Before the Adjournment I was dealing with the effect of a strike on a worker who has no say in the original decision to take strike action. Through no fault of his own he is prevented from attending his place of employment by the erection of pickets. I referred to a discussion I had on Sunday morning with a number of trade unionists and to the position of one man who is paid £5 a week by his own trade union, who is paying over £3 a week for his flat, who has a wife and five children, and whose landlady was pressing him to pay increased rent. I have already expressed my view of the landlady concerned. I asked that the social welfare benefit be made available to a man in that position. It has come to my knowledge that he can apply for public assistance, but the person I have in mind has never been out of work before and would find it very difficult to bring himself to go to the public assistance officer for help. He is prepared to put himself into debt for a number of years ahead rather than suffer the indignity as he said, of going to the public assistance officer. This man has asked me specifically to express the point of view that some social welfare benefits should be payable. However, this is not altogether feasible inasmuch as many other people, taxpayers, who would have absolutely nothing to do with the strike would be paying him.
I suggest—I think it is an original suggestion—that the union putting up the picket should have the responsibility of compensating the workers who did not have an opportunity of voting on the original strike action. A number of these unions, particularly the British-based unions, are very wealthy. He cannot get social welfare benefit or public assistance or, as in the case of my constituent, the latter is unacceptable to him. There is another point, that the trade unionist might not be in benefit with his union and if he does not get some benefit or compensation, he must live on fresh air or the goodwill of his friends. My constituent is living on £5 a week and on the goodwill of his friends and will have to repay all the money he borrows from them. I would urge the Minister that a union should be made pay compensation in the circumstances I have outlined.
The second point of view put to me does not relate to a strike; it relates to this fashionable word "rationalisation" which, as this worker felt, is a euphemism for redundancy. In his Christmas pay packet from his firm he received notice that the factory intends closing down in five years' time. This, of course, is what a happy Christmas is all about apparently in the view of some employers. This man lives in Dún Laoghaire and the factory is to be re-located over 15 miles away. It intends to rationalise its whole operation in one area. Fair enough, but this worker is a specialist who has been working in that firm all his life. As he said, it is not reasonable to expect him, on a salary of £15 or even £20 a week, to spend a lot of money on bus fares, which are very high at the present time. This man is unemployable in his own locality in the sense that he is a specialist with his firm; there is no similar type of employment for him locally when his firm rationalises.
I undertook to those two men and to a number of others, but particularly to those two, that I would express their point of view in this House. I expect this is what representation is all about. I have fulfilled my obligation to them. However, talk is one thing; work and payment of subsistence allowances to people who are on strike through no fault of their own is another thing. I would urge the Minister for Labour to take a look at these two cases which I have put before him when this whole strike has been concluded.
If a worker has not security it is very difficult for him to talk of productivity, to increase productivity for the good of his country. Basically life comes down to the family unit and the obligation of a man to his wife and children or parents-in-law—who in one instance I know of are living with the family. Out of that security evolves. One has the duty to do the best for one's country but, as this man said, it is very difficult to be patriotic without security. I frankly told this man that I could not give him an answer to that problem.
In the context of the present strike it has already been suggested by a number of speakers that we should have a cooling off period similar to that applicable in the United States. This is a good idea, but, again, it is a matter possibly for future legislation as it is not acceptable to the trade unions at this time, arising out of the prolonged discussions they have had with the Minister for Labour. The matter should be given some thought in future legislation.
Coming specifically to the Bill before us, the Leader of the main Opposition Party, Deputy Cosgrave, made the point that there should be an all-Party Committee of this House set up to discuss the present industrial situation and generally the whole concept of industrial relations. As I say, this is a matter which I think is being discussed responsibly and reasonably. I always feel that the best place to discuss matters is in this House. I am a firm believer in the committee type discussion, again relating to the Senate in the United States of America, but this is too important an issue to discuss behind closed doors. I would respectfully disagree with the Leader of the main Opposition on this matter. This is a matter of public concern and should be discussed in public. If Dáil Éireann is not the place to discuss it, where else?
The Minister provides in his Bill the concept of secret ballots. It amazes me at present that there are trade unions and other types of organisations which express their decisions by a show of hands. This is an anachronism and could be subject to great abuse if there are a couple of very strong personalities and a number of weak personalities voting on the same issue. In such a case you would have the strong personalities looking down the body of the hall at some of the weaker individuals and the weaker individuals would not be prepared to show how they felt and even if their opinions were contrary to those of the stronger personalities they would vote with the stronger personalities. Therefore, the secret ballot must be welcomed. Anything else is completely out of date. In industrial organisations or any other organisations, the proper way to vote in a democracy is through the ballot box.
The group negotiations licence must be welcomed. I have already mentioned it. I called it the single channel representation. You could have a large number of people on a public floor all rushing to talk on one issue. The question of industrial relations officers was also mentioned. I know that the conciliation officers have worked very hard in the past and I have no doubt that, whether they are called by a new name or otherwise, they will work very hard in the future. Again, with respect to those hardworking individuals, I would ask the Minister when appointing new officers to consider—I do not know whether the present officers have such qualifications or not—that they should have some basic knowledge, some degree or diploma or some training in sociology and psychology. This is very important in the field of human relations, a field in which there appears to be a breakdown at the moment. It is very important that those people should have the basic knowledge as to how to deal with both sides if there should be a breakdown in trivial matters and with statements from one side or the other that do not result in decisions being reached. This is a waste of time and money from the point of view of the individuals concerned. This is a point I would ask the Minister to keep in mind when he is making appointments in future. I intend no reflection on the men who have acted as conciliation officers.
With regard to the question of the amalgamation of unions I believe the unions would welcome this. Again, it is a question of who is the chief. If there are three or four unions going to amalgamate the House can appreciate that this is a human matter, and it is a question of who is to be the head of those three or four unions. A, B or C may be the president at the moment. Who of A, B or C is to become head of those three unions when they amalgamate? This is a very human thing and I can appreciate it. Rather than abusing A, B or C, they could be encouraged to appoint their head and should amalgamate under the one head. I am not one of those who are wont to be jealous. If a man is successful, good luck to him. I do not profess to be a psychologist but I know this is a matter which could cause jealousy when unions are amalgamating.
Basically, strikes are not caused by issues. They take place because of lack of communication. I know that has become a cliché and I am sorry to use it. It expresses exactly what I mean and therefore I use it. Strikes also take place because of paternalism and this comes back to the Federated Union of Employers. It is not the accepted thing that you hit a worker on the head and say: "Go on and do your bit". That may have been accepted in the last century but it is not accepted now. Fear is basically responsible for many strikes. The employer feels that he has more education than the man representing the union and maybe the man representing the union feels, because of lack of education, a bit inferior to somebody he feels is more educated than he is. If an employer gives that impression he deserves in his firm any chaos which comes. This is again a question of human relations. As I said, fear may cause strikes.
I have already discussed the ILO Convention of 1962, on the question of equal pay for equal work and there is just one final point I should like to make in that regard. I refer particularly to the rights of widows. It appears at the moment that a widow receives the pay of a single person but a widower with children is paid the same rate as if he were married, in other words, a widower is given an allowance for a housekeeper but a widow receives no such allowance. This is most unfair to widows and it is a matter which the Minister might consider at some future time.
Finally, one point in regard to the present negotiations. Since the present negotiations are an attempt to negotiate a national agreement, a settlement at high level will be just as bad as if the strike continues. Anybody engaged in industrial relations will be well aware of what I am talking about in that context.
Before concluding, I should like to pay tribute—a tribute from one Dublin family to another—to the late James Larkin for the significance of what he did for the trade union movement in Dublin and in the rest of the country. He was a man of great integrity and he came from a family with a great tradition in the history of this country. His father was a trade unionist at a time when it was very unpopular to be connected with a trade union and young Jim Larkin, as he was known, carried on this tradition. He was an intelligent and worthwhile man and his monument will be the Workers' Union of Ireland and the trade union movement in general.
I should also like to pay tribute to Mr. James Dunne, the President of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. There is a lot to be learned from that man. He, also, is a man of great integrity and a man who says what he thinks. Perhaps, if we had more men of his type in our society today—men who would be willing to express a courageous point of view and who would lay down guidelines as to what sanity is as distinct from insanity—we should be much better off.
I should like, also, to thank the Minister for bringing such legislation before the House. I may have an amendment or two and hope that the Minister will favourably consider these in relation to the Bills before us. The Minister has brought these two Bills before us after long consultations. It is not as if the legislation were drafted in one night at the Minister's desk. The Bills have been brought into the House after long discussions and a lot of hard work by the Minister and his officials.