One wage for all ages

Great photo of our former UNISON Housing Associations branch manager & organiser, Josephine Grahl, with Jez and Dave Prentis, celebrating 20 years of National Minimum wage (and campaigning for all workers to be paid the same) 

Josephine is now the national officer for UNISON young members.

#OneWageAnyAge

"Sleep-in shifts judgment is a huge mistake"

This judgement is bad news for hundreds of thousands of low paid care workers (including my
niece).

Being paid not even the national minimum wage for work is simply a disgrace. I hope UNISON lawyers can find a way forward on this.

If not we need to campaign to force employers to pay. Local authorities can play a role in this as well as unions. See UNISON press release below. 

"The legal decision today (Friday) not to count sleep-in shifts as working time is wrong, and is at odds with legal precedents and a common sense understanding of what counts as work, says UNISON.

Today’s Court of Appeal judgment in favour of Mencap overturns a previous ruling at an employment appeal tribunal in April 2017.

UNISON took the initial case to an employment tribunal on behalf of care worker Claire Tomlinson-Blake. It argued that sleep-in shifts should count as working time, and should be paid at hourly minimum wage rates or higher.

The union argues that most care workers on sleep-in shifts aren’t sleeping. Most nights they have to get up to care for people, are on constant call, and are not free to come and go from their place of work.

Commenting on the case, UNISON general secretary Dave Prentis said: “This judgment is a mistake, but let’s be clear where the fault lies. The blame for this sorry state of affairs that’s hitting some of the country’s lowest paid workers must be laid at the government’s door.

“Ministers are so consumed by Brexit that they’re ignoring huge problems around them. Social care is in crisis, and this situation wouldn’t have arisen if the government had put enough money into the system and enforced minimum wage laws properly.

“Sleep-in shifts involve significant caring responsibilities, often for very vulnerable people. With too few staff on at night, most care workers are often on their feet all shift, only grabbing a few minutes sleep if they can.

“That’s why it’s such a disgrace that workers have been paid a pittance for sleep-ins – with some getting just £30 for a ten-hour shift.

“As a society we should value care staff and the work they do, but unfortunately we don’t. After this judgment who could blame care workers for leaving in their droves.”

As a result of the judgment, UNISON is considering an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Notes to editors:
– Last autumn the government introduced the social care compliance scheme. This aims to ensure that companies and charities providing care services to the elderly and vulnerable adults settle the back-pay owed to staff for sleep-in shifts that haven’t been paid at minimum wage rates.
– Most workers have not yet received any of their backdated wages, and it’s not clear what today’s ruling means for staff owed money.
– More information on UNISON’s position on the social care compliance scheme is available here.

UNISON Council workers to vote on strike action over pay

Hat tip Stoke on Trent UNISON "Your employer has offered you a 1% pay rise if you earn £7.71 an hour or more. If your hourly rate is £6.45 – £7.26 you have been offered slightly more than 1% to keep levels just above the National Minimum Wage.

This offer applies to more than one million workers.

Unison doesn’t think this pay offer is anywhere near enough – it doesn’t keep pace with price increases and will have a negative impact on your pension. Unison is therefore now in the process of balloting members over industrial action.

The ballot opened on 23 May and closes on 23 June.  If your area is covered by NJC Green Book Terms & Conditions and you have not received a ballot paper by 29 May 2014, you can request one online at unison.org.uk/my-unison/welcome or by calling 0800 0857 857. Lines are open Monday to Friday from 6 am until midnight and 9am-4pm on Saturdays.  The ballot helpline closes as 12 noon on 18 June 2014 and this will be the last opportunity to request a paper.

If members give the green light for strike action,  it is hoped the planned strike on 10 July will make the employers see sense and start negotiating seriously.

Questions About The Ballot and Industrial Action?

Unison has produced the answers to forty frequently asked questions.  Download this crucially important information now – Members FAQs NJC Pay 2014 Industrial Action Ballot
Subjects covered include:

• What’s happening, what does it mean – why are we striking?
• I want to strike but I’m worried about……
• Why should I strike when…….
• About The Ballot

A Minimum Wage, A Living Wage or Fair Pay for All?

The introduction of the National Minimum Wage was one of the great successes of the last Labour Government and trade unions such as UNISON who had pushed long and hard for it.

So successful that we now take it a little for granted and forget the huge opposition from the Tories who claimed that it would lead to business failures and mass unemployment.

While a national minimum wage of £6.19 per hour is far, far better than no minimum, it is simply not enough to live on. It is poverty pay. The vast majority of workers on minimum wage will also need to have their wages topped up by the State in housing benefit or family tax credit.  

The idea of a "Living wage" is the amount needed to "let workers lead a decent life". It is currently £7.45ph (and £8.55 ph in London).  Accountancy firm KPMG recently estimated that 20% of workers (5 million) are paid less than a Living wage.

Labour Leader Ed Miliband is in favour of making the Living wage compulsory in the public sector and in their procurement practices. He also believes in naming and shaming other companies that don't pay a living wage.

If this happened it would be a fantastic news for the low paid and also the British tax payers since we will not have to subsidise many poverty pay employers. It would also result in a welcome boast in demand for the British economy.

Yet, at the risk of being churlish, is even a "Living Wage" - not enough?

If you are on a Living wage but become sick and have no income protection you will immediately fall back into poverty. If you retire and have no company pension you will also fall back into poverty in old age. If you are on a Living wage but are on a Zero hour (or Bank) contract and have no employment protection, how can you live a "decent life" with no security? Ed Miliband is also  in favour of restricting Zero Hour Contracts. It has been estimated that there could be as many as one million workers on such contracts. 

What about those traditional low pay sectors which can actually afford to pay more than just a living wage and also pay decent sick pay and a pension?

So what about the concept of "Fair Pay". This is a recognised goal of the International Labour Organisation (ILO). Your pay should not be just about your wage but also about sick pay, holidays, overtime, pensions and employment protection.   There are some private companies competing for public sector contracts who would quite happily pay £7.45 per hour if they did not have to pay for decent sickness protection and pensions.

On the other hand today I met up with my lovely niece, her partner and their young family.  She works as a care assistant in a privately run mental health project. She loves her job but is on the minimum wage and on a zero hour contract. She does not receive holiday pay (which I need to check) and also cannot get family tax credit because she is on a zero hours contract.  She only gets statutory sickness benefits and no pension. Due to her income she is likely not to be eligible to be auto-enrolled into a pension. 

If she was to get a Living wage and an extra £1.26 per hour it would transform her family finances but since she does not know from day to day what hours she will work and has no security of employment, it would still be practically impossible for her to make plans for her future. 

The answer to such poverty pay and conditions is that the next Labour Government must be as brave and as radical on this and other issues as its predecessor in 1945.  While in the long run the best protector of decent pay and conditions are the trade unions. Post 2015 Labour should impose Fair Pay for All.  A living wage, living sickness benefits, living pension and employment security for all. While at the same time introduce binding sectoral bargaining agreements between unions and employers for those sectors which can afford to pay more than a Living wage.

While this will save the Government money by reducing the state subsidy on poverty employers and increasing demand in the economy, it will lets not fool ourselves, cost more, especially in the public sector. This is a price worth paying and will need to be paid for by increases in progressive tax rates on those who can afford to pay more. 

I think to win the next General Election and get rid of the Tories we need to be honest with the public and also offer a genuine alternative. I asked my niece today if she voted in the last General Election. She admitted she didn't. I also asked if she thought the next Labour Government would ensure she would get a Living wage and security in employment would she vote for them? She said Yes. Her current MP is a Tory with a majority of just over 3000.

Hat tip picture to Pay Up Sainsburys.

Another 2010 Christmas Carol

Carol is a single mum with three small children who works in the kitchen of the Executive dining room of a British FT100 listed company in East London. She earns £13,000 per year for an average 40 hour week (the national minimum wage of £5.93 per hour is £12,334). She prepares food and cleans the dishes of people who earn up to 100 times what she is paid. She does not work directly for the company but is employed by a subcontractor on rolling 3 month temporary contracts.

Since her wages are so low she receives working tax credits from the government to supplement her income. She also has housing benefit to help her pay the rent and Council tax benefit at her two bed Council flat. Her children receive free school meals. All of this desperately needed support is paid for by the British taxpayer.

She of course does not receive any company pension or any sick pay. Despite the state benefits Carol and her children live hand-to-mouth and she has to rely on moneylenders to pay for emergencies as well as her children’s birthday and Christmas presents.

It is already pretty well known that the marginal rate of tax for the very low paid is far less than the extremely well paid executives that Carol serves and cleans up after.

But what is less well known that both the company who employs her and the FT100 Company she works at also outsources its revenue and profits abroad and pays the British Government relatively little in taxes.

Therefore the financial supplement to Carol’s meagre wages is being paid for by British taxpayers yet both companies who benefit from paying her poverty wages are avoiding paying taxes to the British government. Double bubble exploitation?

Why should British taxpayers subsidise miserable pay and conditions while at the very same time letting these same Scrooge employers avoid paying their fair share of British taxes. Surely this is not right?

Remember before feeling too outraged and smug that you probably have pension and insurance funds that invest in both these companies and make money out of them. Your future pension could be financed by other people’s personal misery.

Hat tip Fair Pensions. Watch out for their next campaign on a Living Wage for all top FT100 employees and their contractors. 

Check above Picture and the other Christmas Carol

"Two Tier Code will be mourned by some but welcomed by many" (pass the sic bag)

I have just come across a briefing by  - let us say a "progressive (sic?) international law firm" (mum's the word).

In this briefing these fine "progressives" were dribbling at what they believe to be the immediate prospect that this CONDEM government will soon abolish regulatory guidance on the "Two Tier Code" on out sourced public services.

This code was introduced after negotiations between the Labour Party and affiliated trade unions in 2004 (and improved in later agreements). 

The aim was to protect the terms and conditions of existing public sector staff who were transferred and that of new entrants.  Particularly with regard to pensions.  Now, the "code" was far from perfect but it did help protect against a race to the gutter by employers.  Protecting predominantly low paid female workers against "slash and burn" of their already basic terms.  It was especially important in trying to prevent employers taking on new staff on rubbish terms and no pension.

Let us be perfectly clear - if the "code" is abolished this will mean existing staff protections will be undermined and most new entrants will be on National minimum wage (NMW) with no sick pay, no pension and minimum holidays.  Effectively this means poverty labour.

Now, thinking about the title of this post - who who exactly are the "many" that these progressives think will "welcome" the demise of the "Two Tier Code"?  Will it be the hundreds of thousands of workers likely be actually affected who will be the ones jumping up and down in joy at the prospect of a whole £5.80 per hour (if over 22)?  Or will it be "progressive international lawyers" who charge more per hour on such contracts than the NMW pays in a week?  

I know, I know...it's a tough question to answer....

Happy 10th Birthday - National Minimum Wage

Check out this website which is supported by UNISON, the TUC and NGO’s. On the 1st April the National Minimum Wage will be 10 years old.

You can lobby the Low Pay unit and your local MP about this year's increase.

Well done the Labour Party and Government for this is one of your finest achievements.

Putting pounds into the purses and pockets of millions of ordinary low paid working people.

This is really what we should all be about.

Now turn this into a national living wage?

BCC Scrooge call on Minimum Wage

Bah humbug! - The British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) has called for the minimum wage not to be increased until "economic situations had significantly improved". The minimum wage for employees over 21 increased by 3.8% in October 2008 to £5.73 per hour. It is £4.77 for workers aged between 18-21 and £3.53 for staff aged 16-17. Obviously a huge and unaffordable amount of money!

They claim that a rise in minimum wage would not help firms hold onto staff and would simply add to unemployment

David Frost, British Chambers of Commerce (Minimum wage goes up to £5.73) said : "We're not opposed to the minimum wage going up when employment is high and the economy is doing well, but when jobs are being lost daily and a recession is in full swing, it makes no sense to increase it."

I notice that he hasn't called for restraint by Executives on the money and perks they award themselves? Surely the more the minimum wage is increased then the more likely that the economy will get moving again since those on NMW are more likely to spend and increase much needed demand?

Remember the rubbish predictions that the employer representatives made about likely job loses when the NMW was first announced? See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/35036.stm

Living Wage for London – a huge step forward at last

I first picked this up from Peter Kenyon post about the early Christmas pressie for many Tower Hamlet Council workers and contractors.

The Council had just passed a motion calling for the London Living wage to be implemented not only for all directly employed workers but also for all contractoring staff. It also calls for Best Value contracts to apply a London living wage when they are up for renewal. The current Living wage level is £7.45 per hour (minimum wage is only £5.73 for over 22 year olds).

The Council free newspaper East End Life covers it here . There are some woolly bits in the motion that are a little worrying about “encouraging” contractors to adopt a living wage.

But I am really pleased. This is potentially a huge advance. I went into a Tower Hamlets “Idea Store” (merged library and life long learning centres) and spoke to some people I know. There are agency staff on only £6ph so this will make a huge difference to people’s pay. I know that the Council ALMO Housing agency caretakers are only paid NMW as well. I have posted here and here on this issue in the past. In the past, when I was a member of the local UNISON branch I have also attended a number of meetings with various Tower Hamlets Council leaders on this issue. We were always listened to sympathetically but were always told that it was not legally possible to implement a London Living wage.

The really interesting thing is whether or not similar motions will be passed in the other London boroughs and how effective they are in “encouraging” other employers to pay the same. I have recently asked my employer to carry out an audit about how many workers receive less than £7.45 (mostly office cleaning and security contractors).

I know of some housing organisations that have lost Local authority Supporting People contracts by being undercut by those who pay just above the NMW.

It was good to see that there was cross party support for this in Tower Hamlets, but I seriously doubt anything will happen in Tory boroughs. Peter Kenyon sees this as a return to basic Labour values.

Well done to the new Labour Council Leader Lutfur Rahman (seen in photo with successful candidate Rachel Saunders at the Mile End East By-election).

Low pay misery of working in British baby farms

The TUC web and e-newsletter site for activists Unionreps reported on the first ever criminal prosecution over the Minimum wage. Leading aside the fairly obvious question over why it has taken so long for there to be a criminal prosecution (the National Minimum Wage Act was passed in 1998, and has been in force for 8 years – why on earth is this the first prosecution, surely no-one is trying to suggest this is the first ever breach?)

You may also ask why the proprietor of Rascals Day Nursery in Walthamstow, East London was only fined £2,500 and £500 in costs when the judge referred to her “clear and deliberate intent to obstruct officers and this was a scandalous breach of the National Minimum Wage legislation." It would appear that the nursery owner deliberately refused to co-operate or give access to Minimum wage inspectors. Why she was not charged with “perverting the course of justice” and jailed? Is this nursery still running under the same owner despite her obvious gross dishonesty?

What is really annoying about this case is that I found an advert on a web site which boasted that this nursery “is the least expensive nursery school in the area”. No wonder, if they rob staff of wages. It also drives down standards since schools that pay and treat their staff decently cannot compete with such cowboys.

A close relative of mine has recently qualified as a child care worker and I have been horrified at what she has experienced during her training and work experience. Not only the low pay that she should expect even if she worked for a local authority primary school (£12,000 pa even with a 2 year diploma equivalent to 3 “A” levels) but the standards in many private nurseries are frankly appalling. Child activity plans are fiddled, no outdoor playing facilities, some nurseries “encourage” kids to sleep for excessive periods, unqualified cooks and everything is done on the “cheap” . Some owners also treat their staff little better than serfs. Shouting, swearing and bullying vulnerable staff. Paying minimum wage (at best), minimum annual leave, no sick pay or pensions.

Affordable and decent child care in this country is also a key political issue that does not get the importance that it deserves. I haven’t got any kids but working parents tell me this is a central and fundamental issue to them. By coincidence the Daycare Trust also made a report on Unionreps about the lack of financial support for nursery care by the British government compared to elsewhere in Europe. If our economy really depends upon both parents working then the state must spend the money needed to provide decent childcare.

I know that a lot of parents are worried about standards in nurseries and I don’t want to add to their fears. However, there are real problems and I think that part of the answer at least is a significant expansion of state provision, financial support and regulation in child care. In this age of “evidence based policies” and “joined up working”, why doesn’t all this strike home somewhere in Westminister?