10 July 2008

Amendments to The Employment Bill

It does not look like the Employment Bill will be scheduled for a second reading in the Commons this side of the summer recess. The United Campaign still intend to promote amendments for trade union rights when that happens as expected in October.

The plan to organise a rally around another Trade Union Freedom Bill – this time as a 10 Minute Rule Bill – will be reviewed in the light of this.

Previous Articles on the Employment Bill

25 April 2008

The Employment Bill - The Debate Continues

The latest session of the Grand Committee of the House of Lords took place on 3 April and the next step is the report stage. Their Lordships’ debate on the need to change the law following the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in ASLEF v UK did not go well. The case itself concerned the decision by ASLEF to expel a member who was also a member of the BNP. Grounds for expulsion focused on the incompatibility of his political party membership and the objectives of ASLEF. The Court judged the right of ASLEF to chose its members outweighed BNP members’ right to freedom of expression.

The debate in the House of Lords should have considered the extent of the freedom for trade unions to decide their own affairs, in accordance with the fundamental human right of association and the decision in the ASLEF case. The problem for trade unionists is that their Lordships still don’t see it that way. As drafted Clause 17 in the Bill is limited to changing the right of unions to expel a member in relation to membership of a political party – this is far too narrow.

The Liberal Lord Lester proposed an amendment to say that unions can expel members on grounds of membership of a political party, only if they guarantee there will be no financial consequence to the member. That would mean a BNP member, sacked after a union had informed an employer they were expelling the member, might not have a good case against the employer for unfair dismissal but the fascist could claim all loss of wages from the union!

We are among those seeking more amendments to the Employment Bill to reduce the worst excesses of the anti-trade union laws. The Lords were not too keen on raising additional issues, but we hope to have more success when the Bill reaches the Commons. Our amendments are drafted and ready – we will keep up the pressure with your support.

31 March 2008

The Next Stage of the Debate - The Employment Bill

The latest session of the Grand Committee of the House of Lords took place on 13 March. But their Lordships didn’t finish the business so the key debate on the need to change the law following the decision of the European Court in ASLEF v UK will be concluded on another day.

The question should consider the extent of the freedom for trade unions to decide their own affairs, in accordance with the fundamental human right of association and the decision in the ASLEF case. The problem for trade unionists is that their Lordships don’t see it that way. As drafted Clause 17 in the Bill is limited to changing the right of unions to expel a member in relation to membership of a political party – this is far too narrow.

The Liberal Lord Lester wants an amendment to say that unions can expel members on grounds of membership of a political party, but only if they guarantee there will be no financial consequence to the member. That would mean that a BNP member sacked by an employer after a union told the employer that they are expelling the member might not have a good case against the employer for unfair dismissal – BNP members are sacked from the police these days – but the fascist could claim all his or her loss of wages from the union!

In the debate on agency workers, Lord “Digby” Jones – ex CBI chief – for the Labour Government responded that: “One reason we have the most successful economy in the whole of Europe is that we have the most flexible labour market”. (In other words UK workers have the worst individual and worst union rights.) He went on to say “…there is a connection between low levels of unemployment and high levels of flexibility”.

But he doesn’t refer to the evidence, which shows he’s wrong. The fact is that the World Bank’s review of more than a thousand studies "Unions and Collective Bargaining - Economic Effects in a Global Environment" found that “coordinated collective bargaining tended to be associated with lower and less persistent unemployment, lower earnings inequality, and fewer and shorter strikes."

It’s also not true that the minimum wage cost jobs – as the CBI had predicted. The right for agency workers to take an unfair dismissal cases wouldn’t harm the economy either. It might cost businesses behaving badly however and that’s who Digby Jones is protecting.

10 March 2008

Employment Bill in the Lords

The second session of the Grand Committee of the House of Lords was on 25 February however, their Lordships didn’t finish the business so there’ll be another on 13 March. That will be when they debate the question of the extent of the freedom for trade unions decide their own affairs, in accordance with the fundamental human right of association and the decision in ASLEF v UK. The trouble is, their Lordships don’t see it that way. Clause 17 in the Bill is limited to changing the right of unions to expel a member in relation to membership of a political party. This is far too narrow.

Lord (Bill) Morris says the Clause is “barking”, but not because it should be wider – because he doesn’t think unions should be able to expel people even on that narrow ground. The Liberal Lord Lester wants an amendment to say that unions can expel members on grounds of membership of a political party, but only if they guarantee there will be no financial consequence to the member. That would make things even worse than they are now. A union might tell an employer that they are expelling a fascist member of the BNP and the employer might sack the member. The fascist might not have a good case against the employer for unfair dismissal – BNP members are sacked from the police these days – but the fascist could claim all his or her loss of wages from the union!

There were also discussions about agency workers. There are two issues. One is that of “equal treatment”, which is also covered by Andrew Miller’s Temporary and Agency Workers’ Bill in the Commons. See our separate note about that.

The other is highlighted by the Court of Appeal decision on 5 February – James v Greenwich Council, where Mrs James, a former employer of the Council ended up being sent by an agency to work at the Council alongside others who were employees. After years of work, the Council told the agency they did not want her. She tried to take an unfair dismissal case, but she could not. She wasn’t an employee of the agency or the Council.

Lord “Digby” Jones – ex CBI chief – for the Labour Government responded that: “ One reason we have the most successful economy in the whole of Europe is that we have the most flexible labour market”. For “the most flexible labour market” read “workers having the worst individual and worst union rights”. He went on to say again that “Whatever certain people with vested interests might tell you, there is a connection between low levels of unemployment and high levels of flexibility”. This is utter deceit that he peddles in the interests of business. The fact is that the World Bank’s report "Unions and Collective Bargaining - Economic Effects in a Global Environment" found that coordinated collective bargaining tended to be associated with lower and less persistent unemployment, lower earnings inequality, and fewer and shorter strikes. It was an in depth report that reviewed more than a thousand studies on the effects of unions and collective bargaining. It’s also not true that the minimum wage cost jobs – as the CBI had predicted. The right for Mrs James and all agency workers to take an unfair dismissal cases wouldn’t harm the economy either. It might cost businesses behaving badly cash though and that’s who Digby Jones is protecting.

9 January 2008

The Employment Bill

The Employment Bill in its current form has disappointed many – unless you’re part of the CBI, or federation of Small Businesses perhaps – because of its restricted scope.

In its current draft, it won’t even leave UK law compliant with Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights following the decision against the UK in the case brought by ASLEF.

We will be seeking to support those affiliates of ours, who are preparing to take matters as far as they can under the Bill. And we will keep you informed.

3 September 2007

Gordon Brown Announces the Employment Simplification Bill

Prime Minister Gordon Brown has announced that the Queen’s Speech on 6 November will include an Employment Simplification Bill. The Bill will include provisions for amending the law in order to comply with the European Court of Human Rights decision in ASLEF v UK.

In our June/July newsletter we said the government’s proposed changes are too limited to comply with the judgment and Article 11 of the European Convention. Only repeal of the Tories’ laws restricting union rule books in relation to membership and discipline will be enough to satisfy the fundamental right reflected in Article 11.

As the Bill is expected to bring other changes in the law, now is the time to convince people about the justice of our cause and bring about changes to other anti-trade union laws that currently make the UK the subject of attack by the UN and the European Social Rights Committee.

Further details of the Bill are expected to be revealed at the time of the State Opening of Parliament in November.

United Campaign to Repeal the Anti Trade Union Laws, 39 Chalton Street, London, NW1 1JD | info@unitedcampaign.org.uk