This document provides an economic assessment of the proposed Agency Worker Directive and its potential impact on Ireland. It summarizes recent employment trends in Ireland, noting high unemployment and job losses across many sectors. It then outlines the benefits of temporary agency work for both employers and workers. The international experience with agency work regulations is discussed, noting opposition from business groups. The document argues the Directive could undermine workforce flexibility and competitiveness in Ireland, threatening further employment.

1. AN ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT OF
AGENCY WORKER DIRECTIVE
A Report Prepared for National Recruitment
Federation by Jim Power, Jim Power Economics
Limited.
September 2011
[Employment retention and creation must be the key objective of Irish policy makers in the
current very challenging environment. A flexible and competitive workforce is a key
requirement for achieving this objective. The proposed Agency Worker Directive runs the risk of
undermining the flexibility and competitiveness of the Irish workforce and needs to be
considered very carefully by Irish policy makers.]

2. BACKGROUND
The Directive on Temporary Agency Work (Directive 2008/104/EC) was adopted and published
on December 5th 2008 and is due to be transposed into law in all EU member states by
December 5th 2011.
The aim of the Directive is to establish ‘a protective framework for temporary agency workers,
which is non-discriminatory, transparent and proportionate, while respecting the diversity of
labour markets and industrial relations’.1 The Directive stipulates that ‘the basic working and
employment conditions applicable to temporary agency workers should be at least those which
would apply to such workers if they were recruited by the user undertaking to occupying the
same job’. Basic working and employment conditions are those laid down by legislation,
regulations, administrative provisions, collective agreements and/or other binding general
provisions relating to the duration of working time, overtime, breaks, rest periods, night work,
holidays and public holidays, and pay. It also provides that temporary agency workers must be
informed of any vacant posts in the firm where they are working and given the same
opportunity as other workers to apply for permanent employment; and must be given access to
the amenities or collective facilities such as canteen, child-care and transport services on the
same basis as other employees unless objective reasons can be found to do otherwise.
The Directive applies to workers with ‘a contract of employment or employment relationship
with a temporary work agency who are assigned to user undertakings to work temporarily
under their supervision and direction’. It applies both to public and private sector activities.
Temporary agency work is a transparent process that involves a business relationship between
the Agency, the worker and the end user/client. It has become an increasingly important part of
the workforce in many countries, including Ireland. It fulfills a very valuable role and provides a
level of flexibility for companies, which is absolutely essential in the increasingly competitive
and globalised economy. This is particularly relevant in the context of the serious economic and
business difficulties currently facing the global economy.
The proposed legislation poses serious risks for the Irish economy as it threatens to undermine
the flexibility that is so essential, particularly in the multi-national sector.
1
Directive 2008/104/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on temporary agency
th
work. Official Journal of the European Union, December 5 2008.
2|Page

3. RECENT TRENDS IN THE IRISH LABOUR MARKET
The Irish economy is currently struggling to emerge from the deepest and most difficult
recession that the country has ever experienced. Business and consumer confidence is very
weak across the economy; the public finances are still in an unsustainable situation due to the
sharp decline in the tax base and the unsustainably high cost of running the country; the
property sector is still weakening; and the banking system is not functioning as an intermediary
that channels capital from those who save to those who want to borrow to invest. The export
performance is the key bright spot in the economy.
Not surprisingly against this very challenging economic background the labour market has
deteriorated in a very damaging fashion - unemployment has increased sharply and significant
job losses have occurred across the private sector, and more recently in the public sector.
Table 1 gives a sector-by-sector breakdown of recent employment trends across the economy.
The most up to date data refer to the second quarter of 2011. Between the highest point of the
labour market in the third quarter of 2007 to the second quarter of 2011, total employment in
the economy declined by 328,500.
The second column in Table 1 shows the decline from the sectoral peak to the second quarter
of 2011 by sector. The construction sector has clearly experienced the most dramatic decline in
employment. However, significant job losses have also occurred in areas such as manufacturing
industry, the wholesale & retail trade, and accommodation & food services. More recently, job
losses are starting to occur in the public sector as the consolidation of the public finances has
resulted in a ban on recruitment across the public sector.
It is also becoming apparent that the very negative momentum that has characterised the
labour market for the past three years is decelerating, as evidenced by the decline of 2 per cent
or 37,800 in the 12-month period to the end of the second quarter. In the year to the second
quarter of 2010, the annual rate of decline was 4.1 per cent. These increasing signs of
stabilisation in the labour market are consistent with growing evidence that the overall
economy is now stabilising after a precipitous decline in activity from 2008 onwards. In the first
half of 2011, gross domestic product (GDP) was 1.3 per cent higher than the first half of 2010
and gross national product (GNP) was 1 per cent higher. One of the key challenges is that the
recovery in the economy is being driven by the external sector, with much of the export growth
being driven by productivity improvements rather than employment creation. A meaningful
recovery in domestic demand will be a pre-requisite for a sustainable improvement in
employment.
3|Page

4. Table 1
Employment Trends
SECTOR CHANGE FROM CHANGE OVER 12 NUMBERS EMPLOYED
PEAK2 MONTHS Q2 2011
Agriculture, F&F -30,400 +900 85,800
Industry -71,900 -6,400 233,700
Construction -162,900 -19,600 105,700
Wholesale & Retail Trade -48,600 -3,500 265,600
Transportation & Storage -2,600 +5,000 94,700
Accommodation & Food -30,600 -12,600 107,200
Services
Information & - +800 74,900
Communications
Financial, Insurance & Real -5,700 +700 103,900
Estate
Professional, Scientific & -14,800 +900 101,800
Technical
Administrative & Support -16,600 +4,800 66,100
Services
Public Admin. & Defence -7,500 -7,600 100,200
Education -7,400 -3,300 146,500
Human Health & Social - +3,000 237,900
Work
Other -13,500 -900 97,200
Total -328,500 -37,800 1,821,300
Source: CSO, Quarterly National Household Survey, September 2011.
The Live Register is not designed to measure unemployment in the economy. It includes part-
time workers (those who work up to three days per week), and seasonal & casual workers
entitled to Jobseekers’ Benefit or Allowance. However, the live register is still a good gauge of
labour market conditions. Between the third quarter of 2006 and August 2011 the number of
people signing on the live register increased by 321,207. In August 2011, the unemployment
2
The peak of employment in various sectors may have occurred in different quarters from the peak in overall
employment. Hence the figures in the column do not add up to total decline in employment. Total employment
peaked in Q3 2007.
4|Page

5. rate stood at 14.5 per cent of the labour force, compared to 4.3 per cent at the end of 2006
(Figure 1).
The number of people classified as long-term unemployed accounted for 53.9 per cent of total
unemployment in the second quarter of 2011 and the long-term unemployment rate stood at
7.7 per cent of the labour force, up from just 2.6 per cent two years earlier.
Figure 1
Source: CSO Live Register, September 2011
Clearly labour market conditions remain very difficult. In the programme for government3, the
incoming administration gave a strong commitment to support the protection and creation of
jobs. It followed this commitment up with a ‘jobs initiative’ in May 2011. This is a clear and
justified recognition that from a political, social and economic perspective, the preservation and
creation of jobs has to be given key priority status.
It is in this context that the proposed implementation of the Directive on Temporary Agency
Work should be judged. In this regard the question has to be asked if the proposed measure
will enhance or damage the ability of the economy to support the protection and creation of
jobs. The evidence appears to suggest that job prospects would be more likely to be damaged
by the directive.
3
‘Towards Recovery – Programme for a National Government 2011-2016, March 2011.
5|Page

6. THE BENEFITS OF THE AGENCY WORK MODEL
The use of agency workers has become an important feature of the Irish labour market in
recent years. There are many reasons why certain employers engage staff through agencies,
but the overriding reason is the flexibility that it permits.
The multi-national sector and the health service are two of the principle areas of the Irish
labour market where agency workers play an important role in the functioning of the market.
However, agency workers are now being increasingly utilized in retail, telesales, credit control,
office administration, human resources, industry, finance and the hospitality sector. The growth
in agency workers usage reflects the fact that it is a model that works for both employers and
the majority of employees.
There are a number of significant reasons why employers utilize agency workers. The key
reasons include:
Adding to the permanent workforce often requires particular sanctions which limit an
employer’s ability to be flexible in taking on new employees;
For companies with a ‘freeze’ on permanent employment, the use of agency workers to
fulfill a clear requirement for extra staff is frequently used to circumvent such
limitations:
They fill roles temporarily vacated by permanent employees due to a variety of reasons
such as sick-leave, maternity leave, holidays or career break;
The use of agency workers obviates the need for employers to engage in a time
consuming and often expensive search process. It allows companies outsource
recruitment and achieve cost savings;
They allow new skills to be tested;
They allow specialist skills to be acquired for short-term projects;
Multi-national companies setting up in a country or expanding often use agency workers
until they can fill all of the vacancies on a full-time basis. This allows production proceed
from an early stage;
The use of agency workers allows greater control over payroll costs, which is important
for any company in an increasingly competitive globalised economy, but is particularly
important in the current very difficult global economic circumstances;
6|Page

7. It allows companies the flexibility to satisfy increased business and stronger demand in a
flexible manner until it becomes clear that the growth in business is permanent and
sustainable, rather than just a temporary cyclical phenomenon. In many cases
companies cannot commit to long-term hiring until it becomes clear that the increase in
business is quasi-permanent;
In the current very difficult and challenging economic environment, the use of
temporary workers does provide greater flexibility in downsizing in order to ensure the
longer-term survival of the business; and
For companies that require short-term staff, the use of an agency simplifies the logistics
of sourcing and paying suitable candidates.
The benefits of agency workers for employers are very clear, but for the agency workers
themselves, the process can be very beneficial and positive. The reality is that the jobs created
offer convenient, high quality employment for many workers in Ireland and worldwide and
offer a positive alternative for many. For example, in the case of workers who do not want to or
who are not able to commit to full-time employment, the agency option is very beneficial. It
also facilitates the gaining of valuable work experience and the enhancement of a C.V., while
there is always the possibility that a temporary assignment will become permanent if the
temporary assignment is successful. It also allows agency workers work for a number of
different employers and gain broad work experience. For life/work balance, the agency model
can make a very positive contribution.
In the current difficult economic and labour market environment, attaining full-time
employment is very difficult and the agency route does provide a very valuable opportunity to
maintain existing skills and develop new ones. This could be of major benefit if and when more
normal economic and labour market conditions materialize.
7|Page

8. THE INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE
At a global level, the use of agency workers has increased significantly over the past decade. It
is estimated that the number of agency workers in full-time equivalents has increased from 5.2
million in 1999 to 8.9 million in 2009.4 In 2009, almost 36 per cent of those were located in
Europe, with the UK accounting for over 33 per cent of the European total. In the rest of the
world excluding Europe, the USA accounts for almost 35 per cent of the total. Globally, the USA
and UK combined account for 34 per cent of total agency workers.
During the global recession the numbers declined, but strong growth has occurred in 2010 and
2011. Eurociett reports that the agency work industry, which is defined as the number of hours
worked by agency workers, increased by 8 per cent in the EU in the year to June 20115. The
agency work industry in Europe has been expanding every month over the past 15 months and
is now close to pre-crisis levels again.
The growth in agency work has coincided with a decline in unemployment. The inverse
relationship between agency work and unemployment is quite strong. Consequently, the
challenge now is that with EU growth slowing again, agency work could start to decline.
For businesses that use agency workers, the key issue is that under the Directive, the agency
worker will be entitled to the same basic working and employment conditions as if they had
been recruited directly by the hirer on day one of the assignment. Employers will be faced with
the choice of absorbing the extra cost associated with agency workers under the terms of the
Directive, or alternatively stop using agency workers and either force existing staff to work
more overtime, hire more casual staff or eschew business expansion. The UK has obtained a
derogation of 12 weeks.
In the UK, the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) research6 indicates that in sectors such as
energy and water, agency workers typically represent 7 per cent of the workforce and 5 per
cent in manufacturing. In contrast, in lower paid and lower skilled sectors such as retail, agency
workers account for just 1 per cent of the workforce. This contradicts the notion that agency
workers are low skilled and low paid. Indeed the experience in the UK, Ireland and elsewhere
would suggest that agency workers are generally high skilled and high paid.
4
‘The Agency Work Industry around the World’, CIETT, 2011.
5
‘Agency Work Business Indicator’, eurociett, September 2011.
6
CBI News Release, September 2007.
8|Page

9. The CBI is fundamentally opposed to the principle that the staff of one firm (the Agency) should
be compared to the staff of another (the user)7. The CBI research suggests that the Directive
could place 252,000 agency placements in jeopardy, which is equivalent to 23.6 per cent of
total agency workers in 2009.
7
‘CBI Response to the BIS consultation on the agency workers directive’, CBI, July 2009.
9|Page

10. BUSINESS COMPETITIVENESS
Competitiveness is a key driver of economic performance and employment creation. As well as
including costs such as consumer price inflation, wages and the numerous non-pay costs of
doing business, it is influenced by factors such as the quality of the labour force, labour market
regulation and flexibility, the legal system, the quality of the physical and IT infrastructure, and
the general ease of conducting business. All of these factors are particularly important for
attracting mobile international investment, which has been a very important part of Ireland’s
economic development strategy for at least five decades.
Attracting Foreign Direct Investment
Ireland has a strong track record in terms of attracting foreign direct investment and has
succeeded in attracting some of the world’s major corporations to the country. According to
the IDA8, the 985 companies that it supports accounted for 138,968 jobs in 2010. Of these jobs,
125,432 or 90.3 per cent were full-time jobs. The remaining 13,536 jobs were Part-Time,
Temporary and Short-Term Contract employees.
Ireland does punch above its economic weight in terms of attracting foreign direct investment,
particularly from the USA. Gray et all (2010)9 identify eight factors that influence the
comparative advantage of a country in terms of attracting mobile foreign investment. The eight
factors are:
1. Access to Markets;
2. Education, Skills and Research & Development;
3. Productivity and Labour Costs;
4. Taxation and Cost of Capital;
5. Intermediate Input Costs;
6. Ease of Doing Business;
7. Exchange Rates; and
8. Demonstration Effects.
8
IDA Ireland, Annual Report and Accounts 2010.
9
Gray, Alan W., Swinand, Gregory P., & Batt,William H., ‘Economic Analysis of Ireland’s Comparative Advantages
for Foreign Investment, 2010.
10 | P a g e

11. Within the Education, Skills and Research & Development category, the key criteria are
identified as:
Access to Skilled Employees;
Flexible Labour Force;
Creativity and Imagination of People; and
Quality of Research and Development.
Given Ireland’s ongoing strong track record in terms of attracting mobile foreign investment, it
clearly has a number of competitive advantages, outside of the attractive 12.5 per cent
corporation tax rate. According to the IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook 2011, Ireland
ranks 1st for the availability of skilled labour, 4th for labour productivity,3rd for the availability of
financial skills and 7th for the adaptability and flexibility of people.
Competitiveness
The environment for attracting foreign direct investment has become more challenging as
many emerging economies in particular, compete much more aggressively for mobile
investment. Ireland’s position has also been pressurised by the sharp increase in the costs of
doing business after 2000.
At a macro-economic level, the Harmonised Competitiveness Indicator (HCI) is a key measure of
a country’s cost competitiveness measured against its major trading partners.
There are three ways of measuring the HCI:
1. The nominal HCI, which includes inflation;
2. The real HCI, which is deflated by consumer prices; and
3. The real HCI deflated by producer prices.
Between 2000 and 2008, Ireland lost considerable international cost competitiveness on all
three metrics. Between the end of 2000 and April 2008:
The nominal HCI appreciated by 31.4 per cent;
The real HCI deflated by consumer prices appreciated by 39.4 per cent; and
The real HCI deflated by producer prices appreciated by 26.3 per cent.
11 | P a g e

12. This reflected adverse exchange rate movements as well as sharp increases in the general cost
of doing business and in consumer prices. This loss of competitiveness was instrumental in the
slowdown in both service and merchandise exports, and the pressure on the capacity to attract
foreign direct investment. Following the onset of recession in 2008, Ireland’s external cost
competitiveness improved as most prices and costs responded to the changed economic
circumstances.
Between April 2008 and July 2011:
The nominal HCI has fallen by 3.8 per cent;
The real HCI deflated by consumer prices has fallen by 12 per cent; and
The real HCI deflated by producer prices has fallen by 8.3 per cent.
This reflects favourable exchange rate movements, a downward adjustment to consumer
prices, and a decline in many of the costs of doing business.
Figure 2 tracks these three different measures of Ireland’s external competitiveness.
Figure 2
Source: Central Bank of Ireland
12 | P a g e

13. In overall terms, the cost of doing business and the cost of living in Ireland have improved
during the recession. However, the country remains relatively expensive in an international
context. According to analysis from the National Competitiveness Council (NCC) 10, Ireland has
made progress in terms of its overall cost competitiveness. Pay costs have improved, but
Ireland still has the 11th highest total labour costs in the OECD, but is in line with a number of
western European countries. When net wages are considered, Ireland has the fourth highest
net wage levels in the OECD-28, and is 40 per cent higher than the OECD-28 average. This is
partly attributed to the relatively small difference between before-tax and after-tax wages in
Ireland.
Ireland has also experienced reductions in many non-pay costs, but in relative terms the impact
of these decreases on Irish cost competitiveness has been reduced as there have also been
significant cost decreases in many other countries.
Ireland has a considerable challenge ahead to continue to improve the general competitiveness
environment, but it is essential to do so in order to re-create a strong and sustainable economic
model. Labour market flexibility is a key ingredient for national competitiveness and the
transposition into law of the Temporary Agency Worker Directive will make labour more
expensive and undermine the flexibility of the labour market.
10
Ireland’s Competitiveness Scorecard 2011’, National Competitiveness Council, Forfas, July 2011.
13 | P a g e

14. ASSESSMENT OF THE POSSIBLE IMPACT OF THE DIRECTIVE ON
TEMPORARY AGENCY WORK
It is clear from the foregoing analysis that while Ireland has regained some of its lost
competitiveness as result of the recession, the country still faces immense challenges in
retaining existing foreign direct investment and attracting new investment. The most
appropriate response to this challenge is to ensure that competitiveness, broadly defined,
remains top of the domestic policy agenda.
The flexibility of the labour market is clearly of enormous importance in terms of overall
competitiveness, and anything that undermines this flexibility would undermine
competitiveness and would not be positive for the economy in general and for employment in
particular.
Based on interviews with a number of employers who utilize agency workers and on a
considerable body of research, it is very clear that employers in Ireland, be they foreign-owned
or domestic employers, regard the proposed introduction of the Directive on Temporary
Agency Work as a development that will damage the flexibility of the labour market and
ultimately undermine employment in the economy.
For the multi-national sector, where there is a significant reliance on agency workers due to the
flexibility that they give rise to, the Directive as it stands with no qualifying period, is viewed as
a development that would undermine flexibility and competitiveness. For multinational
companies and indeed for all users of agency workers, the extra financial cost and the increased
bureaucracy involved in applying the directive would be likely to force companies to question
their use of temporary agency workers and to evaluate from a cost perspective if a temporary
agency worker is one they can justify and maintain. The clear view is that a statutory regime
that is overly restrictive will act as a major disincentive to employers to engage the services of
agency workers. For an economy that is already under pressure to maintain existing levels of
foreign direct investment and attract new investment, the application of the Directive as laid
out in the legislation would not be helpful.
A number of multi-nationals were interviewed in the preparation of this report, and the
message is very clear – the Temporary Agency Worker Directive will add considerably to the
cost of doing business and could ultimately threaten the survival of the company in Ireland.
14 | P a g e

15. According to the multi-nationals interviewed the projected extra costs arising from the
Directive could include:
Bonus payments;
Sick pay;
Pension contributions;
Health cover;
Life Assurance;
Disability Insurance;
Service awards;
Attendance Bonus Scheme;
Recognition awards;
Stock Options;
Discount on shares purchased;
Gym access;
Service facilities;
Social club and related events; and
Study sponsorship.
For a large multi-national, the additional costs incurred as a result of the Directive could exceed
€5 million per annum, depending on the number of agency workers employed.
One relatively small multi-national interviewed stated categorically that the use of a higher
percentage of agency workers enabled the company to hold on to a contract with a large US
multi-national. In the absence of the cost savings achieved, the company would have lost the
contract and this would have impacted directly on over 500 jobs. The use of agency workers
contributed to a very competitive contract that saved the jobs.
The clear message from a number of multi-nationals interviewed is that a statutory regime that
is too restrictive would undermine competitiveness and cost jobs, if not business survival.
15 | P a g e

16. The HSE is also a major user of agency workers and they play a key role in delivering front line
health services. With serious limitations on the recruitment of full-time staff within the health
service, agency workers are being used in increasing numbers. The Directive will add
considerably to the HSE’s costs and will make it much more difficult to deliver front line
services. In an environment where the HSE’s funding is being cut back, it is very hard to see how
it can possibly maintain acceptable services if it is forced to carry the extra cost burden implied
by the Directive. For non-HSE health providers, the extra costs will also prove very difficult to
sustain.
A number of issues arise in relation to the legislation:
It could give rise to a potentially significant increase in cases brought against employers,
which they would have to defend at great cost both financially and in management
time;
Affording agency workers the same rights as existing full time employees who would
most probably have a much greater knowledge and understanding of the job would not
make sense;
It would seriously complicate any redundancy programme a company might be engaging
in for business survival;
Where employers who use agency workers have to bear the cost of the agency fees as
well as the wages of the worker, the cost implication could make it uneconomic to
acquire the services of an agency worker in the first place;
The costs involved in the Directive for the employment agencies who supply the
workers, and the likely reduction in demand for agency workers, would represent a
serious threat to the recruitment industry, which currently employs over 3,000 people in
Ireland. The recruitment agencies fulfill a very important role in the proper functioning
of the labour market and provide a very valuable service to employers. It is hard to
argue that any legislation that would undermine the recruitment industry would be in
the best interests of the overall economy and the labour market;
Given the changed nature in the relationship between the recruitment agency and the
employer that the Directive would imply, considerable uncertainty would arise in
relation to issues such as where the liability for any breaches of the legislation might
rest; and
16 | P a g e

17. It is far from clear what benefits amount to pay. Companies that provide benefits such
as health insurance, pension contributions and club subscriptions would have to
calculate what all of these benefits are worth and add it to the rate of remuneration
paid to agency workers. This would significantly increase the cost of hiring agency
workers and would undoubtedly reduce demand for such workers.
Agency workers play a key role in the efficient functioning of the labour market and for a
variety of reasons already explained; provide considerable benefits to both employers and the
agency workers themselves. It is clear that in transposing the Directive into national
employment legislation in Ireland, clarity will have to be provided on the exact definition of
pay, where the liability actually resides and a derogation period of up to 12 months would be
advisable.
It is estimated that Ireland currently has around 35,000 actual agency workers servicing
employers. It is very difficult to be definitive about what impact the Directive if applied literally
would have on this employment. However, it is clear that the Directive as literally interpreted
would undermine demand for agency workers and make them considerably less attractive to
many employers. If the UK analysis is applied to Ireland, this could result in the loss of up to
8,400 agency workers, and possibly up to another 1,000 job losses in the recruitment industry.
Given the uncertainty surrounding the exact impact and the attitude of employers towards the
Directive, transposing the Directive in its literal form is not a risk work taking.
17 | P a g e

18. CONCLUSIONS
The Directive sets out the principle of equal treatment that the ‘basic working and employment
conditions of temporary agency workers shall be, for the duration of their assignment at a user
undertaking, at least those that would apply if they had been recruited directly by that
undertaking to occupy the same job’. The default position in the Directive is that this principle
should apply from day one of the agency worker’s assignment. However, the Directive also
allows some flexibility as to how this principle is applied, including the possibility of a qualifying
period before the right to equal treatment applies, provided this is based on an agreement
reached by the social partners in the relevant country. In the UK, agreement has been reached
on a qualifying period of 12 weeks.
Employment preservation and creation has been laid down as one of the key priorities of
government. Given the unemployment crisis in which Ireland now finds itself, employment
preservation and creation has to be a priority from both an economic and social perspective.
Unemployment is a social and economic evil – it represents a loss of economic output; it
represents a waste of human capital; it gives rise to numerous social problems and destroys
self-esteem for many; it robs the country and society of valuable social and intellectual capital
as people move elsewhere to avail of employment opportunity; and it undermines the stability
of the Exchequer finances.
Anything that is seen to potentially undermine employment in the economy should generally
be regarded as evil, and anything that is seen to enhance employment opportunity should be
regarded as good.
It is in this context that the proposed implementation of the EU Directive on Temporary Agency
Work should be assessed. It is clear that the Directive if applied literally will damage the
flexibility of the workforce, increase the costs of employment and ultimately cost jobs. The job
losses resulting from the Directive could be as high as 9,400. In the context of Ireland’s current
employment crisis, this is not a risk worth taking.
Government needs to listen to the views expressed by employers of agency workers and apply
the legislation in a more flexible manner, with a derogation of up to 12 months and greater
clarification of the issues involved. It is difficult to see how the legislation as drafted in its pure
form could possibly benefit employers, the agency workers themselves and the economy in
general. Labour market flexibility and competitiveness are essential ingredients for Ireland’s
future success and both must be preserved to the greatest extent possible, while at the same
time treating agency workers fairly.
18 | P a g e