It has been a poor week for the image of the construction industry. Building workers are on the streets protesting about the High Court's jailing of two colleagues. At Naas Circuit Court on Wednesday a young couple, who claimed that they had been "gazumped" by a builder, lost their civil action but their plight won considerable public sympathy and cast the construction industry in the most unflattering light. For the average citizen, these events and the striking statistic that some 18 people have died on building sites in the Republic this year, will confirm the view that the construction industry requires firmer control and regulation from the State.
There is a strong sense that the industry - and the buccaneering spirit that often drives it - has been left to its own devices by successive governments. Certainly, it often appears that the kind of safety standards, market practices and employment standards which are accepted as a matter of course in other industries, are too often aspirational and voluntary on the building site. To compound matters, the industry often seems immune to criticism. The Irish Home Builders' Association responded limply to the Naas case, defending the builder involved and offering a voluntary code in a matter of weeks. The Construction Industry Federation, in fairness, does try to raise standards, but there still seems to be a lot of building firms working to their own rules only.
For all that, it is important to point out that the company at the centre of the current building workers' dispute, Capel Developments, has categorically denied there are black economy operations on its Merrion Road site. The ICTU group of unions also accepts this. It is also the case that Mr Justice Kelly had no option under the existing law but to further remand the two men at the centre of the dispute to Mountjoy Prison after they refused to give an undertaking that they would suspend illegal picketing. But the workers have succeeded in raising the wider issue of employment standards in the industry, particularly the extensive use of sub-contractors. In many cases, the use of this system allows the builder to deny bricklayers and other workers the rights and conditions available to PAYE workers. The builder is often not responsible for pension payments, holiday arrangements or PRSI deductions on his own site. The task for policymakers is to bring some kind of order to this chaos. It will not be an easy task. By its nature, the building industry is unpredictable and often footloose; it is not unknown for a company to be established, build one estate, close down and then reincorporate for its next venture. And it is also the case that the contract nature of much employment can, on occasion, suit the needs of individual workers. The Government says that conditions within the building industry are being considered as part of an ongoing review of the black economy with the social partners. But it may be that a more proactive and high-profile approach is required. Perhaps there should be a forum bringing together all sides of the industry along with a signal from government that it is ready to introduce more rigorous legislation.