Today at Question Time, I asked the Minister for Finance questions related to employees in his Department and employees of the Commissioners for Public Works concerning the number of employees in the Office of Public Works and the numbers employed in the Dublin area who are eligible for sick pay. The reply stated that the following classes were not covered for sick pay—and for something else which at the moment is unmentionable— tradesmen, labourers (architectural districts, furniture branch and engineering), Labourers (park and garden), etc. to a total of 1,715. There was a total, also, of 462 in various grades—temporary clerical assistants, trainee engineer technicians, etc., etc. covered only for sick pay. I also sought information about the average service of employees of the Commissioners of Public Works in the Dublin area who are not covered for sick pay or covered elsewhere. To my amazement, and possibly to the amazement of most other Deputies, I was informed that of the number concerned, 393, the average was 13 years service. I submit that this is a very serious matter for this House. These workers are doing work of public importance and it is no secret that quite a large proportion of them have served their country. I am sure many of them secured their appointment because of prior service in former years. In an age when commercial undertakings, operated on the basis of making profits, provide sick pay and other benefits for their employees, it is rather strange that the Government permit this situation to continue.
Not only are sick pay and other fringe benefits, such as pensions, made available to workers in such concerns as Guinness's, the oil companies and gas companies but in the ESB and in the local authorities, many of which have no great record as far as looking after their workers is concerned. A worker with possibly only a year's service employed by a commercial undertaking which wishes to make profits for its shareholders, will receive sick pay and fringe benefits and it is rather extraordinary that the Commissioners of Public Works, for whom the Minister for Finance is responsible, allow this situation in Dublin area and throughout the country. I could give the House list after list of private employers, large, small and medium, who not for one moment would think of exposing their employees to this type of problem.
What is the problem? If such men fall ill, they have to rely entirely on social welfare benefits. They may be working in wet weather conditions, or working in dirty conditions. Most of them are married men with families and if they fall ill, they have the choice —unless the illness is such that they are incapable of working—of deciding whether they will try to continue at work or remain out and suffer the subsequent substantial loss of income. In many instances these workers do go in to work when in fact it would be to the benefit of their health to remain at home and receive proper attention.
The ESB with all its faults provides sick benefit. CIE provides a certain measure of sick benefit and local authorities in this and other cities have a little more understanding of this problem, but yet we have the Government setting this very bad example, in fact, a rotten example, to employers, both public and private, in relation to their treatment of their employees. Of course, not all the employees are affected in this way. Senior officers are not forced to go in to work because if they remained out they would be at a serious economic loss. No; they receive sick pay. Clerical staff have their sick pay and the engineering and administrative staffs receive sick pay. One wonders if the consideration of the Minister for Finance and his Parliamentary Secretary is purely a consideration related to the classes of people concerned.
Let me refer again to the people who are not covered for sick pay and superannuation. In this matter I take the whole country and we find that tradesmen, labourers (architectural districts, furniture branch and engineering); labourers (park and garden); classes allied to labourers (chargehands, drivers, machine operators, etc.); park and harbour constables and gatekeepers; arterial drainage workers; harbour and marine workers; park workers (Bourn Vincent Memorial Park and Garnish Island) and Shannon Navigation employees are not covered for sick pay or superannuation. Why should this Department worry about these people, some of whom work at times in the most inclement weather? Yet, if they fall ill, they must rely on the Department of Social Welfare because there will be no money from the Board of Works. Everybody knows that harbour and marine workers are exposed to the most inclement weather and that their occupation is most dangerous to health. These classes have no sick pay but the people who have the sick pay are: temporary clerical assistants, the Director (Archaeological Survey)— naturally, he will have sick pay; investigators (Archaeological Survey), engineers (grade III), architectural assistants and trainee engineering technicians. Surely, in this day and age, tradesmen are technicians but the tradesmen have no sick pay. Clerks of works, inspectors and foremen also get sick pay.
This sick pay problem in respect of these workers has been pressed on their behalf for many years. The Parliamentary Secretary is in a long line of Parliamentary Secretaries who gave half promises but no results. His predecessor, now Minister for Education and recently Minister for Health, indicated nearly two years ago that he was recommending that a sick pay scheme should be introduced for these workers without delay. He even indicated that, in his view, it should be based on sick pay for 13 weeks. The Minister for Finance, up to now, has not passed such a recommendation. The previous Parliamentary Secretary also made promises to these people. Not only are people in private employment covered by sick pay schemes but they also receive other fringe benefits. It is a poor Government who cannot even follow the example set by good employers in ensuring that employees, if they fall sick, will get sick pay while they are out and that when they retire, adequate provision will be made for them.
These figures are appalling. We have people with 13 years service employed in the Dublin area—and there may be people with just as long service in various parts of the country with the Board of Works in the same position —not getting sick pay when they are out ill. Other organisations that do harbour work, the Dublin Port and Docks Board, and the Cork Harbour Commissioners, whose employees might be said to come into this class, are covered by sick pay and pension schemes. Without making any reflection on those concerned, it may well be that it is much more in the interests of the Government to look after people in high salary brackets. Some months ago there was reference to certain people retiring with very handsome lump sums. The workers to whom I have referred get no sick pay. Many of them get only a miserable gratuity —one week for each year of service, with certain qualifications—and yet the Parliamentary Secretary, when I asked a question today, did not even at this stage indicate that there was any immediate programme to provide sick pay for these people.
It is not good enough to say that we cannot do anything unless all those employed in the Government service in a similar capacity get the same benefit. The Parliamentary Secretary is responsible; the Minister for Finance is responsible for certain classes. The Minister could tell us, that in respect of the employees of his Department, they all qualify for sick pay, with the exception of a handful. The Minister for Local Government could tell us that all his employees are covered for sick pay. What is the difference? Are the people to whom I refer different human beings? Do they suffer illness less often? Are they less in need of payment of wages when they are ill? Are they less exposed to inclement weather and to illness? I submit that the people on whose behalf I have raised this matter are in many cases much more exposed to illness and inclement weather and to hardship than many of the sections that are covered for sick pay at present. I now call on the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us that this situation will be remedied without any further delay.
