asked the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs why three labourers (names supplied) were laid off in the Longford area.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Lay-Off of Longford Workers.
7.
The three temporary labourers referred to in the Deputy's question were laid off because there was insufficient unskilled work in the area to justify their retention. It had been the intention to retain these men, but, unfortunately, a re-appraisal of the position showed that there was no longer a need to retain their services.
The relatively small proportion of unskilled work arising in the Longford area is now being done by quasi-permanent men.
Is the Minister aware that those men were employed for roughly one year, that they are young men, that they were given an indication early on that they would be retained in the service if further suitable employment could be found for them as temporary installers? Is he further aware that no one from Longford town is employed in this gang, that this gang travelled from Mullingar? Is the Minister also aware that in this context the question of paying subsistence and overtime allowances arises and that I will ask him at a future date to indicate the amount paid by way of subsistence and overtime allowances?
If further temporary work becomes available in Longford, may we assume that these three men, if then unemployed, will be offered the temporary work?
In regard to Deputy Carter's questions, the gangs are chosen on the most economic basis possible, based on district engineering operations and there is no tradition in the telephone service that workers have to be chosen from a particular area. The idea is to do the work of construction and installation at the most economic rate so that the entire staff of the telephone service can work as economically as possible. If uneconomic use were made of labour, the result would be the opposite to that intended. In regard to the question of these men being given the promise as to their future employment, this is a very rare occurrence. In general, when men are promised quasi-permanent employment, the promise is kept. I will consider the circumstances again in this case to try to do something for these men in view of the fact that this is a rare occasion in the telephone service.
I am grateful to the Minister.
Question No. 8.
Oh, hold on. Do these lofty promises apply to the town of Monaghan as well as to Longford? Perhaps the Minister will remember that I asked him about four men, temporary workers, who were laid off in Monaghan.
The question relates to Longford.
I am asking is it confined to Longford. We are talking about the whole service and I should like to know if the Minister's reply applies to Longford only. I am speaking of the circumstances in Monaghan where four men got jobs——
The Deputy is referring to purely temporary labourers.
I am sure all seven were pure but where is the difference otherwise?
I am referring to people who were offered quasi-permanent employment.
Is there a lot of difference between quasi-permanent employment in Longford and quasi-permanent employment in Monaghan?
It was purely temporary employment in Monaghan.
I commend Deputy Carter for making such honourable efforts——
The Deputy always drags in politics.
It is edifying to find Deputy Carter denying such honourable attitudes.
Deputy Carter has clean hands, which Deputy Dillon has not.
If he has a clean hand, could he say the same of his townsmen?
I will not wash them in public. There will be no repetition of Pontius Pilate.
Will Deputy Carter allow questions to proceed?