Union prioritises protection

There was a strong opposition from Siptu to the exploitation of migrant workers in Ireland at their special delegate conference on 31 January 2006, held in the Abbey theatre in Dublin. Shop stewards from around the country met to endorse a motion to participate in talks on a new national "social partnership" agreement. Evidence of much back-scene negotiations between union leadership and Government was evident in correspondence circulated to members. The protection of migrant workers and the displacement of Irish workers are the first obstacles to be tackled in the national agreement talks. Unions have cleared marked that they will not proceed to other strands of the talks until the "race to the bottom" is resolved.

Paul Hansard, president of the construction branch was applauded when he said "we have no problems with migrant workers, we only have problems with the exploitation of migrant workers". He spoke about how the union had been "calling for agency [contract] workers to have the same rights as full time workers since 2000, and now the majority of people working on construction sites are agency workers and they have no rights". He said: "the CFI (Construction Industry Federation) say there are some cowboys in the industry. WRONG. The CFI are the cowboys". In the absence of inspectors monitoring conditions on building sites, the union called for access to those sites. Twenty three people died on construction sites in 2005. The absence of pensions for construction industry workers was also highlighted. Tim Daly from the Cork branch spoke about how the "EU services directorate is relevant to national agreement talks as the EU directive is a blank check for exploitation". Dick Martin from the insurance and finance branch of Siptu spoke against the motion saying, "a lot had been achieved during a period of silence and a further period of silence may be advantageous". He said little or no progress had been made in the area of sick pay and pensions and that workers in the 1930s had better working conditions than those entering the work force now, who would retire in 2050. Delegates from a range of different sectors and regions of the country spoke about how outsourcing started 20 years ago in department stores, distilleries, and construction sites. Martin Conlon from the Cork branch endorsed the motion but suggested members needed a healthy scepticism due the the crisis in the health services, the unaffordability of housing for many and the Government's consistency in voting for anti-worker legislation at EU level. There was a strong emphasis on what would be the outcome of talks on a national agreement. Top of the agenda were employment standards, displacement of workers, inspection and enforcement and the protection of vulnerable workers from over seas. Correspondence between Siptu and the Taoiseach and his Secretary General, Dermot McCarthy, was circulated, emphasising that "it is the Congress position that significant progress will be made in this first strand regarding employment standards before any substantial engagement takes place around core issues".

Jack O'Connor, president of Siptu, responded to delegates' critical points on national agreements. He stated that the "state of the social wage was not attributable to social partnership but to the electorate which voted in a neo-liberal government", and that "they lay the blame where it properly rests, at the door of neo-liberalism". O'Connor said that the "construction industry was like the wild west", and that "it's an area that will be receiving full attention if authorised to go into talks". He spoke of the decision to sell a majority stake in Aer Lingus – "to hold in an island country to O'Leary in the air and Rothwell in the sea" – as a very bad decision. He said that "given the fragility of the economy, it is a more important time than ever to secure people's incomes and quality of life", and that "we are at a crucial moment in our history". He acknowledged that it was very difficult to decide the best course of action to make as there were negative consequences to going into social partnership, and that it would leave unions open to the suggestion that they were in a cosy cartel. "The reality after the rhetoric blows away is who is going to do better and who is going to do worse." He concluded by reminding delegates they retained the right to march together, no matter what.

The motion was overwhelmingly carried.

Sara Burke