If I leave out the employers in my contribution it is not because I think they are not affected by this legislation but because of my bias for the workers. I am not saying that employers are not affected by the lack of rationalisation in the trade union movement. Employers can be hit by this lack of rationalisation and multiplicity of unions. On the other hand, I should like to say that for many years the trade union movement has been conscious of the need for rationalisation within the trade union movement. The Minister pointed out that in my own firm there are 2,200 workers represented by 18 unions, and I could not agree more that this seems a rather ridiculous situation. I happen to represent 1,700 of those workers. That means that the other 500 or so are represented by about 17 unions. Some of the 1,700 I mention are in another branch of my union, therefore, we are talking about 17 unions in one industry representing about 500 people. That is a measure of the problem you face. Fortunately in Guinness's we have a good working relationship. Disputes there are very infrequent, I am glad to say, and that is to the credit of my fellow trade unionists.
I should like to talk in a general way about the advantages of this Bill to the working class movement —what they can gain from it. The Minister referred to problems in the way of amalgamations—for example, the difficulties the two engineering unions got themselves into. That was the subject of High Court and, ultimately, Supreme Court wrangling. The two unions found themselves taking part in a very costly and trying exercise and nobody is quite sure whether the problem has been totally resolved. It is a problem that left a lot of headaches and made a lot of men older before their time.
The Trade Union Acts from 1876 to 1970, even the 1941 Act or the 1971 Act, did not give the scope that this Bill will give to meet the type of problem we had with regard to the multiplicity of unions. Therefore this Bill sets out clearly what exactly is needed to satisfy the law with regard to amalgamations of trade unions bearing in mind that some of them have not got big money and cannot afford the crushing cost that can result from actions such as have been taken by the two engineering unions.
I am impressed by many provisions in the Bill. I share Senator Kennedy's views on scope, form and one or two other areas. I also share his view about who takes the initiative in respect of amalgamations. Unions are very conscious that something must be done about this.
I also accept that the Bill does not do anything that would jeopardise any initiatives taken in that respect. Therefore, I must go on record as giving it a welcome. The word "shall" is clearly defined in section 2. This is a very positive word. I do not wish to take up time by quoting the sections but they are very positive in their meaning. This is a very encouraging trend. When the word "shall" is used it impresses me because it puts the onus on both unions to know exactly where they are going. This ensures that they will not get into a situation similar to that which the electrical and engineering trade unions got into in the past. Another trade union, in a lesser way, got into trouble also.
It is clearly stated in section 3 that every member of the union shall have a vote. It protects the rights of the individual to have a say in determining where he believes he will get the best service. Two-thirds of the voting power is another way in which the individual's rights are protected. The section dealing with the secret ballot also protects the members. There can be no interference or constraints on them. They must get notice of their rights prior to voting. Seven days before any action takes place there must be notice in the papers before voting—not before discussions are under way, but before voting.
The Bill is designed not only to facilitate the movement towards rationalisation of the trade union movement in general, and to help towards a better relationship by which the nation can benefit, but also to protect the individual, who in the past may have had the feeling that he was about to be sold out by one of his trade union leaders. That can no longer be the case.
The Bill makes it clear that, where unions want to merge, to take advantage of the better services they can get, to avoid overlapping and so on, the financially weak unions will be in a position to get aid, and the resources of the stronger unions, as I read the Bill, will not be drained by embarking on amalgamation. The union that is financially strong and the union financially weak will both be entitled to financial assistance to meet certain costs. Like Senator Kennedy, I am not sure exactly what is meant by costs, whether it means consultants' fees, legal costs and so on. Nevertheless, there is scope there to deal with costs.
Everybody agrees there is need for greater unity in the trade union movement and for a more rational structure in order that the members would get a better service. This Bill goes a long way to encouraging that move. I am particularly interested in this question of unity, not only from the employers' point of view but more so from the point of view of the workers and what they are losing by dissipating their energies through this multiplicity of unions overlapping, the draining of resources that could be employed on a better basis, not making use of best talent available to put forward their causes.
No trade union legislation can be drawn up that will bring about a unity of hearts and minds. That has got to happen within the trade union movement itself. We can only draw up a Bill, put as many constructive provisions into it to meet the situation, and do as much as possible to see that the harmful effects that might have been there heretofore in amalgamations are wiped out. It is a question of whether the Bill can induce this unity of hearts and minds. The ingredients are there. If it is adequately publicised, the fears, doubts and mistrusts of members that there might be a sellout or that their fate would be decided by officials without ballots and without a right to compensation, will be overcome.
Many people are genuinely concerned about Ireland and her workers. I have no doubt that, having read the Bill, they will be satisfied that the means by which they can strive towards this unity of hearts and minds is built into the Bill. If the Bill goes only some of the way towards achieving a trade union movement with less antagonism and conflicts, less competition between members, less overlapping in matters common to each union involved in any industry with consequent waste of time, money and energy, then it will be seen by trade union leaders as something that will help them to effectively initiate positive moves and practical steps towards rationalising the structure of the unions.
In the early sixties efforts were made to deal with trade union rationalisation. In 1965, the general unions, with a membership of almost 200,000 —the Irish Transport and General Workers Union, the Workers Union of Ireland, the Federation of Rural Workers, the Irish Municipal Workers Union and the Marine Port and General Workers Union—after efforts to amalgamate, finally talked about a federation. Unfortunately, that did not take place either. Finally two unions, the Transport Union and the Workers Union of Ireland, finished up talking about the question of amalgamation. I refer to this to demonstrate that, had this Bill been on the Statute Book at that time and had the facilities been there, more positive and practical steps would have been taken to bring about trade union rationalisation. It is also quite clear that quite a lot of unions now, which have a common historical background and with no real basic differences in their policies or approach—in a lot of cases the relationships are very good and friendly between the unions—and with the old prejudices, conflicts and suspicions gone, will welcome this Bill.
Trade unionists will be very keen about this Bill, because with the pace of change in industry, through the technological progress and re-organisation, there are problems facing unions and they need to establish a close working relationship. Generally speaking, the Bill provides the guidelines. It is desirable that the trade union movement, with its 500,000 membership covering the Thirty-two Counties, should grow in its effectiveness to influence changes in society.
At the moment the trade union movement plays a very effective role. But if this multiplicity of unions, the overlapping and the waste of time I referred to earlier on, can be overcome it can play a more effective role. If people make use of the possibilities within the Bill and the facilities it provides to make sure the individual is protected, then the changes in society that the trade union movement would like to see coming about, the question of a more equitable distribution of wealth and the development of our natural resources, will take place.
Earlier on I said that this Bill might not have all the ingredients the trade unions would like to have built into it to help them cope with the many complex and difficult situations that arise through the multiplicity of unions in single industries. It may not have taken sufficient notice that federation might be desired by a lot of people who are afraid of losing their identity. I think Senator Cowan touched on this briefly. There is a fear that people might lose their identity in larger unions. I would prefer amalgamation, but the people in small unions afraid of losing their identity would welcome some indication of how far the Minister would go with unions who might want to enter into a federation. It might be a good thing to take care of this. On the other hand the Minister was trying to deal with amalgamations and to introduce any question of federation possibly might minimise the effects of the Bill.
Workers nowadays have been getting a lead from the Trade Union Congress. In a very big organisation there is always a communication gap. But by and large the workers are beginning to understand the increasing need to co-ordinate negotiations at local, industrial and national levels and also the need to represent workers' interests at national level, both directly to Governments and on national bodies. They have influence in this particular area, access to Ministers and so on. They have scope to sit on national bodies. But, with the coming together of many talents the elimination of waste of time and energy which the Bill will help them bring about, they can protect those interests at national level more effectively than they can at the moment. The workers realise this.
If the Bill is given more widespread circulation throughout the trade union movement to stimulate the thinking of the ordinary members it will help to ease attitudes towards amalgamation. When the rights of individual members is fully understood by people on the shop floor a great deal of the thinking about large unions and the disparity in membership may no longer be a threat because the knowledge that the trade union officials are not deciding their fate will now become evident. Even though this was not the case before the Bill was introduced, when trade union leaders were trying to bring about amalgamations or federations, there was suspicion and doubt in the minds of members that they might be selling them out. This was not the case because the rules of the unions would not have allowed that but nevertheless the suspicion was there. The provisions of the Bill will reassure individuals, particularly in respect of their rights to consultation and a valid vote by two-thirds majority.
Workers will grow in experience through the educational training programmes and being in contact with workers who have a higher standard of education. This will help the people I spoke of earlier on. This Bill will help them to understand that their togetherness is all-important in this day and age. It may well be that, properly handled, we could have a concensus that to crow in your own particular bailiwick is no longer serving the interests of workers particularly when they witness the development of very large and powerful organisations representing interests opposed to the trade union interests. Workers are then more likely to take the view that their security lies in the evolution and modernisation of the trade union structures and resources.
The Bill also provides the means to facilitate the viewpoint I have just expressed. If I am correct in my assumption that the earlier viewpoint of suspicion, doubt and fear of being swallowed up is diminishing, the Bill can be of assistance to workers to come together on many matters in the first instance and then finally get down to the question of either federation or amalgamation. Workers could cooperate on a lot of matters they have in common, then broaden them out into federation and subsequently into amalgamation.
The inevitable result of that kind of development will be that they will recognise the strength that grows out of their amalgamation, not in the sense of sheer cussedness that they get strength and power to abuse situations, but on the basis of bringing together a lot of talent that are presently wasted on trivial things, and dealing with arrogant and unreasonable attitudes and unnecessary conflicts within the movement instead of a concentration on the collective abilities to overcome the threats that bedevil the trade union movement or to strengthen the efforts of the trade union officials, when they are trying to match up to people who have not got their interests at heart or when they are trying to circumvent the effects of powerful organisations opposed to trade unionism.
Again, speaking from the shop floor point of view, I think that there will be an awareness nowadays that it is only organisations of a reasonable size that will be able to provide the staff to cover the very wide range of services and activity that is demanded and is necessary to meet the challenge, not only from other bodies opposed to trade union interests, but to deal with the increasing rapidity of technological change, the effects of free trade employment and the need for training and re-training as a result of the many rationalisation programmes taking place within industry and which leaves people in some age groups with nowhere to go. If all the resources are put together then the pressures can be put on to see that in this respect also the workers' rights are protected. It is only by a coming together through amalgamation that this real effectiveness can manifest itself.
The question of growing living standards is another matter to be considered. If the Trade Union Bill is communicated in the proper way and it is properly understood either by way of seminars or explanatory statements by the trade union movement then it will be welcomed by workers.
Many trade union leaders in the past, when they were talking about amalgamations or federations, because of old prejudices and conflicts could not be as clear in their announcements or statements as they would have liked. They had to tread very warily indeed. They were a little vague so as to avoid offending their members. Again, it is a question of their members talking about their identity being lost in big organisations.
The Bill will allow people to be positive. The trade union organisation and its affiliated bodies may find sufficient in the Bill to enable them now to come out strongly in favour of amalgamation because in the past they had not got anything on the Statute Book to back them up. They will be able to advise members in what direction they should travel in the interests of using this power in a conation structive way to counter the effects of organisations that have not got trade union interests at heart.
The attitude of trade union workers and their organisations in the past was that they believed that trade unions were designed and structured to represent and to defend the working classes. They believed that the trade unions should set up organisations for dealing with their demands but this did not really reflect the collective will and purpose of the trade union movement or of organised labour. To speak about the trade union movement as being strictly a defensive organisation was a bit narrow. It was a hindrance to bringing about a strong, unified and truly democratic labour movement. I am glad to say that latter day attitudes have grown away from that strictly defensive attitude. Workers today look on their organisations as both offensive and defensive organisations. In my opinion the growth of unity in the movement will give them real power and the capacity to promote and advance the social and economic interests of Irish workers. I think the Bill will go a long way to speed up that process. I am satisfied that the workers seek the objectives of achievement and maintenance of full employment, a steady rise in living standards, equality of opportunity, a fair distribution of incomes and wealth, the elimination of poverty, comprehensive and adequate welfare services and improvements in the quality of life and environment. I believe they have now come to a greater awareness of the fact that they are in a very strong organisation. They believe those objectives are desirable. We are getting away from the narrow concept of what can be squeezed out of the employer at local level and there is a movement towards the type of policies, aims and objectives I mentioned.
The trade union movement has in the past made great strides, both North and South. What it has achieved has not only been good for the trade union movement but has been good for the Irish nation as well. Despite the difficulties encountered by the Northern Ireland trade unionists they have played an important role in building up the economy there, but they have not got a lot of credit for it. Northern Ireland trade unionists have a lot in common with trade unionists here. They would probably have some reservations about the question of British-based unions. However, the section is framed in such a way that I do not think it would be an impediment to union rationalisation. I am sure people from the North of Ireland would sit in on discussions which might bring about amalgamation of trade unions in the South. The objections I mentioned about the unbalanced distribution of wealth and so on will no doubt influence them, particularly as they would like to see the same thing occur in the North.
Everyone knows that rationalisation has been on the cards for 16 or 17 years now and that little progress has been made. People must understand the complications it entails—for example, as I mentioned earlier, loss of identity and people wanting to crow in their own particular bailiwick. The aim of the Bill is to bring people together. There is a danger that we could lose the value of what we are aiming for by trying to achieve major objectives but at the same time, because of past conflicts, prejudices or traditions, staying in smaller units. Small units are not viable in many cases and the employees of some small unions are lucky on occasions even to get their wages. Members need to have a realisation of that fact plus the fact that they are losing out on expertise, talent and are allowing their own energies and the energies of their own officials to be dissipated. If the contents of this Bill are communicated correctly we can look to initiatives being taken to rationalise the movement without the fear or suspicion that so often is part and parcel of merger discussions.
The outlook of trade unionists generally can continue to broaden to meet workers' needs and demands that have multiplied and have taken on new forms. If the will is there to utilise the Bill properly the trade unions will come to a realisation that it is no longer possible to exist in small units, because the requirements of their members as trade unionists, citizens and parents will not be served. If they confine themselves to local matters, they will be unable to influence industrial, political and cultural and educational matters on a national scale. Workers must understand that the questions in which trade unions are involved are no longer confined to the place of employment. The trade unionist himself is a producer and a consumer. When he leaves his place of employment he has to broaden out. He can broaden out further if he makes up his mind to play a decisive role in shaping his future. This can only be done by recognising that his interest does not lie merely within the walls of his place of employment.
The Trade Union Bill, 1974, if given the consideration that it merits, will create the atmosphere to help people to make use of the possibilities contained in it. Possibly a realisation will emerge among workers—I hope it will —that the Bill if properly utilised can constitute a step towards proper unity and from unity to the great strengths which I referred to earlier and the satisfaction of trade unions exercising a greater influence in society as a whole not only for themselves but for the nation. They can do this without merging with the views of the private enterprise society or surrendering any of their ideas to the private enterprise system.
The Bill strives to facilitate the approach to unity. It may also be the means whereby the unwarranted confidence in private enterprise to solve our economic ills will be challenged constructively through the efforts of a strong, united trade union movement. These are the possibilities I see within the Bill, whereby the workers can, if they get to understand the meaning of it, achieve quite a lot.
When I refer to challenging private enterprise regarding the unwarranted confidence in the system, I do not say it in a bitter way. It can be done constructively by the talents that will come together in the trade union movement. They have already played a great role, despite the complex and difficult situation which they are in, not only to shape the economy but also the social side of life.
Apart from what is contained in the Bill and the possibilities it offers, people may become conscious of the fact that where you had bitter enemies who invaded each other's countries and slaughtered each other and even raped each other's lands and homes, they have come together on the Continent. They did not come together for the sake of satisfying the needs of people outside their own particular movement. They come together on the basis of an enlightened selfish interest. We as trade unionists would be the last in the world to say trade unionists are not selfish. Of course we are. The nature of the society and its advertisement campaigns have made us selfish. We can be selfish and at the same time constructive in selfishly pursuing our own particular aims.
If we amalgamate and use all the facilities available to us and the services that can be given to us through amalgamation, then your trade unions can realise the benefits, and the prejudices will be sunk. The fears that stopped them coming together in a common venture for a common purpose will have come to the surface and there will be further development.
We should give the Bill a hearing and concentrate on the possibilities the Bill offers for real unity. It will not solve all our problems but it will give us a chance to deal with the real ones and not the side issues. It will enable us to apply our resources more effectively to tacking unemployment, the rise in living standards, the quality of opportunities, fairer distribution of wealth and incomes, the elimination of poverty and exercising an influence over the proper utilisation of the natural resources of the country. That list of policies, coupled with the question of adequate social welfare services and the quality of life and environment, are very worthwhile social and economic aspirations. Therefore, while the Minister has not put those policies into his Bill, it is a matter for the people within the trade union movement to take the initiatives. I thank the Minister for having sufficient courage to bring about the type of Bill that was very badly needed. I hope that many of the points which I made will be shared with a lot of my fellow trade unionists and that they will grasp the opportunity to initiate moves that will help us to grow and develop into a much greater and more effective organisation in the interests of the trade unions as a whole but in the interests of the nation also.