. We appreciate that practical approach. Before I invite our witnesses from SIPTU, I need to give a privilege warning.

Witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they are to 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 a 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 by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

Those participating in the committee meeting from a location outside parliamentary precincts have a different position on privilege which I have already read. It does not apply to SIPTU. I apologise for the delay. I just needed to read that to the witnesses who are present.

We thank the witnesses for coming before the committee and engaging with us and for their submissions and opening statements. I invite Ms Buckley to make her opening statement.

Ms Ethel Buckley

On behalf of SIPTU, 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 and to outline SIPTU’s work to tackle gender inequality in the workplace, the labour market and in Irish life. I am accompanied by my colleague, senior researcher, Mr. Michael Taft.

SIPTU is the largest trade union in Ireland. We represent workers in all sectors of the economy in both the public and private sector. Representing approximately 200,000 workers, 42% of whom are women, our trade union has been at the forefront of campaigning on issues impacting on gender equality for over a century.

Women workers pay a heavy price for their gender. To achieve our goal of gender equality, we will need to significantly improve pay and working conditions for women who disproportionately experience low pay and precarious living standards.

SIPTU’s Working Women’s Charter, launched on International Women’s Day in 2020, is the guiding manifesto for our policy, campaigning, organising and industrial work on behalf of women workers.

We welcomed the fact that many of the Citizens' Assembly’s recommendations aligned with some of the key demands of our charter, which were also contained in our quite lengthy submission to the Citizens' Assembly, most notably the introduction of a legal right to collective bargaining; a substantial increase in investment in childcare to create a professionalised workforce delivering quality affordable childcare; pay transparency legislation and targets as a tool to tackle the gender pay gap; and promotion of women’s participation and leadership in all forms of decision-making.

As a union, we have a strong commitment to promoting gender equality. SIPTU introduced a rule in 2017 that requires representation of no less than 40% males and 40% females on all of our peak decision-making bodies. That is our national executive council, our five industrial divisional committees and our 21 industrial sectoral committees. Ensuring that women are at the table where decisions are made is intrinsic to gender equality.

As requested, we will limit our remaining comments in our opening statement to the recommendations on pay and workplace conditions, recommendations 32 to 36.

In respect of recommendation 32, the gender pay gap, Ireland's gender pay gap is 11.3%, based on 2018 data, which is the most recent year for which we have data and this is below the EU average. This is the unadjusted gender pay gap. It includes both possible discrimination between men and women such as unequal pay for equal work, as well as the impact of differences of the average characteristics of men and women in the labour market.

The EU Commission has attempted to adjust the data, factoring in a number of labour market characteristics such as sector of activity, age, occupation, full-time or part-time work, etc. This is done to ensure that we are measuring the gender pay gap on a like-for-like basis. The adjusted result is what the Commission calls the unexplained part of the gender pay gap. The last Commission study was done using 2014 data. When adjusted the gender pay gap falls throughout Europe. However, interestingly in Ireland, the adjusted or unexplained gender pay gap actually increases and exceeds the EU average. It is difficult to say why this high level of unexplained gender pay gap exists, hence the term "unexplained".

However, SIPTU would like to provide further data which might provide some insights. EUROSTAT and the Central Statistics Office, CSO, data show the gender pay gap in the public sector in Ireland to be 6.1% but in the private sector to be 20%.

One explanation is likely to be the high level of collective bargaining in the public sector compared to the private sector. Collective agreements not only promote strong wage floors and the reduction of any pay discrimination, they also tend to protect part-time workers and help ensure transparency and accountability in career progression. Levelling up pay and conditions for part-time and flexible workers is a key instrument in shrinking the gender pay gap. Unfortunately, we do not have sectoral breakdowns of the adjusted gender pay gap. The committee may wish to recommend that the relevant Department conduct a detailed study of the adjusted gender pay gap by a number of characteristics, for example, public and private sector, economic or industrial activity, age and so forth, using the same methodology as the EU Commission.

Moving on to recommendation 34 in respect of the minimum wage or the living wage, Ireland has a low pay crisis. In 2018, EUROSTAT and the Central Statistics Office data showed that one in five workers in Ireland are officially categorised as low paid. Women are particularly affected by low pay. While 17% of men are low paid, 23% of women are low paid. SIPTU welcomed the commitment in the programme for Government to raise the minimum wage to the living wage by 2025. We further welcomed the recommendation of the Low Pay Commission to lift the minimum wage to 66% of the median average:

After the 60% of the median wage target has been reached ... the Commission should assess the economic practicality of gradually increasing the targeted threshold rate towards 66% of the median wage and make recommendations accordingly.

[...]

Low-wage earners are defined by Eurostat as "those employees earning two thirds or less of the national median gross hourly earnings". On that basis, having a living wage rate set at 66% of median wage will eradicate low-wage employment for all workers earning at or above the living wage rate.

The committee may wish to discuss this further with my colleague Mr. Michael Taft. It is important to note that Mr. Taft is a member of the Low Pay Commission.

Women make up the majority of employees in the hospitality sector, which has a low pay rate of 54%. Women also make up the majority in the distributive sector, which has a low pay rate of 30%. Moving the minimum wage to the living wage would clearly be a boost for hundreds of thousands of these workers.

Reaching the living wage, 66% of the median wage, by 2025 will be particularly challenging in our view. Based on the Government’s own estimates, it would mean increasing the current minimum wage of €10.50 to in excess of €15 per hour by 2025. Recognising this, the Low Pay Commission proposed economic supports for businesses in the transition to the living wage. There is much commentary regarding the impact of minimum wage increases on small businesses. However, SIPTU research has shown that in the retail sector the impact of wage increases is relatively constant in percentage terms across enterprises despite size. This holds for impact on turnover and operating costs. The real challenge that small businesses face is the very low level of consumer spending compared with the eurozone. Ireland would have to increase consumer spending by 17%, or €17 billion, to reach the eurozone average. That consumer spending is so low may have many causes, but one way to address it is by raising income floors where people have a very high propensity to spend what they earn. Ultimately, the move to a living wage constitutes a transition away from a low-pay and what we would call low-road exploitative business model, and there is no doubt this will be difficult. However, other EU countries with higher levels of corporation tax, employers' tax and social insurance, and wages have vibrant and extensive small business sectors.

Chairman

I might ask Ms Buckley to truncate her presentation a little. I should have said at the start that we had asked for opening statements to be confined to five minutes.

Ms Ethel Buckley

Okay. On recommendation 35 on collective bargaining, SIPTU's view is that if Ireland is truly to tackle gender equality, the recommendation in respect of collective bargaining is a really key recommendation from the citizens' assembly. Collective bargaining is the key instrument to raise wage floors and to improve working conditions. Women workers in particular benefit from collective bargaining coverage, especially sectoral collective bargaining coverage. I draw the committee's attention to a recent example of a very successful and wide-scale sectoral collective bargaining as a result of the unionisation by SIPTU of the early years education and care sector and a recent new first pay deal which came into effect on 15 September for childcare workers, 98% of whom are women. Some 27,000 workers got a new pay deal and 70% received a pay increase. It is at that scale and that level of sectoral bargaining that we will really see an impact on the gender pay gap.

As regards flexible working, recommendation 36, the trade union movement has campaigned vigorously over many years for a statutory right to access remote working. I wish to draw the committee's attention to some recent concerning research from UCD on the gendered aspects of home working and remote working. There was a marked gendered differential on the intensification of work between women and men and the stress women and men feel when they are working from home. This is something we really need to watch. The other thing SIPTU is concerned about is the impact on women's career progression if they are not present in the workplace. Finally, interestingly though hardly surprising, the research from UCD also showed that where a union was recognised by management for the purpose of representing employees, working at home was less likely to be associated with work intensification.

I thank committee members for listening to our opening statement and we are very happy to take their questions.

Chairman

I thank Ms Buckley for the practical focus on implementation of the recommendations on pay and workplace conditions. I am grateful to all the witnesses for their opening statements. I now ask members for their questions and we have a time limit of six minutes for each exchange to facilitate as many members as possible and to ensure we might have a second round of questions where appropriate.

Deputy Réada Cronin

I thank the witnesses for their submissions, which I read last night and again this morning. I preface all my observations at this meeting with the observation that, after the reporting of IBEC's extraordinary and worrying statement on domestic violence leave, what seems to have gone missing in the furore yesterday was that the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, Deputy O'Gorman, had already indicated he was also going to look for documentation to prove a woman had suffered domestic violence. I hope now, after the reaction yesterday from the public, that will be squashed on the head because it kind of goes back to the debates that happened during the abortion referendum, when women tried to access early abortion if they suffered domestic abuse, and eventually, in their sense, everybody decided women should be trusted. I hope the women who were out yesterday on the radio for IBEC and indeed every woman working for IBEC feels their colleagues trust them. That is very important.

IBEC proposed there could be some compassionate leave given and I have to ask if they understand the word "compassion". Perhaps Dr. Gahan, as head of social policy at IBEC, could address that and could outline the context IBEC had with the Minister and his Department on this. I would also worry about how a person would be able to produce evidence of psychological damage, how injuries would be graded and that sort of thing. If it was to be a box-ticking exercise, which I believe it would be, there are a lot of mothers who would be very worried about people making reports to Tusla and about the fear of losing their children.

It might mean that women would be reluctant to come forward. I would like to start with that. What communication happened between the Department and the Minister? How does Dr. McGann feel about it and would she like to make a statement to clear things up?

Chairman

I raised this issue yesterday with the Taoiseach on foot of the reports about the IBEC paper. The Taoiseach gave an assurance that domestic violence leave would be introduced, which was very welcome to hear. However, we need to hear further clarification on the issue the Deputy raised.

Deputy Réada Cronin

Many universities already give ten days of domestic violence leave. I believe Vodafone and many big companies do this as well. It is strange that what went unnoticed yesterday is that the Minister had already halved that to five days and had also recommended that evidence will be needed.

Chairman

I invite Ms O'Hare or Dr. McGann from IBEC to respond. Deputy Cronin raised some valid issues.

Dr. Kara McGann

I will ask my colleague, Ms O'Hare, to step in on this one.

Ms Pauline O'Hare

We were concerned about how the coverage of IBEC’s submission was reported. Looking at the submission in its context, what was reported was absolutely not reflective of what was stated. We fully support victims of domestic violence. In fact, in our engagements with the Department, which went on since March 2021, we made very clear to the Department the challenges that victims of domestic violence would face in having to show proof. In fact, within that submission, we called out coercive control as an issue. We know that section 39 of the Domestic Violence Act defines coercive control as including the fear of domestic violence. We directly asked the Department to explain how victims would be able to prove that fear when they are too afraid to go to the Garda. These are issues that we raised in our submission. When people are in vulnerable and precarious situations, how do they do that?

Coming back to IBEC’s position, as the Deputy mentioned many employers already give this leave and some do it as compassionate leave. The issue that arises is that when the Government decides to legislate for something and put a statutory framework around it, employers need to know how to comply with that legislation. They need to know how to apply the rules in a fair and equal way.

As the Deputy rightly pointed out, on 22 September the Department published its own report in which it recommended that employers reserve the right to ask for reasonable proof. Just to reiterate, employers are very sensitive to these situations. They understand the vulnerability and reserving a right is absolutely not the same as utilising that right. Employers apply compassion to these situations. We absolutely agree that there are difficulties with that proof and we have raised that on a number of occasions with the Department. It is important that we clarify that because it is very far from what was reported, which was that we demanded that proof be given. That is not the case and it is very important to say that. At no point did IBEC say it demanded that proof be required for domestic violence. We understand the difficulties that arise for employees in those situations.

If it is the case that proof is required, we need to know how to apply that. This is a Government decision. If it says no proof is required, employers still need to know how to comply with the legislation. There are other concerns around the general data protection regulation, GDPR. Do we need a legal basis to retain records? Will there be a statutory obligation to retain statutory records on a statutory piece of leave? If so, what do we do if there is an absence of evidence? This is what the Department needs to advise employers to do. There are concerns around that.

Employers absolutely do their best to meet their legal obligations and they are aware of the difficulties around domestic violence and the welfare of employees. They want to support employees in that situation. However, they need to know how to comply with that. If no proof is required, the WRC needs to know how it can determine whether an employee is a victim of domestic violence in the absence of proof. That is a matter for the Department-----

Deputy Réada Cronin

I apologise for interrupting. I am sure there is a delay with the Internet. I was surprised that what went missing was the report from the Minister, Deputy O’Gorman, suggesting the exact same thing. That should be put on the record. Will SIPTU have any comment?

Chairman

I am conscious other members wish to come in. I might ask our other witnesses from SIPTU and WorkEqual to respond to that in the next round of questioning if they wish to. We will move on. I call Deputy McAuliffe.

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

I wish to continue on that. The reason members might focus on that is because many of the recommendations of the Citizens' Assembly on Gender Equality were about tackling issues where gender made a significant difference. There is no doubt that women suffer domestic violence far more than man. That is not to say that men do not experience violence; of course they do. If we are to address gender equality, we have to address issues such as how we handle domestic violence, and tone is important in every part of how we address it.

What we missed in focusing just on domestic violence, which I will come back to within my time, was a broader suggestion by IBEC that the amount of leave being provided, including parental leave and so on, was too broad and should be delayed and staggered. It was alarming that at a time when we are trying to address gender issues and the flexible working legislation, which is a huge step forward, employers were seeking to delay that. Perhaps IBEC might focus on that issue for the moment, before I come back to the domestic violence issue. Why was the principal employer body in the State trying to prevent such a crucial tool to address gender equality?

Chairman

Does Ms O'Hare or Dr. McGann wish to respond to that question?

Ms Pauline O'Hare

To clarify, is the Deputy asking about flexible working arrangements from the report?

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

Yes. In the broader submission in which the domestic violence references were made, there was a broader view - complaint is probably too hard a word – by IBEC that there should be a delay or staggering. There was a public conference held earlier in the year in which the same comments were uttered; in other words, IBEC was suggesting that we should stagger or delay this flexible legislation and that the legislation was going too far.

Chairman

In the opening statement, IBEC referred to a non-statutory framework.

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

Yes.

Ms Pauline O'Hare

On flexible working arrangements, we have the transposition of the work-life balance directive. Obviously, there will be no delay on that because the State has to transpose it as soon as possible, having just missed a deadline. That includes flexible working arrangements or the right to request flexible working arrangements for parents and carers.

We have proposed legislation relating to remote work, which is a form of flexible working arrangements. We are engaging with the Department and have raised our concerns around that. Keep in mind that arising from Covid, many employers have flexible working arrangements in place, such as remote working. Employers absolutely recognise the value of flexible working arrangements in terms of the labour market, retaining and recruiting talent and widening the talent pool. There are a number of reasons for this. However, flexible working, like remote working, is a very complex issue.

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

I think Ms O’Hare is focusing on the wrong element of it. My suggestion was that IBEC is suggesting that the Government was introducing too much paid leave, citing the extension of parental leave, the introduction of statutory sick pay and the domestic violence legislation. It is a broader tone here; it is not just on the issue of domestic violence. It is a broader tone that the statutory provision of leave was something that IBEC saw as regressive, as opposed to seeing it as progressive.

Ms Pauline O'Hare

We need to look at the cumulative effect of the different types of leave that are coming in because we have to think about the cost impact of a lot of these types of leaves. We have just had statutory sick leave and auto-enrolment is coming, as is the transposition of the work-life balance directive. It is about the cumulative effect of the various types of leave. We cannot look at one type of leave in isolation; rather, we need to look at the cumulative effect of that. Employers, especially small businesses, are dealing with the cost of the energy crisis and they are coming out of Covid still dealing with the challenges-----

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

I accept there are challenges. The question is to which aspect IBEC is opposed. Is it opposed to statutory paid sick leave?

Ms Pauline O'Hare

We have raised our concerns regarding the cost impact of statutory sick leave. There are various issues we have raised in respect of different elements on which we have engaged with Departments regarding sick leave-----

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

What about the extension of parental leave?

Chairman

The Deputy should allow the witness to finish answering the question.

Ms Pauline O'Hare

I thank the Chair. We have highlighted the cost impact, which cannot be ignored. In the current climate, businesses have many challenges. It is not that we are saying we are against a particular thing; it is that there is a need to look at the overall context of every situation and every new leave that is introduced. The Sick Leave Act is complex in terms of the leave for which it provides. We engaged comprehensively with the Department on it. We made a number of submissions. It is a complex issue. One cannot ignore the complete impact on businesses of all these initiatives at a time when they are dealing with a number of challenges, particularly in the case of small and medium-sized businesses.

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

I accept that. I do not have time for a final question but I make the point that, equally, one cannot ignore how businesses have benefited from or taken advantage of the gender pay gap over many years. Both items have to be put on the balance sheet.

Chairman

I thank the Deputy. The point is made. I move to Senator Chambers, to be followed by Senators Warfield and Pauline O'Reilly.

Senator Lisa Chambers

I thank the witnesses for attending. The topic on everybody's mind is the IBEC issue. I commented on this yesterday. I take on board what Ms O'Hare has said in respect of the cost of business and the concerns with regard to implementing additional leave. Maybe that is where the ask should have been. I hear what she is saying in respect of how the issue was reported but she has not said what was inaccurate in the reporting. It seems that what was printed was what was asked for.

The proof issue has been dealt with by other members. We all accept it can be very difficult to prove coercive control and other aspects of domestic violence. I am not sure what the equivalent of a sick cert from one's general practitioner would be. There does not seem to be such a certification for domestic violence, so I do not think it will be workable to require some sort of proof in order to get that time off. Obviously, time can be of the essence in such situations.

I was particularly concerned by the request for the Government to conduct a cost-benefit analysis to weigh up the cost to employers as compared with the benefit to the employee of providing this leave. That is the wrong way to look at it, particularly in the current environment and given what we have been through as a country. In the past couple of years in particular there have been very high-profile cases involving violence against women and we are in a new era in terms of dealing with this. I hope IBEC has reflected on that. That is not discounting the fact that there has been a lot of change in terms of statutory sick leave and extra parental leave. There is a lot for businesses to deal with, so I accept that point, but I think the Government can assist with that financially and in terms of helping businesses to adapt. We all need to sing off the same hymn sheet, however, in terms of this being a necessary additional support for people going through that issue.

To move to Ms Lennon and WorkEqual, I was interested by its submission in respect of a quality assurance mark - I hope I have that term right - for employers considered to be promoting gender equality. I ask her to elaborate on that and how it might work. From where did the idea come? Did it come from businesses? How could we put it into play in the coming months or years?

Ms Sonya Lennon

The idea of a consumer-facing mark on products and services is one we have discussed with our colleagues in Iceland, where it is live and in action. In the context of 74% of the population believing closing the gender pay gap should be a priority, it is important to consider the structures we can put in place to support new behaviours. It could easily be linked to gender pay gap reporting by way of tiered successes of organisations in terms of moving towards gender equality or gender equity and closing the pay gap in the organisation. It is important to state that gender pay gap reporting will not be without its issues. Part of the messaging that we believe is required for organisations is an acceptance that nobody has it completely right at the moment, so everybody will have work to do. How that story is communicated publicly, as well as the action plan towards closing the gender pay gap, are key. It needs to be time bound, monitored and held accountable, and the legislation must have teeth to ensure people are compliant. When we begin to put that power into the hands of consumers, we will have great momentum.

The other piece very much relates to the motivation of organisations to close the gender pay gap. It cannot be compliance. That is not the point of this. Much of that relates to understanding the benefit of more equitable workplaces for everybody.

Chairman

Do the witnesses from SIPTU wish to come in on the gender pay gap issue? In particular, Ms Buckley may wish to comment on the quality assurance mark and whether unions would consider that useful in reducing the gender pay gap.

Ms Ethel Buckley

I am not familiar with the specifics of the proposal in respect of a quality assurance mark. My head goes to the practicalities of how it might be measured. For trade unions, a real mark of the quality of an employer is its attitude towards workplace democracy. We know that workplace democracy and engaging with staff, their representatives and trade unions and taking part in collective bargaining are the key instrument for raising the quality of women's pay and jobs and ensuring that women progress well in organisations. The real game-changer in the context of the gender pay gap is ensuring that people, mainly women, who work in part-time roles and flexible roles are not disadvantaged for so doing. In our submission, we demonstrated that where collective bargaining is widespread, such as in the public sector, one gets a very different result on the gender pay gap than one does where it is less prevalent. For us, the real instrument will be the expansion of collective bargaining. The high-level expert group was announced yesterday. We are eagerly awaiting the transposition of the European directive which went through earlier this week on adequate minimum wages, which will expand collective bargaining coverage to 80% of the country. That will be a real game-changer for working women, particularly low-paid working women.

I would like the opportunity to clarify SIPTU's position on domestic violence leave. I have not had a chance to address that issue yet.

Chairman

Yes. I am conscious that neither SIPTU nor WorkEqual has had a chance to come in on that issue. Senator Warfield is next.

Senator Fintan Warfield

That is timely because I would welcome the views of Ms Buckley and WorkEqual on domestic violence leave. Do they support the proposals of Deputies Louise O'Reilly and McDonald for a statutory ten days domestic violence leave? My colleague mentioned some of the organisations and companies that provide ten days leave, such as Danske Bank, universities, Vodafone and An Post. Essentially, the statutory leave of workers in those organisations has been halved as a result of the proposals of the Minister, Deputy O'Gorman.

While I respect the Minister, I urge him to revisit this.

Ms Buckley mentioned the high-level group on collective bargaining. Yesterday, we all saw the recommendations and they will obviously be judged by the legislation. The need to protect collective bargaining in the workplace has never been greater and it has real consequences for terms and conditions at work, for workplace democracy, as Ms Buckley mentioned, and for low pay as well. While I and Sinn Féin welcome the recommendations on collective bargaining, they will be judged by the legislation. I would like to get Ms Buckley's initial response to those recommendations of the high-level group.

Chairman

I ask Ms Buckley from SIPTU to come in on the domestic violence leave and collective bargaining points, and Ms Smith and Ms Lennon from WorkEqual can respond before I go back to IBEC.

Ms Ethel Buckley

I welcome the question from the Senator and the opportunity to clarify our position on domestic violence leave. We too were shocked by the comments by IBEC yesterday and we issued a statement in response, so I will leave it at that. This goes to the Senator's point about the fact there already exist collective agreements on paid domestic violence leave. Many employers would have been shocked by the comments yesterday because, in our experience of negotiating paid domestic violence leave with employers - the early starters in this area - we find many employers very receptive and very understanding.

It is important we do not lose sight of why we want paid domestic violence leave. We come to this issue with tremendous practical experience of the issue of domestic violence and how it has an impact on the workplace. The reason we want paid domestic violence leave is to give the victims of domestic violence, mainly women, the opportunity to ameliorate their situation and often to get out of violent and abusive situations. There is paid domestic violence leave in other countries and we know from international research the take-up rate, how much it costs and how much it costs the economy not to have employers paying domestic violence leave. We know how long it takes for victims to make legal arrangements and make arrangements for alternative housing, given victims are often taking children out of a very violent and abusive situation.

Our position in SIPTU has consistently been that five days is not enough. We supported the Private Members’ Bill in the name of the leader of Sinn Féin, Deputy Mary Lou McDonald, back in 2019. That Private Members’ Bill called for no less than ten paid days of domestic violence leave and we think that is about the right level to start with. We do not think the legislation published last week by the Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, goes far enough, although we welcomed it in principle and we said publicly it is a positive step to introduce the principle of domestic violence paid leave. Five days is not enough and it needs to move to ten days.

On the issue of proof, it is in our submission to the Minister and it has been our consistent position with regard to the requirement by employers to show some sort of proof that, first, we cannot see how that would work practically and, second and more fundamentally, in some ways it could be a barrier to women and victims getting out of the situation they are in. What we want to do is remove all potential barriers from people moving to a safer situation. We do not in any way support the positioning in the IBEC submission on employers requiring proof.

On the wider issue of the extension of leave, we have campaigned for a long time and we sincerely welcomed the introduction of paid sick leave. Why was that? It was because workers were going to work sick and injured because they could not afford not to. Many of our members are extremely lowly paid and may be on the minimum wage or just above it, or hovering around the living wage, and at that level of wages, women cannot afford not to go to work and to wait the waiting period to get paid their social welfare. We campaigned on and very much welcome the introduction of sick leave.

On flexible working, we have only seen the heads of the Bill. The Minister, Deputy O'Gorman’s work-life balance Bill, which transposes the directive as required, seems to indicate the introduction of a right to request flexible working. There is a very significant difference between the right to flexible working and the right to request it. The right to request is the right to ask for it, which, for us, infers the employer’s right to refuse. That is not sufficient. What this committee is about is gender equality at the end of the day, and the levelling up of women's working lives, incomes, living standards and living experience to what men enjoy. We know women bear the responsibility of caring to a much greater extent than men and we would welcome if that balanced out, although obviously that is currently the situation. We know that women parents need access and need to be given the right to flexible working. We would like to see the Deputies and Senators, as that Bill moves through the legislative process, put more emphasis on the granting of flexible working arrangements to people who require them, rather than the right to request.

Chairman

I thank Ms Buckley. I am conscious of time and that I have other colleagues indicating. I might come back to WorkEqual and IBEC on those points in the next round, if that is okay.

Senator Pauline O'Reilly

I thank all of our guests for coming in. In regard to IBEC, it is unfortunate we have to spend so much of the committee meeting speaking about some of the comments and the news reports, but it is important and that is what we are here for. I would agree with Deputy McAuliffe, although I do not want to put words in his mouth, that there is a lot that is problematic, not just in the comments over recent days but also with respect to the opening statement today, on a broad range of issues, in particular around collective bargaining. We have very low rates of people taking up trade union membership, which is at 500,000 at the moment, so I think the voluntaristic nature IBEC speaks about has to be put in the context that many people do not feel they have the opportunity to avail of collective bargaining in this country. That is the pure fact of it. I do not see any suggestion here on how IBEC intends to change that. Just simply disagreeing with the recommendation is not very helpful to us, to be honest.

Why does IBEC say in its submission it welcomes the gender pay gap Bill from the Minister, Deputy O'Gorman. IBEC says it has been a difficult journey to get to here and it finishes up its statement by saying the employer is the only stakeholder that has to report and yet, to achieve real change, we need to see changes in the education system. There are a lot of recommendations in regard to the education system but that is not what IBEC is here to talk about. It is here to talk about its obligations and the obligations of businesses. On the one hand, it is saying it welcomes the Bill and, on the other, it seems to be saying it does not seem very fair that it is the employer that has to report. Obviously, the employer is the one who has to report on the gender pay gap because it is the one paying people. IBEC’s opening statement is problematic throughout. It is almost like it is kicking and screaming about any changes we need to see in regard to inequality in the labour market. That is my first point.

In regard to paid domestic violence leave, as I said on the record a couple of weeks ago, I do not believe it is in any way practical to suggest there has to be proof. We have to remember that any legislation has to go through Cabinet and be approved by all three parties, and sometimes those things can be a barrier and a challenge. I was delighted to see the Tánaiste’s statement yesterday that we do not believe that proof is something that is necessary or practical.

I am disappointed IBEC cannot see that also.

This is probably the fifth or tenth item on my list at this stage but I would love to hear our guests' comments on a four-day working week. We discussed it at a previous committee and I am conscious some trade unions are trying to advance this. Do IBEC or WorkEqual think this is something we can move to? That is it for the moment. I will come back in during the second round.

Chairman

We will go to IBEC first as most of the questions were directed at its representatives and then bring in WorkEqual. We may give a little leeway on time on this round because I am conscious that the WorkEqual representatives have not yet got to address domestic violence leave.

Dr. Kara McGann

I will start on the gender pay gap. We support the gender pay gap reporting and the role employers have to play in addressing that. There is much organisations can do and I can speak to that in a moment. However, it would be wrong to say employers can fix the gender pay gap alone. The reason for this that because the various causes that lead to a gender pay gap are very clear, the gender pay gap is not about pay but about the representation of women and men throughout an organisation. The root causes of the gender pay gap are well researched and include things like the gender-segregated labour market, by which I mean the differences between the occupations and the levels within companies that men and women hold. The roots of that lie in society and the different education and career choices that are supported and made by men and women. This can stem right back to how children are introduced to learning opportunities, how children are socialised about what is women's work or men's work and the roles men and women often assume around caring responsibilities. That can be consciously and unconsciously reinforced-----

Senator Pauline O'Reilly

Yes. I do not want-----

Dr. Kara McGann

-----by parents, teachers, employers and society.

Senator Pauline O'Reilly

There is a delay on the line and I do not want to interrupt but we have limited time. With respect, this is not Dr. McGann's expertise. We need to hear what employers are doing. I am delighted Dr. McGann is saying she is supportive but it is not 100% clear from the IBEC opening statement that it is supportive of any of the measures because it always comes with an addendum like "but this is difficult" or how it is not just employers' responsibility. Anyway, I will leave it at that. The WorkEqual representatives have not been in and I want to hear from them.

Chairman

Yes. Dr. McGann may wish to finish her comments.

Dr. Kara McGann

I thank the Chair. I accept absolutely what the Senator is saying but I do not think it is as simple as just being the responsibility of employers. There is a lot that employers can do and are doing in many cases. We have many employers working on everything from their recruitment and promotion practices - for example, by looking at the language used in their advertisements, training, the removal of bias from recruitment, and performance and promotion interviews - to the level of transparency around who gets opportunities to stretch and development opportunities. They are looking at their development practices and examining their data to determine where the problem areas within their organisations are. That is why I mentioned that even though the gender pay gap as a reporting tool is a very useful diagnostic tool, it is only a figure from a point in time. The decisions which brought us to that point were made by individuals, organisations and society over a long period of time. Employers alone cannot fix it. What employers can do is look at their gender pay gap figure and interrogate their data to understand where within their organisation the blockages or obstacles might be. If you are in a STEM organisation in a technology industry, for example, and you are not getting the same number of men and women coming from graduate level, the problem is not just with the employer. The employers have stepped up in that regard. They have looked at teacher internship programmes with STEM companies where people get a paid internship to immerse them in the whole area of STEM because this is a growing area where there are higher levels of pay, growth opportunity and real demand for graduates. As the same number of women is not coming through, they are not getting that access and therefore that is going to impact the gender pay gap down the track. That is why I keep referring to this being a whole-of-society approach.

I am not taking for one second from the absolute need for employers to play a key role in this regard, but without all the other pieces in that whole-of-society approach we will not get as far as we need to get. Our objective is gender balance and gender equality in the same way as the Senator is discussing, but how we get there is not solely within the ambit of the employer. The employer is the only one who has to report; I accept that and it is not a problem. However, the actual solution to it is beyond the employer alone.

Chairman

We have 45 recommendations from the Citizens' Assembly on Gender Equality that we regard as a blueprint for the achievement of gender equality. Many of the others address cultural issues, stereotyping in education and so on. We have had hearings on those issues. We want to focus very much on pay and workplace conditions and on the experience and expertise each of the organisations before us brings. I ask our guests to focus on that. I am conscious the WorkEqual representatives have not yet got to address domestic violence leave so with the permission of colleagues I will give Ms Lennon and Ms Smith an opportunity to do so before I move to Senator Higgins.

Ms Angela Smith

I agree with those who have said that five days of leave is not enough. It needs to be at least ten. To ask for proof is inhuman and regressive to women's rights. We deal with women from all walks of life and many different backgrounds. Members would not believe some of the stories we hear. These are the women who are left behind and we are there to try to get them back to a place where they are more confident and to a place where they want to be.

Ms Sonya Lennon

Absolutely. On the flexible working, it is one to watch out on. As has been mentioned in this forum before, if the flexible working piece becomes a women's issue that in itself creates its own problems. Building policies that support both men and women to work flexibly in tandem is the way to look at it.

Chairman

I thank Ms Smith and Ms Lennon. That was very succinct.

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

I thank our guests. I have lots of questions. It is a point worth making that we have had this delay factor from IBEC, unfortunately, on lots of factors of progress. I was looking at it historically and one of the things that came up is that the Federated Union of Employers opposed the granting of equal pay in principle and had to be forced to change that position through a sit-in at its headquarters. The same arguments were being made. The point being made at the time was that the evidence for why we could not have this progress was not being provided by the Federated Union of Employers. The argument was that it would impact on SMEs. It has been the same argument forever. Is it not the case that we have mechanisms, such as the inability to pay mechanisms, if there are individual businesses that struggle or have difficulties with paying, for example, an increased minimum wage? We already have such mechanisms and those situations are the exception rather than the rule. When the ESRI was before us, its representatives confirmed that the evidence does not show, for example, that increases in those wage levels lead to job losses. That is a core issue.

Others have spoken on the domestic violence leave, but the key point put very well by Ms Buckley was that this is something women do so they can get the capacity to leave. Even meeting a lawyer is something people in this situation cannot do safely unless they get time and space to do so. The leave is there for safety and giving people the opportunity to get to safety. It is not something that comes after a process of addressing domestic violence but something that allows people to address it. That understanding is crucial and was put very well by Ms Buckley.

I would like a comment on it being the case that we already have mechanisms like the inability to pay mechanism. The voluntarism approach to collective bargaining clearly is not working. I do not see how we could get to the recommended level of 80% using a voluntaristic approach. The unions might comment on that.

I have a core concern about the recommendation of the Citizens' Assembly on Gender Equality with regard to the minimum wage, which was carefully worded.

It recommended increasing the minimum wage to align it with the living wage. My concern is that I am seeing a rebranding of the minimum wage. Increasing the minimum wage to the recommended amount may well align it. For example, I have looked at 2020. Effectively applying the living wage that year or applying 66% of the median wage would come to about the same amount but that would not be the case this year, thanks to inflation. We need a belt-and-braces approach whereby we improve the way the minimum wage is measured so that we are applying the 66% principle.

I should point out that the Government's proposed 60% of the median wage in 2020 would have fallen far below the living wage as calculated based on the international living wage principles. Those principles hold that should be based on what is needed to live a decent life and participate in society fully and should be measured against actual concrete measurements. The minimum essential standard of living is based on 2,000 items that families actually need. I am concerned that in the excitement to improve the minimum wage, which is desperately needed, we may be allowing it to be rebranded as the living wage, which is something different. We should be able to set an adequate minimum wage according to the EU directive alongside the living wage and check it against that. The living wage principle, internationally, is based on the actual cost of living. If we are talking about these special measures being based on the employer's ability to pay, we also need to look at people's ability to live. That must be factored in when we are looking at the minimum wage. I know that is rather detailed but it is important. I have lots more questions but I will save them for the second round.

Chairman

I will ask IBEC to respond first and then SIPTU. I invite IBEC to address the question on equal pay and the mechanism to which Senator Higgins referred.

Ms Pauline O'Hare

The Senator has raised a couple of issues there, some of which overlap with points made earlier. I will start with the point on collective bargaining if I may because it came up previously. On collective bargaining - and SIPTU did mention this - the high-level group report was published yesterday. IBEC actively engaged with the unions around how we can promote collective bargaining. As many will know, the directive that will require the promotion of collective bargaining focuses on promotion at sector level. We already have sectoral collective bargaining mechanisms in place and as SIPTU rightly mentioned, we had the recent employment regulation order in the early years sector which is an example of those mechanisms working. There is a collective bargaining mechanism already in place and while we are looking at the promotion of collective bargaining, we cannot support the proposal to legislate for a right to collectively bargain. We have lots of examples where direct engagement works very well and that model needs to be respected too. We also have examples of collective agreements that work very well. We have a voluntarist framework that has served us very well in times of recession and economic growth.

I reiterate that the Government has produced a high-level report and we are looking at the promotion of collective bargaining. We have been involved in that in the context of what is a voluntarist industrial relations framework.

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

Did we not see during the recession, for example, lots of employers pulling out of the joint labour committees, JLCs, for key sectors? We had cases where we had sectoral negotiations under way and the employers pulled out. Employers should not be able to pick and choose whether to engage in sectoral discussions.

Ms Pauline O'Hare

As part of this review, we are looking at JLCs and participation in them. For both parties, both employers and unions, they need to be fit for purpose. There is a review of the industrial relations collective bargaining mechanisms under way.

Chairman

Does Ms McGann wish to come in or will I go to SIPTU to address some of the other issues Senator Higgins raised?

Dr. Kara McGann

No, that is fine, thank you.

Ms Ethel Buckley

I will respond on collective bargaining, the voluntarist industrial relations mechanisms and the gender pay gap and will then defer to my colleague, Mr. Taft, who is the absolute expert on the minimum and living wages.

We often hear that the so-called voluntarist system of industrial relations in Ireland has served us well but it does not serve women workers or low-paid workers well. It does not serve them well because the voluntarist method allows certain employer bodies to completely veto collective bargaining and sectoral collective bargaining. There is a strong correlation between the feminised industries, those industries where women tend to work - and I am concentrating my comments on women unapologetically, in the context of this being the gender equality committee - like hospitality, retail, nursing homes, care and healthcare, and a lack of collective bargaining. There is no collective bargaining in those industries because the employer unions refuse to engage in collective bargaining. That is what they volunteer to do. Bodies like the Restaurants Association of Ireland, the Irish Hotels Federation and Nursing Homes Ireland will not have any truck with engaging in collective bargaining voluntarily. We need to understand that voluntarism serves some interests well but not those of workers.

We very much welcomed the report that was published yesterday and I accept Senator Higgins's earlier point that the proof of the pudding will be in the legislative measures that follow. Senator Pauline O'Reilly mentioned trade union membership and collective bargaining earlier and I would like to comment on that. The research, particularly some solid recent research from UCD on workers' attitudes towards trade unions, shows that workers in Ireland want trade unions. They want to be members of, and to participate in, trade unions. What group of workers wants unions the most? It is women workers. Women workers are the most positively disposed demographic to having unions in the workplace and the other most positively disposed group is young workers. Sometimes when one reads newspapers, listens to the media or to the establishment in Ireland, one would actually think that unions were a thing of the past or that there is enough legislation or regulation in place such that workers do not need unions any more. That is not the case and that is not how workers feel about unions.

The key reason for workers not unionising is fear. It is fear of victimisation and recrimination by anti-union employers. That is what we have to tackle in dealing with women's wages and working conditions. Workers in Ireland, whether Irish or migrant women who come here to work, need to make the decision to join a union as freely as workers in any other European Union country. The Republic of Ireland is a complete outlier in terms of its attitude towards unions. Women need to be able to make a free decision and they need to know that their employer will not discriminate against them if they are in a union or active in one. How do employers on the ground do that? When the WhatsApp messages are sent with the working hours for a hotel, restaurant, shop or bar, the workers are just not on the list. That is how employers do it. They just do not give them hours any more. There are other ways to discriminate too. The IBEC representatives mentioned career progression. People can be held back in their careers if management takes a certain view of them.

I will now move on from the collective bargaining issue to the gender pay gap issue. As well as gender pay gap legislation, we also need transparency legislation in Ireland. Again, the Irish solution to the Irish problem is voluntarism.

We campaigned and argued for us to have a role in the process. That point was made in submissions from ICTU, SIPTU and other unions. IBEC said it cannot fall only to employers. We wanted a role. Trade unions wanted a specified role in both the legislation and regulations on the gender pay gap in the workplace but, unfortunately, there is no role for trade unions under the regulations. The problem with that is that all the expertise we bring in respect of how to equalise pay - we have decades of that experience - and how to negotiate better pay structures, career progression and working conditions for flexible and part-time workers will not be taken into account. We could extend the kind of results we get in the public sector, where there is a pay gap of 6.1%, to the private sector if we were allowed to do so and if there was engagement with trade unions and we were at the table and listened to. I ask the committee to consider that.

I also ask the committee to please consider the fact there is no specified role for worker representatives in agreeing action plans. From December, employers with more than 250 employees will start to issue their reports. It cannot be the case that a company is named and shamed, it is in the media for a day or two and then the matter goes away for another year. We need to do something about the gender pay gaps that are reported. We want to be involved in that. We do not want it to be an employer, top-down and enforced solution. We want workers - the people who know the employment - to be involved. We want workplace democracy and engagement. We would love the committee to consider that and build in a role for worker representatives in tackling the gender pay gap in the workplace and agreeing action plans with employers. We have a very strong record of getting good results in that regard.

I will hand over to Mr. Taft to deal with the living wage.

Chairman

I thank Ms Buckley for those constructive and practical points. I am conscious we have gone well over time in terms of the contribution of Senator Higgins, but I invite Mr. Taft to come in on the specific issue of the minimum wage before we move to a second round.

Mr. Michael Taft

I will try to clarify some of the targets and thresholds that have been subject of confusion. I am a member of the Low Pay Commission, LPC, although I am not appearing today in that capacity. Earlier this year, the LPC, in recommending its strategy for implementing a living wage, made clear that the final destination is 66% of the median wage, which is referred to as the low pay threshold. Anybody earning below that 66% threshold is officially categorised as low paid. As my colleague Ms Buckley pointed out, 23% of women employees are below that threshold while 17% of men are below it. It is one in five. The arrangement to go to 60% is merely, if you will, a way station in the recommendations of the Low Pay Commission. The figure of 60% was chosen as the first phase of implementing a living wage because there are a considerable number of academic studies and surveys showing that raising it to 60% will have no negative impact at all. In fact, it will have several positive benefits. Having reached 60%, the LPC must the carry out an assessment that will, in essence, consider the capacity of the economy to afford to go to 66%. That is what the LPC does every year in any event, so in one sense it is not different. The next stage, therefore, will be to move to 66% within three to five years.

Senator Higgins raised a point in respect of the living wage technical group, which has been providing information on what a living wage should be since 2014 and is made up of civil society groups, including SIPTU. It used the minimum essential standard of living, MESL, approach, which involves using focus groups and pricing 2,000 goods and services. The paper published by Maynooth University that fed into the recommendations of the LPC stated the MESL approach is closest in spirt to the living wage because it involves pricing those goods and services. However, for the sake of transparency, consistency and certainty, the LPC went with the fixed threshold approach because that means there is no argument over which goods and services are included each year and all of that. However, the committee may wish to consider that, in endorsing that fixed threshold approach, and although 66% is usually the approximate level of the figure produced by the living wage technical group anyway, support be given to any civil society group or organisation that conducts studies on a living wage using the MESL approach or any other internationally agreed protocol. It is important we continually monitor the fixed threshold approach as we move towards the living wage and 66% to ensure it is achieving its function rather than just being a calculation on paper. Important support for moving towards the living wage would be provided by civil society continuing its work of assessing the living wage according to the MESL approach or any other protocol.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Taft. That is very helpful. As Chair, I will ask a couple of brief questions, if I may. We have covered domestic violence leave extensively. I am disappointed by the tone and language of the IBEC submission, which is not reflective of the compassionate approach being taken by many employers. That is evident from what we know of employers already offering such leave. We have to recognise the reality that women employees in particular who go to an employer to seek such leave do so out of a place of immense courage, and that must be acknowledged. To identify as a victim of domestic violence takes incredible courage and we should acknowledge that. I agree with colleagues who stated that evidence or proof should not be necessary in such circumstances.

I wish to raise two other matters which are related. The first relates to a form of leave we in the Labour Party sought to introduce. Indeed, we tabled a Bill on reproductive health-related leave, which is the leave in question, in the Seanad and it received Government support. It is similar to the domestic violence leave proposal. It would involve an amendment to the Organisation of Working Time Act framework and it would provide for paid leave for employees such as women suffering early miscarriage or any employee who needs time off work for IVF or reproductive health-related reasons. The proposal we put forward involved medical certification because it is clear this is very much a health-related matter. We have been inundated with queries from women in particular who had to undergo early miscarriage and who currently have no specific right to time off to deal with the aftereffects of such a difficult time. What are the views of the witnesses on that form of leave which we are proposing as an amendment to the Organisation of Working Time Act?

On the flexible work point, I am very taken with the comments of WorkEqual in respect of the need for men to take up flexible leave in greater numbers to ensure it does not become seen solely as a women's issue. Will the witnesses comment on examples they have seen, particularly in Iceland, where there are good practice models and we can see flexible leave used in that way?

I have a similar question for Ms Buckley, who referred to a UCD study which showed that the take-up of flexible leave and remote working arrangements during Covid impacted adversely on women's career progression. How do we, as the Committee on Gender Equality, address that? I invite the representatives of WorkEqual to come in first on those points, to be followed by our guests from SIPTU.

Ms Sonya Lennon

Gallup yesterday launched a new environmental, social and governance, ESG, audit tool that included respect and integrity. It comes down to our duty of care, as a society, to foster respectful cultures in workplaces and in broader society. If we could, we would rename the whole thing because this is about equity, not equality. Domestic violence is a case in point in that regard as it is much more pertinent to women than it is to men, by definition. These are structures we have to put in place to support women to progress.

With WorkEqual, we did a piece of work with a public body that showed the gender gap rate of 6.1% hides other hidden policies that work against women progressing. Our deeper audit of the data showed that although it was a public organisation that had 50:50 gender parity from the top all the way down to the bottom of the pyramid, including the board, it concealed the fact that, because of a policy on management level requiring full-time application, all the recruitment for senior positions was external. There was an invisible blockage to career progression within the organisation. Looking at the gender pay gap reporting and the wider strategy to create new and more effective cultures, this is the sort of hidden data we need to uncover to see what are the landmines women are facing and what we can do about them.

I am sure the committee is aware of a case brought against New Zealand by an individual claiming equal pay for work of equal value. This is in response to the conversation about feminised sectors and how we can begin to unpick sectors that have become feminised and how we can raise the wages in those sectors, as was done successfully in early childcare, which is fantastic. It is about understanding the work women predominantly do, how it compares to similar work done by men, and how we as a nation can close that gap and understand the work has similar value.

Ms Ethel Buckley

I am familiar with the Labour Party's Private Members' Bill, Organisation of Working Time (Reproductive Health Related Leave) Bill 2021, which we are supportive of in terms of the entitlement it would afford to people who have experienced a miscarriage and those undergoing various reproductive treatments, possibly even fertility treatments. We are very supportive of that Bill, but I make the point that while it would require proof, it is in a different category from the domestic violence leave. In that Bill we are making arrangements for people with medical conditions who are undergoing medical treatment, so there would be no difficultly acquiring or securing medical certification. I do not want to conflate such proof with the proof required in domestic violence leave where, as previous speakers have referred to, there would be difficulties, particularly around domestic abuse and coercive control.

On the points I made about career progression and flexible and remote working, I would direct committee members to research by Professor John Geary, the industrial relations professor at UCD. He found quite stark gendered results in the differential experience of men and women who were working at home during the Covid pandemic. We all knew about it anecdotally but now we have research to show that, even in homes of heterosexual couples where there is a man and a woman at home, most of the additional work fell to the woman. Men continued working and having meetings while women took care of children, dealt with the homeschooling, and did the cooking. That is what I mean by intensification of work, but there is also the intensification of the actual paid work through an increase in productivity and additional monitoring by employers that are using new electronic monitoring tools.

The most fundamental point I was making about career progression, and there is a lot of research to show this, is that visibility in the physical workplace is very connected to career progression, especially at middle management, executive and leadership levels. Our concern in SIPTU is that if more women took up the option for home working and flexible working, it could set back women's progression in the workplace. If, as we believe, that is the case, we need to build in measures that ensure we tackle it. We will need promotional and career progression processes to be mindful of the need to equalise across the staff who are present at work full time or even part time and the staff who are in the home. There are very practical measures employers and unions can put in place to counterbalance this, but if it is not counterbalanced, we would be very concerned that what might be seen as a progressive move, and it is progressive, especially for women with young children or who have long commutes, and the opportunity to work from home some or part of the time is welcome, could on the flip side have some pretty serious and long-standing negative impacts if we are not aware of them and do not all work together to counter them.

Chairman

I am conscious representatives for IBEC did not get in, so I will go to them first in the next round of questions.

Senator Pauline O'Reilly

This area of flexible working is one where I am excited to see some of the measures. For too long we have been chasing the idea that men and women can be doing caring work equally, but that is not a reality. There are times in women's lives when they will be doing more caring than men, and they should have the opportunity to choose to do that and not be disadvantaged based on that choice. I am delighted to hear some of those practical solutions, as mentioned by Ms Buckley, that more women might do this but it will not lead to them being disadvantaged. That is where we need to go - to look at those opportunities.

A number of weeks ago, witnesses before this committee talked about women over 55 years and this being a real area of concern. I have seen, as have my friends and people I know, that women come to a certain time in their lives where I will not say they are back caring again but they are taking the option to care for a loved one who may be older. Let us not forget that. We recognise the need for maternity and paternity leave but there is a much larger issue in respect of caring.

Bearing all this in mind, will WorkEqual, SIPTU, and IBEC comment on re-entering the labour market? Stay-at-home parents may be out of the workplace for a significant length of time and much of the disparity in the gender pay gap comes about when such people re-enter the labour market five or ten years down the line. What are the practical solutions the witnesses see that say people can have it all but maybe not all at the exact same time, so they choose at different times of their lives to do different things?

Dr. Kara McGann

I thank the Deputy for the question. The whole area of returners is very important to us and we have been working with employers for quite some time on how to look at the untapped area of women who wish to return to work after caring responsibilities and others, including older workers, coming back. The returner programme approach is key to bridge the gap with any skills area as well as the confidence areas for people who wish to return to work and pick up their career again. It is crucial that those supports are in place. We are doing a piece of work with the Department of Social Protection on the area of returners and with Skillnet and the education and training boards, ETBs, about putting programmes in place to provide support on the skill side and to build back confidence, because it can be difficult to return when you feel you networks have moved on or things have changed since you were last in the workplace. Employers are taking that on board and we have seen many fantastic programmes put in place. Skillnet has a programme called Women ReBOOT, which is specific to the tech sector. There are some good practices we can build on and broaden across sectors.

What is key is that we have that support in place and that we ensure that people are getting back in, getting up to speed and then progressing through their careers.

In regard to the point on shared caring responsibilities, that is also key in considering men and women both as having caring responsibilities and not seeing that as an obstacle to career progression. We know that care traditionally defaults to women and that has an impact on the gender pay gap. It widens significantly after women have children but that imbalance could be reduced if there were greater opportunities for balancing care for men and women. We are encouraging organisations to encourage equal uptake of family leave and the range of flexible arrangements to ensure they are not reduced to something that only female employees avail of. We also encourage organisations to promote examples of senior colleagues who have availed of such leave to ensure it is clear that the organisation supports and welcomes that and it is not an obstacle to career progression.

In regard to Ms Buckley’s point about the possibility that if more women take up flexible arrangements it could work against them, we must be absolutely thorough in stamping that out. We cannot have a two-tier situation where the “real” employee goes back to the office and the others stay remote. We cannot have that. That will require a change in how we work and training of our managers and systems. That is necessary and appropriate to have in this new way of working. We are seeing organisations taking that up.

Chairman

I ask WorkEqual to respond. SIPTU may address those points in the next round.

Ms Sonya Lennon

I will speak about some personal experience of the returnship and our pipeline of returning clients. I will share some statistics from our research. Some 35% of people say family caring duties have impacted their career. That is 45% of women versus 25% of men, and 33% of women with teenage children - I mentioned this - say their careers have been impacted versus 0% of men. Among parents of pre-teens, 41% of women feel impacted compared with 10% of men. That is stark.

Chairman

Will Ms Lennon repeat that statistic, please?

Ms Sonya Lennon

Among parents of pre-teens, 41% of women feel impacted compared with 10% of men.

Chairman

That is very stark.

Ms Sonya Lennon

Among parents of pre-school children, 40% of women feel impacted compared with 16% of men. Again, the normalisation of sharing duties is key.

Going back to the point about recruitment, when careers begin recruiters will say that there is a bias against women as being the child-bearing gender. That is a fact of life, as the Senator said. What can we do to look at the parental leave structure so that a man might be as likely as a woman to take time off? That involves looking again to the Shangri-la of the Nordics and how they do it, which would definitely be worth considering. I will ask Ms Smith to speak about personal experience.

Ms Angela Smith

We have supported nearly 4,000 women in recent years. Our ambition is to get women into work, back to work and maybe into further training to get them to where they want to be. We find more and more of what we call the women who are left behind. We see women aged 40-plus, between 45 and 50, whose confidence is low. We are trying to support them to build their confidence in order that they can go for interviews. We also find that women who get the interviews face an unconscious bias. They are being treated differently and questioned differently when they go for interviews. They find it increasingly difficult to get jobs. Sometimes they might be interviewed by younger HR people who may see them as a threat. We are not sure about this as this is all anecdotal. We may recommend that businesses introduce mentoring and sponsorship programmes for women at all stages of their careers and business policies and procedures for recruitment to mitigate against that unconscious bias. It is very real; it is there.

Chairman

I thank Ms Smith for that helpful contribution. It is good to hear about the programmes being run by WorkEqual, as well as those mentioned by IBEC.

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

I will raise a new point. It was interesting to hear in respect of the right to remote working that it would be the exception to justify a refusal of it rather than just the right to request. Will the witnesses comment on the right to disconnect as potentially an important part that links with that? There have been concerns about the overtime expectations that sometimes come with remote working. I asked the IBEC representatives, who may wish to come back in again, about the point that we already have an inability-to-pay mechanism, for example, where an SME is struggling. Do we not already have a mechanism for the exception? We should not seek to delay progress on the general raising of the bar because of those few exceptions.

I will follow up on what I see as a fundamental mistake being made. When the Low Pay Commission was founded it did not include the word “adequacy” in its terms of reference. It does not have a track record of looking to the adequacy of wages. It looks more to an appropriate market point on wages. It would be an improvement to move to 66% of the median wage as a minimum wage. That is the task. If we did that, there would be a greater chance of the minimum wage aligning with the living wage. I make the point again that the living wage is not just a nice phrase that is available to be taken. It is an internationally established concept used in many countries and by many people in different ways and directly relates to whether people can live on it and, specifically, whether one can live a decent life and participate fully in society on it. There are well-established mechanisms for measuring and calculating that. We have had them in Ireland for seven years but other countries have had them for longer. I suggest that we call the 66% idea what it is, namely, a better minimum wage, and let us have it checked against its alignment with the living wage. It is a presumption to brand it as a living wage. That is an important point. We have a duty to the international movement on the living wage not to dilute what it means. That is a concern.

I was going to ask about progression but it was very well addressed by WorkEqual. We talked about changing who takes up care so that employers are not as prejudiced. Is it not also the case that we need new mechanisms in workplaces to ensure that when people take periods of time off for care or go part-time for a period, it is not seen as stepping off the progression ladder? Will IBEC and WorkEqual explain how important it is to ensure progression opportunities for those who have reduced hours or move to flexible working for a period of time? They should be maintained actively on the ladder of progression. That is not just a matter of prejudice in recruitment. It is a matter of designing workplaces better so that we do not lose out on good people.

Chairman

I thank Senator Higgins. There is a lot there. I ask SIPTU to respond first and then IBEC because the majority of questions were directed at them. We will come to WorkEqual in the next round.

Ms Ethel Buckley

I welcome the focus on women in their 50s and over because much of the discussion on gender equality focuses on younger women. There are specific issues that affect women in their 50s, as Senator O'Reilly mentioned. We have been trying to draw attention to and encourage the adoption of policies on menopause. This is often conflated with what the Senator described. Women come to a certain age or stage in their careers where their children might be reared and out of the house and it then falls to them to care for elderly parents. That is our experience with our women members. They raise this issue with us constantly.

It is often conflated with another change in women's lives and bodies, namely, menopause. There is a silencing of women of that age by many parts of society, so I am glad that this issue has been raised. We would welcome a greater focus on women of that age and the issue of menopause in the workplace.

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

I will ask a tiny additional question because Ms Buckley has reminded me of something important, that being, the phenomenon of hostile scheduling. Women with teenagers and so on have often spoken about being slightly better paid and slightly further up the ladder but sometimes getting pushed out by aggressive scheduling. Union membership can help to alleviate this.

Ms Ethel Buckley

There is a strong pattern of women leaving the workplace in their 50s. Leaving it at any age has a detrimental impact on pension entitlements, but women are already disadvantaged in their pension entitlements, so we do not want to add to that. One of the ideas that we tried to popularise in our Stop67 campaign on the State pension's qualifying age was the notion that people could reduce their working hours as opposed to leaving completely. This is an idea that we want to be taken more seriously. We have spoken about women in their 60s. As it is conceptualised in Ireland, retirement happens at an arbitrary date and time based on someone's birthday. We would like to popularise the idea that people could prepare for retirement a number of years in advance, including by starting to work fewer hours. There is a demand among workers for that on a voluntary basis. It is progressive in terms of career advancement. It is often the reality in workplaces that older workers are promoted workers and are sitting in promoted roles. It can be an abrupt moment - I am sure that employers experience this as a challenge - when someone senior, experienced and qualified leaves the workplace. If so, why do we not plan for a reduction in that person's hours if he or she wishes and prepare someone else to enter a promoted role? There is a certain intergenerational solidarity element to this. I am glad that we have touched on this issue for workers.

We welcome the opportunity that next year's referendum on Article 41 will offer everyone to have a different conversation about paid and unpaid caring work. We in SIPTU embrace and celebrate our dual mandate in representing not only the interests of male and female workers who work in paid care, but also the interests of working people - our members' families and communities - on the issue of unpaid care. We are preparing for that discussion. There will be a national conversation about care work and the valuing, or undervaluing, of it. WorkEqual has pointed to a case in New Zealand. It involved an individual, but the trade union movement took the case. Through taking test cases, New Zealand is showing how work that tends to be done by women is valued and remunerated differently from work that tends to be done by men. My upbeat contribution to the conversation is that 2023 will be exciting insofar as the referendum will allow us the opportunity to consider as a country how we want to value the care work that is mainly done by women but in which we would like to see more men engaging.

Chairman

A key recommendation from our committee is that the referendum be held next year. We will move to IBEC before calling Deputy Cronin.

Ms Pauline O'Hare

I will briefly deal with a couple of the issues that have been raised before handing over to my colleague Dr. McGann. On the point about caring responsibilities, why they fall on women and how there should be a more equal division, at the time that the extension of parental leave was being considered at European level a number of years ago, many member states were allowing leave to be transferred. This was stopped, so men had to use it or lose it. This showed that men were not taking up the leave, and would not do so even if we increased their statutory leave. This raises a question as to why they are not taking parental leave and why caring responsibilities fall where they do.

The right to disconnect is an important issue. We published our code of practice on the matter recently. Disconnecting is an important health and safety issue. Our code of practice looked not just at the obligations on employers, but also at the obligations on employees in terms of disconnecting under health and safety legislation, in particular section 13. This is not just a working time issue, but a health and safety one as well. The importance of disconnecting has been outlined. In terms of employers' needs and other business needs, we do not live in a 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. world anymore and employers need to meet consumer demand. There is a good balanced framework and best practice in the code of practice. At European level, the social partners and the European Commission are examining the idea of legislating for the right to disconnect. It is a timely issue.

There is a minimum wage exemption, but the application must go to the Labour Court with the consent of the majority of workers and where the employer can show that, if it were compelled to pay that wage, doing so would result in layoffs or dismissals. It is also only a one-off exemption. This is a high bar for employers to meet. We are in a time where many businesses, in particular SMEs, are facing a number of challenges. For example, the energy costs that employers are facing have been well reported. There have been major cost increases and many policy initiatives are coming down the road, so it is not as easy as saying that an exemption can be availed of.

Regarding a couple of other-----

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

Staff are also dealing with higher energy costs.

Chairman

Senator, we are tight on time.

Ms Pauline O'Hare

I am conscious of the time, but I will just make a few more points before handing over to Dr. McGann. Ms Buckley mentioned the fear of recrimination over joining a union. It should be highlighted that there are strong statutory protections for employees from victimisation and discrimination.

I have already mentioned my next point, but it is important that I highlight it again because it arises often. What was reported in respect of domestic violence was not an accurate reflection of what was said. At the start of this meeting, I stressed that we highlighted in our submission to the Department the difficulties that employees face in showing proof. We highlighted the example of coercive control. We also highlighted what compassionate things employers were doing and continue to do. It has been mentioned by several committee members that there are a number of companies that already have policies in place. We note the Government's recommendation that employers reserve a right. Employers want to comply with their legal obligation, be that a requirement for proof or not. We are not demanding that proof be required, as has been reported. Regardless of whether proof is required, employers still need to be told how to comply with their legal obligations. Once a legislative framework is put around something, it is not just a matter of providing leave. Questions arise about whether employers need to comply with GDPR and retain statutory records. Under other legislation, not retaining a record is a criminal offence. What do employers need to do and to get? IBEC is very supportive of any measure that is put in place to support victims of domestic violence. Employers just need to know what they have to do. We are guided by the Government in that regard.

Dr. Kara McGann

Let me speak about the point on progression for individuals on part-time or reduced hours. This is a priority. Discrimination and bias, while they can be systemic or overt, intentional or unintentional, can also come through in organisational policies and practices that may have unintended consequences. We absolutely need to see a change in how we do things. I refer to getting rid of prototypes concerning what a particular role requires or what a career trajectory should look like. Many employers are considering this and establishing focus groups with their workforce to determine how particular policies play out for various cohorts, who will have different experiences and working patterns. It is a question of putting steps in place to make sure progression and development opportunities, and others, exist. This is part of an organisation's role in addressing the gender pay gap. This may very well be one of the elements that needs to be addressed, so it is a key area for us.

Chairman

I thank Dr. McGann for that.

Deputy Réada Cronin

I want to check something with WorkEqual. Particularly striking was the finding that 33% of women with teenage children say their career has been affected in comparison with 0% of men. Should that be 10% of men?

Ms Sonya Lennon

Zero.

Deputy Réada Cronin

Considering the number of working women who are told they are marvellous to be walking the tightrope, I wonder what percentage of men are told they are marvellous for doing so.

Ms Sonya Lennon

We see it every day in how we converse around this. How we converse is vital. The discourse and communication that surround every one of the recommendations are paramount. I had a quick chat with the Chair about the composition of this very Chamber, which is 80% women. I am delighted to have the men who comprise the remaining 20% in the room, but this has to be framed as a societal issue, not a women's issue. This room should have a ratio of 50:50. Deloitte did major work on covering in the workplace and how, unsurprisingly, 86% of the members of the LGBT community cover their true selves in the workplace. The research covered 3,000 people. It was found that 45% of white men also cover in the workplace. Part of what they are covering is there positive motivation towards supporting women. They feel they will be ostracised for standing up for women. Research from Stanford shows that both men and women do not like it when men stand up for women. It is a really thorny issue. Part of our role in this whole process is giving men permission to be part of the solution. Currently, I believe there is a bit of a disconnection. Role modelling is a massive part, as we have discussed. Policy is a massive part, but everyday behaviour, actions and words are what will really matter.

Deputy Réada Cronin

It is a matter of changing culture as well. At recent meetings, we discovered the gender pay gap is higher among higher earners and close to zero among the lower paid workers. The gap widens for mothers of children – really, we could say working women. When a woman goes to work, she has to earn enough. She is trying to earn as much as her male counterpart but also has to earn enough to pay another woman. There is great solidarity shown in childcare because a woman will generally depend on another woman to mind her children so she can go out to work. The idea of the village raising the child is quite an old concept. I wonder how long the concept of the stay-at-home mother dates back, because women have always had to work.

I have a question on the living wage. It is very much tied in with the gender pay gap. The number of people who depend on having their wages topped up by the State or having exorbitant rents paid is significant. We have socialism when it suits capitalism all the time. In its argument on the move from the minimum wage to the living wage, IBEC said it felt that work had a capped value and that there would be job losses owing to outsourcing to other countries and so on. However, we have had meetings here at which it was shown that this was not really the case. We received reports to back that up. Lately, many smaller businesses have been saying the minimum wage is causing problems with recruitment and retention. I visited many businesses over the recess and remember somebody in SuperValu saying to me that they wanted their workers to be able to afford to shop there. Those who work in restaurants need to have enough money to dine in restaurants every so often. Does IBEC think it properly represents SMEs? You could cut off your nose to spite your face sometimes in that the economy needs workers with a disposable income if the whole shebang is to keep going.

Chairman

I thank the Deputy. That is a very practical point to end on.

I will ask each of our witnesses to contribute in this final round, beginning with those from IBEC and then proceeding to those from WorkEqual and SIPTU. Ms O'Hare or Dr. McGann may begin by responding to any of the comments.

Ms Pauline O'Hare

On the rises in the minimum and living wages, we have said we would look for a five-year timeline with a degree of flexibility. What we are highlighting is the impact on employers. The costs cannot be considered in isolation from all the other costs faced by employers. I acknowledge the comments being made but one needs to consider the cumulative cost. The minimum wage is one thing but there are also energy costs, labour costs and a ream of statutory employment rights policies that are also coming down the road. The latter have a huge cost impact on businesses. We know they have a cost impact on SMEs. Sectors such as hospitality and retail are dealing very much with these challenges

Deputy Réada Cronin

They are having a problem with recruitment and retention also because of the minimum wage.

Chairman

Many of us are hearing about recruitment and retention being the huge issue, particularly for SMEs.

Ms Pauline O'Hare

Absolutely. Dr. McGann might speak about that also. The point we want to make is that there needs to be balance. There are cost concerns on the employer side.

Let me refer to an issue I was asked about that I do not believe I addressed. I was asked about our view on the four-day working week. With regard to its being a flexible working arrangement, we need to examine whether the arrangement suits each role. Many sectors do not lend themselves to four-day working weeks. If it is granted, there is a knock-on cost, giving rise to the question of who is present on the fifth day. There is the question of the increase in headcount. Again, one must consider this in terms of the cumulative cost.

Dr. Kara McGann

We have a genuine opportunity, with the recommendations of the Citizens' Assembly and this committee's work, to address all the aspects or pieces of the puzzle. Employers have a huge role to play in this. I believe they are very conscious of this and willing to play their part. The gender pay gap will comprise one element but there are many others. We are seeing great practices in respect of fertility and menopause. Really good practices must be put in place. We must consider how we bring people back into the workplace and also understand the data within our workplaces and where the obstacles and blocks may be, even if they are not necessarily immediately obvious. We must determine how they play out and their impact. It will take a concerted effort not just in the business community but also broadly. However, there is willingness. We are at a crucial point for all of us to pull in the same direction. There is an opportunity in this regard.

We are at a very crucial point for all of us to pull in that direction and there is an opportunity there.

Ms Sonya Lennon

On the living wage, it harks back again to this issue of the feminised sector. It is not that long since we were deifying those very feminised sectors during Covid-19. It is vital to recognise the work that is done in feminised sectors, so any movement towards improving working conditions there is very much to be welcomed.

Deputy Réada Cronin

Does Ms Lennon believe legislation might need to be improved to make that happen?

Ms Sonya Lennon

I have looked at all the previous submissions and the legislation. I am not sure, is the honest answer.

Deputy Réada Cronin

Does Ms Lennon have any comments on affordable childcare?

Ms Sonya Lennon

Affordable childcare is a major part. In our continuing work with the Icelandic administration, we are going on a fact-finding mission with them in two weeks' time to look at gold standard best practice. The way that they have set up affordable, sustainable childcare is extraordinary. It is the best in the world and that is why we are going to look deeper into it.

It is worth saying we have a series of webinars where we look at the Icelandic model of childcare and we have a fantastic contribution from Tatjana Latinovic, who has been one of the key members of our partnership. I will share the links with committee members afterwards if they would like to have a look at them.

Deputy Réada Cronin

Yes please, that would be great.

Ms Sonya Lennon

It is a tiered system. It is not free. There is a contribution to be made by parents but it is tiered based on their circumstances. It is different for single parents than it is for two parents living together. As part of that series of webinars, we also interviewed Mr. Andrew Barnes, who is the founder of 4 Day Week Global. We had a fascinating discussion around his solutions. He claims no sector cannot adopt a four-day week and he was subject to some questioning around that. I am not entirely convinced but certainly he makes a really good case, and some of the companies in Ireland that are adopting the four-day week on his protocol are saying the benefits are enormous.

Chairman

That is very interesting. I thank Ms Lennon and ask that she would share those links.

Ms Sonya Lennon

Yes.

Mr. Michael Taft

I will make three points on some of the issues raised by Deputy Cronin. First, rarely if ever will employers' organisations come to the public debate. They rarely if ever provide evidence that business cannot afford something. They assert it and claim it but you will not find much in the way of evidence for these kind of generalised comments such as saying businesses cannot afford a wage raise or to take the minimum wage off the ground. I urge Deputies and Senators, when they hear this, to ask where is the evidence and where is the proof.

Second, let us be clear about what low pay employers do, because it is not just their employees on whom they have a negative impact. As a result of low pay, the Exchequer is not getting money as high income tax revenue and it may have to pay out subsidies. It is a cost to all of us through the Exchequer and might be called an opportunity cost. Had the employees been properly paid, there would have been more resources for the Exchequer to invest. Business that rely on the domestic purchasing power of Irish workers are also as impacted because they are relying upon workers having more money in their pockets. If they do not, the businesses do not have the turnover, which impacts on their workers, and so you get a cycle downwards. Therefore when we talk about low pay employers, the employee is the first one impacted but every one of us, through the Exchequer, and so many other businesses lose out. Low pay employers stay in business and make a profit essentially by imposing costs on others.

Finally, in terms of the minimum wage and many of the issues raised here like collective bargaining, the right to disconnect and the domestic abuse paid leave, this is about moving to a new business model. The whole idea of raising wages is not just about ensuring workers have enough to live on, although that is extremely important. It is also about making a statement about the type of business model we have. We will no longer tolerate low-paid exploitative employers or a low-paid or exploitative business model. We are going to move to a new model, and part of that new model is that business must be negotiated through collective bargaining. Part of that new model is that workers in especially difficult circumstances have access to the support they need, whether that is being able to take a few days off with a proper income or having to get outside support. That is the type of new business model SIPTU and the trade union movement want to see us going to.

It is not about talking about costs. We would argue the benefit accruing to business and through the wider economy is much greater than any kind of imagined cost. Certainly, it will be costly to those businesses that cannot play by the new rules. It will be costly for them if they refuse to do so, but where businesses are willing to move to the living wage or to move in these directions and if they are having genuine difficulties, the trade union movement is always there either locally at the enterprise level or at a sectoral level to work with those employers. We have done so in the past on many occasions. Therefore, in terms of an economy-wide shift to a new business model, the trade union movement will be found to be an active and constructive partner in that process. What we need is other active and constructive partners to work with.

Chairman

I thank all the witnesses for their very constructive engagement today, for the benefit they have given us, and for their expertise and experience. We very much appreciate their engagement with the committee through the submissions, the opening statements and the exchanges we have had through questions and answers and debate. They have seen just how engaged and committed our committee membership is to ensuring we see the implementation of the 45 recommendations of the Citizens’ Assembly on Gender Equality. We have focused particularly on the recommendations relating to pay and workplace conditions, 32 to 36, but there is a full set of 45 recommendations and they are all interrelated. We appreciate that these recommendations being considered today cannot be seen in isolation. I think all of our guests have acknowledged that too. I thank the representatives from WorkEqual, IBEC and SIPTU for engaging with us today.

The joint committee adjourned at 11.48 a.m. until 12 noon on Wednesday, 12 October 2022.