Directives threaten to undermine flexibility
Dec 11 2007 by Peter McCusker, The Journal
MANUFACTURING bodies across the region have breathed a sigh of relief after the latest round of EU employment law negotiations failed to come to a resolution.
However, they have warned that the result of the discussions which focused on working hours and rights for temporary workers could threaten the prosperity of the region’s labour market.
Earlier this week, European Employment Ministers negotiated the EU’s controversial working time directive, which would limit the UK’s working week to 48 hours.
They also discussed a review of the temporary agency workers directive which is aimed at giving temporary workers equal employment rights to permanent staff.
According to manufacturers’ body EEF Northern, both directives would hit the region as they would undermine the flexibility of the labour market.
EEF Northern director Alan Hall said: “It is ironic that, at the very time that the EU is planning to adopt common principles on ‘flexicurity’, some member states are pushing for the introduction of two directives that will significantly damage labour market flexibility in the UK and the rest of Europe.
“If the EU is really serious about wanting to avoid exporting jobs, member states should not introduce legislation that will adversely affect Europe’s labour market in the way that these directives would do.”
Dr Stan Higgins, CEO of the North-East Process Industry Cluster (Nepic), said: “By 2009 to 2010 the North-East will need around 10,000 extra construction workers and the vast majority of these will be contract workers (working on a short term basis).
“The contract work force is extremely mobile and we need to attract as many of them to the region as possible. Overseas workers will be attracted to places where they can work 60 hours or more a week and they will move out if we restrict this.
“This will make us uncompetitive as there aren’t restrictions outside the EU in places like the Middle East, China or Russia where there are massive amounts of people from the North-East working. They aren’t going to come home and work on our construction projects if we bring in more restrictions.”
Ultimately Ministers failed to strike a deal on the proposals made under the Portuguese presidency, however, it is expected that at the next discussions in 2008, the two directives will be discussed as one issue. And it is this decision which is expected to have an adverse effect on the UK’s labour market.
Mr Hall said: “We are relieved that the Government has managed to hold its firm line, however these are entirely different issues and if they become linked the fear remains that the UK may be forced to make concessions on one or the other further down the line. If you look at the two issues at face value they are dealing with completely separate things. Linking the two together would mean that UK will be forced to choose a position between the two so if we gained on one we would lose out on the other.”
Meanwhile, unions this week detailed a catalogue of case studies which they said proved the need for new rights for more than a million temporary and agency workers.
Among the claims of poor pay and conditions was the TUC’s case study of a female agency worker who was in the same job for two years but only received statutory holidays and sick pay with no pension.
Another example was the case of a Lithuanian worker called Danute who was charged £5 a week by a major high street retailer to receive her wages by cheque.
TUC general secretary Brendan Barber said: “There is a perfectly legitimate role for employment agencies in providing workers short-term availability to employers with short-term needs. But too many unscrupulous bosses are replacing permanent staff – with reasonable terms and conditions – with insecure agency staff.”
:: Do you think temporary or agency workers should be given equal rights to permanent members of staff? Have your say on our forum on nebusiness.co.uk
