Programme for Government - Fair Work

 The Scottish Government has determined that Scotland will become a Fair Work Nation by 2025. Yesterday, the Scottish Government published its Programme for Government, so it's a good time to assess the likely progress in the coming year.

The Reid Foundation has published a report I drafted on Assessing Fair Work in Scotland. Trade unions in Scotland called for the creation of Fair Work, welcomed its aspirations and now serve on the Fair Work Convention. However, they also recognise the limitations of Fair Work and have been critical of its implementation.

In the report, I conclude, ‘The largely voluntary approach taken to Scotland’s Fair Work initiative has made a limited but positive contribution to improving working lives, particularly in the broader public services. However, it has not yet delivered major results, as evidenced by the continued prevalence of poor-quality work across Scotland’s labour market. If Scotland is to claim to be a Fair Work Nation in 2025, much more needs to be done to turn the worthy ambition into reality.’

The report makes 19 recommendations to improve Fair Work. The key points are summarised in this graphic, which focuses on using all the levers of government to deliver all aspects of Fair Work.

In the Programme for Government, it is welcome to see such a clear statement that Fair Work is crucial to achieving social justice, ‘Creating good jobs and increasing wages is one of the best ways to support our anti-poverty agenda.' It is disappointing that in 'business reset' mode, the introduction did not repeat its importance to the broader economy. On the substance of Fair Work, there was nothing new. 

Delivering Fair Work for all

■ Boost wages by increasing the number of employers who pay at least the Real Living Wage including through Fair Work conditionality for grants, introducing sectoral Fair Work agreements, and improving outcomes by delivering the Fair Work Action Plan.

This is all fine, but extending Fair Work conditionality to grants took many years. We are still waiting for the critical policy of sectoral Fair Work agreements, which is also not necessarily the same as sectoral collective bargaining. Delivering the previously announced Fair Work Action Plan ought to be a given, but maybe not! Increasing the minimum pay of social care and childcare workers to £12 per hour is a welcome step in the right direction, even if better employers are already there and beyond. However, it is another sticking plaster which needs sectoral collective bargaining to address the wide range of employment issues that underpin recruitment and retention in these sectors.

There is no mention of the aim for Scotland to be a Fair Work Nation by 2025. Another task group has been established for this, which will need to focus less on ambition and more on delivery. If, as the Programme for Government claims, ‘Delivering Fair Work for all is critical to our missions and a top priority for the Scottish Government,’ and to ‘Embed fairness in how workplaces are managed’ is to become a reality, more needs to be done as set out in the Reid Foundation report.

P.S. My thanks to the union representatives and others who gave their time to be interviewed by me. And to the Alex Ferry Foundation, which funded the project.

Time to reform sick pay

'Fixing the UK's broken sick pay regime would reduce the spread of infectious diseases – and be a small step towards a fairer country.' I read these words in a Guardian editorial just before a mentoring session with an HR colleague. She reminded me that I was surprised when we discussed reviewing sick pay as one of her initial goals after moving from a private-sector post to the care sector.

I probably shouldn't have been surprised as three out of four employers responding to a government consultation agreed that statutory sick pay should be extended, and small businesses were as supportive as large. Not that this consensus brought any action from the UK Government. The UK has the least generous statutory sick pay in Europe, worth just £96.35 per week, around 15 per cent of average earnings, compared to an OECD average of over 60 per cent. And it is only available to employees earning £120 per week or more – meaning two million workers nationwide, mostly women, do not qualify.

The pandemic ought to have been a wake-up call on sick pay. Too many workers in public-facing jobs are, in effect, incentivised to go to work when they are ill. If care workers suspect they are seriously ill but worry that £96 a week will leave them behind on rent and bills, they have a choice: fall into debt or risk patients getting ill – with potentially fatal consequences. More than 250,000 workers were self-isolating last month without decent sick pay or any sick pay at all. And it's not a problem that will go away when the pandemic is over. An estimated 1.3 million people (1.9% of the population) were experiencing self-reported long COVID as of October 2021.

It is also discriminatory. A report from the IPPR and UCL found that households earning less than £25,000 were twice as likely to lack access to any sick pay compared to those earning more than £75,000. Similarly, workers over the age of 65 were five times more likely to lack access to sick pay compared to those aged 25 to 44. Workers aged 45 and 64 were also twice as likely as this younger age group to lack access to sick pay. And people from a South Asian background were 40 per cent more likely to lack access to sick pay than white workers.

Another tricky issue for her care organisation was vaccine mandates. Like most people, including me, her board found it difficult to understand why care workers wouldn't want to protect themselves and the people they care for by getting vaccinated. It wasn't mandatory in Scotland, but several organisations had decided to go down that route. We agreed that vaccine mandates could be ethical and legal, and staff should be encouraged to get vaccinated. However, mandates will only be necessary if there is no other way of preventing transmission to a similar degree. There is now good evidence that a vaccine mandate will not prevent healthcare workers from passing on the virus to vulnerable patients. The organisation also rejected the idea of cutting contractual sick pay for unvaccinated workers as, given the low level of SSP, that could encourage working when infected. This approach worked with only a handful of staff not voluntarily getting vaccinated.

TUC General Secretary Frances O'Grady said, 'No one should be forced to choose between doing the right thing and self-isolating or putting food on the table.' Employers should ensure that their sick pay arrangements don't force workers to make that decision. That approach needs to be underpinned by a statutory sick pay scheme that pays the real living wage to everyone.

The future of work

I have been helping to review the HR policies of a charity as it considers a return to normal operations after the pandemic. We had a false start last year, although the return to work arrangements are still broadly relevant. I did an HR review a couple of years ago, and there was significant opposition from middle managers to the flexible working proposals. Almost all of which subsequently proved to be doable during the pandemic!

 

This is a charity that wants to be viewed as a progressive employer. Sadly, as the recent TUC survey shows, one in ten staff have been put under pressure to return to the workplace contrary to current government guidance. As they say, it is "the tip of the iceberg" of employers ignoring their health and safety responsibilities.  A recent survey found that out of 4,553 office workers in five different countries, every single person reported feeling anxious about the idea of returning to in-person work. A Scottish study also found a wide range of concerns. Official figures show that nearly one in five adults in employment experienced depression at the start of this year. The top causes of return-to-work stress included being exposed to COVID-19, the loss of work flexibility, the added commute, wearing a mask while in the office, and a need for childcare. 56% of respondents reported that their organisation hadn't asked for their opinions about return-to-work policies and procedures. That was the number one priority in the plans we put in place.

 

The UK Government is creating a one-stop-shop watchdog for enforcing employment rights. Responsibility for tackling modern slavery, enforcing the minimum wage and protecting agency workers, currently spread across three different bodies, will be brought under one roof. As the TUC says, the new body looks "heavy and spin, but light on action" as there are no plans to legislate or make new funding available. The TUC action plan offers a more credible enforcement approach. The Scottish Government has made another bid to have employment law devolved as part of its new poverty strategy. This would have more credibility if they used the powers they currently have, including procurement. NHS Education for Scotland recently awarded a contract to Amazon. They confirmed to my FoI request that the Scottish Government Fair Work criteria were NOT applied to the evaluation of bids for this contract. This reinforces the criticisms of Fair Work in the recent Reid Foundation paper.

The return to something approaching normal after the pandemic is an opportunity to think about the future of work as part of a Build Back Better approach. I was pleased to see that Angela Rayner will be looking at this as part of the UK Labour policy review. This has been widely welcomed in recognition of the changes the pandemic will bring, not least a hybrid model of working. It wasn't that long ago when I was making at least a monthly trek from Glasgow to London for meetings, but that world is thankfully gone.

 

Having said that, we should be careful about how we manage this change. The pandemic measures were hastily put in place in most organisations. There has been minimal discussion around what day-to-day working lives might look like, how the benefits of flexibility might be successfully realised, and the longer-term challenges. There is good evidence that employees are more productive, but there are also additional costs. Another study found that only half of the workers felt their employers had adequately supported them in this additional outlay. There are also concerns about a two-tier workforce developing and fears of insecurity and outsourcing. As someone who worked from home before the pandemic, I have some sympathy with the view of anthropologists who have been telling us that it's often the informal, unplanned interactions and rituals that matter most in any work environment. According to a 2017 Co-op and New Economics Foundation report, the cost of loneliness to UK employers was estimated at £2.5bn every year. A guide published by the UK Government identifies five key themes in addressing loneliness at work. 

 

The future of work also has to address other fundamental changes like artificial intelligence and 'spy' technologies at work. The loss of old-style supervision in the workplace is being replaced in some organisations by technologies that allow managers to track workers' keystrokes, mouse movements and the websites they visit. They can take screenshots of employees to check whether they are at their screens and looking attentive, or even use webcam monitoring software that measures eye movements, facial expressions and body language. The organisation I have been working with decided to adopt an 'ethics of care' approach that reviews their surveillance practices and opens a dialogue with workers and their trade unions about the impact. Through collective organising in trade unions, workers can help shape how technological change is implemented in their workplace, and there are some positive examples of this. There is also a need to update the regulatory standards.

 

While we can take some short-term actions to manage a good work approach to the post-pandemic working environment, the future of work needs a long-term approach by governments, employers and trade unions.

Taylor Report consolidates a race to the bottom in employment standards

The Taylor report into ‘Employment Practices in the Modern Economy’ does little to help workers being exploited in the workplace. 

The appointment of Matthew Taylor was always likely to be a safe choice for the Prime Minister in conducting this review. The report is very New Labour - progressive in ambition, but nothing too radical in practice. A classic bit of 'nudge' capitalism. 

The problem with this approach is that while good employers may respond to the nudge, the specific problems he was asked to consider are exploited by the cowboys. They need a regulatory kick up the backside, rather than a nudge.

This nudge approach is reflected in the key recommendations:

• Dropping ‘worker’ status for that of ‘dependent contractor’, in an attempt to distinguish more clearly between those who are genuinely self-employed and those who are not. These may attract additional protections.

• Platform based services e.g. Deliveroo, Uber, must be able to show that that they are paying their average worker 1.2 times the national minimum wage.

• Responsible corporate governance, better management and stronger employment relations is apparently better than regulation.

• No recommendation that tribunal fees should be scrapped, although some tinkering with the system including naming and shaming employers who don’t pay awards. More helpful is a free preliminary hearing on employment status and reversal of the burden of proof.

• Zero-hours and agency workers should have a right to request fixed hours or a direct contract of employment after twelve months.

• Reintroduces ‘rolled up’ holidays acting as a disincentive to take holidays. Time off becomes a luxury for those who can afford it.

If you are suffering from exploitative employment practices you might well feel pretty underwhelmed by these recommendations. This isn't just limited to the gig economy, it also applies to many in the private/voluntary home care sector. For the Prime Minister, post-Grenfell, to use phrases like  ‘overbearing red tape’ shows she has learned nothing about the importance of effective regulation.

On the specifics, we don’t need a new category of employment status. The courts have already been able to determine bogus self-employment when they see it. What we need is effective enforcement of legal rights. As Labour’s Rebecca Long-Bailey MP put it “If it looks like a job and smells like a job the chances are that it is a job”.

On platform working, Taylor appears more concerned about cash wages for low paid workers eking out their wages at the weekend, than multi-national companies engaged in large scale tax dodging. Perhaps unsurprising when his panel included investors in these companies!

By introducing a complex averaging reporting system for wages, he is effectively saying that companies shouldn’t have to pay the national minimum wage for every hour worked. No prizes for guessing who is going to get the lower paid shifts.

The recommendations are built on the premise that the UK’s flexible labour market has been a great success. One of the most disappointing aspects of the Taylor report is the lack of evidence to support his assumptions. From the Chief Executive of the RSA I would have expected better.

One of those assumptions is the failure to recognise that business investment per capita has almost ground to a halt. The flexible labour market encourages the substitution of cheap labour for capital, hence the dismal levels of productivity. This chart by the TUC’s Geoff Tily from OECD data, shows just how far the UK fell between 2007 and 2015. 

After some modest recovery the OECD are now forecasting a return to the bottom of the league. Taylor is, in effect, supporting this approach. The other consequence is increasing household debt.

All our experience shows that employers, particularly those in the gig economy, will not be ‘nudged’ into best practice because the Government asks them to, or it’s the right thing to do. It is only legislation, with effective enforcement and strong collective bargaining, which will make any difference.

The Taylor Report is a huge missed opportunity. It demonstrates a failure to understand the lives of workers on the fringes of decent employment. It consolidates a race to the bottom in employment practice.

Taking the high road to better work

The Scottish Government can support good quality employment by ‘blocking the low-road’ for employers and ‘paving the high-road’ towards an empowered and healthy workforce.

That’s the conclusion of the Scottish Parliament’s Economy Committee in its report into the quality of work in Scotland; “Taking the High Road - Work, Wages and Wellbeing in the Scottish Labour Market.”

The Committee concluded that workers across Scotland are entitled to good quality employment. This should offer workers, as standard:

regular and sufficient pay which allows for a decent standard of living;

secure employment;

safe working conditions;

working hours known and mutually agreed in advance of shifts;

a culture of mutual respect;

training opportunities and routes for advancement; and,

employee engagement in company/organisational decisions.

Underpinning all of their recommendations is the need for the Scottish Government, employers and trade unions to work together to drive up employment standards and eliminate bad practice. 

That starts with a commitment to ‘blocking the low-road’ for employers and ‘paving the high-road’ towards an empowered and healthy workforce. At the heart of this should be a firm commitment towards employee engagement and encouraging the strong management and leadership skills needed to involve the workforce in improving its own wellbeing. They expect the Scottish Government to embed these aims in all of the employment and business support programmes it funds.

The ‘High Road - Low Road’ concept comes from the evidence of Professor Chris Warhurst, who detailed the difference between high-road economies focused on high-skills, and low-road economies focused on low-skills and low wages. He explained:

“It is possible to prevent people from moving down from the high road to the low road, but the key question for the UK is how we move from the low road to the high road. There are two ways of thinking about doing that. One is to block off the low road ... The other is to pave the high road … in order to encourage companies to go down it.”

The report references a number of UNISON initiatives including the Ethical Care Charter. A point made sharply yesterday with the data released by Gordon Aikman on those dying while they wait for care packages.

The Scottish Social Services Council (SSSC) also highlighted the impact low paying work can have on service users and patients who relied on continuity of care, they said: “Low pay can exacerbate staff turnover issues and ultimately affect the ability to provide continuity of care. A continuous caring relationship with an identified professional can be particularly important in many instances. For example, it can be vital when supporting an individual with dementia.”

Employers organisations like the Coalition of Care and Support Providers in Scotland (CCSPS) estimated that recruitment costs in the care sector amount to £3,500 for each new worker and that the sector suffers relatively high staff turnover rates. This was confirmed by the UK Home Care Association who said there is an average staff turnover rate of 38%. 

Another long standing UNISON concern has been the impact of work on mental health in the workplace. The Committee was concerned to see the mounting body of evidence demonstrating the link between low quality work and negative health outcomes. They urged the HSE, government and councils to explore how the monitoring and reporting of mental health impacts in the workplace could be made more effective.

The Committee also recognised the damaging impact the Trade Union Bill could have quality employment and in particular employee engagement. They said: “We believe that any further restriction on trade unions in fulfilling their longstanding roles, such as contained within the Trade Union Bill, would be damaging”.

This report is a useful analysis of quality employment that recognises the problem of definition and poor Scottish labour market data. However, they resisted the temptation simply to call for more research. Instead, they set out a roadmap towards better employment standards. This should inform the work of the Fair Work Convention and UNISON Scotland submitted its ideas to that body this month. There is a broad consensus on the way forward; the next stage is to turn that into action.

Why the Presiding Officer is wrong on the anti-Union Bill and what Parliament should do about it

At last night’s STUC event in Glasgow, a packed Concert hall heard just why Scotland overwhelmingly opposes the Anti-Union Bill. It showcased all that is great about our movement. From the community justice campaigns highlighted by Aamer Anwar, to the work of young trade unionists in the Better than Zero campaign - tackling the bad bosses who exploit young workers.

It also showed the breadth of political opposition, with Chris Stephens MP and Nicola Sturgeon setting out the SNP’s opposition to the Bill at Westminster and Holyrood. Followed by Jenny Marra MSP for Scottish Labour and, of course, the finale with Jeremy Corbyn. This was classic Corbyn. Reminding us of us of the movement’s history, while raising our eyes to what a different future could look like – Jez We Certainly Can!

Sadly, in the cold light of a dreich day we have the Scottish Parliament’s Presiding officer, raining on the campaign with her letter ruling that a Legislative Consent Motion (LCM) opposing the Bill is not a competent motion.

The LCM is an important part of the campaign in Scotland because it puts the Scottish Parliament into the legislative process. Amendments at Westminster are fine, as are proposals to devolve employment law. However, the timing and the parliamentary arithmetic are against us. With that strategy we are pleading with the Tories – with an LCM we are negotiating with the full political backing of Scotland’s parliament. It is also a more effective contribution to the UK wide campaign against the Bill because it could force the UK Government to amend its provisions.

Another Presiding Officer might have recognised the mood of parliament and used some imagination. George Reid come back, all is forgiven! The clerks have churned out typically conservative advice. They have been blinded by the Bill’s amendment of TULRCA, an Act that is specifically reserved to Westminster in the Scotland Act 1998. This was a deliberate Tory strategy, in part to obviate the need for an LCM they knew they would never get. The Trade Union Bill’s provisions create whole new clauses that didn’t have to go into TULRCA.

Just because that is where they chose to put it doesn’t make it a reserved matter. If the Tories placed new duties on NHS Scotland in a defence bill, it wouldn’t make it a reserved matter. The weakest part of the Presiding Officer’s letter is the claim that the Bill doesn’t impact on Scottish Ministers executive competence. As UK ministers have admitted, this Bill provides for ministers running English departments, like health and local government, to be able to direct the work of Scottish councils and health boards. There can be no clearer example of why at least parts of the Trade Union Bill are clearly devolved.

So, what should Parliament do next? If the Scottish Parliament’s Standing orders are the problem – they should be amended.

One option is to amend Rule 3.1 to give Parliament, say on a two-thirds

majority, the power to challenge a ruling of the Presiding Officer on a motion. There is nothing in s19 or s22 or Schedule 3 of the Scotland Act 1998 that debars this. This is the normal approach in most standing orders and the Scottish Parliament is only following the Westminster procedure in this instant.

  

In the alternative, parliament could amend the Standing Orders to allow Scottish Ministers (or an MSP) to table an LCM in circumstances where they believed one of the tests of a relevant bill has been met. It would then be for parliament, not the Presiding Officer, to agree or otherwise that the tests for an LCM have been met.

There are wider reasons for doing this than simply the Trade Union Bill. The current Standing Orders were drafted in the expectation that the UK government would abide by the spirit and the letter of the Sewell convention - in cases like this that they would initiate an LCM.

This is the first majority Tory government since devolution and they are not playing by the unwritten rules of a parliamentary convention. The Devolution Practice Note says that the UK government should consult where legislation has implications, not just actual legislative competence, and they didn’t. This demonstrates their bad faith. In these circumstances the Scottish Parliament has to have a mechanism for challenging the UK government’s bad behaviour.

Another concern for Parliament should be a conflict of laws. The Trade Union Bill places the Scottish Government and public bodies across Scotland in a potential breach of the Human Rights Act because the Scotland Act requires devolved compliance with that Act’s provisions. Parliament needs a mechanism to raise these matters with Westminster.

As last night’s event demonstrated, there is a great broad based campaign against the Anti-Union Bill in Scotland - in the same way that we opposed the Poll Tax and other measures that challenge our sense of fairness. We must not allow a quirk of parliamentary procedure to stop our Parliament from challenging the legislative competence of the Bill where it impinges on devolved matters.

Jez and others reminded us last night of our history – the scribbling of clerks would not have stopped the giants of our movement. We don’t want another debate – we want our MSPs to take decisive action. Don’t let us down!

Taking the Trade Union Bill into the Scottish Parliament

We took the Trade Union Bill campaign to the Scottish Parliament today. Scottish Labour used their time to ensure that MSPs had an opportunity to debate this legislation.

UNISON General Secretary Dave Prentis told MPs scrutinising the legislation at Westminster that these draconian proposals are ‘a major attack on workers’ rights in this country’ and ‘a negation of democracy’. Today was an opportunity for Scotland's politicians to show that there is no mandate for this legislation in Scotland and they didn't disappoint. Almost all MSPs attacked the Bill in the clearest possible terms.

Today's debate should have been on a Legislative Consent Motion (LCM). Unsurprisingly, the UK Government's delegated powers memorandum says the Bill is reserved and therefore no Legislative Consent Motion is required. However, the provisions on facility time and DOCAS are clearly about public administration which is devolved. This is reinforced by the policy justification which focuses on public spending and the fact that these provisions only apply to the public sector. As the UK minister has confirmed, Ministers running English departments will be able to direct public bodies in Scotland on facility time. This is without doubt the most serious breach of the devolution settlement since 1999.

Kez Dugdale led on the LCM point from the outset and the Welsh Government made similar arguments. There was welcome support for this position in today's debate from Scottish Ministers. Roseanna Cunningham outlined four grounds on which a LCM could be based.

At Westminster yesterday during the Scotland Bill debate, Shadow Scotland Secretary, Ian Murray asked if, in the current context, the Government “would require a legislative consent motion for the Trade Union Bill?” David Mundell responded by stating that the nature of any legislative consent motion required is determined as the Trade Union Bill is finalised. That's an interesting answer, even if not consistent with the Memorandum of Understanding, depending on how you define 'finalised'.

Today's debate reflected the context of Scottish industrial relations. As the recent 'Working Together' review showed, there is a distinctly different industrial relations culture in Scotland and this is being taken forward in the Fair Work Convention. This is particularly the case in the public sector - the target of this UK legislation. That's why Scottish public opinion is against the Bill, reflecting UK wide public opinion that this is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

Tory MSPs Murdo Fraser and Gavin Brown looked lonely figures on the Tory benches during today's debate - 'agency staff' as Neil Findlay quipped. In fairness, their contributions reflected Ruth Davidson's constructive blog post about trade unions on Conservative Home, which interestingly made no mention of the Trade Union Bill. Sometimes it's more interesting to note what politicians don't say! Murdo Fraser has himself written constructively on trade union issues. The problem for the Scottish Conservatives is that the UK minister driving this bill uses very different language.

Today's debate was an important opportunity for MSP's to take a stand against the Trade Union Bill and we are pleased with the cross party support for the campaign. It's now important that we build on this support by forcing the UK government into legislative consent and then build resistance to this pernicious legislation.

 

Creating better jobs starting with those who care for others

If we are to create better jobs in Scotland we need to recognise and take action on job security, worker control, appropriate demand, fair pay and opportunities for training and development.

I was giving evidence yesterday to the Scottish Parliament's Energy and Economy Committee's inquiry into work, wages and wellbeing. The evidence to the committee is well summarised in the Spice briefing.

While the impact of low wages and poor quality jobs on individuals and the economy are becoming better understood, it also has an impact on health. Professor Bambra's evidence to the committee argues that low quality work combines low levels of control with high psychological demand which can lead to increased levels of chronic stress, muscoskeletal conditions, heart disease, hypertension, obesity and mental illness.

There is also a strong economic case for better jobs. Well made by Professor Chris Warhurst at today's committee. The outcome of the current race to the bottom is the precariat. In some countries this can constitute as much of 25% of the workforce, whose contracts are either temporary or informal, or who arrive via employment agencies. In Scotland the numbers on zero hours contracts, particularly in the care sector, are understated because they largely ignore workers on nominal hour contracts.

This approach isn't even efficient. A study by economists at Delft University has concluded that a flexible workforce needs an expanded management bureaucracy to oversee it. Because precarity damages trust, loyalty and commitment, it demands more management and control. An entire generation of free-market workers has begun to act according to the factory adage of the old Soviet Union: “We pretend to work, they pretend to pay us.” The researchers conclude: “Easy hire and fire is at the cost of organisational learning, knowledge accumulation and knowledge sharing, thus damaging innovation and labour productivity growth.”

In its evidence to the Low Pay Commission, UNISON has highlighted that the conditions of the economy meet all the key criteria set out by the Low Pay Commission in its 2014 report as necessary for significantly faster increases in the minimum wage. These include; rising real wages in the economy generally, stable employment and an expectation of sustained economic growth.

Other factors supporting an increase in wages are the upward trend in the scale of low pay in the economy. This will be exacerbated by Government cuts to tax credits and other benefits, particularly for workers with families. The value of the National Minimum Wage has been eroded in comparison to the Living Wage and young workers have been penalised through the lower rates and their exclusion from the new so called National 'Living Wage'. At the other end of the scale there is the growth in the income of high earnings groups that has entrenched the UK’s position as one of the most unequal countries among comparable nations that are members of both the EU and OECD.

The committee asked us for specific evidence on the care sector that constitutes nearly 8% of the Scottish workforce and is a sector largely funded by the Scottish Government. The size of the Scottish care workforce has increased to 199,670, an increase of 5.3%. 77% of these work in home care and 85% are women.

There are some very poor employers in this sector and they have been encouraged by poor procurement practice. The Procurement Act and new statutory guidance should enable us to tackle this by evaluating future bids on their workforce policies including the payment of the living wage. However, the better employers rightly say that this must be funded properly. Given the leverage of government money there is an opportunity to develop the sort of sectoral bargaining that has been so successful in raising standards and productivity in other parts of Europe.

The care sector is a good example of where the race to the bottom in job quality and wages takes us. Staff who are desperate to exit the sector, creating high turnover, losing the continuity of care that is so important.

This inquiry is a welcome look at an important and complex issue and I look forward to their conclusions. However, there are practical actions the Scottish Government could take to develop the ideas in the Working Together report and Fair Work Convention. The care sector would be a good place to start.

 

Why the Trade Union Bill is especially wrong in Scotland

The Trade Union Bill weakens our voice at work, and weakens our campaigning voice. It undermines the right to strike, union organisation and aims to make it harder for unions to win a fairer deal at work.

The Bill receives its Second Reading at Westminster today. It will:

·      undermine the right to strike for better pay and conditions or against unfair treatment

·      threaten freedom of speech, with new restrictions on protests and pickets

·      allow employers to use agency temps to replace striking workers

·      introduce new red tape that makes it harder for unions to run political campaigns

·      Reduce the rights of union reps in the workplace, making it harder for them to represent their members

·      Make it more difficult to join a trade union by ending check off/DOCAS agreements.

The Trade Union Bill has been described even by employer organisations as an outdated response. That is particularly true in post-devolution Scotland.

One of the early actions of the first devolved Labour-Liberal coalition was a Memorandum of Understanding between the trade unions and the Scottish Government, which has led – through different iterations – to the Scottish Government’s new Fair Work Convention. The Working Together report describes how Scotland’s industrial relations has taken a different direction, particularly in the public sector, the main target of this legislation. I highlighted the growing differences recently in an article in the Scotsman and in more detail in the Policy Now journal.

While industrial relations is a reserved matter to Westminster, sections of this Bill, particularly those dealing with check off/DOCAS and facility time, explicitly interfere in devolved issues of public administration. We have therefore argued that the Bill requires the support of devolved parliaments. The Scottish and Welsh governments support this position.

Scottish public bodies are also required under the Public Sector Equality Duty to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination in the area of employment. In an embarrassing error, UK government officials posted a final draft of the Bill’s equality assessment that shows that officials have serious doubts about the lack of evidence to support government assertions.

The Scotland Act also requires that human rights must be respected and realised at all levels of governance in Scotland. The Trade Union Bill breaches a number of the articles in the European Convention on Human Rights and in particular ILO conventions that the UK has signed up to. The human rights aspects have also been criticised by Liberty, Amnesty International and the British Institute of Human Rights. UNISON’s General Secretary, Dave Prentis, covers the sinister surveillance issues at Left Foot Forward.

The campaign against the Trade Union Bill has received broad political support across Scotland. Both the SNP and Scottish Labour oppose the Bill. Almost all of Scotland’s MPs will oppose the Bill today.

Scottish councils and other public bodies are starting to recognise the impact this will have on their industrial relations culture. Renfrewshire and Glasgow councils have tabled strong motions opposing the Bill and others are considering similar positions.

Both party leaders in Scotland have made the link between the Bill and the Tory approach to the workplace generally. They support the idea that employees working together for better wages, terms and conditions makes for a more productive workforce – good for business and good for society. This is a point well articulated by Will Hutton the former Director of the Work Foundation and leading academics. Vince Cable has described the Bill as ‘vindictive’ and even senior Tory MP, David Davis, has described the picketing proposals as like something out of Franco’s dictatorship in Spain.

Today’s debate, is an early stage in the parliamentary process. Our main focus has to be explaining to our members and the wider public that this grubby piece of legislation will not only damage workers rights, but it undermines good workplace relations and the economy.