For several years the UK Government blocked the Agency Workers Directive in the labyrinthine structures of the EU (much like it does the Working Time Directive to this day). Finally last year a compromise was reached and the Directive is due to come into law soon although business organisations are seeking to delay it until 2011 (the latest date by which the Directive must be implemented).
It was part of a long campaign fought by Labour backbench MPs and trade unions with motions at TUC and Labour Party conference (before such democracy was extinguished) and with Early Day Motions and Private Members Bills in the House of Commons.
In his ministerial foreword to the Government's new consultation on implementing the Directive, Business Minister Pat McFadden describes the agreement that was reached between the CBI and TUC in May 2008 as "a commitment to equal treatment for agency workers" – which will apply after 12 weeks continuous employment.
The risk is that we will see the phenomenon of agency workers discarded after 11 weeks and a new tranche of agency workers hired in their stead. Obstacles to such a practice need to be suggested in response to this consultation.
But "equal" is equal in the Animal Farm sense. After 12 weeks, agency workers will still have no rights to pension entitlement or sick pay. The UK will therefore remain the sick man of Europe on workers’ rights. Many EU countries already have full equal rights for agency workers from six weeks. In fact, because of stronger employment and trade union legislation, there are fewer agency workers elsewhere in Europe and the EU estimates that one-third of all EU agency workers are based in the UK.
As John McDonnell MP said at the time, "this agreement can only be seen as a staging post to the full implementation of Labour leader John Smith's famous commitment to full employment rights for all workers from day one of their employment."
The frustration also boiled over for Unite leader Tony Woodley, "is it fair that British workers, alone in Europe, are so quick and easy to sack?" he asked last month. "It's an absolute disgrace. Labour should hang their heads in shame."
But this Government is light years from ensuring implementation is any sooner or any more favourable to workers, indeed the Minister frames the consultation by stating that "in these challenging economic times it is even more important that in implementing this Directive we avoid unnecessary costs and burdens for business".
One of the exemptions the Government proposes in the consultation is jobseekers engaged in 'welfare-to-work' programmes, otherwise the Directive could undermine the Government's new workfare policies, which could see claimants working for £1.73 per hour just to keep their benefits.
The consultation document can be downloaded from the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform website and the deadline for responses is 31st July 2009.
Tuesday, 26 May 2009
Monday, 4 May 2009
Cells, Drugs and rehabilitation role
The Sentencing Guidelines Council is currently conducting a consultation on 'Sentencing for Drug Offences'.
The key piece of UK legislation governing drugs is the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, a nearly 40 year old piece of legislation that has been amended throughout its lifetime, but still adheres to the framework introduced nearly two generations ago.
This approach to drug policy has been ossified by Daily Mail hysteria and political timidity. Everyone knows the current approach does not work and is maintained for conservative moral reasons.
There are differences of approach between decriminalisation and legalisation, but even those who are pro-prohibition (partial or full) have to concede the current sentencing for drug-related offences is farcical.
The more worrying factor is the current 'direction of travel'. By reclassifying cannabis from class C to B last year, the mere possession of the drug is liable to up to 5 years imprisonment, and if intent to supply can be proven then up to 14 years in the slammer can await.
Of course maximum sentencing does not necessarily equal actual sentencing but nevertheless if we compare relative imposed sentences then we get a measure of the moral panic around drugs:
In 2004 the average custodial sentence for those convicted of rape was 79.7 months, for GBH 50.1 months, for causing death by dangerous driving 44.4 months. Yet for importation or exportation of drugs (something mostly done by drug mules, rather than Mr Bigs) it averaged 84 months (seven years). The UK courts are therefore sending a message that walking through an airport with some drugs is worse than rape, viciously battering someone or killing them through driving dangerously.
A 2007 report for the Home Office showed drug dealers saw prison "as an occupational hazard and was not considered a serious deterrent" – as with any crime, as the perpetrators are either sanguine about being caught or do not consider they will be. This is why there is no correlation between the death penalty, sentence length or the harshness of the prison regime and crime or reoffending.
But instead of logically assessing this reality, in recent years the Government has created more laws to deter: 'confiscation orders', 'serious crime prevention orders' and 'the power to close down premises'. Will this work? No, but it will continue to feed the Daily Mail’s addiction to the moral panic of drugs. Even the consultation paper concedes that "it is not clear that lengthy custodial sentences contribute to crime reduction" and "imprisoning drug offenders for relatively substantial periods does not appear to represent a cost effective response".
If we were serious about tackling drugs then the criminal justice system would not even be involved for drug users – but the health service, as it is for alcoholics and nicotine addicts.
We should be asking, in the words of John Lennon, "why do people take drugs of any sort? . . . is there something wrong with society that's making us so pressurised, that we cannot live without guarding ourselves against it?".
If you can inject some logic into this debate, then please respond to the consultation paper 'Sentencing for Drug Offences', which can be downloaded from the Sentencing Guidelines Council website. The deadline for responses is 15th July 2009.
The key piece of UK legislation governing drugs is the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, a nearly 40 year old piece of legislation that has been amended throughout its lifetime, but still adheres to the framework introduced nearly two generations ago.
This approach to drug policy has been ossified by Daily Mail hysteria and political timidity. Everyone knows the current approach does not work and is maintained for conservative moral reasons.
There are differences of approach between decriminalisation and legalisation, but even those who are pro-prohibition (partial or full) have to concede the current sentencing for drug-related offences is farcical.
The more worrying factor is the current 'direction of travel'. By reclassifying cannabis from class C to B last year, the mere possession of the drug is liable to up to 5 years imprisonment, and if intent to supply can be proven then up to 14 years in the slammer can await.
Of course maximum sentencing does not necessarily equal actual sentencing but nevertheless if we compare relative imposed sentences then we get a measure of the moral panic around drugs:
In 2004 the average custodial sentence for those convicted of rape was 79.7 months, for GBH 50.1 months, for causing death by dangerous driving 44.4 months. Yet for importation or exportation of drugs (something mostly done by drug mules, rather than Mr Bigs) it averaged 84 months (seven years). The UK courts are therefore sending a message that walking through an airport with some drugs is worse than rape, viciously battering someone or killing them through driving dangerously.
A 2007 report for the Home Office showed drug dealers saw prison "as an occupational hazard and was not considered a serious deterrent" – as with any crime, as the perpetrators are either sanguine about being caught or do not consider they will be. This is why there is no correlation between the death penalty, sentence length or the harshness of the prison regime and crime or reoffending.
But instead of logically assessing this reality, in recent years the Government has created more laws to deter: 'confiscation orders', 'serious crime prevention orders' and 'the power to close down premises'. Will this work? No, but it will continue to feed the Daily Mail’s addiction to the moral panic of drugs. Even the consultation paper concedes that "it is not clear that lengthy custodial sentences contribute to crime reduction" and "imprisoning drug offenders for relatively substantial periods does not appear to represent a cost effective response".
If we were serious about tackling drugs then the criminal justice system would not even be involved for drug users – but the health service, as it is for alcoholics and nicotine addicts.
We should be asking, in the words of John Lennon, "why do people take drugs of any sort? . . . is there something wrong with society that's making us so pressurised, that we cannot live without guarding ourselves against it?".
If you can inject some logic into this debate, then please respond to the consultation paper 'Sentencing for Drug Offences', which can be downloaded from the Sentencing Guidelines Council website. The deadline for responses is 15th July 2009.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)