EU directives fuel unrest
European laws on agency workers and working time have highlighted deep divisions in the UK workplace. Ross Wigham investigates.
Employers and unions are on a collision course over forthcoming European employment legislation, which is fuelling the increasingly confrontational industrial relations climate highlighted by last week's TUC conference.
The argument centres on the combined impact of two proposed European directives which the CBI claims will shatter UK competitiveness, slash overtime hours and cost thousands of jobs around the country.
The employer group has long warned that European regulations on working time and draft legislation on temporary workers would harm the economy. It cites new research on the business impact of the legislation as indisputable evidence of its claims.
However, the TUC is firmly in favour of the proposed changes, which it believes will protect temporary staff from exploitation and reduce the number of employees being forced into working long hours.
Last week, TUC members unanimously voted in favour of motions calling for the end of the UK's opt-out from the EU Working Time Regulations and in support of the Agency Workers Directive, which would give temporary staff equal rights as permanent members of staff.
The CBI's sixth annual Employment Trends Survey, published the week before the TUC conference, revealed that 40 per cent of organisations believe losing the opt-out would have an adverse affect on their business. It also claimed widespread opposition to the Agency Workers Directive.
The survey of 550 employers found that almost half would offer fewer work assignments if the proposed directive on temporary staff was introduced in its current form.
The draft directive would see employers forced to offer temporary workers the same employment conditions as permanent staff from day one of employment, and the same salary after a six-week qualification period.
A further 59 per cent of employers said the directive would impose additional costs, making temporary staff less affordable and removing the flexibility that has proved vital to the UK economy.
CBI deputy director general John Cridland said both proposed directives would damage the very people they were designed to help, and admitted there was a 'gulf in understanding' between his organisation and the unions.
"Our real concern is that this will actually damage the employment prospects of the workers it's supposed to help," he said. "This survey shows inappropriate and unnecessary EU rules threatening the freedom of individuals to work when and how they choose.
"The arguments aren't new, but the evidence is. We're not anti-legislation, but what we have a problem with is badly-crafted legislation. We support rights for workers, but this cannot be introduced in its current form without damaging the economy," he added.
Cridland reiterated the CBI's call for the agency workers directive qualification period to be increased from six weeks to a year, and said he was encouraged by reports in Personnel Today that the DTI is considering this.
"This directive must not damage the commercial interests of placing temps," Cridland added. "Our argument is a technical one and we don't apologise for this. If the EU does get this wrong, it will destroy the temps market in the UK."
The research finds most firms use agency workers to provide cover for absence or short-term needs, with very few hiring large numbers of temporary staff.
David Yeandle, deputy director of employment policy at the Engineering Employers' Federation, has long campaigned against the current draft of the agency workers directive. He welcomed the latest CBI findings as further proof of the problems it could cause.
"This confirms the information we have - that the current draft would have an adverse affect on business," he said. "Also, if the commission abolished the working time opt-out, it would have serious consequences for companies and individuals."
Cridland said the loss of the opt-out, which allows staff to choose to work longer than 48 hours, would further threaten the flexibility of the UK's labour market, with 32 per cent of employers using it and 19 per cent 'regularly' using it.
The report shows that around 40 per cent of respondents think that losing the opt-out would have a serious impact on business, and among those, 80 per cent feel it would undermine competitiveness.
The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development's employee relations adviser Mike Emmott agreed the temps directive would harm the jobs market, and said it could have a negative effect on the long-term unemployed or ex-offenders.
However, he said the consequences of losing the opt-out had been exaggerated, and that abandoning it entirely was still only one option available to Europe.
"There's still a long way to go on the opt-out. Even if it was lost it wouldn't necessarily have the impact that the CBI talks about. Essentially, it's a belt-and-braces approach to cutting bureaucracy and avoiding tribunals," he said.
The TUC claims the agency workers directive is essential if the UK's temporary staff are to have the pay, conditions and employment protection they deserve. And it blames the Working Time Directive opt-out for contributing to the UK's long-hours culture and for hindering attempts to improve productivity.
To highlight its concerns, it launched a campaign against long hours last week by asking people to use a new telephone hotline and website to report abuses of long-hours protection.
Brendan Barber, TUC general secretary, said that retaining the opt-out has led to more than 350,000 people having no choice about working very long hours.
"What makes me angry is that people cannot see the UK's very long hours are a symptom of something sick about our workplaces. They're a symptom of badly organised, unproductive workplaces," he said.
"We work the longest hours in Europe, yet other countries are more productive and earn more."
The argument is set to run and run over the coming year.
The European Commission is currently reviewing the UK's opt-out and is due to publish its recommendations in November. Meanwhile, the fight will continue over the Agency Workers Directive, which is stalled at the EU Council of Ministers after opposition from the UK Government.
Weblinks www.cbi.org.ukwww.tuc.org.uk
Looking for common ground over EU legislation...
TUC 'The UK's very long hours are a symptom of something sick... They're a
symptom of badly organised, unproductive workplaces'
