Report from GPM&IT NISC October 2017

Report from GPM&IT NISC October 2017

Unite’s National Industrial Sector Committees (NISCs) meet quarterly, bringing together activists from a particular industrial sector, delegated from Regional Industrial Sector Committees (RISCs). The NISC for the Graphical, Paper, Media & IT (GPM&IT) sector met on 5-6 October 2017 and this is my report. My report does not include much of the discussion about workplace issues, as most NISC members regard this as too sensitive to publish.

Automation

The Organising & Leverage Department has prepared a detailed report on the potential impact of automation on jobs and a draft template New Technology Agreement. Sharon Graham, the head of Organising & Leverage, introduced the discussion. The estimate is that around 35% of current jobs in the UK and Ireland will go in the next 18 years. Unite has assessed the risk to each industry and identified 11 Unite sectors, including GPM&IT, at “high risk”. The forecast is for around 230,000 of the jobs of the 650,000 members working in those sectors to go.

Automation is nothing new, but new technologies mean this will affect a wider range of jobs and in new ways compared to previous phases. Some low-paid jobs would not be affected soon, because it is cheaper to pay people badly than use technology. In some cases it would be tasks, not whole jobs that would go, but this would still lead to a reduction in work.

Automation should be a huge positive, enabling us to be more productive and have higher standards of living while reducing working hours, while also creating some new skilled jobs. But this depends on who has the power to decide how automation is used and what purposes they use it for. Without effective industrial and political campaigning, it is likely employers will simply try to gain temporary competitive advantage by displacing workers, contributing to unemployment and inequality. Workers are the source of profit, and many businesses rely on workers to buy their products. This approach could create huge social and economic problems.

Workers need strong organisation to ensure they benefit rather than lose out due to automation.

The intention is to have a debate on this topic across Unite to produce detailed plans for Unite’s response tailored to every sector and region by June 2018. The NISC will be holding a one-day workshop to discuss this in more detail. Leading activists in the sector who aren’t on the NISC are welcome to join in with this.

Proportional representation

Unite has produced an excellent consultation paper on proportional representation in Westminster elections, setting out the pros and cons of the current system and various possible alternatives. The majority of the NISC felt that though PR wouldn’t be a magic bullet to improve participation or accountability, change is needed.

Holiday pay based on average pay

Since Unite’s legal wins more and more employers are increasing holiday pay to reflect average pay (i.e. reflecting overtime, bonuses etc.), but a few have been trying to base this on an average across the whole year, rather than on the days worked, which would still be underpaying people. Unite will support members taking legal action over holiday pay if employers do not resolve it promptly.

Mapping the sector

Our 2015 sector conference had decided we should map our sector. All RISCs have been asked to go through the GPM&IT employers and workplaces in their region listed on the Work Voice Pay database. I showed NISC members how to do this, identifying the sub-sector and organising category, and provided a spreadsheet to make it easier.

The Work Voice Pay database is gradually being populated with workplaces, but already covers over 34,000 members in our sector (roughly 80% of the total). I also provided some break-downs of GPM&IT membership by union recognition, number of sites in employer, number of regions in employer, and the membership and recognition status in the top 100 employers.

• 10528 members work for the top 10 employers, six of which only have partial recognition
• 21107 members work for employers with 100 or more members
• 31501 members work for employers with 20 or more members

Motions to sector conference

Each Unite sector is having a conference in November. The NISC submitted two motions to it, one on branch organisation, the other on simplifying the processes for branches to affiliate to their local Trades Councils or Labour Parties.

Future meetings

It was agreed to have a speaker on the Gender Pay Gap at the next NISC meeting. The meetings will take place at the London Moreland Street office and the dates for 2018 will be:

• 4-5 January
• April TBC
• 14-15 June
• 4-5 October

Unite Community

Tracey Bent from Camden Community branch gave an update on the work of Unite Community. Her branch works around three areas:

• Local campaigns
• National campaigns, often taking local actions
• Supporting industrial campaigns

We thanked the branch for their support for the Fujitsu dispute.

She described some of the work the branch has done to support various industrial campaigns, where they can often do things that members in the workplace can’t.

Tracey talked about the work they had done to support people following the Grenfell Tower fire, which had directly affected dozens of members including three from the Camden Community branch who died. As well as material and financial support, Unite had offered counselling and financial support to all those affected.

The NISC is encouraging people to invite Community branches to speak at our own meetings and to give them financial support. The Community branches get 7.5% of subs, like all other branches, but when subs are just 50p a week that doesn’t go far, especially when some members need financial help even for a bus fare to a meeting.

NISC members talked about the need to look at rule changes to allow Community members a bigger voice in the Unite structure.

Brexit

The union has produced a pamphlet “Brexit: Unite demands protections for you” for the GPM&IT sector. Some of us questioned how this had been produced without any input from lay members or the NISC. We raised concern about the position outlined on freedom of movement, where the pamphlet advocates restrictions on hiring people from “abroad” – a discriminatory policy which was not agreed by the Unite Policy Conference, as I have explained elsewhere. Worse still, there is barely a mention in the booklet of the position of EU citizens living in the UK, many of whom are Unite members. In terms of “protections for you”, the rights of EU citizens are the most threatened – the pamphlet comes across as if migrant workers are “them” whereas actually they are part of “us”. Migrants’ rights are workers’ rights.

Research

The NISC has been pushing for years for an update on the excellent analysis of the sector produced by the Research Department for the 2013 sector conference, but this has not been produced due to lack of resource. At the previous NISC meeting Tony Burke had taken an action to follow this up, but we had received no update. When there were cuts to the Research Department the General Secretary had promised that this would have no impact on support for members and activists, and had said people should raise it if there was such an impact.

RISCs and NISCs for 2018-2021

Adrian Weir had produced a proposal for the composition of GPM&IT RISCs and NISCs for the 2018/2021 term. The NISC will have to decide its response at its January meeting. In the meantime RISCs are asked to review the proposals and come back with their comments.

One important change since the last round of elections is that the rules were changed to ensure that every RISC had a seat for each of the equality strands, i.e., Women, BAEM, LGBT and Disabled Members. The EC has updated its guidance on Rule 11 too. The practical consequences are that Regional Equality Conferences will take place before the September 2018 Regional Industrial Sector Conferences, and that each Regional Equality Conference will elect one delegate to each RISC.

Fujitsu Dispute

There was strong support from the NISC for the campaign in Fujitsu and the following motion was agreed unanimously:

Fujitsu This GPM&IT NISC notes that rather than settling the dispute after 12 days of strike action in Manchester followed by 15 days nationally, Fujitsu has chosen to escalate the dispute by: ·         Making an offer, since rejected by 92% of members, that would have curtailed existing union rights to support members, communicate and organise ·         Breaking the existing Annex 2 facilities agreement by unreasonably refusing time to communicate with members ·         Attempting to victimise a number of Unite reps Having terminated the UK Information & Consultation body earlier in 2017, Fujitsu has blocked agreement on a replacement by demanding that reps should be unable to communicate effectively with constituents. Unite is now ramping up the campaign in Fujitsu towards a ballot for further industrial action. This NISC recognises that the outcome of the dispute will not only affect the job security and remuneration of hundreds of Unite members, but shape union organisation within the company and the wider sector for years to come. This NISC recognises the importance of success for the future of our sector. This NISC pledges its full support and resolves: 1.       To publicise the online petition against the victimisation of Unite reps at Fujitsu: https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/fujitsu-victimisations 2.       To ask branches and chapels to assist the campaign, including with leafleting of sites, promoting the petition, and financial contributions 3.       Updates from the campaign should be circulated to activists 4.       Material relating to the Fujitsu campaign (e.g. the current petition against victimisation) should be promoted via Unite’s social media and prominently displayed on the union web site at key times 5.       To ask for the victimisation petition and appeal for support to be circulated to all manufacturing sector activists 6.       To ask the International Department for assistance with coordination with unions in other countries, particularly those involved with Fujitsu’s European Works Council 7.       To ask the Political Department for assistance in the campaign, given that most of Fujitsu’s UK business is public sector 8.       To support the request from the Fujitsu Combine for assistance from the Organising and Leverage Department 9.       To support higher Dispute Benefit to ensure members can take sufficient action to secure a speedy and successful resolution of their dispute 10.   If necessary resources are not available, to ask for consideration of temporary or stand-down officer / organiser resources

Unite Education

A Unite Education Report 2017 has been produced. Unfortunately there were insufficient copies so I have not seen it yet.

Tweet

Unite Policy Conference 2016 - Wednesday's business

I've already posted videos of Jeremy Corbyn's speech and Sharon Graham's presentation on the Unite Industrial Strategy - Work, Voice, Pay.

The liveliest debate of the day was around the aftermath of the EU referendum and what UNITE's position on freedom of movement should be. Conference agreed the EC statement which didn't take a clear position on freedom of movement, but called for a debate across the union on it. As a result the emergency motions defending freedom of movement fell. The passing of Composite 19 partially remedies this, but still leaves our policy unclear.

I've shared the conference agenda (the original motions) and a booklet with many of the composites. Further information on conference business can be found at www.uniteconferences.org.

Composite 31 (Motions 148 + Amendment, 150, 151, 184): Pensions and Retirement: Carried
Motion 128: Sports Direct: Carried

#SportsDirectShame:

 Composite 28 (Motions 129, 146): Collective Bargaining and National Agreements: Carried
Motion 130: Campaigning Against the Mythology of Redundancy: Carried
Motion 131: Organising Agency Workers: Carried
Motion 132: Decent Work Campaign: Carried
Motion 135: Management Techniques & Employee Participation: Carried
Composite 29 (Motions 136, 137): Challenge of the Digital Economy: Carried
Motion 141: Income Tax: Carried
Motion 142: Income Tax: Carried
Motion 144: Outsourcing: Remitted
Motion 145 + Amendment: BBC: Carried
Executive Statement 3: European Union: Carried
Emergency Motion 2: No to racism, yes to human rights: Fell
Emergency Motion 4: Brexit and the rise of racism: Remitted
Emergency Motion 6: EU Referendum: Fell
Motion 71: Women at Work: Carried
Motion 73: Ensuring Equal Pay Implementation: Carried
Motion 72: Childcare and Work: Carried
Motion 74: Childcare - Impact on Women's Activism: Carried
Motion 75: Stand up to Racism Campaign: Carried
Composite 19 (Motions 76, 77, 78): Immigration Act 2016: Carried
Motions 79 + Amendment: LGBT Rights: Carried
Motion 80: LGBT Survivor Pensions Equality: Carried
Motion 81: Trans Rights: Carried

Tweet

Defending Corbyn and Freedom of Movement

Unite's National Industrial Sector Committee (NISC) for my sector (GPM&IT) met this week and agreed to submit the following as emergency motions to the Unite Policy Conference this month.

It is likely that the "leadership" will try to avoid either being passed by putting forward fudgy "Executive Statements". If an Executive Statement is passed, all motions on the same subject fall. Given how long it took to get our union behind Corbyn in the first place, and our General Secretary's recent unhelpful comments about free movement of labour, conference fudge is the last thing we need.

1) Defend Jeremy Corbyn

This conference recognises that the outcome of the UK’s referendum on EU membership has significant economic and political implications at UK, EU and global levels. Now that the decision to leave the EU has been taken, the labour movement urgently needs a positive programme for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland post-EU. This must be based on a break from the neoliberal free-market agendas of both the UK government and the EU, along with a strong platform of workers’ rights, civil rights and equality.

This conference believes that Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership is much better placed to provide a positive way forward than the failed New Labour alternatives.

This conference deplores the actions of many Labour MPs in undermining Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership and pledges UNITE’s support in the leadership election.

2) No to racism, yes to human rights

This conference is appalled at the racism, xenophobia and hostility to migrants evident from some campaigners on both sides during the EU referendum, and by the increase in racist abuse, harassment and attacks following the result. We note the increased insecurity facing non-UK citizens, including many UNITE members.

This conference believes that scapegoating migrants for austerity, poor housing, jobs and services undermines all our ability to tackle the real causes.

This conference believes that calls for restrictions on freedom of movement for people, and our right to work without discrimination based on nationality, conceded ground to the racist myth that migration, rather than the actions of government and employers, are the causes of the problems that face us. Such calls encourage blaming of migrant workers in the UK and undermine the solidarity we need to tackle our problems.

This conference resolves to:
1. Redouble our opposition to racism, xenophobia and Islamophobia and our solidarity with migrants
2. Oppose calls to restrict free movement of people or the right to work and to defend employment rights and anti-discrimination legislation
3. Campaign to highlight the real causes of poor housing, jobs and services and the part played by migrants and BAEM people in fighting against them

Tweet

Responding to the EU Referendum - Len gets it wrong

After a campaign marked by racism, fear-mongering and lies from both the main campaigns, the result is now out - a vote to leave the EU. This isn't the result Unite campaigned for, our union was clearly on the "Remain" side, though (thank goodness) it didn't back the official campaign. Members deserved better than a choice between Cameron, Osborne and Blair on the one hand, or Johnson, Farage and Gove on the other. At least, whichever way we voted, we got to see the two wings of the establishment rightly denouncing each other as liars.

But what now? Given the views of the leaders of the Leave camp, and Project Fear run by the Remain camp, little wonder that many fear for the future. We certainly face a couple of years of uncertainty and instability.

Unfortunately the line promoted by the TUC and most unions during the campaign is now coming back to haunt us. We were told that the EU had "given us" most of our rights and that we would be helpless outside the EU. While we have benefited from some EU legislation and European Court of Justice (ECJ) rulings, our rights have been hard-won by workers in the UK and abroad. We have never been helpless and we aren't now.

The referendum took place in a failed attempt to resolve divisions within the Tory Party and with their UKIP splinter, between their pro-EU big-business backers and their little-Englander social base who dreamt of getting their empire back. This context, and the lack of a sizeable left opposition to the EU, meant much of the debate and media coverage was heavily coloured by anti-migrant racism.

The anti-EU right will be trying to build on the result. Both wings of the right will be trying to ensure the discontent articulated through the Leave vote is channelled into more anti-migrant racism and away from the rich and powerful who are really responsible for cuts, poor housing, inadequate services and welfare, crap jobs and unemployment.

So at a time like this it is vital that the labour movement doesn't write off the millions who voted Leave as consistently and incurably racist. We have to offer a positive way to tackle our problems, not give ground to racism.

In this context, Len McCluskey's statement after the referendum result is awful. In amongst some good points he says "Politicians must now respond appropriately and in a way that satisfies the genuinely held concerns of the public. This includes looking at how best to deal with the difficult issue of the free movement of labour and its impact on working people". While being vague and evasive, this panders to the idea that "free movement of labour" is a problem and that it has a negative impact on "working people" (as if the "labour" that is movement is not "working people"!). This is the kind of nonsense that "Blue Labour" have been peddling for years.

In a previous article, McCluskey argued that unions had always tried to control the labour supply. There is some truth in this. But workers have taken different approaches to doing so. On the one hand, some groups of workers have tried to claim priviledged access to certain jobs by excluding others (e.g. women, blacks). Sometimes this appears to get results for a while, if the group has the power to enforce discrimination against others. But it imposes severe limits on potential solidarity by reinforcing rather than overcoming divisions in the working class. The other approach to controlling the labour supply has been by organising workers - across divides of gender, race, skill or origin. It's not easy, but its potential for results is far greater.

Finance capital can move freely across borders at the click of a mouse. Its flows can wreak havoc on workers half way across the globe. Our politicians can send arms, planes, ships and troops to destroy cities.

Is the labour movement going to slide into accepting divisions between workers based on where they happen to have been born? Or are we going to seek to organise workers and challenge those really responsible for our problems. We can't do both and UNITE members need to be demanding that our union comes down clearly on the right side - opposing racism against migrants, defending our right to travel freely, and building solidarity.

Tweet

Construction strikes, defending jobs, nationalism

The wave of unofficial strikes by construction workers has sparked widespread debate. The strikes represent the first really major eruption of militant action against job losses in the UK since the recession began. But the central slogan of the dispute - "British Jobs for British Workers" is one that can only lead to division and disaster for working people.

Slogans like "United We Stand, Divided We Fall" have survived many decades because they encapsulate a fundamental truth. To win against employers (and the governments who back them) we have to unite working people regardless of race, nationality etc. This isn't always easy, but it always has to be our aim. A campaign that runs in the opposite direction may seem an easier way to get support in the short term, but we will pay a terrible price if we allow such divisions to take root.

The very fact that the Tory press and the BNP are all over this dispute should set the alarm bells ringing. Since when are they pro-trade-union? Since when do they support unofficial action? Since when do they oppose the anti-union laws? These anti-union forces are sympathetic to the dispute precisely because they want the anger workers feel over job losses to be directed against other workers, dividing us and protecting the rich and powerful.

It is the responsibility of all decent trade unionists to encourage a serious fight-back over the effects of the recession, and to fight tooth and nail against any effort to direct anger against the wrong targets. It is clear that slogans like "British Jobs for British Workers" used by Gordon Brown and, regrettably, some in the trade union movement, have opened the door to this. We have to learn from what has happened and stamp out such slogans from the labour movement.

The issues underlying the dispute are real and serious and need to be tackled.

Construction workers move around the country and the world, following the big projects. This is why they have the sort of networks that have allowed the action to spread so quickly. Big construction projects are organised through chains of subcontracting companies, many of them huge corporations making hefty profits.

The issue in dispute isn't primarily the ability of individual workers to move from country to country in search of work. It is about the ability of subcontracting companies to operate across borders and the rules which govern them.

The neo-liberal free-marketeers want to drive down pay and conditions through what they called the "country of origin principle". This is the idea that a worker or company should be governed by the law of the country they are from, rather than the country they are operating in. This would accelerate the "race to the bottom" in employment law and in pay and conditions. It would in practice mean little or no regulation - who would be enforcing Polish employment law in the UK, for example? The neo-liberals tried to get the country of origin principle enshrined into EU law through the Services Directive, popularly known as the Bolkestein Directive after its Dutch proponent (a former head of Shell). Unions and the left managed to defeat this (you can read the bulletin from my own workplace at the time here).

As usual, the bosses didn't just give up. They used the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to get a series of rulings in the Laval, Viking and Ruffert cases which meant that the right of a company to trade freely across borders was placed ahead of workers rights. This not only helped bring back the country of origin principle, but even worse, suggested that any industrial action which sought to impose higher labour standards from the host country might be illegal even if the workers had complied with all the anti-union laws. UNITE regards these ECJ cases as a more serious threat to workers' rights than all the Tory anti-union laws which New Labour has left on the statute book, and has set up a web site to campaign against them:
www.lavalvikingruffert.eu. And if anyone is thinking these cases only affect workers in construction - think again.

At the Staythorpe power station site, the subcontracting company publicly stated they would not employ any UK workers. They claim they pay the normal UK pay rates, but nobody involved in the campaign seems to believe this. The subcontractors have undercut UK firms by a very large margin, and people can't see how that would be possible when you add on travel and accommodation costs. The widespread belief is that the companies are paying much lower wages and are avoiding having any UK workers so that there is no "comparator" for a race discrimination claim for the low wages being given to the migrant workers. UNITE is looking into whether a policy of banning recruits of one nationality is discriminatory in itself - it certainly sounds it.

The practice of the subcontractor company bringing all its labour from overseas is spreading, and workers in the industry see it as a systematic attempt to smash union agreements and slash pay and conditions. Many big construction sites (refineries, power stations) are on the coast and companies are keeping migrant workers in accommodation barges (prison ships?) moored offshore, completely segregated from the community and local workers. This is a recipe for stoking up conflict.

On the news tonight, I heard reports that government minister Alan Johnson is now saying that "if" European law is harming UK workers, it should be changed. This is progress, but it is also rank hypocrisy. These awful laws are not something the EU has imposed on the UK - the "New Labour" UK government lobbied hard in favour of the ECJ rulings, just as they lobbied hard against tightening up the Working Time Directive, improving Works Councils etc. The UK government has been the champion of the free-market and deregulation in Europe - it sent Mandelson to the EU to ram this message home.

What recent events show is that militant mass action can achieve more in a few days than months or years of patient "lobbying".

I hope the strikes result in improvements in workers' rights and the overturning of the ECJ rulings. Contrary what the Liberal Democrats have been saying, this doesn't mean abandoning EU employment law, it means giving it priority over the rights of companies to make bigger profits regardless of the social consequences.

Just as importantly, I hope that union activists learn from this the dangers of giving an inch to nationalism in our campaigns. UNITE proudly claims that "internationalism" is one of the three pillars of its strategy, along with "organising" and its "political" strategy. Internationalism has to mean more than the very important solidarity work we do with workers in other countries. It has to mean a deep commitment to unity between workers in the UK, regardless of their origins. That can be the only sound basis for an effective fight to save jobs or over any other issue.

Tweet

European legislation

There have been two important developments, and I also want to draw attention to a UNITE campaign that every member should be supporting.

The European Parliament has at long last passed a revision to the European Works Council (EWC) Directive. UNITE's comments suggest this is generally positive.

MEPs also voted through amendments to the Working Time Directive. This was a very significant vote, with many Labour MEPs rebelling against the UK Government's long obstruction to this vital health & safety legislation, but unfortunately doesn't mean that we will necessarily see the end of the "opt-out".

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) rulings in the Viking, Laval and Ruffert cases are a very serious threat to union rights. Basically, the court believes that the right of companies to trade freely has precedence over the right of workers to take industrial action. This means that even if workers comply with the UK's ridiculous red-tape around industrial action ballots, any action could still be ruled illegal. UNITE has set up a web site to campaign on the issue at http://www.amicustheunion.org/lavalvikingruffert/. There's a petition on there which we should get everyone to sign. If we can collect a million signatures, we force the issue to the European Commission.

Tweet

Agency & Temporary Workers Directive approved by MEPs

On Wednesday the European Parliament gave a second reading to the Temporary (Agency) Workers Directive. Employer reaction has been predictably negative at this small step to restrict the unfair treatment of vulnerable workers.

This is an important decision not just for those of us having to temp, but for everyone. The position of temps is a good example of the old union adage "an injury to one is an injury to all". Agency labour being used to undercut terms and conditions for permanent staff is a familiar complaint in many workplaces. Hopefully the legislation will discourage the long-term use of temps.

It is a disgrace that the UK government did the CBI's bidding and blocked this legislation for so long. Even now, the UK intends to allow temps to be discriminated against for the first 12 weeks of any job - unlike many countries where protection is from day-one.

I hope the union will swiftly issue guidance to negotiators on the issue, so that we can start establishing more agreements with employers on implementation. This is particularly important because it's not easy to get behind the hype and work out what the directive will actually mean.

Firstly, you have to find the damn thing. I think the version on the BERR web site is the final one.

Secondly, you have to work out what it means.

The principle is of equal treatment (after 12 weeks in the UK) compared to a directly employed worker doing the same job, but the principle does not apply to everything.

• It covers the basic working and employment provisions
• It specifically covers pay, working time, overtime, breaks, rest periods, night work, paid holidays and public holidays, protection from discrimination
  
• It specifically includes basic working and employment provisions arising from collective agreements
• The definition of what counts as "pay" is left up to member states
  
• Member states can decide whether temps are included or excluded from the thresholds in procedures for setting up bodies to represent workers in the "user undertaking" - this could affect European Works Councils (EWCs), national Information & Consultation (I&C) bodies and union recognition.
• User organisations must provide information about the use of temporary workers to EWCs and I&C bodies
• Temps must be informed about vacant posts in the user undertaking and have the same opportunity as other workers in the user undertaking to find permanent employment. I find this provision confusing, as other workers in the user undertaking presumably already have permanent employment, so what does it mean?
  
• Temps must have equal access to amenities and collective services (canteens, childcare, transport etc) unless there are genuine reasons

The passing of the Directive is a step forward, albeit a smaller one than could have been achieved if the UK government had not been so vigorous in pursuing the employers' agenda.

We need to keep the pressure up on the UK government to transpose the Directive into UK law as quickly and favourably as possible.

It's also interesting to read that employers are concerned that a deal on the Working Time Directive may be voted down by MEPs. The CBI claim the deal (which would make things worse in a number of ways) was agreed by the TUC as a trade-off for getting the legislation for temporary workers. This is something that UNITE denies, but which the government appears to believe - apparently there was even reference to it in the paperwork for the recent Warwick 2 National Policy Forum.

Tweet

Temporary & Agency Workers

At the UNITE EC meeting last week, there was more discussion about the deal done between the unions, CBI and UK government to give more protection for agency and temporary workers.

Though the deal is far less than we'd want (protection only applies after 12 weeks on a job), we have finally applied enough pressure to stop the UK government blocking the EU directive altogether. We are told that about 70-75% of agency and temporary workers would benefit despite the 12-week rule, as well as there being a substantial benefit to the rest of the workforce whose bargaining position is undermined by the exploitation of temporary & agency workers with no rights.

Derek Simpson was adamant that there is no truth in the stories in the press (put out by the CBI) that the unions have agreed to accept a weakening of the Working Time Directive in exchange for progress on the Temporary & Agency Workers Directive.

Derek said he hadn't actually seen the deal itself, and nobody else at the EC meeting seemed to have done so, which seemed really odd. There's a report about it on the web site of the United Campaign to Repeal the Anti Union Laws, but the link to the agreement itself is broken. I'm pleased to say I've found a copy here.

Tweet

The right to strike under threat

The coverage of the recent European Court of Justice rulings on the right to strike is, to say the least, confusing. Presumably the consequences, which I am sure will be far reaching, will become clearer.

To get a flavour, here are reports from the Financial Times, Socialist Worker and the International Transport Workers' Federation.

The case related to an attempt to re-flag a ship to another country and employ a new crew on lower wages.

My initial reading of this is that the ECJ recognised both the "fundamental right" to strike and companies "freedom of establishment" to set up and operate wherever they wanted.

Predictably, the UK government took the side of the employer, alongside some of the governments of low-wage countries, while most other EU countries took the side of the union.

Some commentators are calling this a "balanced" decision, others a fudge. Whatever you call it, the ruling says that union action to defend jobs and conditions by opposing the reflagging is an infringement of the employer's rights, but that this might be justified in some circumstances.

What I think this means is that the fundamental human right of all working people (who aren't slaves) - to refuse to work - is being "balanced" against the free market principles of the EU. Let this be a warning to all trade unionists who think "free trade" treaties that have legal weight are something we can welcome or ignore.

Tweet