nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Exploitation in the Irish construction industry

nelbot

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?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

nelbot

davo10 wrote: »

They are entitled to legal protection, and the employer is operating within the law, it's just not the protection you want.

In relation to the ad, it is not false advertising, it's just that you didn't know about changes to legislation and didn't ask the terms of your employment.

If you are employed as a self employed contractor, you cannot then demand to be classified as a PRSI employee because it suits you better. If the type of status you are unhappy with is now the norm, you were wrong to assume otherwise based on legislation that was amended 3 years ago.

Irrespective of either of our views, if it is that big of an issue to most, your Union needs to stand up for your rights.

You said you are not a labourer so presumably you have a trade qualification. I always thought it benefited electricians/plasterers/shutterers to be vat registered and self employed, they could then price for jobs.

No, I am a steel fixer which is not a recognised trade in Ireland, it falls under the skilled operative grade like scaffolders and machine drivers. You keep referring to fixed term contracts and minimum wage. Can you not read when I tell you we receive no contracts? I'll try again, we receive no contracts.....fixed term or otherwise, no contracts of employment or self employment, no records of hours worked or productivity, no proof of anything other than what the actual sub-contractor send in to revenue. And, yes I can demand to be a PAYE worker because it suits me better, that is exactly what I intend to do. There is more than enough anger out there over this to get something up and running. Your arguments over the legal position have no bearing on the reality on the ground.

Stheno

nelbot wrote: »

Your arguments over the legal position have no bearing on the reality on the ground.

Well they do if the main contractors are operating within the laws of the c45 scheme you've no real come back. Wanting or demanding to be a paye worker won't mean much when it will add to their costs tbh

nelbot

Stheno wrote: »

Well they do if the main contractors are operating within the laws of the c45 scheme you've no real come back. Wanting or demanding to be a paye worker won't mean much when it will add to their costs tbh

I see, no real comeback eh? I bet there was a lot of people like you saying the same kind of thing before 2000, we won it then, we can win it again...tbh...

Stheno

nelbot wrote: »

I see, no real comeback eh? I bet there was a lot of people like you saying the same kind of thing before 2000, we won it then, we can win it again...tbh...

I'm not suggesting you can't but with a housing shortage and a focus on reducing the cost of building, I can't see the changes you want happening

nelbot

Stheno wrote: »

I'm not suggesting you can't but with a housing shortage and a focus on reducing the cost of building, I can't see the changes you want happening

Your ability to see it or otherwise has no bearing on the situation. I wonder how expensive houses will get if there is no one to build them?

micks

Its a simple matter of supply and demand
While there is people willing to work under these conditions they will continue

Its one of many ways that employers have used in the last few years to bring their costs and obligations down

Same as companies that reduced rates of pay and travelling expenses - all of a sudden many are reversing these changes to try hold onto staff as things improve

in reality you need those working under the conditions you describe to leave and go to better companies - then there may be improvements

Hooleyo

Nelbot. From my understanding in order to start a union you need a trade union licence. And these are very difficult to get and extremely expensive.

As unions go, id say talk to the Independent Workers Union. They would be interested and open to your ideas.

I'm not connected to that union myself, but I know of it.

jcon1913

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 and employment rights. If the employer is operating within the law, you can't say "well I didn't know about the changes in that law". If it is legal, then you can either work or not, your choice.

Ive read a few if your responses here, "ignorance if the law is no defence", thats first year legal studies. This is Ireland, not the US. We dont want to live in a dog-eat-dog society. Workers need protection from this sort of exploitation. Requiring them to actively consent to being subcontractors would be a start.

nelbot

jcon1913 wrote: »

Ive read a few if your responses here, "ignorance if the law is no defence", thats first year legal studies. This is Ireland, not the US. We dont want to live in a dog-eat-dog society. Workers need protection from this sort of exploitation. Requiring them to actively consent to being subcontractors would be a start.

Thanks, although I wasn't unaware of the filibuster tactic on show with these irrelevant arguments i.e. constantly making a long winded point about legalities and deliberately attempting to steer the conversation away from the actual topic, I was also aware that these guys were keeping my topic near the top and so were unintentionally helping me.

nelbot

Hooleyo wrote: »

Nelbot. From my understanding in order to start a union you need a trade union licence. And these are very difficult to get and extremely expensive.

As unions go, id say talk to the Independent Workers Union. They would be interested and open to your ideas.

I'm not connected to that union myself, but I know of it.

Thank you, I will have a look.

Avatar MIA

nelbot wrote: »

Thank you, I will have a look.

Also, Revenue may be your friend here. Are these really employees. Revenue may decide they are if they are aware.

nelbot

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Also, Revenue may be your friend here. Are these really employees. Revenue may decide they are if they are aware.

When revenue became aware of this issue, they started clamping down on the employees. Revenue staff have no interest in how we got into the position, they are only concerned with the collecting of taxes. Like most civil servants, they operate within parameters, this falls under the remit of the department of enterprise trade and employment. When this department became aware of it, instead of making any attempt to intervene, they simply referred the matter to revenue...

Mrs OBumble

davo10 wrote: »

Yes other sectors do something similar, 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.

Sorry, but I call bs on this argument.

When a person works in an employers site, under the supervision of the employer, during hours specified by the employer, using tools and materials supplied by the employer, then they should be a PAYE employee with employment rights.

Some of these are on fixed term or casual contracts, for sure, but these are usually as PAYE employees not independent contractors.

Some high skilled IT workers don't work on that basis and are happy not to. But I'm not aware of other industries where it's common: Revenue even forced GP's to pay their locums as employees a few years ago.

nelbot

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Sorry, but I call bs on this argument.

When a person works in an employers site, under the supervision of the employer, during hours specified by the employer, using tools and materials supplied by the employer, then they should be a PAYE employee with employment rights.

Some of these are on fixed term contracts, for sure, but these are usually as PAYE employees not indecent contractors.

Some high skilled IT workers don't work on that basis and are happy not to. But I'm not aware of other industries where it's common: Revenue even forced GP's to pay their locums as employees a few years ago.

Well said, the germane point here being a question of consent. We are self employed without consent and in many cases, initially unaware of the status until it is too late to make the choice. It may not be illegal, but it is certainly unethical.

[Deleted User]

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

............

Some high skilled IT workers don't work on that basis and are happy not to. But I'm not aware of other industries where it's common: Revenue even forced GP's to pay their locums as employees a few years ago.

Med device, pharma, bio pharma & construction.

The likes of PM & Jacobs have huge numbers of engineers of various disciplines who are self employed and are paid on an hourly basis, some of these are based in the office.

Anything with an hourly rate at the following link would be on a self employed basis, some may opt to go PAYE under an umbrella company admittedly, this would be a minority

http://www.jobcontax.com/jobs-in-dublin

[Deleted User]

.....some may opt to go PAYE under an umbrella company ......

Would this be an option for you and your colleagues OP?

Stheno

Augeo wrote: »

Would this be an option for you and your colleagues OP?

No reason why not but they would have to pay employers prsi at 10%

[Deleted User]

Stheno wrote: »

No reason why not but they would have to pay employers prsi at 10%

I suspect that wouldn't be favourable

davo10

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Sorry, but I call bs on this argument.

When a person works in an employers site, under the supervision of the employer, during hours specified by the employer, using tools and materials supplied by the employer, then they should be a PAYE employee with employment rights.

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.

davo10

nelbot wrote: »

Well said, the germane point here being a question of consent. We are self employed without consent and in many cases, initially unaware of the status until it is too late to make the choice. It may not be illegal, but it is certainly unethical.

Consent? It's a job offer, ask the conditions you are employed under and if you don't like them, don't consent to them, it's what everyone else does at interview.

SEPT 23 1989

The other option is 188 a week

I know what I would prefer

Stheno

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.

I'm an it contractor and have my own laptop that I've paid for that is my main computer

davo10

Stheno wrote: »

I'm an it contractor and have my own laptop that I've paid for that is my main computer

That's my point, it is common in other industries ( I should have quoted her full post). if Mrs O'Bumble ever worked on a construction site (I have by the way) any self respecting tradesmen has his own tools ( similar to your computer), the materials are obviously supplied by the main contractor and of course you work certain hours, she seemed to be saying that if everything is supplied, they MUST be PAYE employees.

I have never known a carpenter/electrician/plumber/steel fixer/plasterer/block layer/ground works etc not to have their own tools.

Stheno

davo10 wrote: »

That's my point, it is common in other industries ( I should have quoted her full post). if Mrs O'Bumble ever worked on a construction site (I have by the way) any self respecting tradesmen has his own tools ( similar to your computer), the materials are obviously supplied by the main contractor and of course you work certain hours, she seemed to be saying that if everything is supplied, they MUST be PAYE employees.

I have never known a carpenter/electrician/plumber/steel fixer/plasterer/block layer/ground works etc not to have their own tools.

Ah sorry, picked you up wrong

nelbot

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

The other option is 188 a week

I know what I would prefer

Its not an option, we cant get welfare...

nelbot

davo10 wrote: »

Consent? It's a job offer, ask the conditions you are employed under and if you don't like them, don't consent to them, it's what everyone else does at interview.

Interview? You have no idea what you are talking about. LOL interview, please, get a job in construction before spouting any more of your ignorant nonsense, interview, lol, whats that?

nelbot

davo10 wrote: »

Consent? It's a job offer, ask the conditions you are employed under and if you don't like them, don't consent to them, it's what everyone else does at interview.

Let me just point out, that not a single one of your posts has offered anything relevant to this debate, you just keep reiterating the facts. The facts are already established, your continued bleating on this thread will not change the facts. Yes we have rights, but we want the same rights as everyone else, you pointing out these facts over and over makes it look like you are either arguing for the sake of it, or an employer who thinks employees should have less rights. Either way, your vain attempt to belittle my position only makes me more determined.

davo10

nelbot wrote: »

Interview? You have no idea what you are talking about. LOL interview, please, get a job in construction before spouting any more of your ignorant nonsense, interview, lol, whats that?

Oh cop on would ya, you don't just turn up on site out of the blue. There is some communication with the main contractor before you start the job, even if it is just a phone call to say you are interested and yes you are a steel fixer. I don't mean you get dressed up is your Sunday best and sit down it his office. God you are a pity.

I have worked on building sites.

nelbot

davo10 wrote: »

Oh cop on would ya, you don't just turn up on site out of the blue. There is some communication with the main contractor before you start the job, even if it is just a phone call to say you are interested and yes you are a steel fixer. I don't mean you get dressed up is your Sunday best and sit down it his office. God you are a pity.

I have worked on building sites.

Once again, none of this changes the facts, i.e. some of our rights have been removed and we want them back. Please spout some more legal positions for us so we can continue with this pointless argument...

davo10

nelbot wrote: »

Once again, none of this changes the facts, i.e. some of our rights have been removed and we want them back. Please spout some more legal positions for us so we can continue with this pointless argument...

No thanks, just because someone does not agree with you does not mean you can abuse them. if you are to negotiate with Unions/Departments, leave it to your more level headed collegues.