Across Scotland today we will commemorate International Workers Memorial Day. On this day we remember the dead and fight for the living.
This year is particularly important because the Con-dem coalition is adding to the risks by piling pressure on staff and enforcement agencies, cutting away at health and safety.
Last year the Labour Government officially recognised this day and it is pleasing to see far more local authorities across Scotland marking the day. Workers deserve to know that they will not be at risk when they start a day’s work - they should not have to fear for their lives.
Around 70 per cent of workplace accidents are due to the poor health and safety management. The Government must stop this figure spiraling - there is a better way.
Thursday, 28 April 2011
Wednesday, 27 April 2011
Consequences of council charges
Just to illustrate a point I have made in earlier posts, there are consequences of increasing council charges to fund the Council Tax freeze.
Today I was on the election trail in Kilmarnock. The council has recently introduced charges for special refuse uplifts. As a consequence local people report an increase in fly tipping. Walking around just one scheme in the town I came across furniture and other items just dumped. An eyesore and a safety concern.
Below is a picture of just one example and a dangerous one at that. Fridges not only contain dangerous chemicals but can be a death trap for young children playing in them. The Council Tax freeze is not a free policy, it has consequences and some of them could be fatal.
Today I was on the election trail in Kilmarnock. The council has recently introduced charges for special refuse uplifts. As a consequence local people report an increase in fly tipping. Walking around just one scheme in the town I came across furniture and other items just dumped. An eyesore and a safety concern.
Below is a picture of just one example and a dangerous one at that. Fridges not only contain dangerous chemicals but can be a death trap for young children playing in them. The Council Tax freeze is not a free policy, it has consequences and some of them could be fatal.
Bias in appeals
Interesting EAT decision (Scottish employer) on bias in appeals, an issue that comes up often in the smaller employers we deal with.
In Watson v University of Strathclyde EATS/0021/10 ( no relative!) the pursuer worked as a publications officer in the University of Strathclyde. Mr Taylor was the director of marketing and Dr West was the secretary to the University who appointed Mr Taylor. In 2005, Mr Taylor was convicted of a breach of the peace and offered to resign. Dr West decided that this was not required as this was a personal matter and did not impact on his job.
Before this incident, the pursuer had a history of concern about Mr Taylor's behaviour, which she considered violent and aggressive. This conviction naturally highlighted this concern. Problems with their relationship continued and she submitted a grievance alleging inappropriate behaviour and autocratic management that was rejected. She felt Dr West had a conflict of interest because of his support for Taylor. She then refused to attend an appeal panel because Dr West was a member and subsequently resigned claiming constructive dismissal.
The ET concluded that Dr West's membership of the appeal panel was not a fundamental breach of contract. However, the EAT found that, for there to be a fair hearing, it must be free not only from actual bias but from apparent bias, and that this applied equally to any hearing that forms part of a grievance process. Any reasonable employer would have considered the claimant's reasonable concern that there was bias and that it would not be fair to her to include Dr West in the appeal panel.
Whilst it is obvious that a person who is the subject of a grievance should not be involved in the hearing of that grievance, employers also need to consider the position of other members of staff who are very closely associated with the subject of the grievance. The EAT is not suggesting that an employer setting up a grievance appeal panel is routinely required to consider specifically whether or not there is "apparent bias" in the panel. However, any reasonable employer is required to have regard to the need to afford an employee a fair hearing of their grievance throughout, including at the appeal stage. It was key in this case that the claimant had raised an allegation of bias.
In Watson v University of Strathclyde EATS/0021/10 ( no relative!) the pursuer worked as a publications officer in the University of Strathclyde. Mr Taylor was the director of marketing and Dr West was the secretary to the University who appointed Mr Taylor. In 2005, Mr Taylor was convicted of a breach of the peace and offered to resign. Dr West decided that this was not required as this was a personal matter and did not impact on his job.
Before this incident, the pursuer had a history of concern about Mr Taylor's behaviour, which she considered violent and aggressive. This conviction naturally highlighted this concern. Problems with their relationship continued and she submitted a grievance alleging inappropriate behaviour and autocratic management that was rejected. She felt Dr West had a conflict of interest because of his support for Taylor. She then refused to attend an appeal panel because Dr West was a member and subsequently resigned claiming constructive dismissal.
The ET concluded that Dr West's membership of the appeal panel was not a fundamental breach of contract. However, the EAT found that, for there to be a fair hearing, it must be free not only from actual bias but from apparent bias, and that this applied equally to any hearing that forms part of a grievance process. Any reasonable employer would have considered the claimant's reasonable concern that there was bias and that it would not be fair to her to include Dr West in the appeal panel.
Whilst it is obvious that a person who is the subject of a grievance should not be involved in the hearing of that grievance, employers also need to consider the position of other members of staff who are very closely associated with the subject of the grievance. The EAT is not suggesting that an employer setting up a grievance appeal panel is routinely required to consider specifically whether or not there is "apparent bias" in the panel. However, any reasonable employer is required to have regard to the need to afford an employee a fair hearing of their grievance throughout, including at the appeal stage. It was key in this case that the claimant had raised an allegation of bias.
Tuesday, 26 April 2011
Council Tax and public finance
An unsurprising poll in the Scotsman today indicates that 75% of Scots support the continuing Council Tax freeze. Given rising inflation, VAT increases and a wage freeze for many, it is not surprising that the public favours tax cuts. This is reinforced by the fact that only 10% support a Local Income Tax at the rate necessary to replace the Council Tax.
Of course much of this polling depends on the questions you ask. I was doing a focus group with UNISON members last week and they equally, if by smaller numbers, favoured a tax cut. However, when asked the question if they favoured the charge increases most councils are implementing to plug the financial gap, the answer was no, because they identified the regressive nature of charges. Even fewer were in favour when the funding gap is identified and the consequences for further cuts in services.
All of this demonstrates one of the more dismal aspects of the election campaign, namely the unwillingness to explain the scale of the financial crisis in public spending and the consequences. It is not just the budget cuts, and they are bad enough, but they come at a time when demand for services is rising. Public finances face at least four years of cuts as part of the Con-Dem deficit reduction plan. In Scotland the downward pressure on resources could last for at least 10 years with some £40 billion of expenditure lost to public services. It could take at least a further 10 years before spending returns to 2009 levels.
The Tories claim to be telling it as it is, despite supporting a council Tax freeze and other tax cuts. However, even in the rhetoric not all candidates are on message. My local Tory MSP has sent me a mountain of paper in the last few months telling me that he is in favour of more teachers, police, better roads etc. He would be better off telling his colleagues Cameron and Osborne.
Of course much of this polling depends on the questions you ask. I was doing a focus group with UNISON members last week and they equally, if by smaller numbers, favoured a tax cut. However, when asked the question if they favoured the charge increases most councils are implementing to plug the financial gap, the answer was no, because they identified the regressive nature of charges. Even fewer were in favour when the funding gap is identified and the consequences for further cuts in services.
All of this demonstrates one of the more dismal aspects of the election campaign, namely the unwillingness to explain the scale of the financial crisis in public spending and the consequences. It is not just the budget cuts, and they are bad enough, but they come at a time when demand for services is rising. Public finances face at least four years of cuts as part of the Con-Dem deficit reduction plan. In Scotland the downward pressure on resources could last for at least 10 years with some £40 billion of expenditure lost to public services. It could take at least a further 10 years before spending returns to 2009 levels.
The Tories claim to be telling it as it is, despite supporting a council Tax freeze and other tax cuts. However, even in the rhetoric not all candidates are on message. My local Tory MSP has sent me a mountain of paper in the last few months telling me that he is in favour of more teachers, police, better roads etc. He would be better off telling his colleagues Cameron and Osborne.
Thursday, 21 April 2011
Workplace Retirement Income
I met Lord McFall and his colleagues on the Workplace Retirement Income Commission in Glasgow today. The Workplace Retirement Income Commission (WRIC) is the independent review of retirement saving. The Commission is seeking to find better ways to provide retirement income for the millions of working people who depend on workplace saving for security and dignity in retirement. They have produced a very good background paper on workplace retirement saving as part of their call for evidence.
Not surprisingly, I emphasised the undermining of public service pensions by the UK Government and in particular the 50% increase in contributions that is likely to drive many low paid workers out of their pension schemes. But low income is not the only barrier to getting people to save.
Savers need to have confidence in the long term benefit of schemes and in this regard the switch from RPI to CPI has seriously dented confidence. UK private pensions are notoriously poor value for money with Dutch schemes delivering almost twice the benefits. Confidence in the financial institutions is rightly at an all time low.
A new approach is needed to simplify the pensions system with easy to understand products where the benefits are not eaten away by management fees. I cautioned against less regulation and in favour of a more prescriptive approach that starts to build retirement income at an early age.
The Commission is planning to publish an interim report in June.
Not surprisingly, I emphasised the undermining of public service pensions by the UK Government and in particular the 50% increase in contributions that is likely to drive many low paid workers out of their pension schemes. But low income is not the only barrier to getting people to save.
Savers need to have confidence in the long term benefit of schemes and in this regard the switch from RPI to CPI has seriously dented confidence. UK private pensions are notoriously poor value for money with Dutch schemes delivering almost twice the benefits. Confidence in the financial institutions is rightly at an all time low.
A new approach is needed to simplify the pensions system with easy to understand products where the benefits are not eaten away by management fees. I cautioned against less regulation and in favour of a more prescriptive approach that starts to build retirement income at an early age.
The Commission is planning to publish an interim report in June.
Wednesday, 20 April 2011
STUC - Day 3
Transport dominated the debates this morning, but the most powerful contributions were on domestic violence. Two sisters made very moving contributions based on their own tragic experiences including UNISON's Marie Garrity. A real wake up call for everyone.
The living wage debate highlighted again the issue of low pay. The adoption of the living wage by the Scottish Government and some councils is welcome. But it needs a Living Wage Unit, on the London model, to drive this policy forward, particularly through public procurement. That is what Scottish Labour is rightly proposing.
We had a typically polished performance from the First Minister this morning. More statesmanlike, following the parcel bomb story this morning, than his usual style. He pressed many of the right buttons for the audience although still failed to grasp our concerns over the need for a balanced energy policy. He made a good contrast with NHS privatisation in England, and he is entitled to claim credit for a good record. However, he somewhat over egged the case when he claimed no PFI. The Scottish Futures Trust is developing wide scale PFI schemes in Scotland. The Hub Initiative in NHS Scotland is a straight copy of the English LIFT PFI scheme.
At lunchtime I spoke at a fringe meeting organised by the Campaign Against Climate Change. I spoke about what needs to be done to deliver on the targets in the Climate Change (S) Act. In particular on the need for a strong public duty and action on Green Workplaces. The Scottish Government failed to introduce mandatory annual reporting, weakening the duty considerably. There was a good debate on energy and manufacturing strategy issues.
Pensions was the big debate of the afternoon. Led by a motion from UNISON Scotland. This is an issue that unites the movement, particularly over the proposed pension contribution increases. Delegates described this a tax on public service workers because not one penny goes into pension increases. One delegate offered to swop his pension for the one George Osborne approved for the publicly owned bank Chief Executives.
The debate on care for the elderly highlighted today's FAI report on the Uddingston care home fire that resulted in 14 deaths. The report states that the deaths were preventable. Those who argue for less regulation should read this report carefully.
Overall this year's STUC has put a real focus on the Better Way campaign and the alternative to the Con-Dem government's cuts. My only tricky moment, as highlighted in the Herald Diary today, was being mistaken for Bob Crow! My worst nightmare realised!
The living wage debate highlighted again the issue of low pay. The adoption of the living wage by the Scottish Government and some councils is welcome. But it needs a Living Wage Unit, on the London model, to drive this policy forward, particularly through public procurement. That is what Scottish Labour is rightly proposing.
We had a typically polished performance from the First Minister this morning. More statesmanlike, following the parcel bomb story this morning, than his usual style. He pressed many of the right buttons for the audience although still failed to grasp our concerns over the need for a balanced energy policy. He made a good contrast with NHS privatisation in England, and he is entitled to claim credit for a good record. However, he somewhat over egged the case when he claimed no PFI. The Scottish Futures Trust is developing wide scale PFI schemes in Scotland. The Hub Initiative in NHS Scotland is a straight copy of the English LIFT PFI scheme.
At lunchtime I spoke at a fringe meeting organised by the Campaign Against Climate Change. I spoke about what needs to be done to deliver on the targets in the Climate Change (S) Act. In particular on the need for a strong public duty and action on Green Workplaces. The Scottish Government failed to introduce mandatory annual reporting, weakening the duty considerably. There was a good debate on energy and manufacturing strategy issues.
Pensions was the big debate of the afternoon. Led by a motion from UNISON Scotland. This is an issue that unites the movement, particularly over the proposed pension contribution increases. Delegates described this a tax on public service workers because not one penny goes into pension increases. One delegate offered to swop his pension for the one George Osborne approved for the publicly owned bank Chief Executives.
The debate on care for the elderly highlighted today's FAI report on the Uddingston care home fire that resulted in 14 deaths. The report states that the deaths were preventable. Those who argue for less regulation should read this report carefully.
Overall this year's STUC has put a real focus on the Better Way campaign and the alternative to the Con-Dem government's cuts. My only tricky moment, as highlighted in the Herald Diary today, was being mistaken for Bob Crow! My worst nightmare realised!
Tuesday, 19 April 2011
STUC - Day2
Public services dominated the morning session of Congress today. Delegate after delegate highlighted the impact of the Con-Dem coalition's spending cuts on a range of public services. The planned 60,000 job losses will also have a big impact on the economy with a similar number of jobs going in the private sector. Low paid working women will be the most affected, undermining family budgets when they are most under strain.
A UNISON motion focused on services to elderly people. In this sector personalisation is being used as a cover for cuts. UNISON Scottish Convenor, Lilian Macer summed up the argument when she said:
"And it's a low, mean, dishonest trick to try to implement cuts to the services of the most vulnerable people in our society. We believe that everyone should have as much independent, choice and control over their care as they want. But this has to be real choice, not the only option because other facilities and arrangements have been closed or made unavailable."
The afternoon session had a Westminster feel to it. It started with Ian Davidson MP, Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee setting out the issues his committee planned to investigate this year. He was followed later in the afternoon by the Shadow Secretary of State, Ann McKechin MP. I also attended a lunch time event with colleagues from the energy industry. Not much support for the SNP manifesto plans there. A balanced energy policy retains widespread support from those who work in the sector.
One of the Scottish Affairs Committee investigations is into health and safety in Scotland. We met several of the MPs in the afternoon to highlight our concerns over the impact of cuts at the HSE. Fewer inspections, guidance and projects will inevitably undermine safety in Scotland. As will similar cuts in the other enforcement agency, environment health departments. Stress was the biggest safety risk identified by every union at the meeting. The largest cause of sickness absence and often the product of work intensification and human resource strategies.
A UNISON motion focused on services to elderly people. In this sector personalisation is being used as a cover for cuts. UNISON Scottish Convenor, Lilian Macer summed up the argument when she said:
"And it's a low, mean, dishonest trick to try to implement cuts to the services of the most vulnerable people in our society. We believe that everyone should have as much independent, choice and control over their care as they want. But this has to be real choice, not the only option because other facilities and arrangements have been closed or made unavailable."
The afternoon session had a Westminster feel to it. It started with Ian Davidson MP, Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee setting out the issues his committee planned to investigate this year. He was followed later in the afternoon by the Shadow Secretary of State, Ann McKechin MP. I also attended a lunch time event with colleagues from the energy industry. Not much support for the SNP manifesto plans there. A balanced energy policy retains widespread support from those who work in the sector.
One of the Scottish Affairs Committee investigations is into health and safety in Scotland. We met several of the MPs in the afternoon to highlight our concerns over the impact of cuts at the HSE. Fewer inspections, guidance and projects will inevitably undermine safety in Scotland. As will similar cuts in the other enforcement agency, environment health departments. Stress was the biggest safety risk identified by every union at the meeting. The largest cause of sickness absence and often the product of work intensification and human resource strategies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)