Greedy contractors flout the law

We are all too well aware of the rigorous campaign being waged by the Revenue Commissioners against those tax evaders who used the bogus non-resident schemes, on the advice of various financial institutions, to escape their legitimate tax obligations.

An equally tough attack must be launched against those employers in the construction industry, some carrying out contracts for local authorities, who are deliberately flouting the law in relation to their workers’ pension contribution rights.

Through their greed, they are saving themselves somewhere in the region of between an estimated €35 million and €100 million annually, without any thought or consideration for the 50,000 workers who are being denied their rights because of this illegal and systematic subterfuge.

It is intolerable that in the largest pension scheme in the country, that covering construction workers, thousands of employers are evading their statutory duty, and have been doing so for decades.

The industry is notorious for the level of accidents incurred and it is shocking to consider the fact that of the 30 workers who lost their lives on sites between January last year and July of this year, only eight of them were covered by the pension scheme.

Their untimely deaths were regrettable, but it is unconscionable that so many families had their entitlements negated solely because unscrupulous employers put their profits before the welfare of their employees.

This newspaper today highlights the extent of that evasion and illustrates the appalling consequences it can have for workers and their families, either through non-receipt of sickness or death benefits.

By law, the 4,500 construction companies are obliged to register all their general operatives in the Construction Federation Operatives Pension Scheme, (CFOPS) whose only staff are employed by the Construction Industry Federation, which, is, of course, a representative organisation for the industry, and the head of which is also chief executive of the pension scheme.

That scheme is monitored by the Construction Industry Monitoring Agency (CIMA) but, union investigators acting for this agency are precluded from scrutinising the CIF’s 2,000 members. They are subjected to policing by their own representative body.

While imputing no unprincipled reasons for this exclusion, it would appear that it simply does not make sense that one section of the construction industry is treated differently insofar as the monitoring of the pension scheme is concerned.

It stands to reason that an independent body should be responsible for the supervision of the industry as a whole in regard to this crucial aspect of workers’ employment. That would obviate charges, sustainable or otherwise, of conflicts of interest.

Neither does it make sense that when a company is pursued through the Labour Court when it is in breach of its pension obligations, and found to be so, that such proceedings are shrouded in secrecy.

Some 600 firms were forced to join the scheme over the last two years, but because the Labour Court proceedings are confidential, those companies were not subjected to a “name and shame” regime which tax evaders are.

Certainly, the precautions taken by Government departments and local authorities to insist that construction companies adhere to the pension regulations and rights of their employees before contracts are awarded, must be applied more stringently.