I remember well the period when married women started to move back into the workplace. These women were often regarded by men as women who just wanted a few extra bob for themselves — pin money is what it was called. The male workforce, who conjured up the title pin money were often disparaging in their remarks. They felt a little resentful and threatened by the presence of women on the shop floor. Unfortunately, for the vast majority of women the term pin money was often a convenient cover to hide behind because they were not just out for the extra few bob but were in desperate financial need. For economic reasons they were being forced out of the home to earn money to meet even the basic household budget. It is worth recording that many a family would have starved were it not for the valiant efforts of brave women who abandoned their expected roles as "housewives tied to the kitchen sink" and re-entered the workforce.
How far have women progressed since the late fifties and early sixties? There are about 100,000 regular and occasional part-time workers, both men and women. About 72 per cent of part-time workers are women and this highlights the fact that women are much more vulnerable to exploitation by employers than are men. The level of exploitation of the low-paid workforce is a scandal. This Bill from The Workers' Party is an attempt to get the Government to recognise that it is morally wrong for them to do nothing but stand idly by while employers underpay their part-time workers. The vast majority of part-time workers have no protection against unfair dismissal or redundancy; they have no entitlements to holiday or maternity leave; they have no protection under the minimum notice against dismissal and they are only insured through class J insurance. All of these restrictions will have to be changed.
Last night the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Woods, said in his address that in line with the Government's commitment in the Programme for Government he has already begun a review of the insurability of part-time workers and that by late summer he would prepare comprehensive proposals for the social protection of part-time workers. I would like to believe the Minister but I am sure he will do as before: nothing, unless organisations such an FLAC push him into the European Court of Justice, drag him screaming before the European Community and expose the Government for their total disregard for sections of the European Community Directive on Equal Treatment for Men and Women in Matters of Social Security — Directive 79/7/EEC.
The Minister could have proved his intent a couple of weeks ago when he introduced the Social Welfare Bill, 1990, but no attempt was made in this Bill to redress the position. As a result of the case of Cotter and McDermott v. the Minister for Social Welfare, approximately 40,000 married women are entitled to back payments of approximately £20 million on account of the disgraceful way the previous Government botched the implementation of the EC directive on equal treatment for men and women.
Despite the clear obligation to implement the directive by 23 December 1984, it was not until 1986 that the State undertook its implementation. The delay in implementing the directive meant that between 23 December 1984 and 15 May 1986 the State continued to discriminate against married women in relation to rates of disability benefit, unemployment benefit, injury benefit, invalidity pension and unemployment supplement. Furthermore, women who were unemployed between 23 December 1984 and 25 February 1986 were cut off from unemployment benefit after 12 months as against 15 months for men.
What has the Minister done in relation to the Ruzius v. Willbrank decision of the European Court of Justice? Why should the Minister wait years to supposedly begin a review of the insurability of part-time workers when we have the European Court of Justice decision on the question of part-time workers and their social insurance? One of the major areas of discrimination against part-time workers is the question of their eligibility for social insurance cover. The majority of people who work for fewer than 18 hours per week are considered to be part-time workers for social insurance purposes. Many part-time workers are not allowed to be in the full PRSI-class A, therefore, they are not entitled to employment benefit, disability and other benefits. This discriminates against women because the large majority of part-time workers are women.
In the case I referred to, the Court of Justice of the European Communities held that a rule which discriminates against part-time workers, where such a measure affects a much larger number of women than men is in breach of the EC directive on equal treatment for men and women on social welfare unless it can be justified on grounds unrelated to sex. The Minister is probably very familiar with the points made by my party colleague, Deputy Rabbitte, in highlighting those cases and issues. I will not repeat what he said but I would attempt to conclude by stating that the exploitation of part-time workers, and particularly women in Ireland today, is basically the same in scale as is the exploitation of blacks by whites in South Africa. It amounts to a conspiracy by employers and Government to keep labour costs low, without any restrictions on the ability of employers to make profits.
When Government Ministers and Fianna Fáil TDs claim how successful they have been in bringing about an economic upturn let them remember on whose backs financial rectitude fell and whose sweat allows £2 billion in profits to be repatriated each year. Let them also remember that the rising tide has not lifted all boats, that left behind, high and dry, are not only the low paid workers but the approximately 100,000 regular and part-time workers. There is nothing so vicious as the exploitation of the vulnerable — people desperate for work in order to survive — who take low paid part-time work often under deplorable working conditions and who are then cynically exploited.
In conclusion I should like to quote from an article in The Irish Times of 28 April 1990 which had a report which coincides with this Bill, entitled “Salon fined £140 for underpaying woman”, as follows:
A Dublin hair salon convicted of underpaying an apprentice for two years was fined £140 under the Industrial Relations Act yesterday.
Marshall Salons Ltd. of Fade Street had already paid £1,634 in outstanding wages to the apprentice following their conviction at a previous hearing at Dublin District Court.
Yesterday District Justice Desmond Hogan imposed fines totalling £140 for failing to pay Ms. Rebecca Roche (22) proper remuneration, failing to register her as an apprentice or keep proper records and failing to display employment regulations.
The prosecution was taken by the Department of Labour after Inspector David Peckham discovered shortcomings in the records kept of employees at the company's premises in Dawson Street.
I congratulate them in the presence of the Minister. The frightening part of the report is that:
The court heard that although Ms. Roche worked 51 hours a week she only received the 40-hour weekly rate of about £30. This rose to £40 in the third year.
She had two half hour breaks a day which were usually interrupted by calls to do salon duties and was paid the incorrect weekly wage for two brief periods.
Ms. Roche of Upper Carysfort Avenue, Blackrock, worked with the company from February 1987 to April last year. She then left to attend an art course.
Ms. Sinead Gaffney, another apprentice at Marshalls, told the court that staff were too afraid of losing their jobs to complain to management.
That gives us a clear picture of the exploitation that we over the last few days have been arguing exists in our city. I will conclude on that point.
