The following has been supplied by the TUC:
The abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board (AWB) could lead to the re-emergence of child labour on British farms, an international union representing agricultural workers has warned. The warning from IUF came ahead of a 16 April Commons vote on the future of the AWB, which has protected the incomes of 150,000 agricultural workers since the second world war. In a letter to work and pensions secretary Iain Duncan Smith, IUF general secretary Ron Oswald wrote: 'We believe there is a strong possibility that the abolition of the AWB will make children more vulnerable to exploitation in agriculture.' AWB sets minimum pay rates for children of compulsory school age, and higher rates of pay for the over 16s than the national minimum wage. Unite national officer for agriculture Julia Long said: 'The IUF letter reinforces Unite's case that the board's abolition could herald poverty wages on the land; very suspect employment practices; and the real possibility of child labour being exploited shamelessly by ruthless bosses.' Unite, an IUF affiliate, is lobbying intensively in the run-up to the 16 April vote by MPs on the government amendment to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform bill that seeks to abolish the AWB
25.6.13
Back the overtime ban to fight the cuts
A national overtime ban comes into force on Monday in support of our campaign against the cuts.
The ban, which runs until 31 August, is an essential part of ongoing industrial action to keep up pressure on ministers to agree to national talks on vital issues, including pay, terms and conditions and job security.
This is an essential part of the campaign of industrial action aimed at causing the maximum problems for the employer unless they agree to negotiations with us. It is lawful industrial action and was covered by the recent ballot.
We have asked for talks on pay, pensions and terms and conditions, but ministers are imposing cuts and refusing to negotiate.
Over the four years of a pay freeze and cap, public sector workers stand to lose almost 20% of their income. Ministers are also now trying to rip up your basic working conditions, with hours, holidays, flexible working and sick pay all up for grabs.
Thousands are threatened by redundancy and privatisation.
Overtime is usually voluntary and we are asking you to refuse to do any voluntary overtime from 1 July to 31 August. If you are required to carry out compulsory or conditioned overtime which is counted as contractual pensionable pay then this is not covered by the overtime ban.
The ban, which runs until 31 August, is an essential part of ongoing industrial action to keep up pressure on ministers to agree to national talks on vital issues, including pay, terms and conditions and job security.
This is an essential part of the campaign of industrial action aimed at causing the maximum problems for the employer unless they agree to negotiations with us. It is lawful industrial action and was covered by the recent ballot.
We have asked for talks on pay, pensions and terms and conditions, but ministers are imposing cuts and refusing to negotiate.
Over the four years of a pay freeze and cap, public sector workers stand to lose almost 20% of their income. Ministers are also now trying to rip up your basic working conditions, with hours, holidays, flexible working and sick pay all up for grabs.
Thousands are threatened by redundancy and privatisation.
Overtime is usually voluntary and we are asking you to refuse to do any voluntary overtime from 1 July to 31 August. If you are required to carry out compulsory or conditioned overtime which is counted as contractual pensionable pay then this is not covered by the overtime ban.
Sowing seeds of doubt
PCS reps work hard to ensure that overtime bans are well supported by
helping members with questions about what they should and shouldn’t do,
ensuring that pickets turn out when overtime is requested at the
weekend, and giving support and advice where there is any threat of
harassment by managers.
Mark Page, a rep at Station Street Jobcentre in Nottingham, told us
how he and his branch have helped support members and upheld previous overtime bans, including the last one which ended on 20 June.
He said: “Our good, solid members alert us when they hear that a
request has gone out for people to do overtime. We’ve had two picket
lines on Saturdays now. We’ve been out there at 7.30am in the morning
with our banner.
“Although we don’t often stop people from going in, I think they are
very surprised to see a picket there and it sows a seed of doubt in
their minds. It means that the next time they will definitely think
twice about coming in to do overtime.
“Our picket lines are very good spirited. We had a chance to engage
with claimants turning up, who were a bit annoyed about having to travel
five miles to come to that office as they used to go to one nearer
their homes. In turn, we told them about our concerns and there was a
lot of mutual sympathy.”
Read the national overtime ban flyer.
24.6.13
Tribunal fees will leave workers unprotected.
The TUC has supplied this information:
The TUC has warned that a system of tribunal fees due to come into effect in July will 'embolden' rogue employers while leaving workers more vulnerable to safety and other abuses. The union body added that the fees will price many of the UK's lowest paid workers out of justice. It believes they have been set 'disproportionately high' in order to deter many people from taking valid claims to tribunal. Anyone who believes they 'suffer a detriment, dismissal or redundancy for health and safety reasons' may be required to pay an initial fee of £250 and a further £950 if the case goes to a tribunal, the maximum 'level 2' charges under the new system. A safety rep complaining of an employer 'failure to pay for or allow time off to carry out safety rep duties or undertake training' - denial of the legal right to safety rep training makes up the lion's share of safety-related tribunal cases - will have to stump up £160 to kick off a case and a further £250 to take it to tribunal. The same 'level 1' charges apply to workers complaining about an employer's 'failure to pay remuneration whilst suspended from work for health and safety reasons whilst pregnant or on maternity leave.' TUC general secretary Frances O'Grady said: 'Introducing tribunal fees will serve only to embolden rogue employers, who will be able to mistreat staff without fear of sanction. Regardless of what ministers say this is not about cutting red tape for businesses. It is yet another attack on workers' employment rights and will result in victims being deterred from making genuine claims.' She said a 'remission scheme' reducing the fees for the lowest paid 'is woefully inadequate and many of the UK's most vulnerable workers will simply be priced out of justice.'
The TUC has warned that a system of tribunal fees due to come into effect in July will 'embolden' rogue employers while leaving workers more vulnerable to safety and other abuses. The union body added that the fees will price many of the UK's lowest paid workers out of justice. It believes they have been set 'disproportionately high' in order to deter many people from taking valid claims to tribunal. Anyone who believes they 'suffer a detriment, dismissal or redundancy for health and safety reasons' may be required to pay an initial fee of £250 and a further £950 if the case goes to a tribunal, the maximum 'level 2' charges under the new system. A safety rep complaining of an employer 'failure to pay for or allow time off to carry out safety rep duties or undertake training' - denial of the legal right to safety rep training makes up the lion's share of safety-related tribunal cases - will have to stump up £160 to kick off a case and a further £250 to take it to tribunal. The same 'level 1' charges apply to workers complaining about an employer's 'failure to pay remuneration whilst suspended from work for health and safety reasons whilst pregnant or on maternity leave.' TUC general secretary Frances O'Grady said: 'Introducing tribunal fees will serve only to embolden rogue employers, who will be able to mistreat staff without fear of sanction. Regardless of what ministers say this is not about cutting red tape for businesses. It is yet another attack on workers' employment rights and will result in victims being deterred from making genuine claims.' She said a 'remission scheme' reducing the fees for the lowest paid 'is woefully inadequate and many of the UK's most vulnerable workers will simply be priced out of justice.'
New code to hit inspections.
The following has been supplied by the TUC:
A new code introduced by the Government this week will further reduce the level of health inspection by Local Authorities. The number of pro-active inspections by local councils has already fallen by 86% in the past three years. Now, Local authorities are being banned from health and safety inspections on anything but the highest risk premises under a new binding code . The HSE's statutory National Enforcement Code for local authorities will see tens of thousands of businesses removed from health and safety inspections which the government does not consider there to be sufficient risk including most shops and offices. The TUC had already expressed concern over the move to force councils to limit inspections. TUC Head of Health and Safety, Hugh Robertson said 'We agree that inspections should be targeted at risk, but much of the risk in these premises is from injuries through slips, trips, violence, stress or repetitive movements, yet these are not seen as a priority area despite the fact that they are responsible for three quarters of all work related sickness absence. These will now be ignored. Also, the fact that the businesses will know that the inspectors cannot visit them means they are more likely to take risks with our members health and safety. Part of the advantage of Local Councils doing health and safety inspections was that they could combine them with other inspections such as noise, consumer protection, or food hygiene. This advantage will now be lost.'
A new code introduced by the Government this week will further reduce the level of health inspection by Local Authorities. The number of pro-active inspections by local councils has already fallen by 86% in the past three years. Now, Local authorities are being banned from health and safety inspections on anything but the highest risk premises under a new binding code . The HSE's statutory National Enforcement Code for local authorities will see tens of thousands of businesses removed from health and safety inspections which the government does not consider there to be sufficient risk including most shops and offices. The TUC had already expressed concern over the move to force councils to limit inspections. TUC Head of Health and Safety, Hugh Robertson said 'We agree that inspections should be targeted at risk, but much of the risk in these premises is from injuries through slips, trips, violence, stress or repetitive movements, yet these are not seen as a priority area despite the fact that they are responsible for three quarters of all work related sickness absence. These will now be ignored. Also, the fact that the businesses will know that the inspectors cannot visit them means they are more likely to take risks with our members health and safety. Part of the advantage of Local Councils doing health and safety inspections was that they could combine them with other inspections such as noise, consumer protection, or food hygiene. This advantage will now be lost.'
18.6.13
Tribunal fees will leave workers unprotected
The following has been supplied by the TUC:
The TUC has warned that a system of tribunal fees due to come into effect in July will 'embolden' rogue employers while leaving workers more vulnerable to safety and other abuses. The union body added that the fees will price many of the UK's lowest paid workers out of justice. It believes they have been set 'disproportionately high' in order to deter many people from taking valid claims to tribunal. Anyone who believes they 'suffer a detriment, dismissal or redundancy for health and safety reasons' may be required to pay an initial fee of £250 and a further £950 if the case goes to a tribunal, the maximum 'level 2' charges under the new system. A safety rep complaining of an employer 'failure to pay for or allow time off to carry out safety rep duties or undertake training' - denial of the legal right to safety rep training makes up the lion's share of safety-related tribunal cases - will have to stump up £160 to kick off a case and a further £250 to take it to tribunal. The same 'level 1' charges apply to workers complaining about an employer's 'failure to pay remuneration whilst suspended from work for health and safety reasons whilst pregnant or on maternity leave.' TUC general secretary Frances O'Grady said: 'Introducing tribunal fees will serve only to embolden rogue employers, who will be able to mistreat staff without fear of sanction. Regardless of what ministers say this is not about cutting red tape for businesses. It is yet another attack on workers' employment rights and will result in victims being deterred from making genuine claims.' She said a 'remission scheme' reducing the fees for the lowest paid 'is woefully inadequate and many of the UK's most vulnerable workers will simply be priced out of justice.'
The TUC has warned that a system of tribunal fees due to come into effect in July will 'embolden' rogue employers while leaving workers more vulnerable to safety and other abuses. The union body added that the fees will price many of the UK's lowest paid workers out of justice. It believes they have been set 'disproportionately high' in order to deter many people from taking valid claims to tribunal. Anyone who believes they 'suffer a detriment, dismissal or redundancy for health and safety reasons' may be required to pay an initial fee of £250 and a further £950 if the case goes to a tribunal, the maximum 'level 2' charges under the new system. A safety rep complaining of an employer 'failure to pay for or allow time off to carry out safety rep duties or undertake training' - denial of the legal right to safety rep training makes up the lion's share of safety-related tribunal cases - will have to stump up £160 to kick off a case and a further £250 to take it to tribunal. The same 'level 1' charges apply to workers complaining about an employer's 'failure to pay remuneration whilst suspended from work for health and safety reasons whilst pregnant or on maternity leave.' TUC general secretary Frances O'Grady said: 'Introducing tribunal fees will serve only to embolden rogue employers, who will be able to mistreat staff without fear of sanction. Regardless of what ministers say this is not about cutting red tape for businesses. It is yet another attack on workers' employment rights and will result in victims being deterred from making genuine claims.' She said a 'remission scheme' reducing the fees for the lowest paid 'is woefully inadequate and many of the UK's most vulnerable workers will simply be priced out of justice.'
New code to hit inspections.
The following has been supplied by the TUC:
A new code introduced by the Government recently will further reduce the level of health inspection by Local Authorities. The number of pro-active inspections by local councils has already fallen by 86% in the past three years. Now, Local authorities are being banned from health and safety inspections on anything but the highest risk premises under a new binding code. The HSE's statutory National Enforcement Code for local authorities will see tens of thousands of businesses removed from health and safety inspections which the government does not consider there to be sufficient risk including most shops and offices. The TUC had already expressed concern over the move to force councils to limit inspections. TUC Head of Health and Safety, Hugh Robertson said 'We agree that inspections should be targeted at risk, but much of the risk in these premises is from injuries through slips, trips, violence, stress or repetitive movements, yet these are not seen as a priority area despite the fact that they are responsible for three quarters of all work related sickness absence. These will now be ignored. Also, the fact that the businesses will know that the inspectors cannot visit them means they are more likely to take risks with our members health and safety. Part of the advantage of Local Councils doing health and safety inspections was that they could combine them with other inspections such as noise, consumer protection, or food hygiene. This advantage will now be lost.'
A new code introduced by the Government recently will further reduce the level of health inspection by Local Authorities. The number of pro-active inspections by local councils has already fallen by 86% in the past three years. Now, Local authorities are being banned from health and safety inspections on anything but the highest risk premises under a new binding code. The HSE's statutory National Enforcement Code for local authorities will see tens of thousands of businesses removed from health and safety inspections which the government does not consider there to be sufficient risk including most shops and offices. The TUC had already expressed concern over the move to force councils to limit inspections. TUC Head of Health and Safety, Hugh Robertson said 'We agree that inspections should be targeted at risk, but much of the risk in these premises is from injuries through slips, trips, violence, stress or repetitive movements, yet these are not seen as a priority area despite the fact that they are responsible for three quarters of all work related sickness absence. These will now be ignored. Also, the fact that the businesses will know that the inspectors cannot visit them means they are more likely to take risks with our members health and safety. Part of the advantage of Local Councils doing health and safety inspections was that they could combine them with other inspections such as noise, consumer protection, or food hygiene. This advantage will now be lost.'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)