When I moved to report progress on this section last night, I was making the point, in reply to Deputy McGilligan, that there has been a considerable and extensive invasion of occupations formerly filled by men now filled by women, with the result that male employees are finding it increasingly difficult not merely to obtain their old and former occupations but to secure entry into the new occupations made available by the development of new industries. Deputy McGilligan last night, in opposition to this section, made a rather halfhearted attempt to defend the present sex equality from the point of view of industrial work. His defence seemed to me to be based on the supposition that there was no reason to fear, granted equality in the matter of employment as between men and women, that there would not be a further contraction of industrial employment for men and a further tendency to lower the rates of wages not only for men but for women. He seemed to ignore completely the self-evident fact that there has been a considerable invasion by women in the matter of industrial employment: that the entry of women into many industries has resulted in men being ousted from employment in which they formerly predominated. In any choice as between men and women in the matter of employment, I think that most persons will say that we ought to retain employment for men for two reasons, apart from others: (1) that man is the natural bread winner of the family. On him devolves the responsibility, in most cases, of providing for his wife and family. He cannot adequately discharge that responsibility, morally or legally, unless he is placed in a position to command a wage and employment. In addition to that reason, we must acknowledge that the women are employed not because they are women, not because there is any disposition on the part of the employing class to extend to them industrial equality but because they are cheap, because they can be adapted to new mechanical processes and because they are, from the employer's point of view, very docile and, from the trade union point of view, extremely difficult to organise. It will be apparent to everybody who is in any way familiar with the trend of modern industrial development in the direction of giving preference in employment to women that that preference has been based solely on the desire to secure women because they are cheap, because there is a plentiful supply of that labour and because it is a type of easily-managed labour which has a very considerable attraction for certain types of employer. Deputy McGilligan seemed to make a case last night in some portions of his speech for equality between men and women but already, through the International Labour Office, and in a variety of other ways, there has been a recognition that women should not participate in certain kinds of occupations or in employment at certain hours. Deputy McGilligan discloses himself as a whole-hog advocate of the complete play of economic forces. He discloses himself, in some portions of his speech, as one who stands for absolute equality as between men and women in industrial employment. I do not think that you can consider a claim of that kind without taking notice of the direction in which the implementation of that claim is leading you. Few will challenge the assertion that, if there is unrestricted entry of women into all branches of industry, that will be accompanied by a low wage policy and by the substitution of better-paid male workers by badly-paid female workers. Last night, Deputy McGilligan had no remedy for dealing with a situation of that kind.
Conditions of Employment Bill, 1935—Committee (Resumed).
Oh!
It is true he suggested that the trade unions should deal with that kind of problem. But that is an extremely difficult problem for the trade unions to deal with. The man-workers is in many cases a skilled craftsman. He has usually had a long apprenticeship to the industry in which he serves and, in most cases, he dedicates his life almost to that service. On the other hand, women are more birds-of-passage in industry. There is not the same tradition behind their industrial activities. There is not the same resignation to life-time service to an industry. These factors, undoubtedly, place difficulties in the way of trade union organisation. Even prior to the change of Government in 1922, following that, and subsequent to the change of Government in 1932, it has been necessary for the State to recognise that female employment should be termed in most cases "sweated employment." Trade boards were constituted to deal with the menace of low wages in certain kinds of industries. These boards were established in cases where there was no effective kind of trade union organisation to protect the workers against the exploitation which existed in these industries. If we look at the number of trade boards which have been established and at the kind of industries in which they have been established, we shall recognise that trade boards are mainly associated with those industries in which women occupy either a substantial position as workers or in which they predominate. Even during the period of Deputy McGilligan's administration, he found it necessary not merely to maintain the trade boards but, in some cases, to extend them in order to deal with the problem of the exploitation of wage-earners in these industries. For some time to come, I think it will be extremely difficult to organise women industrially to the same extent as men. The problem of organisation is still more difficult in those industries in which women predominate. Considerable success has attended the efforts of trade unions to organise workers in industries in which there is a substantial proportion of men. It is relatively easy to organise workers in industries in which men predominate. The experience of persons associated with the trade union movement shows, however, that many obstacles will be encountered in the organisation of workers in those industries in which women predominate.
I do not think that the remedy suggested by Deputy McGilligan is by any means a perfect remedy. Having regard to the present weaknesses of that remedy in respect of the organisation of women and having regard also to the increasing tendency to employ women, this House cannot be convinced that there is an effective remedy, even though there might be a partial remedy, in the direction suggested by Deputy McGilligan. Deputy McGilligan pleaded last night for absolute equality as between men and women in industrial matters. I think the only countries where that equality is conceded are Russia and Mexico, but I do not think that Deputy McGilligan wants to outbid these countries in that respect. No matter what other countries do in that respect, we have got to realise that we ourselves can only solve this problem as we know it to exist. One of the ways in which the invasion of women into industry can be checked is through the procedure suggested in this section. I do not think anyone desires to exclude women from industry, or from employment for which they are peculiarly fitted. No one wants to take up the attitude that a woman is only to be employed when the last man has been employed. This section will not be used in that way.
Faced as we are with a growing invasion of industry by women, and with the fact that, consequent upon that invasion, it is difficult, and in many cases impossible, for men to retain their hold on industry, it is only reasonable that the State, acting on behalf of a community, which desires to see a balanced kind of industrial employment should be armed with the powers which are given to the Minister in this section. It may be that the manner in which the powers will be welded are not completely satisfactory. It may be that it is too much to give a Minister the very extreme powers sought in this section, but knowing the problem as we do, I do not think there is any case to be made for permitting the present invasion of industry by women to continue unchecked. It is for that reason I think this section is, in the circumstances, one of the ways in which the problem can be met. The section offers a partial solution in its effect when dealing with the problem of trying to retain work for men who followed industrial employment all their lives.
As the matters raised on this section seem to me to have got mixed up, I suggest to the Minister that he should tell us what he conceives to be the function of the Government in a Bill such as this. I agree with a good deal of what Deputy Norton said, but I am surprised that he has not gone on to draw certain conclusions. For instance, he mentioned the invasion of the clothing trade by women. That is undoubtedly a fact. I suggest to him that that is very largely due to the force of economic circumstances. In order to illustrate my point, I should point out that if one goes back a couple of generations, practically all or a very large proportion of the male population wore clothes that were fitted for them, individually. Now the great proportion of the population wear ready-made clothes. That is partly due to the play of economic circumstances. The middle classes have not the same amount of money to spend, and they look around to see how they can reduce expenditure. That has displaced the highly skilled male tailors. The whole industry has changed. These men have been replaced by women who can do the work just as well, with the help of a machine, as a highly skilled male tailor did it in the past. That is one aspect of that particular trade. I suggest to the Minister that it is certainly the duty of the Government to see that women workers are not exploited, and that wage levels are not driven below certain standards. I should like to contradict the impression that Deputy Norton gave, that the youngest member of the family can go out and take his father's job. Surely some skill is required at such work. A boy cannot be put on a man's job. Deputy Norton seems to think, according to this Bill, that the Government should put a man on a boy's job. If the Government are going to undertake that task they have some job in front of them. I suggest that the Minister might be interfering too much if he seeks to interfere with the play of economic circumstances. It is quite possible, having driven the cost of clothing up again, by putting men on boys' jobs, that really no effect will be produced because the cost can be driven too high, and people might be forced back into making clothes at home. What I really want to urge on the Minister is, that he should state how far the Government are prepared to go in compelling employers to put males on jobs where they may not be considered necessary. While I quite agree that the Minister should take power to prohibit females in certain industries, and working under certain industrial conditions, at the same time he should not interfere with the economic laws.
This is a very important subject and strikes at the whole root of the unemployment question. I think the Minister is entirely justified in asking for the powers he will get in this Section. He should have them, not only for the general regulation of employment but in the interests of women workers themselves. As Deputies know the tendency of women to invade industries in other countries has resulted in some places in very violent reactions, for instance, in Germany. These reactions have caused very grave hardship to vast numbers of women workers who were thrown out of employment as a result of the revolution. The powers to be given to the Minister are very wide. It is a question whether they should be put into the hands of one man, because a great deal depends on the personal opinion of the Minister in power, as to what industries would be suitable for women to work at. At the same time, presumably the Department when dealing with this Bill will use some kind of yard-stick or touch-stone, and, I presume, whenever the Minister makes an order or a regulation he will submit it to the Executive Council, after which it is liable to be revoked by the Dáil. Even so, the main deciding factor will be the opinion of the Minister in charge. The Minister stated that he has already power to prohibit women being employed in coal mines. He wants to get power to prevent women being employed as stokers for boilers. There are other industries in which women are employed which might be called border line cases. We make bricks in County Wexford, and I understand that only male labour is employed. I am told, however, that the bricks made in Dublin are made, largely, by female labour.
That is why you charge so much for them down there.
I think that it is difficult to determine whether or not the Minister should use his own discretion as to whether a particular industry is suitable for female labour. Perhaps the Minister would give us some indication as to what he has in mind with regard to this matter. The Minister may be able to make regulations preventing women from working as coal-miners, but he cannot prevent the ladies from using coal.
The Deputy who has just spoken referred to the checks imposed on the Minister in regard to the powers given to the Minister in this section. I should like to draw attention, first, to the very great powers which the section does propose to give to the Minister. Roughly, a little more than half the citizenship of this country consists of women. This section gives the Minister power to exclude women from employment in any industry which he thinks to be unsuitable for women. I suggest that is a very great power to put in the hands of any one Minister, or of any man, in the State, no matter how impartial or humane he may be. In criticising that power, I hope it is understood that one is criticising possible Ministers and not only the present Minister. I think that the power that is proposed to be given here is a very important power. It is inherent in our Constitution that women should have the same freedom of action in this country as the male citizens, and that they should be free to undertake any form of activity such as the male citizens are free to undertake. If it is necessary that any checks should be put on that freedom of action, I think that the conditions under which such checks or obstacles are to be applied should receive very careful scrutiny.
The Minister told us yesterday that there are two sorts of cases in which this check might apply. One case that he mentioned was that of the necessity for protecting women themselves from being induced to take employment in industries that would be quite unsuitable for female labour. I think that we can all sympathise with that point of view, and I think that we would all agree that such occupations as coal-mining are unsuitable for women, and that it would be necessary for the State to protect women to the extent of preventing them from undertaking such occupations as coal-mining. I understand, however, that it has been illegal for many years, in this country as well as in the neighbouring country, for women to take part in coal-mining operations. I understand that that has been prohibited by statute and that it is not a matter of regulation by the Minister or Department concerned. I think that the proposed restrictions on liberty contained in this section are so great that this whole thing should be a matter to be fixed by statute rather than by regulation by the Minister or his successors.
The other case that the Minister has in mind, with regard to this section, is somewhat different. According to what the Minister said, the section is intended to protect male workers from competition by women in the same industry. The Leader of the Labour Party, I think, suggested that such protection is very necessary for male workers. I confess to some difficulty in understanding how the Leader of the Labour Party and his colleagues, who, I thought, were here representing the interests of labour as a whole, had developed into being the representatives merely of one section of labour, and how they had made themselves, so to speak, sectional leaders of male labour as against female labour. The Leader of the Labour Party, I understand, says that he does not wish to exclude females from any occupations for which they are peculiarly fitted. Is there any possibility of their getting employment in any occupation for which they are not peculiarly fitted? That remark takes away the whole force of the argument made by the Leader of the Labour Party. Deputy McGilligan, speaking last night, said that handiness—I think that was the word he used—now takes the place of muscle, and that, therefore, women are more fitted for certain occupations than men. If there are industries for which women are fitted, I suggest that these are the only industries in which this matter can arise, and that it is only in such cases that the Minister will be called upon to exercise the power proposed to be given to him under this section.
I suggest that the checks that are laid down in the section—if one admits that it may be necessary to have such powers—are entirely inadequate to exercise proper control. I believe that it will mean that the Minister, or his successors, will be subjected to constant representations from male workers in one industry or another who feel that their interests are hazarded by what they call the intrusion of female labour into these industries. Very strong influences will be brought to bear on the Minister or his successors to exclude female labour. Speaking last night, the Minister said that, before he would make such regulations as he is empowered to make under this section, he would have to consult with employers and workers interested in the particular industry concerned. A case might arise, however, of a particular industry in which, up to the moment, there had been no women employees, and it would be difficult, for the Minister, therefore, to consider the views of prospective women workers in regard to such an industry. I do not know whether or not the Minister or his successors would hold that prospective interests of that kind would be covered by this section. It is possible that the section is quite wide enough to cover, not alone the actual interests of persons now employed, but the prospective interests of the kind to which I have referred. Of course, it is a fact that a regulation such as this can be revoked by the Oireachtas, but one knows that such a step has hardly any practical value and that once the regulation is made it would be a matter of extreme difficulty to persuade the Dáil to revoke the regulation and thereby pass practically a vote of censure on a Ministerial act of that sort. As long as any Government had a majority in the House, that is practically impossible, so that the most the Dáil can do under the power given to it is to bring public criticism to bear on the regulation which has already been made and which will remain as long as the Minister is minded to keep it.
I would suggest to the Minister that he might adopt some other method than the very simple one laid down in the section in regard to such regulations, whereby such regulations might be issued in draft in advance so that they might be subject to criticism before they become binding. I would draw his attention to a parallel which he might take from the Trade Boards Act of 1918 in relation to the setting up of Trade Boards. By that Act, the Minister is empowered to establish a Trade Board for any trade in which, in his opinion, no adequate machinery exists for the effective regulation of wages and so on. Before his Order can become effective, certain conditions must be complied with and these conditions are laid down in the Schedule to the Act. He must publish notice of his intention to make an Order; he must prepare a draft Order and make it available for those who wish to study it; he must allow an interval of 40 days to elapse during which persons interested may make objections to the Order before it becomes effective; and he must consider every objection which is not frivolous and which is submitted to him within the requisits time by interested parties. Having considered the objections, he can amend the draft Order in the manner suggested so as to make it acceptable to the objectors. If he refuses to withdraw or amend the draft Order, he is required, before confirming the Order, to direct an inquiry to be held in regard to the objections and the objectors can give evidence before that inquiry. That inquiry must be held by an independent person who is not in any Government employ, and the person commissioned to hold the inquiry has very considerable powers as to the kind of Order that will finally be drafted.
I suggest to the Minister that some machinery comparable to that would put a very considerable check on what may be, in the future, a very improper use of the powers which the section proposes to confer on the Minister. I do not suggest that the exact machinery laid down in the Trade Boards Act should be followed, but I think the Minister would act wisely in considering whether he cannot provide some such check as that, or some equally effective check, to tie his successors in office as well as himself. Again, I will say that I am not suggesting that either the Minister or his successors are likely to use this power in a wanton way, but I think it is for the Dáil, which is about to make the law under which Ministers will act, to make sure that such checks as these are effective and that no Minister can, even if he were willing to do so, act in a wanton or irresponsible way in regard to an interest which is so great, the interest of what may be a very large body of the citizens of the country who, as far as the Constitution goes, have equal rights with other citizens of the country and whose liberties of action, liberties of contract, and liberties of work should not be, without very stringent checks, in the hands of any one Minister, however wise and responsible and humane that Minister may be.
Deputy Esmonde suggested that this amendment was being inserted in the Bill as a contribution towards the solution of the unemployment problem and that suggestion also came from some of those who spoke yesterday evening. I stated then that I did not regard this section as having any relation to the problem of unemployment and that it was not being put forward in any sense as a means of easing unemployment. I want to qualify, to some extent, what I said in that connection, because I have asked myself this question: would we have this section in the Bill if there were no unemployment? And I think the answer is "No." It is true that we might consider it desirable to have provisions of this kind for various reasons, but it is unlikely that we would have undertaken the responsibility of enacting them, and of meeting the criticism which was inevitable, unless there was a certain relation between the proposal here and the unemployment position. The relation is this, that, in our opinion, it is a social necessity so long as unemployment exists to ensure the maximum possible employment for adult male workers. It is much more advantageous socially to have adult male workers employed than other classes of workers, generally speaking, and, therefore, any power that is necessary in order to maintain the amount of employment available for adult male workers is a contribution to the solution of the difficulties created by the existence of unemployment.
It has been said that this legislation is anti-feminist, that there is or should be equality in regard to the sexes in the matter of industrial employment. There cannot be equality in regard to the sexes. Whatever theoretical argument might be advanced in favour of sex equality, in practice, female labour is cheaper labour than male labour and the reason for that is obvious. The great majority of the adult males seeking industrial work are married, and, because they are married, the standard of wages for adult males is, or necessarily must become, sufficiently high to enable the married man to maintain himself and his family. I am not saying that the standard wage in any industry answers that description at the moment, but the tendency, obviously, will be, in relation to adult male labour, to fix a standard wage which would be sufficient for the maintenance of a married man and his family. On the other hand, the great majority of women in industrial work are unmarried and a very big proportion of them are without dependents. Consequently, women will be prepared to work and even to regard as a good wage for themselves, in their circumstances, a remuneration which would be utterly inadequate and would be regarded as inadequate for a married man, and, consequently, therefore, we have got to face the practical fact that at present and for a very long time to come female labour is likely to be cheaper labour than male labour. Therefore, to create a position in which there is absolute equality between women and men in respect of industrial employment means a preference for female employment—a preference which has been exercised by employers in the past, wherever it was possible. Wherever the nature of the work was such that women could readily perform it or wherever the invention of some mechanical device enabled women to do work which previously only men could do, employers exercised a preference for female workers because female workers were prepared to work at lower rates of wages.
The next question that arises, therefore, is: Do we regard women in industry as undesirable? Obviously not. Obviously, there are a large number of industries that could not be maintained at all unless on the basis of wages which are at the present time regarded as more or less satisfactory for women workers, even though they may be regarded as unsatisfactory for male workers. The readymade clothing industry was mentioned in this debate. The progress in the readymade clothing industry has been based entirely upon the cheapness of the product, and any development which would increase the price of the readymade suit of clothes in relation to the tailormade suit of clothes would decrease considerably the productivity of the industry; it would decrease the demand for the products, and turn the demand back to tailormade products. We would have increased employment in the tailoring trade, at the expense of a decrease of employment in the readymade clothing trade, and probably, taking the aggregate output of the two trades together, a decrease in that aggregate output. There are other industries, all of which will readily occur to the minds of Deputies, which would not exist at all except for the fact that their products are cheap, and that people buy them because of their cheapness. In relation to those industries it is inevitable, I think, that women will continue to be employed, and that any attempt to substitute the existing female labour in those industries by higher paid male labour would be bound to fail, because it would result in the virtual disappearance of the industries altogether.
I do not contemplate the exercise of the powers conferred under this section in order to upset the existing position in any industry where women have definitely established themselves. It would not be possible to do it. No Minister could contemplate effecting a regulation which was going to operate to put a large number of women out of employment in an industry for which trained male labour was not available. Even if trained male labour were available the change would be too drastic to contemplate. Where, under existing practice, women are definitely established in any form of industrial work, I think they must be allowed to remain there, except a case can be made that a particular form of industrial work is physically unsuitable for women, in which case a regulation prohibiting their employment in that work can be made. But the main purpose for which, I think, those powers are necessary is to check any future development towards the replacement of existing male employment in some form of industrial work by female labour. That is necessary in our circumstances, but the necessity for that would diminish with the diminution of our unemployment problem. There are many examples of that. I quoted, as an example to a deputation which came to me on that matter, the manufacture of upholstery for motor cars. In other countries that is done very largely by female labour. The firm in Cork, Messrs. Ford, who first started the building of motor-cars in this country, decided to employ male labour at adult male rates of wages upon that class of work. When they did that, we were more or less in a position to insist upon other firms which subsequently came into the same industry adopting the same practice. At the present time, all that class of work is, I believe, being done by male workers, but at some particular stage one of those firms may substitute those male workers by female workers at lower rates of wages, and, consequently, get a competitive advantage over their rivals. If that should happen, I believe in due course every firm would be forced to adopt the same methods, and we would have an industry which is at present being conducted by male workers completely transformed into a female workers' industry.
I think we should have power to stop that tendency in the beginning in present circumstances, where we have a number of male workers unemployed, because I repeat that there is a greater social advantage in having an adult male worker employed than there is in having a female or juvenile worker employed. We should like to see them all employed, if employment could be provided for them, and, therefore, the question of using the powers conferred by this section really only arises where there is unemployment and one is forced to make an unpleasant choice as between the various classes of workers. I want definitely to remove any impression which might be created by statements that have been made here or by interested organisations in the Press to the effect that it is intended to use the powers under this Bill to cause the general displacement of women workers and their replacement by men. That is not intended at all, so far as I am concerned. The question arises there as to whether I am given power to do that under the section. I am, nor do I know any alternative to the form of this section that will be workable if we are to have the powers which we desire to have. I do not think it would be practicable to use, in relation to a Bill of this kind, the very cumbersome machinery that is laid down in the Trade Board Acts, and which has to be operated before a Trade Board can be established. That machinery undoubtedly, provides at every turn for the making of objections by interested parties, for the holding of enquiries, or the publication of notices, and so forth. The effect of having those provisions in that Act is that it is regarded as a major matter in the Department of Industry and Commerce when a decision is made to establish a new Trade Board. All sorts of officials have to be got working on the matter—legal officials as well as the officers of the department who deal with those matters generally; notices have to be prepared and published, and it is many months after the decision is made before you can get within sight of the establishment of your Trade Board. That fact has, I believe, resulted in Trade Boards not being established in respect of industries or occupations for which they should have been established, and which come within the definition set out in the Trade Board Acts.
This is a much more important matter than the establishment of a Trade Board.
I do not think so. I think the power which is given by this section is not anything as extensive as they appear to be. It is easy enough to say that this section gives to the Minister for Industry and Commerce absolute power, at his own discretion, to make those orders, but so long as the Government of this State is responsible to the Dáil and through the Dáil to the people, it is quite clear that no Minister for Industry and Commerce could attempt to exercise that power in an arbitrary manner. In order to ensure, in any event, that the idea will not enter his head, it is set out here first of all that he must have, before any regulation is made, consultation with persons who are representative of both parties in the industry in respect of which the regulation is intended. What I contemplate is, after the passage of this Act, the parties interested in the particular industries being brought into consultation with the Department of Industry and Commerce—not to consider the question of an order under Section 11, or an order under Section 12, or an agreement under Section 42, or anything else, but all those things together. I contemplate those representatives being brought in to draw up, in agreement, in so far as it is possible for us to get agreement, the regulations that are going to fix fair conditions of employment in those industries. The agreements that will be made and the decisions that will be arrived at may involve a regulation under Section 11, or a regulation under Section 12, or a regulation under some other section. They may even involve the setting up of an Apprenticeship Committee under the Apprenticeship Act, but I contemplate that we would get all those things done together in so far as it was necessary to do them for each industry, taking first the industries in respect of which we think regulations are most urgently required, and then the industries which are pretty well regulated at the present time by Trade Union action. Obviously, one of the questions that will arise at any of those conferences is: "Is it necessary to make any regulation in respect of female employment? Should we confine, not employment in the industry as a whole, but employment in some form of industrial work associated with the industry, to male workers, or should we fix the proportion which the number of women employed should bear to the total number of people employed in any form of industrial work?" Arising out of the discussions, it may or may not be decided to recommend that such regulations should be made. I think that if, arising out of these discussions affecting particular industries, a clear necessity for making such regulations should emerge, we should have power to make them and that is all that this section confirms.
I am aware that what is troubling certain of the women workers' organisations which have made representations on these matters, is the feeling that the Minister may consult with people who are not properly representative of employers or workers, even though the Minister may accept them as such. Similar fears have been expressed in relation to other sections where that provision in respect of consultation exists. I think we can get over that objection, if it is pressed, by some provision which will give to any party the right to appeal to a court to upset the regulations made on the ground that the parties who were really representative of the interests involved, whether the employers or the workers, were not consulted. So far as I am concerned, and so far as the present administration is concerned, I would aim to secure, in relation to any of these matters, agreement between the interests concerned. In some cases we might not get that agreement and have to act on our own view against the view of one or other, or both the parties; but if no agreement could be secured when consultation first takes place, it might be better to postpone making the regulations in the hope of getting agreement rather than to act in accordance with our own opinion.
That is the manner in which I would propose to utilise the powers conferred by Sections 11 and 12 and other sections. The extent of that power is very largely illusory. In fact, the Minister must be satisfied that the bulk of the people engaged in the industry will agree with the regulation he proposes to make before he makes it; otherwise the regulation could be made ineffective by those people. If there are any restrictions upon that power which Deputies think should be inserted in the Bill, I am prepared to consider them so long as they are not restrictions which are going to make the powers inoperative, restrictions which are going to involve too cumbersome machinery, which, in fact, would not be exercised. The experience always has been that if the provisions of a measure designed to secure safeguards against wanton exercise of power by the Executive, are too cumbersome or restrictive, then the power is not used at all, and the purpose for which the legislation is designed is not achieved.
I am prepared to consider any proposal designed to secure reasonable safeguards, but they are there already, in my opinion. The consultation with the representatives of both parties, coupled with the requirement that the regulations must be laid upon the Table, and can be annulled here, are adequate, and I do not think any more is required except, perhaps, power to any party to appeal to the courts on the ground that the persons consulted by the Minister were not representative of the interests concerned.
I beg to move amendment No. 41:
Before Section 13 to insert a new section as follows:
(1) The Minister may in respect of any form of industrial work, after consultation with persons who are in his opinion representative of employers engaged in such form of industrial work and with persons who are in his opinion representative of workers so engaged, by order make regulations either—
(a) prohibiting the employment of any worker at a rate of pay below a specified minimum standard of remuneration to do such form of industrial work, or
(b) fixing the proportion which the number of workers remunerated below a specified standard of remuneration employed by any employer to do such form of industrial work may bear to the total number of other workers so employed.
(2) When any regulations made under this section are for the time being in force in respect of any form of industrial work it shall not be lawful for any employer to employ to do such form of industrial work either (as the case may be) any worker or so many workers at a rate of pay below the minimum standard of remuneration specified in such regulations that the number of such workers so employed by such employer bears to the number of other workers so employed a proportion greater than that fixed by such regulations.
(3) If, when any regulations made under this section are for the time being in force, any employer employs a worker or a number of workers in contravention of such regulations such employer shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be guilty of an offence in respect of every day on which such contravention continues.
Making a case for the reasonableness of the last section, the Minister said he did not intend to use it in any wanton way; he did not intend to do anything which would have an upsetting effect on industry; he just wanted to guard against the possibility of there being an undesirable extension of female employment in industry, and, consequently, it was necessary for him to be armed with the powers conferred on him by the section and the House could rest assured that these powers would be used in a very reasonable way. Indeed, the Minister almost suggested they would be used in an extremely timid way.
In this proposed new section I want to give the Minister power to deal with an emergency of a similar kind. The provisions of this section are designed to give the Minister power to restrict the employment of low-paid workers in any form of industrial work. Seeing that the manner in which the powers will be exercised is couched in language similar to the previous section, I do not think the Minister can reasonably object to be armed with the powers specified in the new section.
There is nothing very new in the principle suggested in the amendment. The same principle is virtually enshrined in this section as is enshrined in Section 12. In the latter section it is specified that the Minister should have power to prohibit the employment of any female worker to do any form of industrial work and in Section 11 the Minister has power to prohibit the employment of any young person to do any form of industrial work. These two sections are desirable, but I think the Minister should also be armed with powers much similar in principle to restrict the employment in industry of an overwhelming volume of low-paid workers. The Minister has power to prohibit the employment of young persons in industry, but there may be persons employed who, while not being young persons, are probably as undesirable in that industry as if they were young persons by the reason that they are possibly receiving a rate of wages as low as, or perhaps lower than that paid to a young worker.
I want the Minister to consider the position which might conceivably arise in future under the scheme of codes which he has in mind. It might be possible, in respect of a particular type of industry competing with another type of industry, that the employers in the industry paying a higher rate of wages would join with the representatives of the workers in making representations to the Minister to the effect that their existence was being menaced, that their rates of wages and conditions of employment were being menaced by reason of the fact that in a competing industry, or perhaps a group of industries, there was an undue proportion of low-paid labour. I think in a case of that kind the Minister should be armed with powers to deal with such a situation, especially if the situation is one in which the representatives of the employers and the workers are prepared to come together for the purpose of making representations to the Minister. The powers conferred in this amendment will be exercisable by the Minister. They cannot be brought into play without his consent and without positive action on his part, and therefore, I hope the Minister will soon be armed with the power to deal with the emergency where the employment of low-paid workers would be deemed to be socially an evil.
This amendment proposes to give the Minister power which, in my opinion, he should not have. If workers in an industry are not organised in unions or associations and it is necessary because of the circumstances existing in that industry to fix minimum rates of wages, we have the Trade Boards Act to provide for that. That is quite adequate to deal with it. Once a trade board has been established it can deal with this. If an industry does not come within that description, if the majority of the workers are organised in unions and they are in a position to negotiate agreements with the employers then standard wages should be fixed by agreement. My proposals for dealing with the matter are set out in Section 42 of the Bill. If there is any idea that rates of wages are to be fixed otherwise than by agreement—if they are to be fixed by administrative action —then that is a matter that we cannot concede, for if we did we would have to go considerably further and ensure that these rates were going to be properly observed. I think that if there is any question of giving the Department power to interfere for the purpose of fixing minimum rates that we should not just leave it at that but that we should consider the whole matter of trade unions in the new system as well. In my view, it is much more desirable in the circumstances that rates of wages should be fixed by agreement between representatives of the workers and the employers and I propose in Section 42 of the Bill that where there is such an agreement made between the workers and the employers, on registration it can be legally enforced by everybody concerned. That is as far as I would consent to go at the present time.
Illogicalities contrary to fact will never meet. In this matter we seem to be getting further apart. In Section 12 there is a restriction on the employment of female workers ostensibly because they bring down wage rates. Deputy Norton in this amendment wants to prevent low-paid workers being engaged in industry. Let us take low-paid workers as meaning women. Why is the Deputy so afraid of women in industry if the section is in? He should not have any terrors as to the wage-lowering effect of women in industry. The Minister thinks he cannot stop here, that if he takes one step he has to go further. But the Minister finds that he has taken one step. There are trade boards in connection with minimum wages. Are they enforceable? If their agreements are enforceable, why not this? Why not have a complete exclusion of the Minister's power with regard to women in industry and, instead, tackle this whole thing from the angle of low-paid workers? I have no belief in the argument that it cannot be done. If you pass legislation you must enforce it. But we are about enforcing legislation which does establish minimum rates. If we can do that we should surely be able to say "we will not have more than a certain proportion of low-paid wage rates." Certainly if the question of low-paid workers is to be tackled it is to be tackled on this basis and not on the basis of giving the Minister power to exclude women as a class because women have a tendency to lower the wage rate. We are told that Section 42 is the farthest that the Minister will go. That section means that there are wage agreements registered, and if they are, the Department will see to their enforcement. There is not a bit of timidity about the Department in that.
The Department does not undertake to enforce them at all.
But it establishes a way of enforcing them through the courts and it does not follow that the courts will be faced with an impossible task. Otherwise, the Section is futile. The Department thinks it is right to pass a standard like that and throw it to the courts. Yet it will not accept Deputy Norton's standard and throw it to the courts. I consider there will be considerable difficulty in enforcing Section 42 on the employer, but not on the worker. We will be faced, I suppose, with the statement that in the general strike in England in 1926 certain legal pundits were able to declare that the strike was illegal. Apart from anything else, would the fact that certain legal pundits declared it illegal, have stopped the strike? Not a bit of it. In the same way, legal agreements made between the workers and the employer will not prevent the workers from going on strike in defiance of these agreements. The reason is that you can get after the individual employer, because he is one single man, but how can you get after 2,000 or 3,000 employees and enforce wages agreements on them? It is nonsense to think you can, and everybody knows it. The trade unions in their strength can laugh at Section 42. They know it is not a double-edged sword. It is a single-edged sword. They know that it can be used against the employer but not against the workers. But it cannot be ruled out on the grounds of the impossibility of enforcing it. That is not the ground on which it can be ruled out.
No; but I maintain that it is undesirable that this method of fixing wages in respect of industries that are organised should be resorted to. If the industries are organised then there are trade unions that are quite capable of enforcing the agreements.
Then we are to leave it to the consciousness that they will be regulated according to the strength of the unions. If it is desired to prevent underpaid labour in industry; to prevent, say, women in industry because women have a lowering effect upon wage rates in industry, then tackle the thing from this angle, and get after the vice of low-wage rates. Do not get after what is an excuse for the vice, women in industry. I would prefer to have Section 12 dropped and Deputy Norton's amendment put in than to have Deputy Norton's amendment dropped and Section 12 put in. Because you are then tackling low wages and you are tackling them in the right way. The Minister says that if the agreements for wages are registered "we will enforce them under the law." In these circumstances, you decide that you will establish minimum rates of wages and you will enforce them. There is no doubt about the capacity of the State to enforce them. As regards this, however, we think it is not the proper thing to do. The Minister says because of the impossibility of enforcing it, it should be left to the unions. Deputy Norton thinks the Minister should have power to declare restriction on the employment of low-paid workers and that he should have some weapon like this. At any rate, if the Minister has these powers he will be strengthened.
I see nothing in the argument of the Minister, because, in effect, that means that if you cannot get 100 per cent. compliance with legislation, you should not enforce it. You may get 100 per cent. compliance by degrees. The fact that you have it there will aid you to get it by progressing to the 100 per cent. compliance.
At any rate Deputy Norton is pleading for a good principle. I do not know how he is going to get a definition of the low-paid worker. That will be difficult. But let it be assumed that there is some national standard and that there are people who fall below that, and therefore classifiable as low-paid workers. It is surely the proper thing to see that those people who are recognised to be low-paid should not be allowed to have that weakening effect upon the wage level generally, and particularly, should not be allowed to have that effect under the Bill, which has only a backing and only a context in conditions of great unemployment, and, especially, when it is unemployment in a country which has gone completely mad on tariffs where the consumers pay and where the consumers ought to be able to say that there is a community benefit instead of an employer benefit. We get the community benefit instead of the employer benefit by saying that we are not going to have the employers making at the expense of the community in a tariffed industry and not passing on the benefit to the workers. If the low-paid workers' section will aid in spreading the benefit to the community, then I am in favour of it, and I see no reason why it should not be enforced.
I cannot understand the Minister's attitude in resisting an amendment of this kind. Apparently, to meet the criticism advanced against Section 12, he proceeded to deprecate the strength of that section. He took the view that it was a section which would only be used in extreme cases. He is given power by the amendment to be able to adopt similar restrictive activities in respect of low-paid workers. The Minister sees in this amendment, which is in principle the same as Section 12, all kinds of dangers which he does not profess to see from his own standpoint in Section 12.
Does not the Deputy know that if this section were in the Bill every time a body of workers went on strike they would come to the Department of Industry and Commerce and propose that their maximum demand should be made the minimum standard under this section?
They can do that at present whether they go on strike or not. Is there anything in a body of workers, either when on strike or not on strike, saying to the Minister that he should look at that particular problem and consult with the union and the employers, and in the light of his consultation see whether it is desirable to use the powers of that section? He is not compelled to use the powers of the section. He is not obliged to take the viewpoint of the union or the viewpoint of the particular employer. He has only to make up his own mind in the national interest.
If I do not take the viewpoint of the union, what happens?
I will hear the Minister on that. I do not know what the Minister has in mind.
It will not be illegal to pay it. That is one thing. They may still go on strike, but they will not have the further weapon of illegality.
The Minister seemed to think that if there is an industry in which the workers are lowly paid that their remedy is a trade board.
If it is unorganised.
If it is unorganised and the workers are lowly paid. This statement was made by the Minister a few minutes after saying that the procedure for setting up trade boards was so cumbersome that he, with Ministerial responsibility, said it probably resulted in trade boards not being set up. This is the remedy which the Minister gives us to deal with employment of this kind. So that the remedy which the Minister offers is one which he has confessed himself was pretty ineffective.
I have not said it is ineffective.
From the fact of the cumbersome character of the machinery.
It means that a case has to be very obvious before a trade board is set up, but new trade boards have been set up.
We were told by the Minister that the machinery for setting up a trade board was cumbersome and that he believed it had resulted in trade boards not being set up. Now he supplements that viewpoint by saying that, notwithstanding that cumbersome machinery, notwithstanding the fact that the setting up of a trade board is an event in the Department of Industry and Commerse, they have managed to set up a few in very obvious cases. In other words, when you are in danger of squeezing the life almost out of the worker you will get a trade board, but if there is any chance of being able to hang on without a trade board, then leave that piece of cumbersome machinery alone. That is the remedy which the Minister offers us to deal with the problem of the low paid workers. In other debates in this House the Minister seemed to me to be keen upon wanting to get into his hands the power to regulate wages.
I have not said so. I said that if the trade unions come and say that they cannot do it, and that they resign their responsibility for it, I am prepared to undertake it. But I do say that the two of us cannot be at it at the same time.
That is their only argument about women — that they have a lowering effect on industry and that the trade unions cannot control it.
I agree that if Section 13 were operated it would probably not necessitate the resort to the powers conferred in Section 12. But if the Minister is going to deal with Section 12 in the timid way indicated in his speech on that section, he ought certainly to have Section 13 and in that respect he will not incur the hostility of any organisations representing women.
Not at first.
Even if the trade boards can be regarded as an adequate remedy for employment of this kind, surely the Minister does not consider that the rates of wages fixed by trade boards are ideal rates of wages. Surely the Minister cannot feel so satisfied with the rates of wages fixed by trade boards.
I think you are on dangerous ground there. What is your specified minimum standard? Who is going to fix it?
That is quite another problem. My standard is not necessarily tied to the trade board standard; while there are in some cases trade union agreements made between employers and workers which are regarded as the trade board standard, in these cases reasonable rates of wages are paid.
They are minimum rates.
But if the Minister looks at the minimum rates paid in certain industries under the Trade Boards Acts he will find no ground for saying that the trade board rates of wages, where the minimum is often the maximum, are rates about which he cannot feel in any way satisfied. The fixation of rates of wages by the Minister is not a new function for the Minister. If the Minister looks up the Transport Act, 1933, he will find that he takes power to prescribe fair rates of wages. We are asking under this section that he should have the same power to prescribe minimum rates of wages and he is to do that not under compulsion but of his own free will after having consulted the employers and representatives of the workers. I think the principle enshrined in this amendment is good. I think that in a country which is young industrially it is exceptionally good. I agree with Deputy McGilligan that it is desirable at this stage to make it clear to those charged with the responsibility of running industry that the community expects, in return for the inconveniences to which it subjects itself on behalf of industry, and for the burden which it bears on behalf of industry, that those charged with the administration of industry shall reciprocate by conforming to standard calculated to raise the standard of living in the country. This is a power which is to be given to the Minister for use in his own discretion for use in extreme cases. But the Minister proceeds to assume that you cannot possibly have the extreme case.
I am assuming that in every industry there will be a demand for the use of this particular power.
And why not? Why shudder at that?
It would make thing practically impossible.
Why should that be? I would shudder if I thought that there was such an amount of under paid labour in existence that the Minister would be embarrassed by the number of demands made.
What I am assuming is that on occasions of a trade disput representation would be made on behalf of the unions that their maximum demand shall be made the minimum.
But that does not mean that the Minister would adm them.
It means that if the power was once used you would the see a big increase in the number of trade disputes.
I do not see that the Minister has anything to fear that the powers contained in this section would prove any embarrassment from a social or personal point of view. This gives the unions and employers power to consult and gives power "prohibiting the employment of any worker at a rate of pay below the specified minimum standard of remuneration" and fixes "the proportion which the number of workers remunerated below the specified standard of remuneration employed by any employer to do such form of industrial work, may bear to the total number of other workers so employed." Is there anything wrong in principle in the State taking power to prohibit the employment of persons in receipt of low rates of wages? I do not think the Minister would say "yes" to that. If there is nothing wrong in it in principle, what is there wrong in practice? The Minister's fear, I think, is that there might be a dispute initiated for a certain standard rate of wages, and that he would be asked to evoke the powers of the section to show that the rates demanded should be regarded as minimum rates. Assuming that that claim was made on behalf of workers, the Minister could say it is exaggerated and make that defence.
In a certain area in connection with the embroidery business where wages were fixed under the Trade Boards Acts, the workers demonstrated on the ground that the wages were too high.
They would not have been so fixed if the Department and consulted with the representatives of the industry.
We had the union representatives from the Trades Board.
Had you representatives from the union on the workers' able?
Yes.
Can we have more particulars of that unique case where the workers demonstrated against a rate of wages because it was considered too high?
Yes, it was the case of the prosecution of certain persons in Donegal and there was a demonstration outside the court because of the rate of wages fixed.
I suggest that was a ramp.
It might be all right in the case of the embroidery business.
I suggest it was a ramp and that some Deputies in this House know how that ramp was organised. Some Deputies were approached and asked to make representations as to whether something could not be done in order to provide a way to reduce the wages given to the workers in that particular industry. I, for one, was approached and I refused because I saw that the ultimate effort was to reduce the wages of the workers in the industry. Other Deputies can tell the same story of people in this House being asked to procure the lowering of wages.
To secure the raising of wages.
No, we had a statement from the Minister that in a particular case the Trade Board rate of wages was considered by the workers to be too high.
Although they were very low.
Yes. They were raised and we were told that the workers were so incensed that they demonstrated against any proposal to persevere with them.
That the rates of wages as fixed would mean that there was going to be no more employment in that business.
Then it was a case of the Luddites over again. We all know what the Luddites did in another generation. This case is about as sensible. At any rate, it was a unique case. I am convinced it was a ramp, and a dishonest ramp, to state that the workers would be better off if they had a lower rate of wages, even than the starvation rate of wages they had. This is not the first time we have had that kind of thing. We have often been told that if we would only lower the rate of wages we could employ more people. That doctrine has been falsified in every instance. This is the only case that can be quoted of a number of embroidery workers in a particular part of the country rebelling against being paid too high. We have only one instance in which such a protest has been made. Even then we have no particulars produced in connection with the rate of wages that were fixed by the Trades Board. That is the case on which these arguments are founded. Does the Minister fear that if he fixes a rate of wages in a particular trade there would be a demonstration outside Government Buildings protesting against his action.
No. But you would be in danger of having confusion and industrial dislocation if you are to have the Department of Industry and Commerce and trade unions interfering in the rates of wages fixed. If you want the Department of Industry and Commerce to undertake it, then I will undertake it, but I will only do so alone.
Let us take that argument. Under Section 12 you will have cases where the trade unions look after the interests of women and men. The Minister is not content to let the unions look after the interests of women and men. He wants to come in under Section 12 and to say to them: "You are to look after both the women and the men but I am going to take a hand also. I am going to come in there and review your functions in relation to the number of women to be employed. We have that case under Section 12, and, even, under Section 11 the Minister is not prepared to stand out and keep the ring. He is going to come in under Sections 11 and 12 and I think rightly so. I want him to come in too under Section 13 and prohibit the employment of any worker at a rate of pay below the specified minimum standard of remuneration for such form of industrial work, and I want him to fix the proportion which the number of workers remunerated below the specified standard may be to the total number of other workers so employed. The Minister's defence is that because the unions are doing that work he does not want to do it as well. He said that in the course of the discussion on the proposed new Section 13 which immediately follows the two sections in which the Minister interferes with the unions where they are catering for a particular problem in which he wants to meddle. I suggest to the Minister that he could have no valid objection to this section, if he does not want to interfere in the regulation of wages.
Except in unorganised trades.
That may be a perfectly legitimate point for the Minister, but it is not an argument against this section. The Minister says there is an administrative difficulty and that he dislikes this particular job, but that is not an argument as to why he should reject the powers which are conferred on him by the new section and which he need not utilise if he likes. I could quite understand if this section were so drawn that it forced the Minister to act, but, instead of putting any compulsion on the Minister, I give him the option of taking the powers—he need not use them if he likes—to be used in cases in which there is an undue proportion of lowly-paid workers to highly-paid workers.
I would support the amendment if the Fascist State had been established, but I would certainly want to have a Fascist State.
So the Minister is not going to take power to eliminate an undue proportion of lowly-paid workers until the Fascist State is established?
I never said anything of the kind. That is a gross misrepresentation.
The Minister in any case would vote for the new section in a Fascist State?
I did not say that, but you would require a Fascist State to operate it.
You would not vote for it in a democratic State?
It would be impossible to operate it in a democratic State.
What is wrong with our democracy? What are we all talking about democracy for if we cannot eliminate the lowly-paid workers from industry? As a matter of fact, I read a recent speech of the Minister in defence of democracy. I do not know any country in which a democratic Government suffers from the weakness that it cannot prevent lowly-paid employment. Certainly one of the privileges of democracy should be that you would have power to eliminate the lowly-paid worker.
There is the difficulty of getting agreement as to what is a lowly paid worker.
If there is not agreement, under the proposed new section, the Minister need not operate it but if the Minister feels that he should do something, he can exercise it.
Is it not clear that the section, even if passed, is worthless from what he said to-night?
I agree my enthusiasm for it has somewhat shrunken in view of the attitude adopted by the Minister on Section 12 in defending himself against Deputy McGilligan.
Is it not clear that he would not use your new section if it were there?
I think he recants what he said about the Fascist State. I am prepared to take the risk of having it put in the section, even though the Minister may not intend to operate it. I want the section put into operation and implemented if possible.
And I would spend the rest of my life receiving deputations and refusing to operate this section.
That is a sound point.
Is there anything wrong in receiving deputations which seek the elimination of lowly paid workers?
There is. Politicians cannot be always refusing.
The Deputy apparently speaks from experience.
From a certain amount of experience and also from an appreciation of certain people's weaknesses.
I have read some of the Minister's election promises.
Shame!
Dead Sea fruit.
There is a society for the prevention of cruelty to children.
It should be invoked to protect the Deputy from himself. Even promises were made in the Fianna Fáil election manifesto——
In what?
In the election manifesto.
The plan, you mean.
The manifesto; the plan is part of it if you like. This amendment is pink almost as compared with the promises contained in the manifesto. I thought it should not be necessary having regard to these promises, to ask the Minister to accept an amendment of this kind. It is in no way revolutionary or radical. From the Minister's previous utterances on industrial matters I assumed he would be only too willing to accept an amendment of this kind and put it into the Bill. The only case the Minister can make against it is that he does not want to be receiving deputations all his life or whilst he is Minister, dealing with the question of lowly-paid workers. I say it is worth while putting the Minister to the trouble if we can get lowly-paid workers eliminated from industry.
Section 42 will be quite effective.
Section 42 will never be effective if it stands in its present form. The Minister knows that the trades unions objected to Section 42 as it stands. Section 42 is no remedy. This new section represents an attempt to give the Minister power which I think he should have—he need not exercise it if he does not like, but he can exercise if he thinks it necessary —to eliminate from industry the worst evil of industrialism, the lowly-paid worker menace.
I should like to get this into its proper perspective. I do not know what the Minister's main argument against this is. I heard him interrupt about strikers making terms but I do not know that I have got the point yet. Deputy Norton should realise that this would be an uncomfortable section for the Minister, with his past and his promises, to operate because he has to do either of two things. He has only faced up to one alternative himself, that he would have to be constantly refusing people who would come to him to demand that the section should be made operative. He has another alternative equally undesirable from his angle. He cannot fix a specific minimum below which workers should not be paid and without which the section would be useless. I think that he would have to fix it so low that it would cause an outcry. Sometimes you have certain rather sentimental speeches in this House and people become agitated about slave conditions, un-Christian conditions, and so on, but when you proceed in a Bill to put in cold print what is your standard of the non-Christian or the unChristian conditions, you find yourself up against a lot of things, stretching your levels and increasing your gaps. We remember the Moneylenders Bill. When it was first introduced, people began to wander in the direction of 5 and 7 per cent., and thought that 12 per cent. was a terrific rate of interest, but what happened? It is now found that up to 39 per cent. can be charged under certain conditions. It has to be charged to allow for the ordinary conditions under which money is lent and even to allow for what is socially desirable for the lending of money. So if in the future the Minister had to sit down with his knowledge of the unemployment situation, the difficulty of getting industry going and the conditions that have to be tolerated in industry at the beginning to keep the wheels moving, there would be flashed on an astonished community a basic wage that would shock the community. That is the main difficulty.
I should like to have this looked into. I am not at all in favour of the amendment as desirable in a Bill which in itself is undesirable which is only made partly desirable because of the undesirable circumstances in which we find ourselves. We are trying not to increase employment but merely to spread out unemployment, to spread the evil effects of unemployment among a greater number of people. These are the circumstances as I see them. There is enough unemployment here and the Minister is trying to deal with the matter as if unemployment were not a normal matter. He is trying to keep various people, women and children, out of industry. Deputy Norton readily makes the point that if the Minister is prepared to prevent young people and women from entering industry he should certainly have power to prevent the employment of lowly paid employees in industry.
If it is possible to prohibit young people, and, particularly, if it is possible, in the teeth of the opposition that such a reactionary clause will arouse, to prohibit women in industry, it ought to be eminently easy and very desirable to prevent low paid workers in industry. Now, in present circumstances, we have to think not merely in terms of unemployment but in terms of the ransom that at the moment is being paid by the community because of extremely high tariffs. When you have a tariff barrier of a particular height that is able to give a certain amount of protection to the home manufacturer and, at the same time, is able to give him a stimulus and an incentive to do good work—because there will be other goods coming in of the type he produces—a manufacturer in such circumstances cannot hold the community to ransom. Under those conditions you may not get a speedy development in industry, but you will get a sound development in industry, one that will last. Instead of that, we have wandered behind these huge tariff barriers.
I assert that where you have 80 and 90 per cent. tariffs, as you have here to-day, the community is being ransomed in the price it pays. I do not think that anyone can come into the House and demand that the community should pay that ransom to benefit certain employers, their families and friends only. The only philosophy on which such a policy can be based is that the community itself will benefit, because in the end, when the community benefits, we all benefit. If that benefit gives more purchasing power through more wages and more industry, there will be less unemployment assistance, less unemployment insurance, and less taxation. But the position is that we are having it both ways at the moment. Ordinary taxes are heavy and the community is being held to ransom by high prices. We want to see, in any event, that the benefit of these high prices will go to the community and not to individuals or to the families of individuals. There is one way of doing that, although it may not be a very good way. We should say that here we have a system under which the goods we manufacture are protected from competition. The market here is reserved to our manufacturers and the community must, of necessity, buy certain types of goods from them. Let us, at any rate, not have the community sacrificed, benefiting only a few people, because it does not do the community any great good if a group of employers, their families and relatives should be able to live better than they were doing. But the community derives a vast advantage if purchasing power through wages is spread through the community.
With those high tariffs, I do not see why the Minister should be timid about facing up to manufacturers and saying that if there was free competition, if they were subject to outside intervention, if goods manufactured abroad by cheap labour could come in here, that the impact of all that would be such that he could not fix rates of wages at too high a level. But he could also say to them: "Here you have a closed borough protected by 80 and 90 per cent. tariffs and I am going to see that you will spread some of that benefit over the community." There is a good philosophy in that. But the Minister's difficulty, despite all his talk about employment growing, increased prosperity, and all the rest, is that he would have to put to himself this question: "What wages can I fix in a particular industry protected, as it is, in the main, by a tariff of 80 or 90 per cent., and how am I to expose myself before the world that for this community in the Irish Free State I have got to fix a low rate of wages?" Is not that a complete answer to all his talk about the increased wealth and prosperity in the country? That is his difficulty. He knows that he could not fix that low rate of wages, although if there was prosperity, he should be able to do it. Suppose there is a lag in the growth of industry, cannot the Minister —if this is his case, and he can make his case better inside his office than here in the House—when these workers come to him and say that they want a higher rate of wages, turn to them and say: "If I fix that now it will be a real downward trend; it will be a pointer downward; wait a year or two; things are on the up-grade and you have only to bide your time to feel the flush of prosperity." He can tell them to tighten their belts and, with his persuasiveness, can get the workers to agree, because, in the end, the workers will lose if they insist on a rate of wages being fixed higher than industry can afford. Industry will not pay it; it will go out.
On the other hand. I have fears of this, because it is in a very adroit way introducing the Australian conditions. Australia was protected by high tariffs and had a wages board. It had a wages board prior to the war. That wages board had on it a majority of people whose minds were, say, attuned to the mind of whoever the Australian Deputy Norton was. The workers there wanted a certain wage. What happened was that you got tariffs. The tariffs raised the cost of living, and then the workers found that their wages were not buying as much as they used to buy. The result was that they applied for an increase. They got the increase, and the moment they got it it was found that it was equivalent to reducing the tariff by 5 per cent. Then there was an application for an increased tariff. All that brought Australia to a certain condition in the end. It was not a desirable end. With that example before us, I would feel a bit perturbed about this amendment of Deputy Norton.
The circumstance that we have here is that the Minister for Industry and Commerce states that if we are not actually rolling in prosperity at the moment, that prosperity is just around the corner. I do not know how far off the corner is. If that be the case, the Minister is not in any great danger if he accepts the amendment, because he can postpone fixing the specified minimum rate until the prosperity has come. The workers may get tired of waiting for that prosperity. If that should happen, then the Minister, in his office, and through the Press, will have to say that he is rather a bit afraid that prosperity is not keeping the appointment up to time. Then we will get truth, clarity and fact, and we want all that. If the situation is that our industrialists, protected by tariffs of 80 and 90 per cent., are able to deliver the goods, then they ought to be able to deliver the wages. I think good industrialists in this country will not pass an uneasy second in their night's sleep by reason of this amendment, but certain shockingly bad employers, brought into this country by these 80 and 90 per cent. tariffs will, and the sooner that we get rid of these people the better. The work they do is being extracted from the scope of the work that the good manufacturer might do, and the more that we can put into the hands of good manufacturers operating under good conditions, the better for industry, the better for the health of the workers, and the better for conditions all round. There is a good philosophy in all that. This amendment seems to tend towards that, and I think the Minister should accept it.
I ask the Minister to say why he makes this peculiar divagation that it is necessary to have the power to preclude women from employment because they depress wages, and that it is not proper to have the power to exclude from work low paid wage-earners? Surely, they will depress wages as much as women ever can. If it is right to have that power in Section 12, the Minister ought to accept this amendment. I do not say that there is not another situation that might develop, and that is that Section 12 should be dropped and that, instead, this amendment, which refers to the employment of low paid workers be substituted. The only argument used with regard to women in industry was that women gave cheap labour and, therefore, that they had the effect that this section is designed to prevent. I hope that, with Deputy Norton's assistance, I will be able to get Section 12 deleted on the Report Stage. I will bargain with him on that. Let us attack the principle of low paid wages. Do not let us attack it in one of its manifestations as regards women. I do not believe that it is correct to say that women, in fact, have a depressing effect on wages. I thought that stage had long since passed, but if that is the case, let us attack low paid wages where they occur. This is a fainthearted amendment, but I can see that it could be a highly dangerous amendment if supposing Deputy Norton was the Minister and he had the duty of operating it in one of his proletarian intelligentsia moods. You might get a medium or a good man to operate it fairly or decently. You might get a good employer to operate it decently, because he would like to operate it to help a good employer and cut out the bad employer, and thereby have good employment. But, as between the two, the Minister will not operate it so as to do any good from Deputy Norton's viewpoint or my viewpoint. If Deputy Norton had control, he would operate it in a way which would ruin industry, but there is no danger of that at the moment.
Deputy McGilligan's speech in favour of the amendment would have been a good one if it had anything to do with it. But it had nothing to do with the amendment. The question is not whether there should be high wages or low wages. It is a question of whether, in organised industries, it is more desirable to have rates of wages regulated by negotiation between trade unions and associations of employers or by State action. Deputy Norton wants to regulate the wages by State action. I think that, in organised industries, they should be regulated by agreement between the parties, and I propose, as an alternative to this amendment, Section 42.
Tá
- Bourke, Séamus.
- Broderick, William Joseph.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Corish, Richard.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Costello, John Aloysius.
- Dillon, James M.
- Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
- Everett, James.
- Finlay, John.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Holohan, Richard.
- Keating, John.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Lavery, Cecil.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McGovern, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James Edward.
- Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
- Norton, William.
- O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Neill, Eamonn.
- Reidy, James.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Rowlette, Robert James.
Níl
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Brian.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Carty, Frank.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Daly, Denis.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
- Doherty, Hugh.
- Donnelly, Eamon.
- Dowdall, Thomas P.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Geoghegan, James.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Goulding, John.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Lynch, James B.
- MacDermot, Frank.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Moore, Séamus.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ryan, James.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Ward, Francis C.
I suggest to Deputy Norton that amendment No. 42 should be kept over for the next Bill dealing with factories and workshops, which will contain general provisions regarding health and safety. This matter more properly arises on that Bill than on this.
The Minister is repealing the Factory Acts and when this Bill becomes an Act there will be a gap until the passing of the other Bill. The Factory Acts will lapse meantime.
We are only repealing certain sections of the Factory Acts.
This is one of the sections being repealed.
I do not think so, but I will look into it.
If this section is eliminated from the Factory and Workshop Acts under this Bill, will the Minister see that there will be no gap?
I do not think that is so, but I will look into it.
I move amendment No. 44:—
Before sub-section (3) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
It shall not be lawful for any employer to employ to do industrial work any outworker unless he has inscribed in a register kept by him for that purpose the name and address of such outworker and particulars of all materials delivered and wages paid to such outworker.
The object of the amendment is to see that if outworkers are employed they will be controlled and that the registers will be available for inspection. I take it that the Minister thinks that that is a desirable thing.
I agree with the principle of the amendment. I propose to have regulations made under Section 53 which will give the Minister power to make orders prescribing that records are to be kept. It is under the powers conferred by that section that we proposed to deal with the matter. I think it would be better to do it that way, so that precise regulations might be made and different regulations for different industries.
Can I take it that the Minister will cover this question?
I think it is a good idea.
I move amendment No. 45:—
Before sub-section (5), to insert the following sub-section:—
Whenever he may be so requested every employer who for the doing of any industrial work employs any worker or outworker shall permit the duly authorised representative of the trade union of which such worker is for the time being a member, at any reasonable time to inspect and take a copy of a piece work particulars docket, a piece work particulars placard or a piece work particulars book for the time being in use and if so requested in writing by the secretary of such trade union shall send to the principal office of such trade union a duly authenticated copy of such piece work particulars docket, piece work particulars placard, or piece work particulars books as aforesaid, relating to any such worker.
Is the Minister accepting the amendment?
No.
The Minister said a few moments ago that he was standing for trade unionism. Now, when I want to get the opportunity to enable a trades union official to inspect a docket issued to a worker the Minister will not accept the proposal. If this amendment is defeated the Minister will doubtless again proclaim that he is standing for trades unionism.
The only advocate of trades unionism in the House.
The trades union movement has to be protected from his advocacy! The object here is to ensure that whenever an employer is requested by an authorised representative of the workers he may inspect particulars which are on the piece-work dockets, piece-work placards or piece-work particulars book, which are the basis of the rates of remuneration of the workers. It is a reasonable requirement that if an employer is issuing bona fide particulars to workers, and if there is fair dealing, that the dockets providing the remuneration at the rate agreed upon between the worker and the employer may be furnished. The employers should have no hesitation whatever in consenting to have such particulars furnished to the representatives of the trades unions. It may be argued by the Minister that this is unnecessarily interfering with the work of employers. I can assure the Minister that no trades union official wants to inspect particulars of this kind merely for the purpose of wasting his time inspecting them. The fact that he may require information of this kind might help to obviate the development of friction in the industry which, if it took place, would have more serious effects on workers and employers than if these particulars were furnished.
The question arises, who is going to enforce this? We think the provision could be more effectively enforced by the factory inspectors, and for that reason I propose to resist the amendment.
Hear, hear.
Deputy MacDermot is after voting for an amendment for low wages in an industry, and he now says "hear, hear" to the Minister. This is a curious kind of alliance. It is, according to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, going to help the trade union movement. The Minister may get a bit embarrassed by some of his friends that are going to help him in opposing trades unionism. Deputy MacDermot says he is in favour of the Minister's objection to the trade union movement. I should have thought that the fact that Deputy MacDermot objected to this amendment would be one of the reasons that the Minister should accept it.
But look at all the people who voted with him!
Quite; but if the Minister held up the mirror to the people who voted for him, he might be embarrassed.
Confusion worse confounded !
The Deputy will probably vote with the Minister this time, and, while going to the Division Lobby, may explain why he is with him. I think that it is desirable that the workers' representative should be entitled, since he represents the workers' interests and is freely acknowledged by the worker as his representative, to inspect a docket of this kind or to have a duly authenticated copy of it sent to him on application. I think that if a regulation of that kind were made it would avoid a lot of annoyance and irritation. I am sure that the Minister has come across cases from time to time where he though the action of employers was needlessly stubborn and that that stubbornness might have been avoided if there had been a little bit of give and take. The object of this amendment is to see that the representative of the workers should be entitled to inspect certain dockets, and I hold that there should be no reason for refusing them.
It must be understood that this section is not a new provision. It is merely bringing into this Bill what is contained already in the existing law. I would also remind the Deputy that the information contained in these dockets is confidential. In fact, in a later section we make it an offence to reveal trade secrets.
It is not designed here for that purpose.
I know, but the main purpose of the section is to bring the Bill into conformity with the existing law. In so far as it may be necessary to enforce the section, the Minister for Industry and Commerce has undertaken to do that.
Would it be an offence for the trade union to be supplied with the particulars of piece-work and the rates of outside and inside work?
No, the only offence is in connection with the disclosing of a trade secret.
Yes, but that is the only protection the employee has. Does the section make it illegal?
No. In some industries the actual rating of work is regarded as a trade secret, and particular employers guard their division of work and their division of labour very carefully. It is illegal at present for any person to reveal the contents of a piece-work docket for the purpose of disclosing that trade secret. As I say, in this section we are merely carrying on the existing law. I do not think there is any case to be made for Deputy Norton's amendment at all.
We have plenty of evidence where employers have been found to put one rate of wages on outside labour and a different wage rate on the people inside. Is there any guarantee that the employers will not attempt by this means to bring the aggregate wage down? Is the worker not entitled to use that docket?
The worker is entitled to use the docket to show what he has earned.
That would not mean giving away secrets of the trade?
No.
Tá
- Corish, Richard.
- Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
- Everett, James.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Keyes, Michael.
- Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
- Norton, William.
Níl
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Bourke, Séamus.
- Brady, Brian.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Daly, Denis.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamonn.
- Dillon, James M.
- Doherty, Hugh.
- Donnelly, Eamon.
- Dowdall, Thomas P.
- Finlay, John.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Geoghegan, James.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Goulding, John.
- Holohan, Richard.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Keating, John.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Lynch, James B.
- MacDermot, Frank.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Murphy, James Edward.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Neill, Eamonn.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Rice, Edward.
- Rowlette, Robert James.
- Ryan, James.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Ward, Francis C.