nelbot wrote: » Since the REA was struck down in 2013, worker exploitation in the construction sector has become rampant. There has been a huge increase in 'non-independent' self-employment (i.e. being paid on the C45 tax system). This means no holiday pay, no public liability insurance, no overtime rates, no travel time and the restrictions on social welfare if your boss has no work. If you are not a tradesman you have only got access to general unions such as SIPTU, which have zero interest in these issues. I want to set up a union for construction workers who are not trade accredited. Any feedback here is welcome. I have worked abroad on construction projects, overtime is voluntary, no one is breaking their bodies bulling into things, why can't we have this here?
davo10 wrote: » Is any of what you claim is happening illegal and are the workers being paid above minimum wage?
nelbot wrote: » It is a grey area. There is currently no legislation covering these activities. But some aspects of it are illegal. For example, a sub-contractor advertises for shuttering carpenters who he means to pay on the C45 tax system. Under employment legislation, he is supposed to set out terms and conditions of employment, under the C45 system no such rules are in place. But the 'employee' often may not even be aware of the situation until first pay day comes around. These positions are advertised as jobs, not as available work for independent operators, if you do not ask what tax you will be paying, you are unlikely to be told until you do ask. Np other industry operates in this way. As to the minimum wage, I do not know the answer to this as there are many foreign workers on site, a lot of whom can't speak english, who knows what they are being paid?
davo10 wrote: » Yes other sectors do, fixed term self employed contractors are not entitled to paid leave, job security (permanency, unless contracts exceed 4 years) and are responsible for paying their own tax and are not entitled to welfare benefit when not working. These are very common in all industries including IT, health care, public services etc. If the worker is paid above minimum wage and the employer is not breaking the law, no matter how grey you think it is, they are not being exploited, they are free to quit and work somewhere else.
CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: » One major blackhole is workers being told they are on rct scheme but deductions not being properly paid over to revenue. A goal of your union/self employed persons organisation should be campaigning that subcontractors have access to real time information about whether rct has been paid on their behalf by principle contractors.
nelbot wrote: » Wrong, there is no minimum wage when you are self-employed, the point is that these workers are not actually self employed and have no fixed term conditions. They gain employment under a false premise. They are not offered a fixed term contract. In my own experience, I answered an ad for work under the assumption I would be an employee. I had no idea I was paying into C45 until I received documentation from revenue. I was paid by cheque and received no payslip. The conditions were not explained until I asked, and this same scenario played out in 4 of the last 5 jobs I worked in. You say the worker is not exploited and can leave when they want, but if they can't get social welfare then this freedom you allude to is purely technical detail and not realistic in practice.
davo10 wrote: » I'm afraid you are wrong there, there is a minimum hourly rate, €9:15 for all experienced adult workers including self employed subcontractors in receipt of a wage. Construction workers are often employed under casual contracts, it was up to you as it is with all employees request precise terms and conditions before you start.
nelbot wrote: » Once again you are failing to look at this from a realistic perspective. We do not receive casual contracts, we do not want to work on the C45, we do not have a choice as this is what is on offer, and before you say it, the majority of workers in this position can't just go and do something else as employment opportunities in most sectors are still few and far between. We can't all be chemical engineers or coding ninjas. The fact is this is an abuse of the system, you are arguing about technicalities, I am about winning rights that these technicalities have destroyed.
davo10 wrote: » The "technicalities" are the laws laid down in employment legislation. As long as the employer acts within the law, your only recourse is to change the law. That is the reality of the situation.
nelbot wrote: » Yes, that is the aim. There was an article in the Irish Examiner on on Friday 17/06/2016 highlighting this issue, titled 'Bogus contract status of workers revealed'. I can't post a link yet until I have passed the 25 post mark, but I will when I can.
davo10 wrote: » Surely that is up to the TEEU to lobby for legislative change.
nelbot wrote: » The TEEU represents accredited trades and engineering (grade A). There are 3 grades of operative that have no industry specific union representation, skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled operatives have to join SIPTU, SIPTU have no interest in these issues. I have called them several times over regulation breaches, as have many others I know, they don't care. We need a union to win back our rights. No one else is going to do it, not one politician is talking about this.
davo10 wrote: » Surely the way of addressing this is for the worker to ask before taking the job "Am I gong to be employed as a PRSI worker or as a self employed contractor?" If it's the latter, then pass on the job, nobody is forcing you to take the job, somebody else might be happy to take it.
nelbot wrote: » See you are missing the point here. Before 2000, C45 was the status quo, after the strikes only actual self-employed people were under this system. After the financial collapse, tens of thousands of construction workers became unemployed. Due to the recent uptake in the sector, many have returned to work. The problem is, many of us were unaware the REA had been struck down. On all the sites I have worked on in the last 12 months, all of them had several guys that have fallen into this 'self employed trap', i.e. they answered ads for jobs, assuming with no reason to not assume, that they would be PAYE workers as everybody was before 2013, and here now is the problem, once they went into the C45 system, they are stuck there. They can't get welfare so they have no bargaining position, you might have a choice between three or four jobs, but all are paying C45. You can't refuse the work because then you have no income.
davo10 wrote: » But ignorance is not a defence in the eyes of the law. It is up to you to update yourself on current legislation. If the employer is operating within the law, you can't say "well I didn't know about the changes in the law".
nelbot wrote: » Defence in the eyes of the law?? LOL are we in court Matlock? The aim is to win rights here, not to jail people...
Stheno wrote: » So you want the c45 system abolished?
nelbot wrote: » No, I want my job to go back to being PAYE job as I am an employee with a boss and not an independent contractor.
Stheno wrote: » Which is the same as wanting the c 45 scheme to be abolished tbh.
nelbot wrote: » No it isn't, actual self employed sub-contractors use the C45, please explain how wanting my own status as an employee to be classified under employee taxation, equates to wanting to abolish the C45 system?
davo10 wrote: » No, your aim is to get legislative change because right now the situation you are highlighting is legal. And to say the situation is "wrong" because people like you were unaware of legislative changes is in effect admitting that you are ignorant of the law, that is not a defence. Please don't think that I am saying you are ignorant, the term is a legal one that means that not knowing whether something is legal or illegal is a valid excuse.
Stheno wrote: » You want it removed as an option for employers to use and avoid e.g. paying employer prsi, holidays etc?
nelbot wrote: » Once again you are arguing technicalities. I don't understand why you keep referring to ignorance being no defence in a legal scenario. I am not accusing anyone of breaking employment laws, maybe false advertisement at a stretch. I am suggesting getting organised to try get legislation introduced.
davo10 wrote: » Because if the employer is acting within the law, not knowing/understanding your status before you start a job seems unusual to most. The construction sector has always had casual employment because different trades/labourers are taken on to do specific tasks and when those tasks are completed the job ends. At different phases of build the workforce increases and declines depending on need so it would not practicle for contractors/developers to employ people full time as PRSI workers. I suspect this would increase construction costs even further at a time when one off home owners/developers are saying building costs are too expensive.
nelbot wrote: » It may seem unusual to most, but it isn't unusual to those of us who experience it. Costs notwithstanding, why should construction workers not be entitled to legal protection just like the vast majority of employees?
