Everything and nothing changes: Fast-food employers and the threat to minimum wage regulation in Ireland

Abstract

Ireland's selective system of collective agreed minimum wages has come under significant pressure in recent years. A new fast-food employer body took a constitutional challenge against the system of Joint Labour Committees (JLCs) and this was strengthened by the discourse on the negative effects of minimum wages as Ireland's economic crisis worsened. Taking a historical institutional approach, the article examines the critical juncture for the JLC system and the factors which led to the subsequent government decision to retain but reform the system. The article argues that the improved enforcement of minimum wages was a key factor in the employers' push for abolition of the system but that the legacy of a collapsed social partnership system prevented the system's abolition.

What and How Are Firms in the Quick-Service Restaurant Industry Reporting on Corporate Social Responsibility?

“…Such infamy has led to an entry in the Oxford Dictionary (2012) as McJob is defined as "a low-paid job with few prospects, typically one taken by an overqualified person." Unsatisfactory working conditions are thought to be the result of corporate attempts to decrease labor costs as one of the few chances for savings in this industry (O'Sullivan & Royle, 2014). These perceived bad labor conditions have led to enhanced negative publicity and an outcry for more socially responsible behavior on the part of QSR firms.…”

The reform of Joint Labour Committees—the re‐commodification of labour?

“…Teague and Thomas () have documented the complexities and restricted resources that simultaneously irritated employers and reduced the effectiveness of EROs, and it was partly moves to improve enforcement that led to the challenge to the Catering ERO. Employers complained of a move from being ‘half regulated’ to being subject to National Employment Rights Agency (NERA) inspectors ‘who were like dogs with bones’ (O'Sullivan and Royle, : 7). Being obliged to conform to the law is doubtless an irritant—in 2008 NERA found ‘breaches of JLC regulations and other employment legislation in 73% of inspections in catering’ (O'Sullivan and Royle, : 7)—but it is not the whole story.…”

“…Employers complained of a move from being ‘half regulated’ to being subject to National Employment Rights Agency (NERA) inspectors ‘who were like dogs with bones’ (O'Sullivan and Royle, : 7). Being obliged to conform to the law is doubtless an irritant—in 2008 NERA found ‘breaches of JLC regulations and other employment legislation in 73% of inspections in catering’ (O'Sullivan and Royle, : 7)—but it is not the whole story. As the JLC system expanded in the service sector so the scope of the orders tended to increase.…”

“…O'Sullivan and Royle () have argued that employers' rejection of the JLC system was based on three factors: resentment over improved enforcement, resentment over double regulation in face of the NMW and dissatisfaction with structural and other anomalies within the system. However, the report had also to address the central claim by employers that the rates set by JLCs depressed employment.…”

“…The 2012 Act did include derogation, but on much more liberal grounds, and which may be granted without the consent of workers. Taken together with the new ‘principles and procedures’ to be addressed in making any future EROs, including international competition, derogation makes the effective protection of workers interests far more difficult under the new dispensation than the old (Farrelly and Higgins, ; O'Sullivan and Royle, : 17).…”