TUC commission calls for better protection for vulnerable workers

In May 2008, the Trades Union Congress launched a major new report which was drawn up by its Commission on Vulnerable Employment. The commission’s recommendations include better provision of employment rights advice, the creation of a new Fair Employment Commission, targeted support for migrant workers and equal rights for temporary and agency workers. However, the Confederation of British Industry dismissed certain aspects of the report.

In 2007, the Trades Union Congress (TUC) established the Commission on Vulnerable Employment (CoVE) (UK0707019I). Its 16 members include academics and representatives of employer and civil society groups, as well as trade unionists. The commission aimed to investigate the problems being faced by vulnerable workers – those who are in unsafe, insecure or low-paid employment. This definition includes temporary and agency workers, migrant workers, home workers, informal workers, young workers and unpaid family workers.

Report findings

CoVE published its final report, entitled Hard work, hidden lives, on 7 May 2008. According to the commission, some two million UK workers are ‘trapped in a continual round of low-paid and insecure work where mistreatment is the norm’. The report states that ‘employment practices attacked as exploitative in the 19th century are still common today’ and that the ‘poor treatment at work that we have found should not be tolerated’. Furthermore, it asserts that vulnerable workers suffer because they do not know their rights, cannot get their rights enforced, find it difficult to obtain alternative work or are insufficiently protected under employment law.

Key recommendations

Among the recommendations put forward by CoVE are that the government should:

• support a major awareness programme of employment rights, including more funding for advisory services;

• provide more resources for enforcement agencies, such as the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and the minimum wage enforcement unit of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC). This would facilitate a more proactive approach to those breaches of employment rights, such as illegal deductions from pay packets, which currently can only be taken up by workers themselves through complaints to Employment Tribunals;

• establish a new ‘Fair Employment Commission’ to coordinate the work of enforcement agencies, monitor awareness of employment rights and make recommendations to the government.

The report made a number of recommendations specific to agency workers and migrant workers. In this regard, it called for:

• the remit of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority (GLA) to be extended beyond agriculture, shellfish gathering and associated processing, and packaging sectors (see the UK contribution (135Kb Ms Word doc) to the EIRO comparative report on Industrial relations in agriculture) to others where labour providers operate, such as the care or construction sectors;

• key employment rights to be extended to workers without an employment contract;

• agency workers to receive equal treatment compared to permanent employees;

• changes in immigration law to prevent migrant workers who raise complaints from facing destitution if they lose their jobs.

The report also concluded that vulnerable workers should be helped by more training, including English language training for migrant workers, and greater flexibility in the benefits system.

Social partner responses

Responding to the report, the Deputy Director-General of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), John Cridland, stated that

every worker in the UK is already supported by a strong floor of employment rights, including a national minimum wage, entitlement to paid holiday leave and statutory sick pay, and regulations on working time and health and safety. It is more effective enforcement of these existing rights that would truly help protect vulnerable workers and prevent good employers being undercut by rogue firms.

Commenting on specific proposals for new legislation, Mr Cridland highlighted that ‘more licensing will do nothing to tackle abuse in the few firms where it takes place. Extending the licensing regime to sectors beyond agriculture would impose extra costs and bureaucracy on good employers, yet the evidence to date suggests that it has failed to stamp out rogue agencies’.

Furthermore, Mr Cridland rejected calls for equal rights for temporary agency staff:

Equal treatment for agency workers on pay is only appropriate after a significant qualifying period, as the costs of such regulations for short assignments are high and the potential benefits minimal. And occupational benefits such as full sick pay or pensions are provided voluntarily by firms to reward the commitment of permanent staff. They are simply not appropriate for agency, casual or seasonal staff.

In contrast, TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber, who chaired the commission, emphasised that:

All the commissioners – whatever their backgrounds – were shocked at just how vulnerable some workers are in today’s Britain. Their treatment is a national scandal, and we need urgent action. Employers need to understand that the recommendations we make here will not harm our competitive position in the world economy…we are not calling for a return to old-style regulation, but decent minimum standards.

James Arrowsmith, IRRU, University of Warwick