Blog - Richard Corbett

UK Labour MEP from 1996 to 2009

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Equal rights for Temporary Agency Workers!

Today the European Parliament adopted the Temporary Agency Workers directive that will, finally, give equal treatment at work to some of our most vulnerable workers.

This directive has been a long time coming. It has now been six years since the Commission first brought forward proposals for a Temporary Agency Workers directive. Under this directive, temporary workers will be given the same rights to pay, hours and holidays as their full-time colleagues. The number of temporary agency workers in the public and private sectors of the UK labour market has greatly increased in recent years. Temporary agency work contributes to a dynamic and flexible modern economy and can often be a bridge for long term unemployed to get back in the labour market. But agency workers should not be treated as second-class workers and agencies should not be able to distort the labour market by undercutting the wages and conditions of other workers.

Following the directive's first reading in the European Parliament, which approved it with the support of Labour MEPs, TAW was blocked in Council, where the main concerns have been over the length of the qualifying period before equal treatment rights apply. In May, the UK government reached an agreement with the unions and the CBI that would give equal treatment after 12 weeks, allowing a deal to be reached among European Employment ministers in the Council of Ministers in June.

The Parliament, in accepting this compromise, has now ensured that this directive will enter into law very swiftly. All of which is great news for the estimated 1.3 million British workers who will be protected by this legislation and a demonstration that our European common market is a social market that combines protection of workers' rights with flexible labour markets.

Labels: , , ,

Friday, September 14, 2007

It was disappointing to see the TUC conference back calls for a referendum, albeit for opposite reasons to the bulk of the treaty’s opponents, namely that they oppose what they consider to be a British “opt-out” from the Charter of Rights.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights, which was agreed by member states in 2000 and sets out the civil, economic and social rights that define European citizenship. It is a complex issue but essentially Britain’s "opt-out" is a special protocol providing that the charter cannot be used in British courts unless British law itself guarantees the same rights - which is almost always the case anyway.

Contrary to scaremongering by the CBI, article 137 of the treaty of Rome, expressly excludes EU-level legislation with respect to pay, the right of association, the right to strike and the right to impose lockouts, which will remain subject to national law, whether the charter is there or not.

Given all of this, it is important for trade unionists to recognise that, even with the UK protocol on the charter, the social dimension of the EU is better off with the Reform treaty than without it. The draft treaty not only makes explicit mention of the social model, it also commits governments to strengthening it and enshrines the principles of full employment and social progress. Similarly, the treaty emphasises that the EU must work to "combat social exclusion and discrimination", and will be legally required to promote social justice, gender equality and solidarity between generations. The treaty also requires the EU, in all policy areas, to take account of "the promotion of a high level of employment, the guarantee of adequate social protection, the fight against social exclusion, and a high level of education, training and protection of human health". Similarly, the treaty emphasises that the EU must work to "combat social exclusion and discrimination", and will be legally required to promote social justice, gender equality and solidarity between generations. It contains a new provision protecting public services from inconsiderate application of competition law.

Dissatisfaction about the protocol on the Charter, even if it were justified, is no reason to oppose the Treaty. Indeed, a resolution to campaign against it was defeated.

Labels: , , ,