Paul Murphy Slams 'Gesture Politics' on Right to Remote Work

Thanks a lot to Labour for bringing forward this motion. I have to say the government's response where they're going to allow this motion to pass, it just reeks of cynicism again. Last night they allowed to pass a motion which lacerated the government's approach to the waiting lists for children with special needs. They allowed it to pass, no intention of doing anything about it. Today they will allow to pass a motion which correctly rejects as inadequate the government proposals on the right to request remote work and it will call on the government to introduce radical alternative legislative arrangements which ensure that all workers have a right to request flexible work, there is a presumption in favour of flexible work and a reason for refusal relied upon an employer must be objectively justifiable, appropriate and proportionate. Is the government actually going to do those things? No. They are not. They are not. It is just utterly cynical because you refuse to come out with your real position because then you will face public criticism for it. How do we know the government won't do it? Because the minister responsible, the minister responsible did an interview two days ago where he spelled out his view and he presented himself as very, very reasonable. He says one side almost wants the right to demand remote working and that is not practical. And then another side thinks there should be no law at all and no right to it at all. And so he places himself very conveniently in the middle and he says, I do think there should be a legal right to request remote working. But I also accept that it can't even be an absolute right to request remote working because some business just can't be done remotely. It's ludicrous. Like what the government's proposal is, it is gesture politics at its very worst. Is the government position that it's currently illegal for workers to say to their employer, I'd like to have remote working? Because that's all you're saying is that it is legal to request and then the right of the employers to refuse on any ground at all. Workers are already able to request things. What they need is a right to remote work where they're able to do so. It's as ludicrous as the government saying, well, we won't bring in a sick pay bill. Instead, we'll bring in a request. You can, workers can request sick pay or a right to request that you're paid the minimum wage. Instead, it's about the government and the Tornishta getting themselves on the media, talking about remote work, embracing this new way of doing things post-Covid while actually refusing to do anything that might inconvenience big business and their corporate lobbyists in the form of IBEC. And the result is a bill which the trade unions have rightly described as utterly pointless. We need a genuine right to remote work where bosses are only able not to allow work from home in exceptional circumstances where it simply isn't possible for that work to be done. And I think this idea that the government has set itself up as like we're a kind of neutral arbitrage between two sides, it doesn't, that's not the evidence. The evidence shows that the government wrote the legislation in cahoots with big business. You look at the difference in lobbying and the interactions between ICTU and the government on this, extremely minimal, or look at the influence or look at the amount of meetings that took place between IBEC and the government in advance of the drafting of the heads of Bill. The lobbying register shows over 100 sessions of business lobbying government on remote working. Five cases of IBEC lobbying. At one meeting, they had a virtual meeting on the issue of remote working, which, by the way, the lobbyists at the committee last week forgot all about, didn't know anything about. And do you know who the lobbyists met on IBEC? They met you, minister. They met the other junior minister. They met the senior minister, the Tawnister. And they met every other senior official in your department. That is some level of access. IBEC has that access and gets the legislator written in their interest. I remind you of something else, minister. Three months now since you said you'd give me a call that afternoon because you're under pressure to pass the ventilation bill. Since then, you sent me a letter. I've written back, looking for meetings and meetings and meetings. We can't. The Dáil has passed a bill and we can't have a meeting with you about it because you've no interest in passing it and you were engaged in absolutely cynical politics. You were, well, well, three months have passed and there's a pandemic. They're doing their work. No, no, minister, go back and look at the record. You said you were going to call me that afternoon to arrange a meeting. It was utterly cynical then, just like it's cynical today. You have no intention of legislating for workers' rights except when you're under immense pressure. Because the truth is, what you currently have in the heads of Bill is not the right to remote working, but 13 reasons why not. 13 reasons the business can say, oh, no, you can't do it. One of the grounds, incredibly, when you look at them, is concerns for the commute between the proposed working location and the employer's on-site location. So an employer can say no on the grounds that they think the employee lives too far away or lives too near. What? What does that mean? But the point is the 13 reasons. It isn't even only the 13 reasons. It's any ground at all. The proposal requested is not suitable on business grounds. And explicitly says that the 13 reasons, that isn't even an exhaustive list. Anything whatsoever. So what we currently have is the right to refuse remote working. That's what you've introduced. And it needs to be radically changed. And if not, you're doing, like, you're really failing all those workers who want access to remote working. So, this is just a good bill. Thank you. Oh, thank you.