Croke Park ‘may force women to quit work’

Women could be forced out of the public service because they will have less access to work-sharing and flexible working arrangements under the changes proposed under Croke Park II.

Niall Crowley, the former head of the Equality Authority, made the claim following the publication of his equality audit of the Labour Relations Commission proposals commissioned by anti-deal trade unions.

The issue of pay has been to the forefront of the debate on Croke Park II but Mr Crowley’s audit focused on areas such as work sharing, flexible working arrangements, redeployment, and longer hours.

He argued the proposals will lead to reduced access to and/or diminished conditions for flexitime and work-sharing; will increase working hours without providing for flexibility in their application and will introduce possible change in the approach to redeployment.

He said the LRC proposals “hold a potential to have a disproportionate and negative impact on women employed in the public sector”.

“This is because women shoulder the bulk of caring responsibilities in the home, whether of children or of friends or family members with long-term illness, health problems, or a disability,” he said. “Women are far more likely than men to take up flexible working arrangements to reconcile work and family life. Work-life conflict and time poverty will increase for these women and the proposals could serve as a push factor to leave the workplace.”

Mr Crowley also found the proposals discriminate on family status grounds “because they will disproportionately disadvantage men and women with caring responsibilities in the public sector”.

He said the measures may be subject to legal challenge both nationally and through the European Commission.

However, trade union Impact, which has pressed for a yes vote on Croke Park II, said it was “scare-mongering and completely untrue” to say an agreement would force women out of work. “In fact, the agreement means that unions can continue to protect jobs and flexible work arrangements,” said Impact spokesman Bernard Harbor.

“Without an agreement, there will be nothing to stop employers changing, or even abolishing, work-sharing and flexitime arrangements. Have the unions who commissioned this report done an equality audit of the alternative?”

The Department of Public Expenditure also rejected the claims, saying the LRC proposals on work-life balance arrangements “will remain among the best available options provided by Irish employers”.

“Flexible working arrangements, including flexible starting and finishing times, generous leave entitlements, the capacity to take career breaks, and so on will continue throughout the public service,” it said.

“The LRC’s proposals streamline existing arrangements so that a satisfactory balance can be struck between the delivery of the business needs of the employer — in this case the consistent delivery of high quality services to the public — and the need for working parents and carers to have flexibility to meet their personal commitments.”