Support striking UNITE members at Stansted airport

A group of UNITE members at Stansted airport are taking strike action over the imposition by their employer, Swissport, of new rosters which mean working 14 more days for no more pay.

Tweet

UNITE Policy Conference

There's lots of information about the conference appearing on the UNITE web site, and I won't attempt to rival or duplicate that, but rather provide a few updates from a sectoral slant.

The delegations from both the Electrical Engineering and Electronics (EEE) and IT & Communications (ITC) sectors were small, making me worry that some of our Regional Industrial Sector Committees (RISCs) are not working effectively.

Conference agreed motion 11 from the Coventry Area Activists Committee dealt with the need for investment and R&D, highlighting the decision of Ericsson to close its Ansty site with the loss of 700 jobs.

Motion 35 from the EEE National Industrial Sector Committee (NISC) promoted the idea of a European Minimum Wage policy, building on the national minimum wages in many countries, and helping prevent the "race to the bottom" where countries try to undercut each other. The motion was agreed (despite nobody standing up to propose it).

The text of all the motions is on the web site, but there is a sentence missing from the end of motion 35.

Composite 8 comprised motion 42 from the ITC NISC and motions 43 from the East Midlands ITC RISC, both of which proposed affiliation to the Right To Work campaign. Since the motions were submitted, the Executive Council had decided that it didn't want Policy Conference to decide on any affiliations at all (which seems wrong to me personally) and would oppose any motion that included affiliation. The movers decided that rather than removing the bits about affiliation, which was really the point of the motions, they would remit it for the EC to consider.

Conference agreed motion 59 from London & Eastern ITC RISC, which called for a positive right to strike, noting the difference between European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) judgements supporting the right to strike and contrasting them with the European Court of Justice (ECJ) rulings which put free trade ahead of human rights.

Many members in EEE may be affected by the decision to try to find a way to revive the "drive for 35" campaign for a shorter working week through the Confederation of Shipbuilding & Engineering Unions. The campaign in the 1980s had successfully reduced the working week for large numbers of workers in engineering and beyond. The levy which formed a vital part of the campaign had left a fund of many millions of pounds, which is now almost impossible to access. Conference agreed an Executive Council (EC) statement that (subject to legalities) should allow the fund to be used and the campaign revived. Conference was given a commitment that the EC will be kept regularly updated on progress.

Another highlight was a packed fringe meeting with BA Cabin Crew, standing up against their bullying boss Willie Walsh in a campaign that is vital for working people in every industry.

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

Working Time Win

It's great to see that we've won a court case defeating the exemption of offshore workers from the right to paid holidays under the Working Time Directive.

What a disgrace that our government is still dragging its feet over the removal of the various opt-outs. It's well established that working long hours damages health. Many companies put pressure on people to "opt out" of the right to work less than an average of 48 hours a week (over a 17 week period). 48 hours is equivalent to six 8-hour days - something we should have seen the back of decades ago.

How can it be right that half of us are working longer and longer hours under pressure to keep our jobs or to sustain a reasonable standard of living, while millions are still unemployed or on bogus schemes to disguise unemployment?

Tweet