Paul Murphy warns seasonal employment permits risk exploitation
Paul Murphy criticised the proposed seasonal employment permit, arguing it risks exploitation because workers would be tied to a single employer for months and could be forced to return home. He said existing protections and budget commitments were insufficient and called for stronger monitoring, resourcing and the option for workers to change employer.
Main concern about employer-tied permits
Murphy warned that a permit model that ties a worker to a single employer for a limited period is inherently "rife for exploitation," especially in low-pay sectors with documented poor conditions. He referenced evidence raised during COVID and said many industries involved face horrific conditions that heighten the risk.
WRC resourcing and enforcement doubts
He argued the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) is massively under-resourced and that there was no credible budget commitment to change that. Murphy said this lack of resourcing undermines confidence that the protections touted for the permit will be effectively enforced.
Acceptance of a move-employer option
Murphy recorded that the option to move employer will be available and that wording will be addressed at report stage, noting this change would reduce the risk of poor terms and conditions tied to permits. He said he accepts that amendment and expects it to be put in place.
Permits can lift standards if conditional and enforced
He noted that, when permit processes require employers to provide proper terms and conditions, they have in some sectors strengthened pay and conditions. Murphy pointed to the home care sector as an example where permitting tied to conditions helped address shortages and improved terms.
Call for tracking and monitoring
Murphy urged tracking and rigorous monitoring of the seasonal employment permit to ensure employers honour terms and conditions and to prevent abuse, while defending that many employers will abide by the rules if enforcement and resources are real and sustained.
We publish thousands of recordings to make Irish politics transparent and resistant to manipulation. Spotted an error? Report it — together we are building a reliable archive of Irish politics.
Just quickly, we're not going to persuade you and you're not going to persuade us, but what you're talking about in terms of protections in place and so on isn't going to change the essence of the thing, which is to say that a particular employer can bring someone in for a few months, they are absolutely tied to that employer, they can't go elsewhere and then at the end they have to leave and go home, I mean just inherently that thing is really rife for exploitation, extra so when you look at the industries involved here and the rates of low pay, some quite horrific conditions which exist, which Deputy Riley referred to some of the stuff that was exposed during COVID, and all that in the context of the WRC being massively under-resourced, you saying oh well of course we'll, but like nobody believes that the WRC are going to be properly resourced, you're not getting that commitment now, it wasn't in the budget, it's not going to happen to a sufficient degree, so I just don't see you bringing forward sufficient protections in that context that it changes that thing that is at the essence of what seasonal employment permits are. If it eases the Deputy's concerns, we have engaged with the WRC specifically around this seasonal employment permit and how we can really strengthen that to enable them to be able to police this and manage this as well. But again, you are assuming that it will be abused. I have to defend the majority of employers that this will not be abused and that it will be honoured terms and conditions. It would be a problem you are not accepting. It doesn't have to be 100 per cent. No, no, no, I wasn't saying that. Can we finish the point? You want to have a particular law that penalises all the good employers. What I am saying is we want to permit and allow for seasonal permits, track that and monitor that to make sure everyone honours that as well. The protections are in place to try to prevent any move away from proper terms and conditions or poor treatment people. Of course we will do that. We will do that for anybody that works in the State, whether it is for a month, two months or a year or two years. Of course we will do that. To be very clear, there will be the option to move employer. I said that at the start. I accept the wording that I have not got here for you, so I accept that. I will have a report stage and that we are putting that in place and that it will not be tied to employer. That, again, as you referenced, will lessen the chance to have poor terms and conditions. But when we try to, with the permit process, engage with employers successfully, in many cases, in certain sectors to sectors, by their application to available permit process has very often strengthened the terms and conditions and did lead on, I would say, with a labour shortage in the home care sector, to new terms and conditions being brought forward there. Because we said no to giving a permit willy-nilly. You have to put in place the proper terms and conditions. And likewise, the seasonal employment permit will follow a similar system. When we arrive at the beginning because we want to see the desired results. Two states will probably beностью.
Thank you for downloading 🙏
If you publish this material on social media, we would be very grateful if you tagged VideoParliament. It helps us reach more people and keep building a transparent archive of Irish politics.
