I welcome the Bill. Although the legislation is now two or three years overdue, the Government has now responded to the directive issued by the European Union. We like to praise ourselves for progress made in legislating in the area of labour relations. However, we have always been forced to do so on foot of EU directives. I recall that as far back as 1977, when a raft of legislation was introduced by the European Economic Community on unfair dismissals, equal pay and a range of other matters, the Government tried to postpone implementation. There were, at that time, real and considerable cost and competitiveness factors involved and a concern that the legislation would lead to massive job losses. Nevertheless, the State responded by transposing the directive into law, minimised job losses and got on with things.
The Minister of State referred to our tradition of voluntarism. Our having as little legislative input as possible into the area of labour relations has proved to be very productive. For this to be the case, there needs to be a strong trade union movement and responsive employers. Otherwise, those in marginal employment and those who are not in a position to negotiate for themselves would fare badly. The National Minimum Wage Act should not have been deemed necessary in a society where voluntarism was practised and where negotiations between equal partners took place.
As other Deputies have stated, employees are vulnerable to exploitation and they have been exploited over the years. However, strong unionisation or the fear of unionisation has compelled some companies to offer good conditions of employment. I have had much experience of the legislation of the 1970s and I was on the Employment Appeals Tribunal for nine years. That there be no legal involvement in labour relations cases was in the spirit of the legislation introduced in 1977 but, as I stated in respect of a different Bill, lawyers became increasingly involved in bringing cases before various tribunals. For example, when I was on the Employment Appeals Tribunal I remember when representatives of IBEC – or its predecessor, FUE – would take the case of the employer and a trade union official would take that of the employee. This approach was extremely successful and all parties involved were keen to seek a resolution to difficulties. The Employment Appeals Tribunal recognised that the parties to the disputes were not lawyers but that they were trying to make their cases as well as possible.
Nowadays, cases that come before the Employment Appeals Tribunal, such as unfair dismissal cases, invariably involve some of the highest paid lawyers in the country, who are representing either the employee or the employer, and sometimes both. The law was never meant to be applied in this way but, unfortunately, it has. I would love to see a return to its original spirit, which stressed voluntarism in negotiations. Many of the Acts pertaining to this area were meant to extend face to face negotiation between the trade union and the employer or the employee and the employer.
The Minister of State praised the various agreements – I accept that they have played a valuable role in developing rights and ensuring competitiveness – but employers' and employees' representatives have almost lost the art of negotiation. The trade unions involved in the many agreements I negotiated were very experienced, and we all became very experienced because we had to. One negotiated instinctively. I believe there would be a considerable fight between the trade unions' and employers' representatives if they had to negotiate individual agreements in every company in the country. They may not even have the personnel to do so. I do not know what the position would be in respect of organisations without trade union representation – I presume the employers would try to find a way of negotiating with their employees to the satisfaction of both parties. It would be an interesting development and I would be keen to observe it from the outside.
There is no doubt that the conditions of workers have changed dramatically in recent decades. I remember when people who joined a company after their having left school remained in that company until they reached the age of retirement. This was expected, especially in the old, traditional companies which represented the mainstay of employment at that time. Every man who took up employment in Guinness's at the age of 14 knew he would remain there until he reached retirement age. Such companies were often very good employers and looked after the welfare of their staff. However, this has totally changed. Nobody taking up employment in a particular company believes he will remain in it for the rest of his life, except for some people taking up positions in the Civil Service or public service. However, there are also changes in the public service – there is much more flexibility and opportunity for development, which was not the case previously. It is believed that anybody starting work today will probably have three to five jobs or careers in his lifetime.
There is a need for the flexibility that is now evident in the workplace. However, as it became more prevalent so also did exploitation. Employers in the private and public sectors used fixed-term contracts to contract themselves out of what I would regard as their obligations under the various employment laws to which I referred, including the 1974 Act. The Minister of State stated that there are 70,000 people on fixed contracts. Obviously, many of these contracts suit both the employer and the employee and they are necessary in certain businesses.
When Acts such as those to which I referred conferred certain rights on employees, certain employers examined ways in which they could renege on their obligations. Before these Acts came into law, there was no such thing as a fixed-term contract – an employer could give a week's notice to anybody and terminate his or her employment. There was no control at all over employers and unscrupulous ones could sack anybody for no reason and did not have to account for themselves, except in cases where the involvement of a strong trade union might have given rise to a strike.
One way in which employers attempted to renege on their obligations under the legislation was to introduce piece-work contracts. They stated to employees that they would not give them a weekly wage but a fixed sum for doing a certain job. The meat industry company I worked for introduced contract boners. They were paid per carcass, their status was self-employed and they had to deal with their own tax and social insurance. The company had no obligations towards them. The legislation is necessary to address situations such as this.
I am pleased that the ICTU and IBEC have been involved in drawing up the legislation. It sends a signal that the main players in the employment areas agree in principle with the legislation and probably with the detail. While employers will want less and trade unions more, that is the nature of the volunteerism process. It allows for negotiating positions to be taken.
There will be no significant erosion of competitiveness. Inflation and the cost of insurance are much more important in that regard, both of which the Government can do much to address. It is ten years since IBEC produced a report showing that our insurance costs were uncompetitive by comparison with our European competitors. It showed that if employer's liability insurance in this country was as competitively priced as elsewhere, an additional 10,000 jobs would have been created. I hate to consider how much more uncompetitive the cost of employer's liability insurance is today. It would be interesting to see how many jobs could be created if the cost of such insurance was in line with our main competitors in Europe.
The area of negotiations to which I referred often provided the opportunity for employers to express concern about their difficulties, including their competitiveness, while allowing trade unions to express their concern about the aspirations of the employees they represented. I was involved in personnel management for almost 20 years. I question the use of the term "human resource management", which originated in the United States. While it is legitimate to refer to resources in terms of minerals, raw materials and such like, I am uncomfortable in referring to human beings in the same terms. They are more than a resource. The old personnel management approach placed a great emphasis on welfare. By this I mean not only conditions of employment and remuneration, but the well-being of employees in terms of their home situation. For example, if an employee had a sick family member he or she was often helped by the firm. By contrast, human resource management suggests that human beings are a resource that must be maximised, while there is no desire to deal with employees in the round as human beings. We have lost much of the welfare approach inherent in the old personnel approach.
Contract employment is likely to become increasingly prevalent. Many of those with higher skills will work on this basis. Women who have left employment to rear families constitute a massive resource to the economy. Many are highly skilled and experienced and everything should be done to assist them to return to the workforce and contribute in whatever way they can, be it on the basis of temporary employment, short-term contracts or shared employment. There have been developments in these areas. The Bill goes some way to address the concerns of those taking short-term contract employment regarding exploitation, which is to be welcomed.
The Bill also responds to the EU directive and is in line with the socially progressive nature of the Union since its foundation. It was founded after the Second World War for social and economic reasons. Many of the directives are socially aware and allow for flexibility for business to expand and change while balancing this with equitable and fair legislation to protect the rights of workers.
I hope the Government will ensure that the economic downturn will be of short duration. It has a duty to do so and it will be in the interests of us all. I also hope it will respond to the need to ensure that employment losses are minimised.
