Paul Murphy criticises minimal work-life balance bill

I won't take the full 20 minutes just so if there's a government speaker or anyone who is waiting next they might come down. Obviously I welcome the fact that the government is belatedly moving to bring in some improvements in terms of work-life balance for some workers. But people should be aware, and this is a bit of a consistent feature of the government, that actually what is happening here is the government is doing the bare minimum of what they are legally required to do under an EU directive on work-life balance. That's what the government is doing, it's looking for a clap on the back for doing what it is legally required to do under the EU directive and for which it has decided not to go any further, even though it could, than the minimum required. So unfortunately the government does not deserve congratulations or a clap on the back for this. The only ones really who are applauding is IBEC and the employers that they represent, because the government is 100% following what they wanted to happen in terms of this bill. They told the Oireachtas Committee on this that, quote, it is vital that the transposition exercise goes no further than necessary in transposing the minimum requirements of the directive. And that's why we have such a minimal bill that we have, no more than the minimum required by the EU directive. It's why the medical care leave provided for looking after sick children or relatives in the bill is entirely unpaid, and is only for five days a year, regardless of how unwell somebody is. Contrast that with People Before Profits' proposal two and a half years ago for unlimited paid care leave on full wages, as part of statutory employer paid sick pay. Contrast that even with Germany, where 10 days children's sick pay per parent per year is provided at up to 100% of wages. During Covid that was even increased to 20 days in Germany. The bill falls very much short of that, failing to introduce even a minimum social welfare payment for employees taking medical care leave. As with parental leave currently, medical care leave will be entirely unpaid. Everyone knows that that means it will overwhelmingly be taken up by women rather than men. So much for work-life balance, so much for gender equality. It also means it won't be an option for very many low paid workers who can't afford to lose any of their income. This includes the majority of lone parents. The bill, in a miserly, penny-pinching way, discriminates against lone parents by failing to allocate them an additional five days leave to account for the absent parent. So they just get their five days, they don't get another five days, and it's children who are ultimately discriminated against as a consequence. It's yet another way in which the state discriminates against the children of lone parents. The bill continued its kowtowing to employers throughout the provisions on the so-called right to request flexible working. There was a fair bit of attention to the right to request remote working proposed by Minister Tanishta Varadkar, which really was the right to refuse remote working. But a better name for what this is, is the right of employers to refuse flexible working. Exactly the same as the right to request and the right for an employer to refuse. It is even more stacked in favour of the employers than the right to refuse remote working proposed by your Fine Gael colleague. Unlike with remote working, this right is limited to employees with certain caring responsibilities. Of course it should be available to those with caring responsibilities, but there is no reason to limit it to them. All workers should have a real right to flexible and remote working arrangements unless there is a very good, genuine reason why that cannot be reasonably facilitated. Surely that is precisely at the heart of what work-life balance is supposed to be about. Under section 6, employers are to, quote, provide a notice in writing informing the employee that the request has been refused and the reasons for the refusal. But there is no limitation on what those reasons can be and there is no facility for a substantive appeal against a refusal. The only appeal that can be made is on procedural grounds if the employer does not respond to a request quickly enough. Grounds for an employer to postpone access to flexible working are at least listed, but are so broad that once again it is a carte blanche for bosses to do as they please. They include the wonderful phrase, quote, any other relevant matters, which ICTU correctly described as a highly problematic catch-all ground. Clearly, again, it is simply a right to ask and then a right for the boss to say, no, I am not going to facilitate flexible working. Perhaps the lack of any appeal against a boss's decision is mainly because it is mainly women workers who are envisaged as applying for flexible working and sure they should be grateful for whatever they can get, just like the survivors of the Mother and Baby Homes Minister. I also note that the bill in its current form does not include domestic violence leave. Obviously, I welcome that the Minister has said it will be legislated for through amendments at committee stage, although it is telling that we do not have it at this stage. We will be watching this very, very closely, particularly given Ibex's outrageous demand that victims of domestic violence be forced to somehow prove this to their employer in order to avail of the leave. We will be watching to see what pressure they manage to successfully apply on the Government to concede to their, in reality, complete opposition to domestic violence leave. We will be pushing and fighting for proper recognition. Thanks. ? ? ?