Exploitation in the Irish construction industry

nelbot

PMBC wrote: »

OP you are not getting a lot of support and people are arguing technicalities on things that are not the main issue. I don't have a personal issue on the post but I support you in your ideal. Current behaviours in businesses have shown why workers need to be organised, notwithstanding a lot of mistakes made on the unions side.

Thank you, I have just had an interesting discussion with revenue on the subject. They are aware of this issue, they admit to recognising it as exploitation. They informed me they have been receiving large volumes of correspondence from the employees in question, the number of which grows daily. They have launched a major investigation and assured me that something will be done on their end. How long this takes is anyone's guess.
My main reason for wanting to establish this industry specific union to represent grades outside trades, is because SIPTU, (I am a member) are not interested.

gctest50

Best get a move on before the robots take over though :

steelwork :

and concrete :

Chinese Construction Company 3D Prints an Entire Two-Story House On-Site in 45 Days

https://3dprint.com/138664/huashang-tengda-3d-print-house/

gctest50

Print vs Traditional sort of example :

nelbot

gctest50 wrote: »

Print vs Traditional sort of example :

Wow, that is cool, better brush up on the old CAD skills.

sydthebeat

If you have cad skills you shouldn't be anywhere near a c45.

Do a refresher course and get into an office somewhere. The industry is getting very busy again.

The_Conductor

davo10 wrote: »

Oh right, how many IT contractors have to bring their own chair, desk, telephone, and computers to work?

You are not going to win an argument about GPs pay with me.

Phone and Laptop- normal for an IT contractor to bring with them- desk/Chair etc- not.

gctest50

sydthebeat wrote: »

If you have cad skills you shouldn't be anywhere near a c45.

Do a refresher course and get into an office somewhere. The industry is getting very busy again.

before they send the temp. office help out doing steel :

nelbot

sydthebeat wrote: »

If you have cad skills you shouldn't be anywhere near a c45.

Do a refresher course and get into an office somewhere. The industry is getting very busy again.

I prefer working on the steel, I found the office environment stifling and bitchy, havn't the temperament for these tactics.

relax carry on

Have you read Revenue's guide to RCT in the construction industry at all?

http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/rct/subcontractor.html

"When you take on work in the construction, forestry or meat processing industries, you should ensure that you have been correctly classified as an employee or a self-employed subcontractor."

nelbot

relax carry on wrote: »

Have you read Revenue's guide to RCT in the construction industry at all?

http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/rct/subcontractor.html

"When you take on work in the construction, forestry or meat processing industries, you should ensure that you have been correctly classified as an employee or a self-employed subcontractor."

I have read it, but didn't know it to read it before I started back to work. There is no one going around informing construction workers they should read this stuff. I have spoken about this to a large number of workers, none of them knew anything about it. The usual practice in gaining employment outside trades or profession involves a 4 or 5 sentence conversation.
Something like this.
worker-" howya I am calling about the advertised job in this location"
employer-" Can you do the job?"
worker- "Yes, how much are you paying?"
employer-"x amount, can you start tomorrow at x time?"
woker- " yes see you then".

nelbot

davo10 wrote: »

I think the reasons you are not getting as much sympathy and support you obviously feel you deserve are:

• The option to employ workers as employees or self employed contractors exists in other industries including the public service, these self employed contractors also do not recieve the SW benefits PAYE employees are entitled to, it is not particular to construction.
• If a working arrangement is perfectly legal, under both employment legislation and in the eyes of Revenue, it cannot accurately be described as "bogus", just because you and a couple of journos don't like it. If it was illegal the courts would be full of complaints about "bogus" practices and the Unions would be all over it.
• Like everyone else, in every other job, no one is forcing you to take it.
• It seems anathema to most, that someone like yourself would take a job without first asking details of the pay and conditions. I'm sorry, I can't take you seriously when you then start bleating about exploitation without having first asked the question. I don't think you were exploited, I think you were naive and the employer paid you the lowest rate he could.

Please note, this says ANY of the conditions, workers that operate under these conditions are legally supposed to be PAYE workers.

He/she is an employee if some or all of the following apply:

Is under the control of another person who directs as to how, when and where the work is to be carried out
Works set hours or a given number of hours per week or month
Does not supply materials for the job
Does not provide equipment other than the small tools of the trade
Is not exposed to personal financial risk in carrying out the work
Receives a fixed hourly/weekly/monthly wage
Is entitled to extra pay or time off for overtime
Is entitled to sick pay
Receives expense payments to cover subsistence and/or travel expenses
Supplies labour only
Cannot subcontact the work
Does not assume any responsibility for investment and management in the business
Does not have the opportunity to profit from sound management in the scheduling of engagements or in the performance of tasks arising from the engagements
Will normally be covered under the employer’s public liability insurance
Works for one person or for one business

Stheno

nelbot wrote: »

I have read it, but didn't know it to read it before I started back to work. There is no one going around informing construction workers they should read this stuff. I have spoken about this to a large number of workers, none of them knew anything about it. The usual practice in gaining employment outside trades or profession involves a 4 or 5 sentence conversation.
Something like this.
worker-" howya I am calling about the advertised job in this location"
employer-" Can you do the job?"
worker- "Yes, how much are you paying?"
employer-"x amount, can you start tomorrow at x time?"
woker- " yes see you then".

What would be the average duration of one of these jobs?

nelbot

Stheno wrote: »

What would be the average duration of one of these jobs?

There is no average. The work on a specific site may be a couple of months but usually a subbie will have more than one job on at a time. You still have the same job with the same employer, just the location changes. Some people stay with the same crew for years, some just look for work they can commute too and will change companies fairly often.

CIARAN_BOYLE

nelbot wrote: »

He/she is an employee if some or all of the following apply:

Is under the control of another person who directs as to how, when and where the work is to be carried out
Works set hours or a given number of hours per week or month
Does not supply materials for the job
Does not provide equipment other than the small tools of the trade
Is not exposed to personal financial risk in carrying out the work
Receives a fixed hourly/weekly/monthly wage
Is entitled to extra pay or time off for overtime
Is entitled to sick pay
Receives expense payments to cover subsistence and/or travel expenses
Supplies labour only
Cannot subcontact the work
Does not assume any responsibility for investment and management in the business
Does not have the opportunity to profit from sound management in the scheduling of engagements or in the performance of tasks arising from the engagements
Will normally be covered under the employer’s public liability insurance
Works for one person or for one business

It also says self employed if some or all of the following applies
Has control over what is done, how it is done, when and where it is done and whether he or she does it personally
(In the construction sector for health and safety reasons, all individuals are under the direction of the site foreman/overseer. The self-employed individual controls the method to be employed in carrying out the work.)
Controls the hours of work in fulfilling the obligations of the contract
Provides the materials for the job
Provides equipment and machinery necessary for the job, other than the small tools of the trade
Is exposed to financial risk, by having to bear the cost of making good faulty or substandard work carried out under the contract
Costs and agrees a price for the job
Receives an agreed contract payment(s) without entitlement to pay for overtime, holidays, country money, travel and subsistence or other expense payments
Is free to hire other people, on his or her terms, to do the work which has been agreed to be undertaken
Assumes responsibility for investment and management in the enterprise
Has the opportunity to profit from sound management in the scheduling and performance of engagements and tasks
Provides his or her own insurance cover as appropriate e.g. public liability insurance, etc
Owns his or her own business
Can provide the same services to more than one person or business at the same time


In reality its a balancing act between both lists

relax carry on

nelbot wrote: »

I have read it, but didn't know it to read it before I started back to work. There is no one going around informing construction workers they should read this stuff. I have spoken about this to a large number of workers, none of them knew anything about it. The usual practice in gaining employment outside trades or profession involves a 4 or 5 sentence conversation.
Something like this.
worker-" howya I am calling about the advertised job in this location"
employer-" Can you do the job?"
worker- "Yes, how much are you paying?"
employer-"x amount, can you start tomorrow at x time?"
woker- " yes see you then".

Unfortunately there really is a large element of you and the other workers needing to inform yourselves about your own industry.

You may also want to consider getting the work place relations commission in on this if you feel there is widespread exploitation in the industry.

https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/

nelbot

relax carry on wrote: »

Unfortunately there really is a large element of you and the other workers needing to inform yourselves about your own industry.

You may also want to consider getting the work place relations commission in on this if you feel there is widespread exploitation in the industry.

https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/

They are aware of it. We have been ripped off, according to revenues own conditions of employment status, this should never have happened.

Mrs OBumble

relax carry on wrote: »

Unfortunately there really is a large element of you and the other workers needing to inform yourselves about your own industry.

And that action - informing him/herself and other workers by setting up a non-trades union - is exactly what the OP started this thread to get advice about doing.

Instead of advice, s/he has been given a bucket-load of derision for having the cheek to think that employee rights should apply in this particular industry.

I wish I knew enough to give the OP some useful advice - but in this country, I don't.

Hopefully some others who do will chime in here.


Hmm .. OP one possibility is that the people who are discouraging you are actually involved with SIPTU, who will be none to interested in losing members who it currently costs them very little to "represent". Jealousy from other unions is always going to be something you have to consider.

nelbot

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

And that action - informing him/herself and other workers by setting up a non-trades union - is exactly what the OP started this thread to get advice about doing.

Instead of advice, s/he has been given a bucket-load of derision for having the cheek to think that employee rights should apply in this particular industry.

I wish I knew enough to give the OP some useful advice - but in this country, I don't.

Hopefully some others who do will chime in here.


Hmm .. OP one possibility is that the people who are discouraging you are actually involved with SIPTU, who will be none to interested in losing members who it currently costs them very little to "represent". Jealousy from other unions is always going to be something you have to consider.

Thank you, I would be very surprised if there aren't vested interests posting here.

sydthebeat

I've been involved in the construction industry for 17 years. I've seen the c45 come in and I totally agree that it's a poor type of contract.

However, what seems to be lost here is that people CHOOSE to take these contacts up. And claiming ignorance is absolutely no defense.

nelbot

sydthebeat wrote: »

I've been involved in the construction industry for 17 years. I've seen the c45 come in and I totally agree that it's a poor type of contract.

However, what seems to be lost here is that people CHOOSE to take these contacts up. And claiming ignorance is absolutely no defense.

What defense are you on about? This is not a criminal trial here. Revenue themselves view this massive increase in bogus self-employment as exploitation of the workers. If I cannot sub-contract out work to others, under revenue regulations I am not self employed...

Kevwoody

nelbot wrote: »

What defense are you on about? This is not a criminal trial here. Revenue themselves view this massive increase in bogus self-employment as exploitation of the workers. If I cannot sub-contract out work to others, under revenue regulations I am not self employed...

I've been following this thread from the start, and at the beginning I was in full support of the OP, but right now I'm finding it very hard to sympathise with you.
You have attacked every single poster who hasn't agreed with you, accusing them of not seeing it from your point of view, but it is you who will simply not understand the one major point everyone is trying to tell you, and that is that these people have a choice at the start of the job, and if they feel exploited they can simply walk away!
You are doing yourself no favours here by jumping down everyone's throat

nelbot

Kevwoody wrote: »

I've been following this thread from the start, and at the beginning I was in full support of the OP, but right now I'm finding it very hard to sympathise with you.
You have attacked every single poster who hasn't agreed with you, accusing them of not seeing it from your point of view, but it is you who will simply not understand the one major point everyone is trying to tell you, and that is that these people have a choice at the start of the job, and if they feel exploited they can simply walk away!
You are doing yourself no favours here by jumping down everyone's throat

They havnt agreed or disagreed with me. I wanted to talk about setting up a union to win rights. None of these guys who you deem are not agreeing with me, are agreeing or disagreeing about setting up the union.

sydthebeat

But the very first "right" you have as a worker is not to take up the job in the first place??

nelbot

Kevwoody wrote: »

I've been following this thread from the start, and at the beginning I was in full support of the OP, but right now I'm finding it very hard to sympathise with you.
You have attacked every single poster who hasn't agreed with you, accusing them of not seeing it from your point of view, but it is you who will simply not understand the one major point everyone is trying to tell you, and that is that these people have a choice at the start of the job, and if they feel exploited they can simply walk away!
You are doing yourself no favours here by jumping down everyone's throat

So you think that accepting the bad situation and walking away is the way to go, I don't, I want to change it.

nelbot

sydthebeat wrote: »

But the very first "right" you have as a worker is not to take up the job in the first place??

Of course, but what has that got to do with it? I intent to try and win rights for myself and my peers, so do you have any point relevant to this topic?

sydthebeat

nelbot wrote: »

Of course, but what has that got to do with it? I intent to try and win rights for myself and my peers, so do you have any point relevant to this topic?

Seeing as you are not an employee, how do you think a union would work for you?

nelbot

sydthebeat wrote: »

Seeing as you are not an employee, how do you think a union would work for you?

I am an employee...and a member of a union. Many self employed trades people are also union members. But seeing as how you asked and despite your motive for doing so, an industry specific union could actually function as a union and represent the workers in question. It seems bizarre that I have to explain the function of a union but I'll do it anyway because you asked.
The proposed union would negotiate pay scales on behalf of the members, would have democratically elected officials, can vote on industrial actions and help members to gain employment.

sydthebeat

Your not an employee if your a c45 tax payer, that's the whole point.

What you want is to be an employee and get all the benefits off same.
However the contract you took up was not that of an employee but of a sub contractor.

If you want to best change the system mobilise your fellow subbies to not take up these contracts......

sydthebeat

nelbot wrote: »

. It seems bizarre that I have to explain the function of a union but I'll do it anyway because you asked.
The proposed union would negotiate pay scales on behalf of the members, would have democratically elected officials, can vote on industrial actions and help members to gain employment.

I know how a union works for employees.

I am wondering how you think it could work for someone who is offered a contact, and all the terms and conditions associated, and freely accepts these terms and conditions.
How exactly could a union work for you in this case?

If all subbies refuse to take up c2 contracts then they won't be long changing the system. However, by accepting the contracts you are complicit in the 'exploitation'

nelbot

sydthebeat wrote: »

I know how a union works for employees.

I am wondering how you think it could work for someone who is offered a contact, and all the terms and conditions associated, and freely accepts these terms and conditions.
How exactly could a union work for you in this case?

If all subbies refuse to take up c2 contracts then they won't be long changing the system. However, by accepting the contracts you are complicit in the 'exploitation'

So you keep saying, and ignoring the fact that we dont get offered contracts...how do you get 'all subbies' (I dont mean actual subbies here as this poster seems to be unable to grasp) to act together without a union?