CBI says Bosses must pay workers more (is it their patriotic duty?)

No, this is not a New Year spoof but has the Spirit of Christmas finally got the better of the Scrooges union boss or is there a more practical reason for such a statement?  

John Cridland, director general of the CBI, said that businesses had to deliver "better pay and more opportunities" for their employees....still far too many people stuck in minimum wage jobs without routes to progression, and that's a serious challenge that businesses and the government must address"  BBC report here

Is this anything to do with this   "2013 will be the fifth calendar year in a row when average earnings increase by less than prices.  This is unprecedented in at least the last seventy to eighty years, and possibly for much longer".  CIPD

Check out TUC "Britain Needs a Payrise" "Depressed wages equal depressed consumer demand, which leads to less investment and productivity falls - a spiral of economic decline. Lower wages also mean reduced tax receipts, leaving less revenue for vital services".

I am by coincidence writing up a draft pay claim for my employer 2014/2015 to union stewards for their agreement. Shall I also include this statement "it is clear from the comments of the CBI and the Chartered Institute of Personal & Development that it your patriotic duty to pay your workers more".

Oxford Economics or Mickeymouseonomics?

I enjoyed this demolition in "Redbrick" of the so-called "report" issued yesterday by the CBI on apparent cost savings in the public sector from outsourcing.   Steve Hilditch pulls it to pieces with regard to Social Housing management.

The Right are coming out with some really desperate rubbish lately. While I blame the tax evaders alliance for starting this trend we must also wonder why the media chases headlines regardless of merit?

Torygraph and Tax Avoiders Alliance “twaddle” about unions

What a lot of old twaddle from the Torygraph and the Tax Avoiders’ Alliance about “millions” being (so called) wasted on time off for trade union stewards and safety reps to represent their members.

So every time a rep goes to a meeting with a member or sits down with management to sort out local problems - this is somehow “fund (ing) the activities of the union barons”? How silly.

So what exactly are these “Big Society” Tories clones proposing should happen instead?

a. Workers facing discipline or sickness hearings should be banned from having trade union colleague representing them?
b. safety reps should not be allowed to carry out workplace inspections or investigate accidents ?
c. organisations should not consult elected staff representatives on pay, proposed redundancies or changes to terms and conditions?

This is all politically motivated stuff and nonsense and I suppose in one way we should expect such “tic for tat” attacks on the unions due to our support for Labour. Frankly, I would have thought that they could have come out with something just a little more intelligent to have a go at us.

If you are thinking about efficiency I would suggest the Tories and their allies look into the number of HR personnel in large organisations (and wages paid to the HR directors!) compared to the facility time offered to trade union reps?

The only really sensible quote in the Torygraph article is from UNISON General Secretary Dave Prentis about the role of union reps "Far from causing industrial strife, paid facility time has contributed to the lowest levels of strikes on record. In short – trade union facility time makes good business sense."

The TUC blog “Stronger unions” reports on the Tax Avoiders that “The voice of employers is also absent from the report – quite odd given that I assume that the TPA would regard itself as a friend of employers. Is this because only last year the CBI joined with the TUC and BIS to publish a report – Reps in Action – on the role of union reps and stated that it;

“Believes that modern [union] representatives have a lot to give their fellow employees and to the organisations that employ them”

The Ultra right wing “teenage scribblers” of the Torygraph and the Tax Avoiders' Alliance have (self evidently) no idea whatsoever of industrial relations in the real world.

UNISONactive and Socialist Unity have sensible posts on this as well. Caption from here

Union’s are good for business

Very interesting post in Stronger Unions about new research on the value to the economy of union reps - this has led to a joint statement released by the TUC, Government and the CBI that “union reps (are worth) between £3.4bn and £10.2bn (net) to the UK economy, on the basis that their presence in a workplace brings about a combination of productivity gains, reduced staff turnover, less time off as a result of sickness, improved health and safety and better training for staff”.

This must be true since the forward of the statement is signed by Lord Mandelson no less!

Actually this makes sense and while some reps may feel a little uncomfortable with such a conclusion I don’t - not least since I sometimes feel that I spend a considerable amount of time every week trying to persuade members that the correct course of action is not to punch their manager’s lights out - et al.

Seriously, there has been countless studies were it has been found that if employees feel that they have no voice or are powerless and unable to influence or change things at work then that employer is in serious trouble.

A step forward for agency workers

By co-incidence last night I was having a bit of a rant about an attempt to promote agency working amongst social housing workers. Today, it was announced that a deal with the TUC, CBI and government has been made over “fairness” for agency workers! I think that this is a result for the TUC and affiliated Labour Party trade unions.

It’s very good news, not brilliant (no parity over pensions and sick pay) however, this should improve the terms and conditions for hundreds of thousands of workers. Locally in the East End of London I am aware of a number of long term agency workers who will be lifted out of minimum wage rates. UNISON Labour Link used this information to lobby the government.

It should also encourage permanent contracts for vulnerable workers since it will make increase agency fees.

The TUC and Dave Prentis think it is a move in the right direction. The CBI have obviously been pushed into the deal calling it the “least worse option” while the Federation of Small businesses call it “Disastrous”. No surprise there.

I do not see this measure surviving any future Tory government. Some “clear red water” to build upon for the General Election?

Company killers fined less than 1/700th of turnover

I received today a persuasive email alert from the Centre for Corporate Accountability (CCA). At the moment the Government Sentencing Advisory Panel (SAP) is drafting guidance for Courts on what sentence they should give companies convicted of work “death related” and manslaughter offences.

The CCA research show that most fines against companies convicted of offenses following work related deaths are less than 1/700th of turnover.

“If individuals earning an average annual income of £24,769 were sentenced at this level, they would be fined just £35.

The research also shows that the fines imposed on most of these companies was only 1% of their gross profits”.

The CCA quite rightly urge the SAP to ensure that Courts “fine companies convicted of 'death-related' health and safety offences between 2.5 and 10% of the company's turnover and for the new corporate manslaughter offence of between 15 and 40% of the company's turnover".

Company directors should in my view face jail if convicted of such offences. However, this is not happening for the foreseeable future. So to make sure these laws bite, the penalty must meet the crime, not for revenge but to punish and deter. The present penalties are clearly inadequate and must be raised significantly.

Tell the CBI and those who oppose large fines that unless the legislation works, then the demand for jail terms will return.

This of course a suitable topic only a few weeks before Workers Memorial Day – Monday 28 April 2008.

Row over corporate killing fines

This months SHP magazine reports on a row about how to fine offenders under the new “Corporate Manslaughter and Homicide Act”. The Sentencing Advisory panel have suggested that the fine should be 2.5-10% of an offending company’s annual turnover.

The IOSH think this is fair since it is in line with the fines that can be levied on companies for infringing European competition law. Surprise, surprise the CBI (the “Voice of Business”) think that fines running into “hundreds of millions of pounds...unfair”. While the CCA thinks even 10% is too low.

The CBI seems to forget that this is about companies being punished for killing people. While competition laws are important surely committing manslaughter should attract a higher penalty. Better still a custodial sentence?

Justice for Agency Workers?

Good to read in the Times On-line today that exploited agency workers may finally be given some protection under an EU directive and no longer treated as 3rd class citizens.

Details are a little unclear but I suspect that “The Times” is scaremongering as usual over the suggestion that agency workers will be getting “full rights” after only 6 weeks. It takes a year for permanent staff to be given protection from unfair dismissal so I can’t see agency staff being given greater rights than permanent.

I hope that it is intended to put an end to a two tier “terms and conditions” workforce and that agency staff should be on “broadly similar” terms as permanent staff. I cannot for the life of me work out why anyone apart from agency bosses would be opposed to this? We gave part time and long term directly employed temps the same rights years ago. The world did not end. The harsh facts of the matter are that many agency workers are treated like dirt by their employers and something simply needs to be done about it.

Also, we see the CBI are up to their usual dirty tricks by claiming that up to “250,000” workers will lose their jobs if this directive is implemented! Yeah, just like the millions of jobs they forecast will be lost if there was a minimum wage.

It is, to say the least, “disappointing” that the Labour government is apparently trying to delay the changes. I can understand why they feel that they have to keep up this “Fairness not Favours” balancing act on employment issues. Labour wants (and needs) the support of “middle England” as well as the unions. However, this is 100% a fundamental fairness and social justice issue. Many agency jobs are not on real “temporary” assignments. They are just cheap and easy to get rid of. Millions of vulnerable British workers having to put up with low wages, no employment tenure and no sickness or pension benefits. The exchequer is being robbed out of billions in lost PAYE taxation and national insurance payments from bogus so-called self employment. In Tower Hamlets Council most of the housing caretakers are agency staff on minimum wage, no sick pay, no overtime rates, no employment protection and of course, no pensions. How on earth can anyone survive on £5.52 per hour in inner London?

To be fair to the government they say they are committed to bringing in rights for agency workers (its also I think an outstanding commitment from the Warwick agreement?) but say they “are worried” that the current proposals are badly written and could harm employment. I think these worries are overdone and exaggerated.

Maybe this is a vision thing for Gordon? It is also electorally clear “red water” that we ought to exploit for all its worth. The Tories are of course opposed to any such change.

Millions of agency workers could see tangible real benefits from a Labour government – pounds in their pocket, money if they become ill and money towards a pension for when they grow old. Genuine, real short term employment needs and flexibility will not suffer and no doubt there will still remain a large agency sector.

However what we can get rid of is 19th century Dickensian employment practices that have no place in a 21st century that should be led by principals of fairness and social justice (and BTW – a century of Labour Party governments with clear majorities?)