Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 19 Jun 2013

Vol. 807 No. 3

Hundredth Anniversary of 1913 Lock-out: Motion (Resumed) [Private Members]

The following motion was moved by Deputy Joe Higgins on Tuesday, 18 June 2013:
That Dáil Éireann:
on the 100th anniversary of the 1913 Lock-out, salutes the titanic struggle of the working class of Dublin for workers’ rights, trade union rights, and a decent and dignified life;
notes:
— the brutal methods of the employers of Dublin, led by the then owner of Independent Newspapers William Martin Murphy, as they attempted to protect their profits by smashing the Irish Transport and General Workers Union, ITGWU, through starving its members into renouncing their union membership;
— that the employers commanded the full support of the State including the Dublin Metropolitan Police and Judiciary;
— that the employers had the full support of the Catholic Church, which sought to stigmatise striking workers and used the pulpit to denounce workers’ leaders like James Larkin and James Connolly and the socialist ideas that informed their struggle;
— that the capitalist and right wing press of the day was relentless in its support for the employers and rabid in its campaign of vilification and slander against the workers and their leaders; and
— that the hostility of the employers to the ITGWU members arose from the militant and effective tactics advocated by Connolly and Larkin and embraced by unskilled workers in the years preceding 1913, in particular, the sympathy strike which was a powerful expression of working class solidarity summed up by the concept that "an injury to one is an injury to all";
recognises that, irrespective of the difficult circumstances in which the Lock-out finished for workers, their sacrifices and struggle were a vital foundation stone for the development of the Irish labour and trade union movement and workers’ rights in subsequent generations and up to the present day;
further notes that:
— in 2013 the ethos driving the bailout of the financial markets system and the austerity agenda is exactly the same as that driving the Dublin employers, that is, the protection of corporate profit and the profit system;
— the socialist ideas espoused by Connolly and Larkin as an alternative to the capitalism of their day are as relevant in addressing today’s economic crisis;
— in enacting the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Bill 2013, the Government employs William Martin Murphy style blackmail in that, while he demanded workers sign a pledge to disavow the ITGWU, the Government demands that unless public sector workers sign up to a programme of cuts to wages and conditions, the Government will inflict even worse on them;
— the Labour Party, which came into being as a result of workers’ struggles in the years preceding 1913, is guilty of abject betrayal in driving the austerity agenda at enormous cost to working people, the unemployed, pensioners and the poor;
— those trade union leaders who try to justify recommending an acceptance of more austerity to their members by claiming they are defending them from worse, are in fact guaranteeing that conditions will worsen in the years ahead and, in this collusion with the austerity agenda, dishonour the men and women who waged the 1913 struggle and it’s leaders like Larkin and Connolly;
— today, efforts made by the trade union movement to organise, particularly in the private sector, typically meet with employer resistance and hostility;
— employers resisting trade union recognition today enjoy the protection of current laws and the courts;
— registered employment agreements and employment regulation orders providing certain important legislative protection for workers have been struck down;
— employers seeking to impede effective picketing can typically with ease obtain injunctions from the courts which are then enforced by the Garda thus enabling strikebreaking operations to take place;
— employees seeking redress for unfair dismissal at the Employment Appeals Tribunal have an average wait of more than a year;
— awards made in favour of employees by the Employment Appeals Tribunal, under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2007, the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts 1973 to 2005 and the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997, for unfair dismissals, non-payment of wages in lieu of notice and non-payment of holiday pay respectively are often unenforceable when the offending company ceases trading or goes into liquidation; and
— similar delays and problems with enforcement of cases successfully brought to the Rights Commissioner under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 also occur; and
resolves:
— that a trade union recognition bill be passed this year to make it mandatory for employers to recognise trade unions;
— that sections of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969 to 2001 that impede effective strike action, including solidarity or secondary action, should be repealed;
— that adequate resources are made available to the Employment Appeals Tribunal and Rights Commissioner that will allow cases to be heard within four weeks;
— that legislation be enacted to place employees owed wages, redundancy pay and Employment Appeal Tribunal awards by firms that have ceased trading or entered liquidation, first in the hierarchy of creditors;
— that a scheme of financial and other State supports be made, with immediate effect, to assist communities in Dublin and elsewhere to mark the centenary anniversary of the 1913 Lock-out with appropriate commemorative and educational events;
— that an appropriate memorial be established to commemorate the 1913 Lock-out, recognising the sacrifices made and, in particular, the five workers who lost their lives in the struggle; and
— to encourage workers and trade unionists to resist austerity in 2013 with the same solidarity and fighting spirit displayed by their predecessors during the 1913 Lock-out.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after “Dáil Éireann” and substitute the following:
“at the start of a centenary of commemoration of the 100th anniversary of the 1913 Lock-out, recognises the landmark struggle for workers’ rights as a significant milestone in a decade that saw enormous convulsion in the emergence of an independent nation;
recognises the positive transformation in living and working conditions in Ireland, most recently reflected in the UN Human Development Index that, for 2012, ranks Ireland 7th out of 187 countries and territories based on measures of a long and healthy life, access to knowledge and a decent standard of living;
further recognises the legislative changes introduced by this Government to protect workers’ rights, especially the most vulnerable workers in our society, and in particular:
— to restore the cut in the national minimum wage, thereby reaffirming that a statutory minimum wage is a statement of core values, providing a threshold of decency under which society agrees that workers’ wages should not fall;
— through the enactment of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2012, to reinstate a legislative framework to support wage setting in sectors where workers are poorly organised and vulnerable; and
— to enact legislation - the Temporary Agency Workers Act 2012 - to protect temporary agency workers through a legal framework in which agency workers are afforded equal treatment in respect of their basic working and employment conditions;
acknowledges the Government’s:
— commitment to providing for statutory wage setting mechanisms and, in this context, to conclude, as matter of urgency, its considerations of the implications of the recent Supreme Court decision relating to registered employment agreements with a view to providing for a constitutionally robust legislative framework governing registered collective agreements;
— resolve to continue to develop the voluntarist system of industrial relations which has yielded great progress for workers over the years and, in particular, welcomes:
— the reform of the employment rights and industrial relations framework that is under way, and presented to this House, and aimed at establishing a world class workplace relations service which will promote better relations in the workplace and facilitate speedier and more effective resolution of disputes which arise and highest compliance with employment standards; and
— the completion, in May this year, of a phase of consultation with key stakeholders in the context of the Government’s commitment in its Programme for Government to reform the current law on employees' right to engage in collective bargaining - the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2001 - so as to ensure compliance by the State with recent judgments of the European Court of Human Rights; and
— efforts to tackle unemployment and stabilise the employment rate through the twin strategies of Pathways to Work and the annual Action Plan for Jobs, which engages every Government Department in delivering on employment supporting actions and monitors their delivery on a quarterly basis; and notes that the private sector has added an additional 2,000 jobs per month since the launch of the first Action Plan for Jobs in February 2012."
(Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine)

The 1913 Dublin strike and Lock-out is one of the most important and inspirational events in Irish history. Dublin in 1913 was a city of dire poverty. The rate of infant mortality was as high as Calcutta and almost a quarter of the inhabitants lived in city centre tenements and slums - 80% of families lived in just one room. Work, for those that could find it, was mostly casual, dangerous and paid starvation wages. There was no sick pay, no pay for overtime, no retirement pension, no redundancy pay, no dole, and an abundance of unskilled labourers to fill a job. It was in that environment that the Irish Transport and General Workers Union, ITGWU, recruited thousands of Dublin workers to fight for their right to a trade union and to a decent and dignified life that contained some hope of a better future.

Fearing the threat of a risen and politicised working class, and the affect that would have on their wealth and privileged lifestyle, the employers, led by William Martin Murphy, used brutal tactics to smash the ITGWU. The political establishment, the Catholic hierarchy and the State sided with the big employers. The might of the brutal British security apparatus was used against locked out workers and their families. On the night that a warrant was issued for Big Jim Larkin's arrest, two workers, James Nolan and John Byrne, died as a result of injuries received at the hands of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, DMP, batons.

Dublin people are rightly proud of the spirit displayed in the face of starvation and State brutality. The events also left a strong awareness of the need for social solidarity and for working class communities to stand together and have leaders who would stand up for their rights and aspirations. Workers' conditions have obviously moved on since 1913 but change has only come through struggle, hard graft and tough negotiations. The centenary of the Lock-out is about remembrance, but it must also be about action and improving the quality of life for all citizens. It would be only the most naive fool who would not see through parties who support the current politics of austerity, and who pay lip service to Larkin and what happened in this city 100 years ago. The lesson and true legacy of 1913 is the determination of workers on this island and their communities to defend themselves against attacks on hard-won working and social conditions. One hundred years ago workers were being attacked in this city and it is still happening today. Workers and their families are facing new onslaughts, evictions, the threat of poverty and increasing job insecurity.

William Martin Murphy was not against all unions, but he was definitely against the unions that fought and politically agitated on behalf of their members, such as the ITGWU. Parallels could be drawn today, with unions that employers and the Government favour and reward, and those that they attack, and side-line from areas of influence and decision making. Ireland is unusual in terms of the lack of protection it offers for collective bargaining. There is no requirement to recognise a trade union in a workplace or to engage with it. It is 2013 and that must change. The programme for Government committed to "reform the current law on employees' right to engage in collective bargaining, so as to ensure compliance by the State with recent judgements of the European Court of Human Rights." No visible action has been taken nor has an independent inquiry requested by the International Labour Organisation, ILO, been established. Legislation must be enacted which requires employers to respect the right of workers to bargain collectively through their trade union.

In recent years we have also seen workers take on unscrupulous employers and achieve substantial victories in cases such as Vita Cortex, La Senza and Lagan Brick. Working conditions have improved in the past 100 years but we still have exploitation. We still have employees who work but do not receive overtime. Some workers in the construction industry have no access to employment or pensions. Citizens who work for half of their lives are being told there is no redundancy money. Self-employed people with small businesses, who paid their taxes and created employment, have been told they were on the wrong stamp and, apologetically, that there is nothing for them. That is the situation. We have moved on but, unfortunately, for many workers things have got worse. This week I heard of a case concerning an individual who started work at 14 years of age. When he applied for his pension he was told that the only stamps he has date from 1983, even though he is now in his 60s and he started work at 14 years of age. His union has information on his employment but the Department of Social Protection does not. That is a difficulty for many workers in the construction sector. In the year that is in it, we must change all of that.

Táim an-bhuíoch seans a bheith agam labhairt ar an tairiscint seo. Ireland is not short of heroic men and women of the working class who stood together, sacrificed and struggled for the good of their brothers and sisters; people who toiled all day for low pay so they could put a dinner on the table for their children and in the small spare time they had fought for their union, their movement and for their class so that their children’s children might have the chance to live in a better Ireland. They wanted a better Ireland and a better world where no one goes hungry, or wants for the most basic needs of human beings. This aim is almost paradoxical in the sense that is so simple and basic and yet so bold and brave and it has yet to be achieved. As Connolly stated "our demands most moderate, we only want the earth".

The year 1913 was not simply an important event in Ireland’s industrial and social history, it was a watershed moment for the working people of Ireland. It was one year before the Howth gun running and just three years before the Easter Rising. It came at a time when resistance to imperialism was burgeoning in Ireland among ordinary people and 1913 solidified in the labourers, servants, landless farmers and others that their fight was not just against foreign imperial rule but the economic system which drove it, that kept thieves in riches and the toilers of the world in the mire.

We should not forget that William Martin Murphy was supposedly a Nationalist who wanted an independent Ireland. Of course his nationalism was diametrically opposed to the nationalism of Connolly who said that Ireland meant nothing to him without its people. To Murphy, Ireland meant nothing without a bottom line and the ability to exploit people. Unfortunately, we have too many such people still in Ireland and some are in similar positions to Murphy controlling what we read and hear and how the news is spun.

Recently on a procession for International Workers' Day in the city centre I saw a banner made by a group, Unfinished Business, which was set up to commemorate 1913 and to promote the ideals of a strong, vibrant union movement. The banner depicted William Martin Murphy alongside a number of current figures the makers felt were comparable such as Dermot Desmond, Michael O'Leary and the Taoiseach. The banner had a quote above the faces from Jim Connell, Irish republican, socialist and song writer: "Seek not for foreign foes, our bitterest enemy treads your own sod".

William Martin Murphy’s Irish Independent campaign for the execution of Connolly following 1913 is similar to the way some media vilify all who speak out against the economic system which rewards bondholders and punishes pensioners. That was the lesson of 1913 which was not lost on the workers who went on to form the IRA brigades who defended workers and removed the British Army from their home towns. It was the lesson betrayed by the Free State in years to come as it turned Ireland into a little England where the only difference was the accent of the exploiter.

I make these points because it is a lesson we could do well to remember today, not just in deference to the fine people who struggled for justice 100 years ago but as a service to the future of our country.

It is particularly poignant as we wrestle both with our own broken State, driven to ruin by unbridled and unchecked profits by modern day William Martin Murphys, and with the European and global forces of capitalism, which seeks to impose its rule and ensure its stability whatever the cost to the people of Ireland. Something else that is sorely missed in this era of struggle is a trade union movement that is fit for purpose and ready to fight for the working people of Ireland. The Irish Transport and General Workers Union, ITGWU, of 1913 was not the union of highly paid trade union leaders removed from their membership. It was one which did not shy away from challenging employers and their lackeys. It certainly did not break bread with its right-wing opponents, thereby allowing its structures and base to erode. Workers' rights won by past generations are being undermined and successive Industrial Relations Acts have disarmed organised labour and forced it to be meek and grateful for the crumbs from the table. I support all the recommendations in this motion and any party that would dare to call itself a party of labour should do the same.

I call on the Minister, Deputy Deenihan, who is sharing time with Deputies Nash, Barry, Coffey, Moloney, Harrington and Mulherin. The Minister has five minutes.

I thank the Acting Chairman and am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on the motion. As the Minister with responsibility for the decade of commemorations, I welcome any discussion that raises consciousness of the 1913 Lock-out and its legacy. I hope to continue working with representatives of all parties and Independent Members to ensure the memory of the 1913 Lock-out is something that unites, rather than divides us. I wish to take this opportunity to commend the 1913 committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, ICTU, on its work to date. It has led the planning for the centenary in a manner that is inclusive and with a premium on historical accuracy. My Department has funded initiatives, including the tapestry project of the Services Industrial Professional and Technical Union, SIPTU, and the Century Ireland website, which will provide comprehensive historical coverage of the 1913 Lock-out. It also is working with ICTU to facilitate its plans and exhibitions have been organised by the cultural institutions, including the National Library and the National Museum, to make available to the public documentation and artefacts related to the Lock-out, some for the first time. The Irish Heritage Trust is working with partners, including ICTU and Dublin City Council, to bring forward the tenement museum on Henrietta Street, which will show the reality of conditions for ordinary people living in Dublin in 1913. This Friday, I will visit the National College of Art and Design, NCAD, to view a collection of artworks on the theme of the 1913 Lock-out produced by primary school children from Dublin 8 through the NCAD access and outreach programme.

Larkin or Connolly would scarcely be expected to believe the opportunities that are available to the children of Dublin 100 years on from their struggle for basic rights, when infant mortality in Dublin was the highest in the western world. More can always be done and I am working with my colleagues in Government to improve education and opportunities but there can be no comparison between conditions in 1913 and conditions today. I also wish to take this opportunity to put on record my thanks to the members of both the all-party working group and the advisory group on centenary commemorations. Both groups have contributed significantly to the development of the centenary commemorative programme. Education and access are at the heart of the decade of commemorations and everyone should have the opportunity to see historical sites and documents at first hand. I am supporting major digitisation projects, including that of the military service pensions archive, which will enable people anywhere in the world to access primary source documents for themselves to learn more about the heritage of their families. This has enormous tourism potential, as well as being important for a new generation of schoolchildren, who will grow up with the ability to study history by seeing how those who took part in the making of history saw events.

During the decade of commemorations, a unique opportunity exists to reach out to different communities, both within Ireland and internationally, and to contribute to the commemoration of the struggle for workers' rights in wider Europe, as well as the women's suffrage movement and the commemoration of all those who fought and died in the First World War. Ireland's contribution during those turbulent times should not be underestimated. As Members are aware, there were times when Ireland led the world. Countess Markievicz was of course the first female Member of Parliament elected to Westminster and was the first female Cabinet Minister in Europe. It is an important element in commemorative planning that a commitment is in place at the outset to approach the sensitive and troubled issues of our divided history with integrity and a genuine spirit of inquiry. In respect of both the annual commemoration of the Great Famine and the continuing work of the centenary programme, we seek to enhance our understanding of these defining events. The exploration of our past in all its complexity and much sadness should not be approached with any view towards recrimination. Those generations have passed into history and their issue should not be carried into our age as a basis of division. Notwithstanding the economic and social challenges being faced in our time, it would be a great wrong to suggest that our condition today can be likened to the horror of the Famine or the misery of the Lock-out. We must continue to challenge ourselves to always strive to improve working conditions and access to basic services and education, as well as to protect vulnerable workers and to combat the scourge of unemployment. As the Government amendment to the motion makes clear, the Government is doing its utmost in that regard. However, the centenary of the Lock-out is a time to commemorate those who lost their lives with dignity and to unite in our respect for the men, women and children who suffered in the fight for the common good.

While there may be a sincere motive behind this motion, I have noticed over the last two evenings that much of the debate is laced with charges of political heresy against the Labour Party. When held up to scrutiny, those charges made and the charges inferred in this motion do not stand up to the slightest of scrutiny. Few of those Members opposite who moved this motion and who come into this Chamber to repeatedly make these kinds of charges against the Labour Party have ever had a direct hand, act or part in making the life or conditions of Irish workers better. Can the more vocal and excitable members of the Technical Group ever point to a single significant measure, legislative item or innovation they have developed that ever has made a real and significant difference to those who work for a living? I sincerely doubt it. If the kind of empty rhetoric and sloganeering synonymous with the populist left in Ireland could be translated into real action on jobs and genuine contributions to progressive labour reform and workplace relations, we all would be a sight better off.

The Ireland of the 1913 Lock-out is unrecognisable from the Ireland of today. The Labour Party can point to many monumental achievements in improving the conditions of working people since its foundation in 1912 and theses are more real, principled and practical achievements than the far left can ever claim. Perhaps the Labour Party's most significant achievement is in ensuring that its values have, to one degree or another, become pervasive and have to one extent or another, inside or outside of government, become fundamental to society and to the economy. The trade union movement, which has become a target for, rather than a philosophical ally of the hard left, is now a fundamental part of civil society, respected, consulted and valued by administrations of all political persuasions. This position could not have been envisaged or anticipated by the founders of the labour movement more than 100 years ago. The very centrality of the progressive trade union movement, which is prepared to deal with issues as it sees them, not as it ideally would like them to be, has been of huge benefit to economic development, social progress and to the country's economic fight-back in recent years. The opportunism of those on the far left, who have made careers out of slagging off mainstream organised labour in this country, is frankly sickening when measured against the paucity of their achievements. They can make all of the narrow and base ideological charges they wish about modern day trade unionism and that is fine. However, it was labour values and labour actions that ensured that citizens like me, from working-class backgrounds nationwide, got opportunities never available to their parents and grandparents before them. It would be nigh impossible to attribute any of the gains made by Irish society since 1913 to the platitudinous politics practised by the extreme left and their acolytes, as well as some movers of and speakers on this motion over the past two nights. For the life of me, I cannot recall one single instance. Dare I say - and this is difficult for me to suggest - but it could be argued cogently that Fianna Fáil - between its various periodic efforts to destroy this country's economy - did more to advance opportunities for working people in this State than some of the predecessors of some of the Members who moved this motion. While this is difficult for me to admit, that is a matter of fact and public record.

I acknowledge this country and its citizens have been through a torrid and horrible period in recent years in its short history as a nation state. However, the values that inspired the 1913 Lock-out and the formation of the labour movement are as relevant today as they were then. These challenges can only be met by a movement that is prepared to evolve and is prepared not to be the hostage of history but rather one that leads change and responds to change in a way that marries the universal principles fought for in 1913 and subsequently with the demands of a radically changing society and an increasingly globalised and complex economy.

A lazy charge is often made against the Labour Party and the trade union movement, in particular by some on the populist left and the quasi-left in this House, that Connolly and Larkin would be ashamed of the Labour Party in the 21st century. I do not know that, but neither does Deputy Higgins or any of his acolytes and erstwhile colleagues on the hard left. I would venture that Connolly and Larkin would have no difficulty whatsoever with a party that has restored the national minimum wage, resurrected joint labour committee legislation, secured basic social welfare payments in unprecedented economic circumstances and, most importantly, understands the central tenet of the left, namely, that the way to dignity and progress in society is to create the conditions for full employment and full participation by all citizens in this Republic, a job that we in the Labour Party and this Government are determined to complete.

I welcome the opportunity to speak to this motion. It is disingenuous in the extreme to attack the employers of this country in the sweeping way the tone of this motion seeks to do. It sends out the wrong signals internationally from a small, open economy such as ours, which has a very good track record in employer relations. Those employers include some of the 200,000 small business owners, including myself, who are keeping bread on the table by creating and maintaining jobs in a very difficult trading environment.

This Government has made considerable strides through legislation in terms of making the creation of employment more achievable and practical across a wide range of initiatives. These include the temporary partial loan guarantee scheme and the microfinance scheme, which are working, and the initial jobs initiative. While other speakers would like to focus on the bad news, there is a steady flow of positive job announcements, including the major expansion plans in Cork announced this week by EMC Ireland.

This Government has put and will continue to put job creation to the fore. Many people are benefiting from the internship scheme which allows people get back into the workforce. We will soon see the JobsPlus initiative, which will allow many people dovetail from the internship scheme into full-time financially assisted jobs in the coming months. Action Plan for Jobs also is a pivotal part of this Administration, and every year job creation will be addressed through that plan.

The motion condemns today's trade union leaders while ignoring the reality that we have not had any industrial unrest in recent decades thanks to the efforts of these very same trade union leaders. There are 1.85 million working in this country, of which 283,000 are public sector workers. Positive public relations is essential in both the private sector and the public sector for continued growth. The motion states that public sector workers have been forced to sign up to a programme of wage cuts and conditions but the facts speak for themselves. In 2011 and 2012, the average public sector earning was approximately €46,000. In fact, it increased to €47,000. The average industrial wage went from €30,000 in 2011 to €32,000 in 2012. The average farm family income was €24,000, dropping to €21,000. That is negative benchmarking.

Registered employment agreements were struck down by the courts. They were found to be unconstitutional because they were seen to be deferred legislation. Are the proposers of the motion suggesting we should not pay any heed to the law?

Regarding the suggestion that employers are going to the courts and getting injunctions imposed by gardaí to break a strike, gardaí only do their job. They enforce the law. Are the Members who put their name to this motion advocating the cessation of law and order entirely? It seems to me they would be the first people to look for help from gardaí in other circumstances.

There is a further suggestion in the motion that the awards made in favour of employees for unfair dismissal, unpaid wages, etc. are often unenforceable when offending companies go into liquidation, but there is no mention of the rights and wrongs of paying taxes to the Government when a company goes into liquidation. There are many people here, including some who put their name to this motion, who understand what I am saying. We all pay our taxes. We cannot avoid that.

The proposal for a memorial is a good one and should be looked on positively.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate and I thank the Members opposite for putting it on the agenda as a matter for debate to give all of us an opportunity to contribute. It is right that we should recognise the contribution of the trade unions. I listened to the Minister, Deputy Deenihan, on the way the commemorations for the centenary of the 1913 Lock-out will occur. That is to be welcomed also.

We must keep in mind at all times how we can improve workers' rights and conditions, but in the 100 years that have passed since 1913, matters have changed substantially. I come from a small industrial town in County Waterford that was literally built by capitalists. They were known as the Malcolmsons. They set up a cotton mill on the River Clodagh and they employed thousands of people in that mill. That town has a huge industrial and social history. I would not put those capitalists in the frame of the wording of this amendment with regard to employers because those very same capitalists set up the schools and provided social housing, water infrastructure and gas infrastructure. That was over 150 years ago.

To tar employers and capitalists with the one brush by saying they are totally opposed to workers and workers' rights is wrong. In the modern era, any employer would recognise that workers who are satisfied in their employment will be more productive. They will enjoy their working lives better and will enjoy a far healthier and happier life. That must be remembered. Unfortunately, the cotton mill to which I refer closed in the early 1900s and the site lay vacant until the 1930s when, under a Seán Lemass initiative, Irish Tanners was established on the site in the town from where I come. For more than 80 years good employment was held in Irish Tanners, but while there was good employment, I am not sure if the working conditions would survive in the current environment because of the new environmental demands in the modern era. Employers and nations had to adapt as regards the way working conditions improved over time.

We must remember that the Ireland joining the European Union has progressed workers' conditions substantially. We need only look at the EU directives on health and safety, exposure to dangerous substances and chemicals and the working time directive. All of those directives come from Europe and, as a result, the Irish Government introduced legislation which has done a great deal for the protection of workers and their working conditions and enshrines their rights in law. That should not be forgotten. Since we joined the EU, subsequent Governments must take credit for those improvements in working conditions.

The unions put on the agenda important issues with regard to workers' rights. In the 100 years about which we have spoken, they also had some fallow years. I refer in particular to the Celtic tiger years and the earlier years when I believe social partnership agreements were done in secret with the then Governments, particularly at the time of the former Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern. I believe the unions were not working in the best interests of workers and jobs in those times. Agreements were entered into at that time that were short-term, short-sighted and did not consider long-term sustainability in terms of jobs. This Government is now faced with the task of trying to correct much of what I call short-termism.

In the current climate this Government's focus remains on jobs and creating job opportunities. I was stunned to hear the contribution from the socialist Member opposite this morning when she attacked the reputation of the President of the United States of America. In his country, employers and investors contribute enormously to the Irish economy and to the welfare of Irish people who work in his country. Ireland has the potential to increase its employment opportunities as a gateway to Europe, and we need to build alliances with investments, businesses and employers to ensure we have sustainable employment into the future. If we do not have employment, we will not have unions.

I welcome the motion on this important centenary of the 1913 Lock-out. Deputy Higgins should be thanked. Any opportunity in our own Parliament to show respect for the people who changed history in this country for the working man and woman should be taken. We should pay homage to these people because homage they deserve. This is a very different island from the island 100 years ago when, apart from the poverty in this city, people had the arse out of their trousers and no socks or shoes, so we have come some distance.

For people like me, we have not come far enough. There is a lot of unfairness in this society. We should celebrate the Lock-out in a positive way. It is often said 1916 was our national revolution, which it was, and although some may say it failed, what it led to was not a failure. Likewise, for those like myself and others who were born into the labour movement, 1913 is the year for us to celebrate. The centenary can be remembered and honoured with pride because the men and women who put up the barricades and manned the pickets changed this country. It took a long time for them to do that because when we talk about the centenary of 1913, if we go back just 50 years, we get an indication of how slowly things change in this very conservative country. There was no equal pay for women and no sick pay, both of which were rights in Britain. There was no minimum age or holiday pay because workers did not get holidays. Some of us remember a time when our parents worked five and a half days per week back in the late 1960s.

Whether we are on the side of the labour movement or opposed to it, or somewhere in the middle, it should be borne in mind that none of these changes was given freely: they were wrenched either from the hands of the State or the employer classes. No one volunteered equal pay for women or to give holiday pay to workers. Look at what happened with the joint labour committees last year, when the whole thing was nearly scuttled. People talk about the limitations of this Parliament and the Labour Party but the committees are back in place and those in the worst industries and the lowest wages are being protected. That is a good thing.

The thrust of the motion is important, allowing us to pay homage to these people. I am proud to say the first trade union I joined was the Irish Transport and General Workers Union and, at a later stage, having been away and come back because of my job, I joined Jim Larkin's Workers' Union of Ireland, which since amalgamated with others to form one major union, which is good. It is the centenary of 1913 so let those of us who are part of that celebrate it with pride.

I welcome the opportunity to speak and thank Deputy Higgins and the other signatories for putting down this motion. The 100th anniversary of the 1913 Lock-out is an appropriate opportunity to reflect on a tumultuous period in our history, which could be tied to many historic events, culminating with the end of hostilities in the Civil War in 1922. It could be argued that we still live with the effects and divisions of that decade in Irish history. We will be subject to many debates and discussions on these significant anniversaries over the next ten years.

I hope that in remembering and reflecting on this turbulent period in our history we learn from it and that in considering these events we can make positive contributions to our future. It should be noted this Government has made contributions with trades unions, such as reversing the cut to the minimum wage and taking 330,000 from paying the universal social charge. I also recognise the positive work trades unions carry out on behalf of their workers and that they contribute greatly to an economy in a developed country such as Ireland. We have seen at first hand how the unions have engaged through the Croke Park and Haddington Road agreements to ensure industrial peace at a difficult time of transition for public sector workers.

It is a pity the motion does not recognise the equally positive contribution made by the 202,000 registered employers in this country who are struggling to maintain their enterprises and who are equally keen to maintain the incomes of their workforce of 2,350,000 registered employees. On reading and listening to the proposers of the motion, we could be forgiven for believing we live in a medieval society. The truth is we live in a nation where per capita income is 14th in the world, and well above the European average. The distribution of wealth within this territory, therefore, is of concern to everyone but while I believe it is best resolved through initiative, work and ultimately, reward, there are some who would take from us and provide hand outs to the rest.

On the one hundredth anniversary of the Lock-out of 1913 we again have a call for secondary strikes, which would only serve to emulate and mirror the failed Marxist ideologies of the turn of the last century. They did not work then and this call for a backdoor revolution will not work now. If we have learned anything from this period it is that there is a better way than confrontation and violence, whether in Dublin in 1913 or in the trenches of Europe. Much more can be achieved by engaging in constructive dialogue and debate and negotiating a better deal for everyone.

The Dublin workers of 1913 have, quite rightly, been celebrated in literature, theatre, song, dance and ultimately in history. That, of course, does not tell the full story. It never does. I am pleased this motion might give an opportunity to give a greater balance to the story of the 1913 Lock-out.

One of the most reviled figures of the 1913 Lock-out was the leader of the employers' group, William Martin Murphy, but his story is very different. It is a huge story, a success story in many ways. He was a true republican, not the hijacked version we hear about, he did not believe in partition, he refused an honour from the king. He was an Irish patriot who was born and reared in very humble circumstances. It was only in researching that I found out he was born in Castletownbere in west Cork, grew up in Bantry and lived in Cork and in Dublin. He built bridges, schools and churches all over Ireland and built a transport network.

In the calls for memorials, I agree with the motion that there should be a memorial to the five people who lost their lives but there is a memorial to Larkin in O'Connell Street and a memorial to Connolly outside SIPTU. I do not know how many memorials are needed, perhaps this is a Marxist thing of building statues to great people. One memorial per person is enough. Perhaps, in the interest of balance and commemoration, and although the memory might not be one we all agree with, and any true republican would support that, the Technical Group might have an idea for where they would like to see a memorial to William Martin Murphy. Perhaps Deputy Ross might know if there is one in the offices of the Sunday Independent.

Perhaps it should be outside Oxfam because he knew a lot about starving poor people.

I welcome the opportunity to speak to this motion. Of course workers should get the best from their work situation for themselves and their families. The motion brings that home. Trades unions, through their representations, particularly through collective agreement and negotiation have played a great part in achieving this over the years.

As we reflect upon the 1913 Lock-out and all that happened prior to it, is it really accurate to find resonance with the issues facing workers today with those that faced workers in 1913? We have come a long way since then.

In 1921 we gained our independence and we are a self-determining democratic republic with enforceable rights for individuals and workers alike. There is a raft of laws protecting workers and their rights. In fact, these rights, when invoked, can prove to be a sea which employers, in particular small businesses in this country, must negotiate at their peril.

Modern day engagement with employees cannot simply be a case of having one's hand out, like a child would asking for a parent to give something, without regard to the situation that an employer is in. It is good that we mark this as another issue with which our nation struggled to bring us to where we are today but it is not a matter of comparing like with like. We are now a consumer society. We are also a society driven by virtue of the European Union towards rights for workers and, as my colleague also referred, rights for women, which we did not develop in our own right. That was perhaps forced on us by EU legislation, for example, when we had to grant equal pay.

In negotiating representation or negotiations with workers, the financial state of the employer must be recognised. Equally, modern and progressive employers recognise that if employees are dealt with in the right way it is good for business. That is also an aspect of the way capitalism works.

One of the dubious positions in much of the socialism I hear trotted out here is that it is contradictory. Its basic premise is that we have a capitalist society where one can shop until one drops, where we all are consumers, etc., and where we want this open economy where there is foreign direct investment and powerful multinationals. Yet, we want all these things without also having a dialogue about responsibilities and about benefits for employers. Employers do not merely exist to have employees in place. We all know that is the truth. That is why, in many of the tough decisions we make, this debate is more concerned with those who are privileged to work in the public sector rather than with those who work in the private sector, who face the realities that their employers must face and which sometimes mean they end up not having a job.

Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan is sharing time with Deputies Richard Boyd Barrett, Shane Ross, Clare Daly, Mick Wallace and Seamus Healy. Is that correct?

Yes.

Ní bheadh aon díospóireacht nó aitheantas ann don ábhar seo gan an tairiscint Comhaltaí Príobháideacha agus an obair a rinne an Teachta Dála Joe Higgins uirthi.

It is important that we acknowledge, discuss and commemorate those defining moments in our history such as the strike and Lock-out. On 31 August there will be a community-organised re-enactment of Larkin's speech on O'Connell Street and the baton charge by the police.

I am struck by a number of ironies. The first - I am glad the Minister of State at the Department of Education and Science, Deputy Sherlock, is present - is that we are coming into a decade of commemoration of these defining moments in our history. If the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Quinn, and the Department get their way, history will be downgraded with their plans for the reform of the junior certificate. It will end up being a blip on the curriculum. President Michael D. Higgins stated last night that without good history teaching there is no shared idea of a public past. He was stressing the importance of learning from history. My point is how can we learn from history if we do not know what happened in history? We will end up with generations who have never heard of Larkin and Connolly and who will have no understanding of those defining moments.

I am also struck by the irony of 1913 and the casualisation of labour. I acknowledge the work of the Dublin Dockworkers' Preservation Society. It has amassed an amazing amount of photographs and memorabilia of that time. What one sees and what we knows is the casual labour aspect, with people lining up on the docks on the quays for work for a day, two or, maybe three, all at the whim of a foreman. One hundred years later, there is a return to that ethos of contract work, with little security for the workers.

There is also irony in the appalling conditions in the tenements, with the overcrowding, the lack of sanitation and the serious health issues. A few weeks ago, the intensified inspection scheme from Dublin City Council found that 90% of private rented accommodation in certain parts of the inner city were unfit for human habitation. The slum landlords of the 1900s have been replaced by the slum landlords of the 21st century.

This event began with the lock-out by employers of workers, with employers trying to deny workers their right to a fair wage and decent working conditions. Much work has been done down through that 100 years on better working conditions, pay, pensions, etc., through the unions, the Labour Court, the Labour Relations Commissions, the Ombudsman and the Employment Appeals Tribunal, but there are still employers who refuse to recognise, or work with, unions. If we broaden the spectrum to those international trade agreements with the resource-rich developing countries of the global south, we see that labour rights are not an integral or compulsory part of those agreements and there are workers who must work in appalling conditions. We are aware of what happened in Bangladesh recently and in the mines in South Africa where workers have little or no protection while the multinationals make obscene profits. The Dublin of 1913 was one of gross social and economic divisions and disparities with a most unequal distribution of wealth. We must look at our world today and see how much progress we have made. There is still a gross imbalance, not only in Ireland but globally.

Looking at William Martin Murphy, one could perhaps say he headed our first multinational corporation when we think of what he controlled. He controlled the media through all the papers he owned and transport through the tramway company. He also controlled retail and hotels. I visited the Centre for Cross-Border Studies in Liberty Hall on Friday last where Ms Frances O'Grady, General Secretary of the TUC, made an interesting comparison. She thought he was a mixture of Mr. Michael O'Leary and Mr. Rubert Murdoch, but made the comment that he had probably less ego and a little more charm - I do not know.

The union movement of 1913 was intrinsically linked with the Irish struggle for independence. The Irish Citizen Army was with the volunteers in the Easter Rising and the Starry Plough flew alongside the Tricolour at the GPO. I make another play to the Minister, for a proper renovation and restoration of the battlefield site, from the GPO to Moore Street. The Minister, with the local authority, the relatives and others, could work together to bring this about.

There is also the irony that Dublin was the recipient of foreign aid, with a ship that came in from Britain from the trade unions there. Some several million pounds worth of food was sent over. There will also be a re-enactment of that on the docks in Dublin in next October.

I want to acknowledge the women of 1913, such as Ms Helena Moloney and Ms Dora Montefiore. Typical women, they were into direct action and a practical solidarity. The strike was initially a failure and one can imagine the humiliation for the workers having to go back to work, but victory came eventually. It came from them because of their solidarity, their unity and their belief in change, and the way in which they stood up.

We know where Larkin and Connolly would be today. They would be with those who are suffering the cuts and those who are suffering the austerity disproportionately. They would be with the community groups, the youth groups and with the disabled.

I commend Deputy Higgins on bringing this motion into the Dáil. It is hugely important, 100 years after the great 1913 Lock-out, that we remember that event and consider how far have we achieved the demands that Connolly and Larkin and the working class of Dublin set out to achieve in 1913. We should consider some of the issues they were facing because the Government, particularly the Labour Party, seems keen to say how different it was then, the implication being that the politics and perspectives of Connolly and Larkin are not particularly relevant to today.

Connolly fought against poverty in the first instance. Today, there are 200,000 children living in poverty and a Government that in the past few weeks has been imposing cuts on children with special needs. That is something Connolly and Larkin would oppose and resist with all their might.

They fought for workers' rights and against the casualisation of labour. That battle is still being fought as governments encourage the casualisation of labour, the outsourcing of work and the proliferation of agencies which deny secure conditions of employment and rights for workers in this country.

Most recently this has been evident in a public private partnership in my constituency between Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council and Sisk, along with a number of Spanish multinationals. They sacked a shop steward as soon as he joined a union and got others to do so as well. Those people only won their rights because they went out on strike, just as was the case in 1913. This Government has still failed to vindicate the basic right to trade union recognition and actively encourages the casualisation and outsourcing of labour.

Connolly fought against empire and particularly emphasised the need for this State to control its natural resources. He stated "A free nation is one which possesses absolute control over its internal resources and powers" so how would Connolly stand with the outrageous and disgraceful plans to sell natural resources and State enterprises in order to pay off the gambling debts of bankers and bondholders? He believed in people power and struggle as the means to achieve goals and in the rights of trade unionists to take industrial action, including sympathetic industrial action. I note a Member opposite who denounced sympathetic strikes, and it is worth remembering what Connolly stated in that regard:

We hold that the sympathetic strike is the affirmation of the Christrian principle that we are all members of one another, while those who oppose the sympathetic strike and uphold sectionalism in trade union struggles are repeating the question of Cain, who when questioned about his brother - the brother he had murdered - asked "Am I my brother's keeper?" We say "Yes", we are all the keepers of our brothers and sisters and responsible for them.

That basic principle of solidarity and the right of working people to stick up for one another and take industrial action in order to defend each other's rights is a right denied under the current labour legislation.

Crucially, Connolly believed in real democracy, and that is very pertinent to what is happening with this Government in this country. He stated:

If Parliament, elected to carry out the wishes of the electors on one question, chooses to act in a manner contrary to the wishes of the electors in a dozen other questions, the electors have no redress except to wait for another general election to give them the opportunity to return other gentlemen under similar conditions and with similar opportunities of evil doing. The democracy of Parliament is, in short, the democracy of capitalism.

That had the implication that it is not real democracy at all, so how true is that of this Government? There were promises about burning bondholders and protecting the vulnerable, as well as getting the country working. There has been a betrayal of all those promises, with a sacrifice of jobs, conditions, rights, incomes and livelihoods of ordinary people who elected the Government Members, and people have no recourse to do anything. In that context, the message of Connolly that struggle on the streets and industrial struggle is the way to gain redress is as relevant as ever.

When I read the motion for the first time I was somewhat bemused and I realised I had not read anything like it for many years; nevertheless I feel I have an authority to speak to the motion because my guess is that I am one of the few paid-up members of a trade union in this group. I share some of the sentiments - although certainly not the rhetoric - of my colleague, Deputy Higgins. I share his disillusionment with the trade union movement as a paid-up member of a union, and I pay approximately €40 per month into the union. I cannot say it has done me any great favours or service in the time and any pension I am getting as a result of employment is diminishing by the day and my union certainly does not seem to be doing very much about it or serving me well.

I congratulate Deputy Higgins as he seems to have done something which has been difficult for our group recently by uniting the left in the Technical Group behind a motion-----

The Deputy is like a cuckoo in the nest.

-----in their eagerness to claim the mantle of Connolly and Larkin. Karl Marx died 130 years ago.

Adam Smith died even before then.

The rhetoric being employed is old-fashioned and irrelevant and would not be related to by young people who are not particularly interested in the trades union movement and would not respond particularly favourably to the kind of buttons being pressed by this motion. It is the politics of confrontation and the past, and it is the politics of class warfare which I hoped was long forgotten.

It is not particularly helpful in Ireland to constantly evoke the ghosts of the past in politics on any side. If we did that in the Northern Ireland context, we would never have had a working peace process. If we always evoked the names of Carson and others, as well as the taboos of Northern Ireland, we would invite the resurrection of sectarianism which is just below the surface. I acknowledge that this motion has been moved sincerely and the disappointment of the left in that those aspirations for which men of the past apparently strived have not been achieved. Nevertheless, we should look forward rather than back all the time.

There is a good point to be made here but the rhetoric is so divisive that the point is lost. Trades union and their leaders in particular have been a disappointment in recent times. Although I would not put it in the same words as Deputies Higgins or Boyd Barrett, they have certainly let down their members because they are the most conservative people in Irish society. They have their noses in the trough and the last thing they want is radical change of any sort, as they are beneficiaries of the existing system. One need only consider the guys who are champions of the quangos to see how much they have benefited. In the recent years during the Celtic tiger, trades union leaders were rewarded for their complicity in what was going on in social partnership and elsewhere, in what was a cosy nest. They had quangos specifically created to provide themselves with jobs and income, and all of them bought into that process. Some of those quangos still exist.

Such people are not doing me, as a member of the National Union of Journalists, any favours. I do not need them but the people who the unions purport to represent at a different level and on different wages have been betrayed because trades union leaders have benefited so much from a system which was so rotten.

I find myself agreeing with my fellow trade unionist, Deputy Ross, in his analysis of the role of some of the trade union leaders. My union has a fee half of what Deputy Ross is being charged but we probably still get comparably little service.

It is a great irony to have to witness and listen to the comments of some of the Labour Deputies who have tried to pose themselves as the great defenders and protectors of workers under attack. The reality belies such an idea. We are living in a time where the idea of a secure, permanent and pensionable job is becoming a thing of the past. People are looking back not with nostalgia or with any rhetoric but to a reality that is the casualisation of labour and insecure employment, which has not been seen for decades.

This Government stands over poverty figures indicating that 16% of people have an income of less than €210 per week, with almost 800,000 people in the State living at risk of poverty. We can talk about legislation protecting workers' and women's rights, as other Deputies have in mentioning equal pay.

That is fine on paper but the reality is that the lives of working women are way behind in terms of their male counterparts because of the lack of a social wage, adequate child care and other supports. This means that many women have to leave the workforce and end up in insecure, part-time and vulnerable situations. That is not a fitting legacy to the heroes of Jacobs and the women workers who led the struggle there in 1913.

It is a terrible irony and a poor reflection on the current situation that the rights commissioner service went on a reduced working week in recent times. One of the reasons for this was a reduced workload. Is that reduced workload because workers are being better served at the moment than they were previously? No. It is because most of the cases being brought before rights commissioners were related to people losing their jobs. They involved people seeking to get their last week's wages, holiday pay, references and so forth. The reality is that rights commissioners are not hearing many of the cases that need to be fought because workers are afraid. The idea of people being lucky to have a job is the ideology that is promoted and stood over by this Government.

We must take a step back. On a global scale, our society is wealthier than it has ever been, yet we have millions of young people lying idle when millions of older people have to work longer because they have an inadequate pension. There is much necessary work to be done that could improve the lot of people throughout society. We can look at the situation and say that in many ways, everything is different but it is also the same because poverty is relative. It is the case that we have seen the return of soup kitchens. It is the case that tenements are gone, but are they really? What about the people of Priory Hall who purchased a home which is a noose around their necks, which they have had to move out of and so on?

Workers' share of the national wealth has reduced over recent years because the trade union movement has lost its way. It is precisely because the gains that workers and ordinary people enjoyed in this society were not simply granted but were fought for. Those at the helm of the trade union movement today are very different from the likes of Connolly and Larkin. We now have the prospect of this generation being poorer than their parents, which is an absolute disgrace. James Connolly and Jim Larkin were imprisoned. They led, they were visionaries and they had a view of a new society. We have people today at the helm of the union movement for the banking sector on salaries of almost €200,000. They are in defined benefit schemes while the defined benefit schemes of their members are being shafted. The president of the Teachers Union of Ireland, TUI, who stood over a new starting rate for teachers of less than €30,000, is on a salary of more than €150,000. How can these people represent the interests of ordinary workers? They simply cannot do it. The Labour Party in Government is simply a mouthpiece for the status quo and for these individuals. Many trade union members have bankrolled that party's participation in this Parliament through their union fees which were used to subsidise the election, but they have been betrayed disastrously.

I was a member of the Building and Allied Trades' Union, BATU, for many years until there were no more bricks to lay. In 1913, Dublin was a tough place for many people. Taking on the power of the State and big business was never easy, and that fact remains true today. It is interesting to see the role played by the Irish Independent and the Evening Herald back then, both of which were owned by William Martin Murphy, who also owned the Dublin United Tramways Company. It is difficult to believe that the Lock-out is all of 100 years ago. How similar things seem today. The people were railroaded back in 1913 and today we have the ordinary people being made to suffer in the name of austerity and the financial institutions. In 1913, the print media stood firm behind the status quo and the powers that be, vilifying Jim Larkin and anyone who dared to speak up for the workers. Larkin was well aware of the role of the print media in colouring opinion and setting the agenda, so much so that he launched his own newspaper, The Irish Worker and People's Advocate, in 1908. One of the first groups of workers organised by Larkin's union was the newspaper boys, who were largely exploited as a group. This was a move which ensured a large circulation for Larkin's newspaper, which he knew would be helpful to represent the workers' side.

One hundred years on, we do not have an alternative to the mainstream media which, too often, is still allowed to set the agenda. The media and the status quo were on the same side in 1913. Today we see much of the same media act as cheerleaders for the neoliberal agenda imposed on the people at the behest of the EU, ECB and IMF. They all take care of each other. Independent News and Media, INM, whose major shareholder is valued in billions, has just been bailed out by the banks to the tune of €160 million, with €60 million of that likely to fall on the taxpayer. We think our nurses should work for just over €20,000 but it is okay for the taxpayer to part with €60 million for INM. Likewise, our national television and radio broadcaster does not always show a great appetite for challenging the powers that be. In return, the Government is careful not to tamper too much with some of the more inflated salaries in that organisation. "You scratch mine and I'll scratch yours", said the pig to the horse.

What about the workers' pensions?

I paid 100% of them.

I commend Deputy Higgins on tabling this motion and confirm my support for it. In 1913, Dublin employers locked out workers to force them to leave Larkin's union. Dublin workers fought an heroic battle but were not immediately successful. They lost the battle but Irish workers, inspired by the strikers, won the war to join a union of their choice, that is, the right to free association. However, 100 years later, the Irish Labour Party in Government, through the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, passed an Act to pressurise workers to leave unions opposed to pay cuts and to join compliant unions. The Labour Party has rolled back Larkin's achievements by reducing and limiting the right to be in a trade union of one's choice. If workers do not transfer to compliant unions, they will suffer heavier pay cuts. The Labour Party is attacking freedom of association.

William Martin Murphy demanded that workers sign a document undertaking that they leave or refuse to join Larkin's union. Today, in 2013, Deputy Howlin is demanding that trade unionists sign a different piece of paper, this time registering an agreement with the Labour Relations Commission, LRC, that will guarantee cuts in pay and conditions. The Labour Party might say that the trade union leadership has agreed to this or, indeed, has colluded in it, and it is correct about that - it has. In 1913, Larkin had to lead workers out of a compliant union, the National Union of Dock Labourers and set up the Irish Transport and General Workers Union, ITGWU, the forerunner of SIPTU. It is deeply regrettable that the current leadership of SIPTU, the former ITGWU, has refused to oppose the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest, FEMPI, legislation. However, I am confident that members of both compliant and non-compliant unions will find a way, as Larkin and his colleagues did, to stand up to employers, including the State, despite the treachery of the Labour Party in going over to the side of the employers.

To commemorate 1913 appropriately, members of Labour Party affiliated trade unions, many of whom do not even know they are paying a subscription to the Labour Party, can and should withdraw their subscriptions. They can do so legally and I call on them to do it. If they are members of a union that is affiliated to the Labour Party, they should write to that union to say they no longer want to pay any part of their subscription to the Labour Party. We also need a trade union recognition Bill that makes it mandatory for employers to recognise trade unions. A key element of the 1913 Lock-out was the belief that an injury to one was an injury to all. Certainly, the industrial relations legislation which outlaws supports and secondary striking should be repealed immediately. There is no doubt that the events of 1913 were a very important part of Irish history. Support should be provided to communities in Dublin and elsewhere to commemorate the centenary of the 1913 Lock-out.

I am in the invidious position of having only five minutes to respond to all of the speakers, so I do not propose to embark on any oratorical flourishes or rhetoric but will merely respond to the points raised.

Ireland's corpus of employment rights legislation provides a comprehensive and strong set of rights. The Government has overseen the introduction of further significant reforms in the labour affairs area, including the restoration of the minimum wage to protect vulnerable workers. The historians who will read these transcripts, perhaps in 100 years' time, for the purposes of history should also look at the voting record of some of the Members opposite who have contributed to this evening's debate with regard to their position on the restoration of the minimum wage.

We have levelled the playing field for agency workers by bringing their wages into line with their full-time counterparts. We enacted the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2012 after the High Court found employment regulation orders to be unconstitutional. We concluded the first round of consultations with stakeholders in line with the programme for Government commitment in the area of collective bargaining. Yesterday Deputy Nulty suggested that Ireland's laws on collective bargaining are not in conformity with International Labour Organization, ILO, conventions. It is important to reiterate in the context of the complaint made by ICTU and Impact that the ILO's committee on freedom of association did not find that Ireland is in breach of its obligations under ILO conventions in respect of collective bargaining rights. Neither did the ILO find that a resolution of the difficulties arising over the Ryanair Supreme Court judgment would require the introduction of a legal regime of mandatory trade union recognition. No such requirements are a feature of the international conventions to which Ireland is a party and which uphold the principles of voluntary negotiation between employers and workers' organisations. The programme for Government contains a commitment to reform the current law on employees' rights to engage in collective bargaining. We expect to be in a position to conclude the consultations on this commitment shortly and will report to Government in the autumn on the outcome of this process and on what proposals to improve the voluntary system of industrial relations might be introduced in 2013.

Reference was made by a number of Deputies to the recent Supreme Court ruling which struck down certain provisions of the Industrial Relations Act 1946 governing the registration of collective agreements. Deputy Calleary in particular drew attention to the implications of the absence of legally binding sectoral agreements. The existence of such legally backed agreements is recognised under European Union law and ensures, in accordance with the posted workers directive, that contractors from outside the jurisdiction who may be using employees from lower wage economies do not obtain an advantage over local contractors in terms of wage costs. This is a significant judgment which has raised a number of important questions, including possible implications for the 2012 Act. The Government intends to conclude its considerations of the implications of the Supreme Court decision as matter of urgency with a view to providing a constitutionally robust legislative framework in this area.

Deputy Nulty asked when Ireland will ratify the ILO convention on domestic workers. During its Presidency the Irish Government has worked in close co-operation with the European Commission to promote the ratification of this important convention in the EU. We have steered through a decision of the European Council which authorises member states to ratify the domestic workers convention. This decision is in keeping with Ireland's efforts to promote decent work for all inside and outside the Union, of which protecting the working conditions of workers is a key aspect, as well as being in line with Ireland's national priority of ratifying this convention. The Irish presidency will deliver the Council decision authorising member states of the European Union to ratify convention No. 189 on domestic workers. Ireland will be among the early ratifiers of this important convention. The forward momentum under the Irish Presidency in respect of the ratification process in the European Union needs to be built upon and there is a need for the European Union to provide leadership in the global effort to promote decent work for domestic workers and develop this sector.

Let nobody say the Government is regressive on the rights of workers. I will point to a robust body of EU legislation, with 66 European Union directives in which Ireland is a partner, on improvements in the workplace in terms of safety and conditions. There is an august and robust body of legislation on the rights of workers. If we are considering history it is important that we do not try to revise it in short five-minute bursts of rhetoric. Perhaps we should structure a debate during Private Members' time on the historical narrative and legacy of the Lock-out of 1913 to also look at the fact that in this country we now have wonderful opportunities for younger people in new areas of technology, nanotechnology, immunology and medical devices. We probably have the best research scientists and the best-educated workforce in Europe. We are being provided with new opportunities. Let this be the legacy of 1913. Let this be part of the debate. Let us make space for a proper debate on this legacy, but not in five-minute segments.

I must make space now for Deputies Pringle and Higgins.

I appreciate that.

It is a pity so many of those young people are exercising their talents in the United States and Australia.

That must delight Deputy Higgins because it forms part of his misery didactic.

Deputy Higgins trades on misery.

I thank Deputy Higgins for tabling this Private Members' motion. I take on board what the Minister of State, Deputy Sherlock, said about having a proper debate. He is on the Government side and it is in his hands to control the debate. Perhaps he will schedule such an open debate in the House. It would be an ideal way to commemorate the Lock-out of 1913 and the historic event it was.

As Deputy Higgins stated, we have a very well trained and highly skilled workforce, but unfortunately many of them ply their trades in Australia, Canada, the United States, England and throughout the world. I hope it will not be the legacy of the Government, but I fear it probably will be, that our young people will continue to have to ply their trades throughout the world rather than here building our society.

The Lock-out of 1913 was a huge struggle, as outlined by many Deputies, when the workers of Dublin stood against the establishment and employers and looked to defend their rights. Many of them were starved, attacked and murdered for standing up for these rights. The Lock-out lasted for more than six months. While it is true that it ended in what would have been seen at the time as a defeat for the union, in the years afterwards the legacy of the union activism shown by Jim Larkin and James Connolly in 1913 was built on and developed by unions throughout the country. Workers learned the lessons of the Lock-out and built and fought for their rights and gained many rights along the way. Now, 100 years on, we are debating it in the House, and while the Government, corporations and the European Union have refined their methods over the years, they are still the same in terms of undermining workers' rights. They make workers into individual contractors who work for corporations rather than members of a union or a body of employees who work together for the benefit of everybody involved in the contract and arrangement.

In recent times the European Commission has been flexing its muscles to undermine workers' rights and wages throughout the European Union. Two countries in Europe, the Netherlands and Belgium, entered the excessive deficit procedure in 2009 and were given terms for reducing the deficit. In 2012 both had the same deficit but the Commissioner, Olli Rehn, has decided to attack the Belgian people for what they are doing and is demanding that they fundamentally reform their wage mechanisms because the way in which they are closing the deficit is not to the liking of the European Commission. He is totally silent on the Netherlands, where it has been made easier to make workers redundant, cut wages and attack workers' rights.

In recent years, Ireland saw a much lauded social partnership that emasculated the unions. They willingly entered the tent, sat down with the Government and employers and lost the will to support workers' rights and to fight on their behalf. We have seen the outworkings of partnership, with the Government, including the Labour Party, passing the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Act 2013, a modern day ultimatum to workers along the William Martin Murphy lines that tells them they must be in the right unions to protect their wages.

Last night, the Minister, in outlining the reforms to the labour market, referred to workplace relations reforms. He outlined how the Employment Appeals Tribunal and other bodies were dragging their heels, as he would have us believe, in resolving issues. He outlined plans for replacing the five bodies with two. However, resources are the problem, as resources allow the bodies to process claims in reasonable times. It is a worthwhile aspiration that cases should be concluded within four weeks, but the only way to realise this is to provide resources.

The Employment Appeals Tribunal is a vital tool for workers in asserting their rights. I have experience on both tides of the tribunal. It is an important institution in which workers can have their rights respected in a cost effective, reasonable and quick way, but only if the necessary reforms are resourced. It is in everyone's interests, employers and workers alike, to have issues resolved quickly and properly.

I support the calls in the motion, particularly the call for union recognition. It is vital that workers have this demand legally guaranteed. Recently, the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine held hearings with large retail multiples about their code of practice. I put questions to them regarding union recognition. They refuse to deal with unions regarding their workers' rights. I am referring to low-paid, precarious workers who are at the will of the companies and must fight for their rights on their own without the support of their colleagues or unions. The relevant legislation should be introduced without delay.

I thank the Deputies who supported my motion and contributed to the debate. The great Dublin Lock-out of 1913 is an event that today embarrasses the political establishment and discomfits in particular the Labour Party and the leadership of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, ICTU.

The ruthlessness of that section of the Home Rulers and capitalist nationalists that was involved with the Dublin employers and its oppression of the working class to defend its profits was shocking, but the people involved were the progenitors of the capitalist parties of today, Fine Gael and Labour. It is uncomfortable to be reminded of the brutality of one's antecedents.

The herculean struggle for justice, dignity and humanity of the Dublin working class in 1913 is humbling and inspiring for succeeding generations. The courage and audacity of the leadership of that movement, including Connolly and Larkin, was unparalleled. They were radical socialists. They did not just denounce the evils of the capitalism of their day, but they worked tirelessly to break that system and to replace it with a socialist commonwealth. By contrast, one or two Labour Party contributors to this debate expressed all of the coruscating cynicism that has reduced Labour to a tool of the establishment of this day and age. They flung insults at left-wing socialists in the Dáil, using the language of the right and the capitalist media of the 1960s that was directed at the Labour Party itself when it had some claim to being a party for working people.

Labour today plays a central role in the rescue of the financial markets' dictatorship - the speculator and the bondholder - from the consequences of their crazed profit-driven system when it crashed. They demanded that the system be rescued on the backs of working people, young people, pensioners and the poor. Deputy Ross stated that class warfare was in the past and that speaking of it was no longer appropriate. Not so. Class war is when the machinery of, for example, the capitalist State, including the political establishment, is deployed to transfer €64 billion from the majority of people in the State - working people, the poor, pensioners and middle and lower income workers, namely, the working class - to a tiny minority of financiers, big bankers and big bondholders, namely, the financial capitalists. So far, it has been unfortunately a one-sided class war, but that will change and should change.

Working class people should mobilise to stop this austerity juggernaut of destruction of society, living standards, jobs, etc. and fight for an alternative way of organising our society.

They use the ballot box.

Some in the Labour Party have the audacity to suggest that Connolly and Larkin would comfortably sit on the Labour benches were they present today. One year after the Lock-out, as the capitalists of Europe lined up to slaughter millions in a struggle for their markets and profits, James Connolly called for "the final dethronement of the vulture classes that rule and rob the world" and definitive labour movement action to obstruct the war effort. He stated, "Starting thus, Ireland may yet set the torch to a European conflagration that will not burn out until the last throne and the last capitalist bond and debenture will be shrivelled on the funeral pyre of the last War lord." This is what the man who founded the Labour Party with the men and women socialists of his day thought in regard to the system that still dominates our world. How could anyone believe for a second that, if James Connolly could leave that pedestal behind me and walk down this aisle, he would for one minute associate himself with the Labour Party that rescues the very vultures that he spent his life fighting to destroy? Does anyone believe that Connolly and Larkin would tolerate a Government that introduced legislation to the Dáil that held a sword of Damocles over the heads of public sector workers unless they balloted and accepted cuts to their wages and conditions that would be slightly less onerous? Sadly, some trade union leaders today - the leaders of congress - suggest that Larkin and Connolly would act as they have acted. Does anyone really believe that James Connolly and Jim Larkin would connive with this coalition Government in forcing through the troika's austerity agenda by consciously, consistently and persistently undermining the confidence of working people - members of unions - that they could resist the deleterious affects of austerity and fight back? To ask the question is to give the answer.

Conditions have changed since 1913, but there are astonishing resonances in today's society. The financial capitalists and their political representatives who subject hundreds of millions of Europeans to savage austerity to secure their profits are the exact equivalents of William Martin Murphy, the employers and the capitalists of Dublin 1913.

The Irish Independent and the Evening Herald, Murphy's mouthpieces, that never lost an opportunity to blackguard, abuse and slander the huge struggle of the working class people of Dublin to raise themselves out of degradation and poverty, or to slander their leaders, are still with us today, sadly, playing a similar role, propagating austerity, vilifying the left, socialist ideas and any idea that working people can or should stand up and fight. They denounce working people or communities when they go into struggle and denounce as tax dodgers those who stood up and continue to stand up to fight against the new home taxes of this Government.

Working class people, workers in general and communities should commemorate the men and women of Dublin in 1913 who stood and fought against some of the most horrific conditions in any part of Europe of that time, those who fought for an alternative. The greatest monument we could build to them would be a movement to mobilise the enormous power working people have, socially and politically, in this society to break the austerity agenda. It would be to build a new mass party for working class people that would implement the vision of Connolly and Larkin, because the party they founded has left the stage as far as that purpose is concerned. It would be to build a democratic and socialist future which would not only challenge the austerity agenda and the horrors it inflicts on our society but which would also challenge, for example, the system represented by the G8 leaders who met a few hundred kilometres from here during the past week. This is a system that keeps hundreds of people in starvation while its leaders build weapons of mass destruction and waste countless resources on military spending. That is the type of monument we should build to the enormous struggle of 1913. That would be a fitting tribute to those who fought and left us a great tradition that has helped our society and workers to achieve many of the gains they have achieved throughout the years to the present day.

^ An Bille um an Dara Leasú is Tríocha ar an mBunreacht (Deireadh a Chur le Seanad Éireann) 2013: An Dara Céim (Atógáil) ^

Amendment put:
The Dáil divided: Tá, 76; Níl, 40.

  • Bannon, James.
  • Barry, Tom.
  • Buttimer, Jerry.
  • Byrne, Catherine.
  • Byrne, Eric.
  • Carey, Joe.
  • Coffey, Paudie.
  • Collins, Áine.
  • Conaghan, Michael.
  • Conlan, Seán.
  • Connaughton, Paul J.
  • Conway, Ciara.
  • Coonan, Noel.
  • Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • Daly, Jim.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • Deering, Pat.
  • Doherty, Regina.
  • Donohoe, Paschal.
  • Dowds, Robert.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • Farrell, Alan.
  • Feighan, Frank.
  • Ferris, Anne.
  • Fitzgerald, Frances.
  • Fitzpatrick, Peter.
  • Flanagan, Charles.
  • Flanagan, Terence.
  • Griffin, Brendan.
  • Hannigan, Dominic.
  • Harrington, Noel.
  • Harris, Simon.
  • Hayes, Tom.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Humphreys, Heather.
  • Humphreys, Kevin.
  • Keating, Derek.
  • Kenny, Seán.
  • Kyne, Seán.
  • Lawlor, Anthony.
  • Lynch, Ciarán.
  • Lynch, Kathleen.
  • Lyons, John.
  • McEntee, Helen.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McHugh, Joe.
  • McLoughlin, Tony.
  • Maloney, Eamonn.
  • Mathews, Peter.
  • Mitchell, Olivia.
  • Mitchell O'Connor, Mary.
  • Mulherin, Michelle.
  • Murphy, Dara.
  • Nash, Gerald.
  • Nolan, Derek.
  • Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán.
  • O'Donnell, Kieran.
  • O'Donovan, Patrick.
  • O'Mahony, John.
  • O'Sullivan, Jan.
  • Perry, John.
  • Phelan, John Paul.
  • Reilly, James.
  • Ring, Michael.
  • Ryan, Brendan.
  • Shatter, Alan.
  • Sherlock, Sean.
  • Spring, Arthur.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Stanton, David.
  • Timmins, Billy.
  • Tuffy, Joanna.
  • Twomey, Liam.
  • Wall, Jack.
  • Walsh, Brian.

Níl

  • Adams, Gerry.
  • Boyd Barrett, Richard.
  • Broughan, Thomas P.
  • Calleary, Dara.
  • Collins, Joan.
  • Colreavy, Michael.
  • Crowe, Seán.
  • Daly, Clare.
  • Doherty, Pearse.
  • Donnelly, Stephen S.
  • Ellis, Dessie.
  • Ferris, Martin.
  • Flanagan, Luke 'Ming'.
  • Grealish, Noel.
  • Halligan, John.
  • Healy, Seamus.
  • Healy-Rae, Michael.
  • Higgins, Joe.
  • Kirk, Seamus.
  • Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
  • McConalogue, Charlie.
  • McDonald, Mary Lou.
  • McGrath, Finian.
  • McGrath, Mattie.
  • McGrath, Michael.
  • McLellan, Sandra.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Nulty, Patrick.
  • Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
  • Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
  • O'Brien, Jonathan.
  • O'Sullivan, Maureen.
  • Pringle, Thomas.
  • Ross, Shane.
  • Stanley, Brian.
  • Tóibín, Peadar.
  • Troy, Robert.
  • Wallace, Mick.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Emmet Stagg and Joe Carey; Níl, Deputies Aengus Ó Snodaigh and Joe Higgins.
Amendment declared carried.
Question put: "That the motion, as amended, be agreed to."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 75; Níl, 40.

  • Bannon, James.
  • Barry, Tom.
  • Buttimer, Jerry.
  • Byrne, Catherine.
  • Byrne, Eric.
  • Carey, Joe.
  • Coffey, Paudie.
  • Collins, Áine.
  • Conaghan, Michael.
  • Conlan, Seán.
  • Connaughton, Paul J.
  • Conway, Ciara.
  • Coonan, Noel.
  • Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • Daly, Jim.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • Deering, Pat.
  • Doherty, Regina.
  • Donohoe, Paschal.
  • Dowds, Robert.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • Farrell, Alan.
  • Feighan, Frank.
  • Ferris, Anne.
  • Fitzgerald, Frances.
  • Fitzpatrick, Peter.
  • Flanagan, Charles.
  • Flanagan, Terence.
  • Griffin, Brendan.
  • Hannigan, Dominic.
  • Harrington, Noel.
  • Harris, Simon.
  • Hayes, Tom.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Humphreys, Heather.
  • Keating, Derek.
  • Kenny, Seán.
  • Kyne, Seán.
  • Lawlor, Anthony.
  • Lynch, Ciarán.
  • Lynch, Kathleen.
  • Lyons, John.
  • McEntee, Helen.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McHugh, Joe.
  • McLoughlin, Tony.
  • Maloney, Eamonn.
  • Mathews, Peter.
  • Mitchell, Olivia.
  • Mitchell O'Connor, Mary.
  • Mulherin, Michelle.
  • Murphy, Dara.
  • Nash, Gerald.
  • Nolan, Derek.
  • Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán.
  • O'Donnell, Kieran.
  • O'Donovan, Patrick.
  • O'Mahony, John.
  • O'Sullivan, Jan.
  • Perry, John.
  • Phelan, John Paul.
  • Reilly, James.
  • Ring, Michael.
  • Ryan, Brendan.
  • Shatter, Alan.
  • Sherlock, Sean.
  • Spring, Arthur.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Stanton, David.
  • Timmins, Billy.
  • Tuffy, Joanna.
  • Twomey, Liam.
  • Wall, Jack.
  • Walsh, Brian.

Níl

  • Adams, Gerry.
  • Boyd Barrett, Richard.
  • Broughan, Thomas P.
  • Calleary, Dara.
  • Collins, Joan.
  • Colreavy, Michael.
  • Crowe, Seán.
  • Daly, Clare.
  • Doherty, Pearse.
  • Donnelly, Stephen S.
  • Ellis, Dessie.
  • Ferris, Martin.
  • Flanagan, Luke 'Ming'.
  • Grealish, Noel.
  • Halligan, John.
  • Healy, Seamus.
  • Healy-Rae, Michael.
  • Higgins, Joe.
  • Kirk, Seamus.
  • Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
  • McConalogue, Charlie.
  • McDonald, Mary Lou.
  • McGrath, Finian.
  • McGrath, Mattie.
  • McGrath, Michael.
  • McLellan, Sandra.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Nulty, Patrick.
  • Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
  • Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
  • O'Brien, Jonathan.
  • O'Sullivan, Maureen.
  • Pringle, Thomas.
  • Ross, Shane.
  • Stanley, Brian.
  • Tóibín, Peadar.
  • Troy, Robert.
  • Wallace, Mick.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Emmet Stagg and Joe Carey; Níl, Deputies Aengus Ó Snodaigh and Joe Higgins.
Question declared carried.
Top
Share