A building industry pension scheme under which trade union officers receive a "bounty" for recruiting workers to the scheme has proved expensive, ineffective and wide open to abuse. According to an internal report by the pension scheme's monitoring agency, seen by The Irish Times, the "bounty hunting" system cost £150,000 to operate in the 10 months ending last April but generated only £85,000 in revenue.
Under the system, jointly administered by the Construction Industry Federation and the trade unions, nominated union officers can enter any site and receive a bounty of £350 for workers not registered with the construction industry pension fund. The company is then obliged to register the employee and begin weekly payments.
With each employee liable to contribute £5.08 a week, and each employer £9.58, it should quickly cover the bounty. But that is not how it works.
Despite this seemingly strong incentive, only 35,500 construction workers out of an estimated 150,000 are registered with the pension scheme. Most bounties are claimed for small groups of workers, or even for individuals.
Another inhibiting factor is that only companies which are not members of the Construction Industry Federation are covered by the legislation. It assumes that CIF firms - about half of all builders, including the largest enterprises - are complying with the scheme.
This system has been received with increasing reluctance by building workers for the past decade. The issue came to a head last month at a mass meeting of SIPTU general operatives (GOs) in Liberty Hall. The GOs are the poorest paid within the sector and also have the lowest ratio of workers covered by the scheme.
They discovered that funds from the joint CIF-trade union monitoring agency for the pension scheme are to be used to finance a new pay review for the industry. That money, in turn, is contributed in weekly payments of 25p by workers. Many younger workers at the meeting were enraged when they heard of the bounty system, its high cost and its ineffectiveness.
A march is being organised by the Dublin Alliance of General Construction Operatives (DAGCO), an unofficial body which organised marches last year over pay and site safety. One of its members, Mr Darren McGuinness, says that "sick benefits are less than they should be, death benefit is less than it should be, and pensions are less than they should be because there are not enough people in the scheme".
At present a building worker with 35 years' full paid contributions can expect a pension of £164 a month.
DAGCO wants the Government to introduce a system of pension clearance certificates for employers, similar to tax clearance certificates.
Coincidentally, some members of the Construction Industry Federation and senior trade unionists have been expressing concerns about the system.
A recent "Income versus Cost Report", done for the joint monitoring agency on the construction industry pension scheme, shows that between July 1998 and April 1999, almost £150,000 more was paid out in bounties than was generated in new contributions.
The Building and Allied Trades Union received £68,010.15 in bounties, but the new members generated only £30,000 in extra income. Yet BATU was one of the better performers.
The United Construction, Allied and Technical Trades union received £1,400 but no extra revenue was generated as a result of its activities. The Technical Engineering and Electrical Union received £350 in bounties and no income.
The Operative Plasterers and Allied Trades Society was paid £108,850 in bounties and generated £4,357.07 in income. The painters' division of SIPTU was paid £24,150 in bounties and generated £1,848.34 income.
The main SIPTU construction sector was awarded £64,750 in bounties and generated £10,972.97. One SIPTU branch in Mayo received another £5,600 in bounties. These generated no income.
In total, £235,100 was paid out by the joint monitoring agency in bounties and an income of £85,188.43 was brought in.
A major cause of resentment amongst workers is that trade union officers visiting a site to check pension scheme compliance are barred from using the opportunity to investigate members' grievances.