The Government tabled at Parliament, on 20 January 2010, its proposed regulations to implement the Agency Workers Directive into English law.
The Conservative Party, and indeed business itself, has repeatedly called for more time to consider how best to put the Directive into practice, and for further consultation with business rather than the inadequate eight week period that has been given to date.
Yet, when we have a Labour Party so vulnerable and reliant on Union funding, it is no wonder that the Government has ignored pleas to the contrary and announced its intention to rush the legislation through prior to the General Election.
Simply put: more time is needed to ensure that UK business does not bear the brunt of these regulations. As it stands, the cost to the British economy stemming from the implementation of the Directive is going to be, according to the Government’s own figures, up to £20 billion over ten years.
In these times of economic instability the flexibility of the UK labour market will be a crucial factor in driving recovery. The Government’s proposals will result in completely the reverse effect. Businesses will be reluctant to employ agency workers for fear of the potential for huge administrative burdens.
Quite the opposite from protecting agency workers, the regulations proposed by the Government could significantly damage the agency worker market. One suspects that this is what the Unions had in mind all along.
We need to get people back into work and that means encouraging a flexible workplace. What is more, agency work is an attractive avenue for workers themselves: flexible hours, without the pressure of long term commitment, offer a method of re-entry into the workforce for many who do not have the time to work a full time job.
Accordingly, we shall not only be opposing the early adoption of these regulations but also making it clear that we reserve the right to reassess them in the event of a Conservative victory at the forthcoming Election.
( 5 comments ) Tags: Agency Workers Directive, trade unions, unions
Comment by Minna on February 4, 2010 at 9:17 pm
I agree, totally ! as the founder of the small child care agency I know the field, the both sides; emloyers and employees, their needs and wishes. well done Tory, keep going !
Comment by Ray Turner on February 5, 2010 at 6:57 am
Not sure about this. The tone of the piece is about protecting the interests of business, which usually seems to equate to giving business as much scope as possible to exploit its workers…
Comment by Gill Mercer on February 6, 2010 at 8:34 am
When Labour brought in IR35 it completely destroyed the most vibrant industry in Britain, the IT consultancy industry. It now sounds as though Labour are going to put the final nail in the coffin of this and any other agency work to please their Union masters. Roll on GE day.
Comment by a-kasse on March 2, 2010 at 2:46 pm
Very resourceful. Thanks
Comment by George McGregor on July 2, 2010 at 1:58 pm
Re; Ray Turners comment; It is a rather boring and usual comment from a person who is steeped in union argument against business.
Of course it is NOT the case that unions have their hands in the workers pay packet! They DO and how deep is portrayed by the purchase of huge Country Piles which will be used to ‘pleasure’ the ‘party members’ – then they don’t have sufficient funds to support a strike.
Business gives employment and puts money INTO the ‘workers’ pay packets.
Just who is exploiting who???