Paul Moloney is a member of the Unions21 Steering Committee and Industrial Relations Manager for the Society of Radiographers
Throughout post war history but markedly since the election UK workers have been told they are not productive enough. In a return to the union bashing anti-worker approach of the 1970s and 1980s the Conservative Government claims that UK workers lag behind their colleagues in other parts of Europe, notably Germany when it comes to producing things quickly and cost-effectively. They go on to argue that without increased productivity the UKs ability to prosper is significantly impaired and the blame will lie with working people.
When seen as part of the overall ideology that permeates through many Tory policies this argument can be seen as nothing more than another attempt to suggest that many working people are in fact lazy. Furthermore it is those people the Labour Party seeks to represent, and trade Unions defend, not the aspirational workers who, according to the ideology, have a natural home in the Tory party.
Reality of course is very different and not for the first time the British Conservative party is very cleverly taking an issue that belongs in any progressive approach to our problems, re-writing it in a sinister way and then using it as a stick with which to hit the very people who otherwise would be standing up for true productivity improvements.
Take for example members of my own Union, The Society of Radiographers. There are two significant areas where we have been pushing the various authorities to allow our members who are radiographers, to take on additional roles which will increase their productivity and improve the cost-effectiveness of the work they do. We want those of our members who are trained and competent to do so to be able to report on the scans they undertake and to prescribe a limited number of drugs to patients in certain defined situations.
Reporting is particularly important. By this we mean that radiographers, having taken an image, should be the ones who can diagnose based on the image. By allowing our members to undertake this work it will reduce the waiting time for patients between a scan being undertaken and the results being made available to consultants etc and, of equal importance, to patients themselves. This has obvious benefits for the successful treatment of patients.
With recent reports of thousands of unreported scans in one area of the UK, each one meaning a patient who has had a scan never getting the results of the scan, we believe allowing our members to undertake reporting is one of the essential changes that could be made to help improve NHS efficiency and save money but actually improving patient care rather than by cutting it. It will reduce the acknowledged heavy workload of radiologists who in turn will become more productive in their areas of expertise.
Prescribing, particularly in radiotherapy where our members are part of a team treating cancer patients is equally important by ensuring that appropriate work is carried out at the correct skill level but cost-effectively by again potentially improving patient experience and outcome.
We have campaigned long and hard in these two areas but it is us, the Trade Union, calling for these essential changes. It is us demanding the right of our members to be more productive and to be higher skilled and to contribute as much as they can in line with their skill levels for better, and yes the cheaper delivery of, healthcare.
However, we have had little support from Government. While we appreciate more than anyone the need for careful planning in these areas there has been very little support from politicians to ensure radiographers are equipped with the skills to undertake these new roles. In fact all we have had is cuts to training budgets and the almost total removal of protected study time for those employed in the NHS. By the way these are the same politicians now jumping on the productivity bandwagon and telling us how uncompetitive UK workers are.
And that is why our own experience, which on one level is somewhat unique, will actually have similarities with others in other unions and why increasing productivity is our movements issue, one that belongs to us and does not belong to those who have overseen the cuts in training, the introduction and growth of zero hours contracts, the widespread use of the minimum wage as not just the living wage but the maximum wage, and now want to see the UK be free from any EU employment law at all as part of the renegotiation ahead of the in/out referendum.
Working people do want to use their skills to the maximum effect, they do want to learn and acquire new skills and they do want to use their talents to improve their income but also to improve the collective good whether they work in healthcare, transport, retail or pretty much any sector of the economy.
And for many they would be the first to admit they are not as productive as they would like to be because they know there is no training, there is no job security, and there are no incentives to progress because there is a Government that is actively attacking each and every one of these areas. And of course that is really how the Conservative party want it. The want to pretend increasing productivity is synonymous with working harder and longer because they want to perpetuate the myth of the lazy poor for their own political reasons. We need to reclaim the word productivity and start exposing these Tory myths quickly. For us it is about working better, about unleashing the skills of people and making sure they are rewarded properly and fairly for their skills. These maybe old ideas but ones that have never had more relevance and ones that desperately need articulating not just by trade Unions but also by the Labour Party.
Unions21 is currently undertaking a workstream on productivity. To take the Unions21 productivity survey click here.
The workplace at present is full of uncertainties and insecurity. But one thing is certain. The workforce is getting older and workers, by choice or necessity, are working longer. So what are employers and trade unions doing about this major demographic shift?
Employers frequently bemoan the shortage of relevant skills yet allow experience and skills leave through early retirement or redundancy. Trade unions focus on pension rights for older workers whilst sometimes failing to ask older workers what they want from their employers.
A recent report from the CIPD stated that there are currently over 1.5 million workers over the age of 50 in health and social work and more than 1.2 million over 50 in both education and retail. It is doubtful that the replacements for these workers will be fully met by school leavers and many industries have a poor record on retaining older workers, seeing a large drop-off in the number of workers between the ages of 45–49 and 60–64. The CIPD Report points in particular to finance, public administration and ICT all of which see a drop of greater than 60% between the number of workers they employ in their late forties and in their late sixties. Such falls would suggest that these sectors are not doing enough to support longer working lives and will be hampered by the loss of skilled and experienced staff.
The TUC is currently engaged in a European funded research project “Workage”. The three year project is being led by Nottingham Trent University in partnership with Workplace Innovation Limited (part of UKWON) and aims to inform policy guidelines about the engagement and retention of older workers through the application of workplace interventions. The TUC itself commissioned research last year looking at the challenges and opportunities for trade unions in representing an ageing workforce. It produced seven key recommendations and, in particular, recognised the diversity within the older workforce – those that delay retirement because they want to while others that are compelled to work longer for economic reasons and others who want to work but are prevented from doing so by health reasons. Trade unions need to provide support in many different ways to meet these diverse needs and workplace interventions offers a solution to some of them.
Workage is identifying and piloting non-age related workplace interventions that enhance the engagement of workers aged over 50 years and delay the intention to retire as well as developing evidence-based workplace practices. Specifically, the interventions will focus on workplace innovation practices that enable people at all levels of an organisation to use and develop their skills to the fullest possible extent during their working lives.
Workage is concerned with four areas of workplace practice – work organisation, structures and work systems, learning and reflection, and worker engagement. To help deliver and evaluate these interventions Workage has appointed 3 Change Facilitators from the two organisations being used to implement this project – Stoke-on-Trent City Council and the Southern Health and Social Care Trust in Northern Ireland. Throughout the project participation of the workforce and their trade unions has been entirely voluntary and the output of the interventions will be monitored and evaluated during and at the end of the project. Although only currently half way through the project, benefits are already being identified in workplaces where the project is taking place. In Stoke, the mobile cleaning team have seen their ideas taken up and front line workers now participate in monthly meetings with management. In the Maternity Unit in the Southern Health and Social Care Trust, the project has resulted in multi disciplinary team meetings now taking place monthly improving participation and removing duplication. In both cases the introduction of greater participation of workers at all levels is resulting in improved morale and a sense of well being. The project team will be measuring the impact of the interventions and will return to undertake another survey of all staff after 12 months to evaluate the work and examine what if any impact the interventions might have on older workers and retirement decisions.
Part of the Workage Project’s objectives is to disseminate to the widest possible audience the outcomes of the research and practices undertaken during the three year period. It is designed to develop workplace policy/practice solutions that can inform government policy on older workers and the workplace. It will also generate rigorous evidence for practical solutions with strong links to policy thinking as well as supporting the scaling up of these innovations across Europe through the delivery of transferable lessons with a resource toolkit in pursuit of active and healthy ageing through prolonging working lives in a decent and fair manner.
The project will conclude in 2016 with major presentations being held across Europe. More detailed information about the project and the outcomes of the pilot schemes can be obtained from the project web site at www.workage.eu or by contacting Roger Jeary on email@example.com
Roger Jeary TUC Representative on Workage Policy and Dissemination Panel
READ: Related Unions21 publication ‘The Generation Game – Does Age Matter’
Let’s give credit where it is due. And the hype is true. The government’s new Trade Union Bill is the most significant piece of trade union legislation in a generation; perhaps even longer than that, because it goes further, wider and deeper than anything that has preceded it. It is an audacious piece of legislation which fundamentally alters the balance of industrial relations in favour of the employer.
But although measures on industrial action and political donations have grabbed the headlines, as the saying goes – the devil is in the detail.
We are right to be worried about the rules on industrial action. The “double whammy” of a statutory threshold for both turnout and “yes” votes sets standards for trade unions that politicians would never apply to themselves. They would also never have applied them to the employer-equivalent of industrial action – withholding investment, taking excess profits, shutting up shop and moving somewhere else. And it is not just strike ballots, but the requirement to give longer notice and the incitement for employers to use strike-breaking agency workers.
We should be critical of the proposals for political funds too. Harriet Harman was right to point out in the House of Commons that there is no equivalent when it comes to big business bankrolling of the Conservative Party. But the recycling of arguments from the 1980s about political funds conveniently overlooks the reforms that the Labour Party itself put into place require a conscious opting-in by trade unionists who not only pay a political levy, but wish it to be directed to that destination.
So far, so bad. But like a malignant game of “find the lady”, while our attention is diverted to these big ticket issues, there are areas just as potent and controversial below.
And that is why it is more a question of “be careful what you wish for” than the devil being in the detail.
Every trade union official knows that industrial action represents a failure of the negotiating process. But successful companies have mature, robust and highly innovative trade union/employer partnerships. A lopsided Trade Union Bill seems to presume that the collective voice of employees has nothing to offer. Employers are to be dealt hands stuffed with aces and trump cards. Where is the incentive to truly engage and genuinely negotiate?
The Bill seeks to ride roughshod over other important pieces of legislation. A challenge under Article 11 of the Human Rights Act can surely be on the radar.
Despite the blithe assurances in government statements yesterday that the Bill is not inconsistent with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR); however if after a lengthy and expensive legal process it turns out not to be the case, hey no problem: there are many in the government who want to scrap the Human Rights Act which would leave withdrawal from the ECHR as an inevitable and logical next step.
And finally, if I was the Certification Officer, I am not sure how I would feel about the huge armoury of extra powers the Bill gives me. It sounds like a legal minefield which involves a purgatory of unending court appearances. But in any event, the invasive powers vested by the Bill surely cut across the provisions of the Data Protection Act which grants special status to the question of an individual’s trade union membership (or not). That provision is also underpinned by the Human Rights Act.
And the obligation to pre-approve tweets and comments on social media during periods of industrial unrest – well hello Big Brother, come in and warm your feet by the fire. Is this is a stunning land-grab on the rights of freedom of expression or alternatively just a clumsy stalking horse to be killed off during the Bill’s Committee Stage.
An objective observer would be forced to conclude that this Bill is a throw-back addressing a problem that no longer exists. Days lost to industrial action have fallen by 95% over the last 35 years. The risk to civil liberties and the destabilising effect this will have on employer relations in the workplace makes this Bill unnecessary as well as unworkable.
The TUC is approaching its 150th anniversary. Time and time again our movement has shown the tenacity, determination, imagination and chutzpah to continue to work with good employers, expose bad ones and above all, repay the trust our members show in us by achieving dignity and fairness at work. The Trade Union Bill encourages the bad and suppresses the good. Be careful what you wish for indeed.
The Government has published the Trade Union Bill and drawn criticism from across the movement, writing on the touchstone blog, TUC General Secretary Frances O’Grady said:
“The proposals will make getting a much-needed pay rise, stopping job losses or negotiating better conditions at work much more difficult. They’ll make it harder for unions to do their day-to-day job of dealing with problems in the workplace before they escalate into disputes. And they’ll stifle protests against cuts to public services, like closures of SureStart centres, libraries and care services.
It’s a strange choice for the party that wants to position itself as the workers’ champion. Not measures to tackle exploitation at work or boost productivity, but an unnecessary attack on workers’ rights and civil liberties.”
The government’s legislative plans for the year ahead include a Trade Unions Bill that would create a 50% voting threshold for union strike ballot turnouts, and a requirement that 40% of those entitled to vote must back action in essential public services – health, education, fire and transport.
A government spokesperson said: “…we will legislate to stop undemocratic industrial action…”
But under the Trade Unions Bill a ballot in which half of those eligible to vote took part would require 80% to vote “Yes” to make action legal. A positive vote of 79.9% on a 50% turnout is undemocratic, according to the government.
So, how does this compare to the system that elected that government? 24.4% of all people eligible to vote backed the Conservatives – far less than the 40 per cent threshold it wants to impose on trade union members.
Should the government wish to legislate in a democratic way it should look to the polling. Most of the British public support the right to strike for workers. In particular, according to YouGov: Post office workers (64%), bus drivers (64%), refuse collectors (61%), railway and underground workers (60%), social workers (57%) and teachers (53%). Indeed, more people support the radical idea of a right to strike for the armed forces than voted Conservative at the election.
The TUC identifies that the Trade Unions Bill would effectively end the right to strike. A democratically minded government would be supporting the wishes of the majority – and protecting industrial action as one of the most essential checks and balances in any democracy. A modernising government would legislate to allow electronic voting in ballots for industrial action to increase the turnout and therefore the legitimacy of any vote.
As we enter the last week of campaigning ahead of the election just about every opinion pollster and everyone following this election will be saying we are entering a new phase of coalition politics hitherto unknown in this country. In fact the commonly held view is that we are now entering a new and permanent era of multi-party politics with up to as many as 8 parties mentioned by political commentators as being in with a chance of influencing the shape of the next Government.
This view however ignores the fact that the old two party system was itself a battle between two coalitions, a coalition of the centre left and a coalition of the right. Two coalitions that have dominated British politics for the entire post war period.
What we are seeing now are two issues severely testing these established coalitions. On the right the coalition, after more than 30 years, is finally being tested to its limit on the issue of EU membership and underpinning that debate the real issue of the level of regulation of the market needed for an efficient economy. A battle between those who believe in a free, deregulated and unskilled economy and those who believe some regulation and skilling of the workforce builds a stronger economy.
On the left that coalition is being tested in Scotland over independence and how Scotland best protects itself from some of the policies imposed upon it by the coalition of the right.
So is it correct to describe what is likely to happen in the election as the start of coalition politics, or is it something different and perhaps less ground breaking. If so, what does this mean for the Labour Party?
It is the coalition of the right that is in deeper trouble than the coalition of the left. The underpinning issue testing the coalition is one that has festered for a generation or more beginning 40 years ago when Margaret Thatcher replaced Ted Heath as leader of the coalition. Ever since the issue of EU membership and the wider issue of what type of economy delivers wealth has tested the resolve of the coalition. John Major’s resignation as leader of the coalition to provoke a leadership election stands out as an illustration of how this issue has continued to test the coalition to its limits. Major’s gamble succeeded in keeping the coalition together at the time but which has ultimately led to the 2015 election where it appears the coalition cannot hold together over this fundamental issue.
The rise of UKIP has already led to the current coalition leader pledging to hold an in out referendum on EU membership. A gamble far greater than that of John Majors and one that may well tear the coalition apart for good whatever the outcome.
The problems for the centre left coalition are nowhere near as fundamental. The challenge to that coalition is really one of tactics rather than policy. The growth of the modern SNP as a leftwing party ironically shows that on policy issues the coalition is strong and has every chance of healing the current rift. An SNP that campaigns for the NHS, the removal of Trident, Strong public services and anti-austerity measures is only saying what the Labour Party does say or has said in the past. The only difference is the tactical one of how these policies are delivered in Scotland, there is no substantial difference over the policies themselves or over the type of economy needed to deliver a level of fairness in wealth distribution. Unlike the coalition of the right where there are fundamental differences on the economy there is broad agreement on the type of economy needed still among the centre left coalition.
If this analysis is right then it puts Ed Miliband in a very strong position if he takes the right decisions after the election. In contrast to David Cameron, Miliband has the opportunity post the election to start mending the coalition of the centre left. By working with the SNP he can recreate a coalition that can deliver for all of the UK. And there is a very real rationale for this. His coalition campaigned for a no vote in the independence referendum and the people of Scotland delivered a resounding no vote. So they now have every right to send whoever they like to Westminster and have every right to influence national politics. Ed Miliband needs to respect this and work with the SNP to deliver the long held objectives of the centre left coalition. If he does this then he has every chance of rebuilding and reinforcing the coalition known as the Labour Party.
There is no such opportunity for whoever will lead the coalition of the right. UKIP has forced them into a referendum they cannot recover from regardless of the outcome. But ultimately that is because the post-war coalition of the right has been struggling with two distinct and ultimately irreconcilable factions that have been fighting each other for 40 years. Unlike the coalition of the left they are split not on tactics, albeit important ones regarding Scotland, but on ultimately irreconcilable differences regarding how the economy is organised and for whom it is organised.
This election is certainly unusual but rather than ushering in a new era of coalition politics it could be the election that fatally wounds one of the coalitions that has dominated British politics for decades while at the same time presenting the other with an opportunity to really shape the future of the UK for a generation.
No pressure Ed!
Today Unions21 was at Scottish TUC Congress with a standing-room-only fringe event in Ayr entitled: ‘The rebalancing act: How should we tackle inequality?’ . The event was the Scottish launch of Unions21′s recent publication ‘Rebalancing the Economy’. The speakers were Mick Whelan, Drew Smith MSP, Manuel Cortes, Dave Penman and Ann Henderson.
To coincide with the event, John Park contributed the following article:
John Park, AGS of Community
It’s hard not to feel that we have spent too much time in Scotland focusing on the differences between us and our nearest neighbours, as opposed to looking at the issues that jointly concern workers across the UK. The inequality that affects many parts of England, Wales and Northern Ireland prevails in many parts of Scotland too. During the last few years in Scotland we haven’t been finding solutions for those issues but we’ve become good at discussing where power lies (or doesn’t) and the processes that surround decision makers.
Scotland hasn’t been a policy-free zone however. There has been a different path followed by the Scottish Government since 2007. The question is though, has this path done enough to address or even consider the specific micro-economic factors that affect Scottish communities?
One of the most troubling factors as a Scot, who worked across the UK during the independence referendum, was the assertion that Scots somehow had more of a social conscience than our friends and colleagues in other parts of the UK. The reality in policy terms is about as far away from the assertion as you can get. Over the last seven or eight years, the Scottish Government has introduced a number of eye-catching universal policies which at face value appear to be progressive. But for every free bus pass, there has been a cut in elderly care services; for every free university place, there has been a cut in college places; and for every free prescription, the queue in A&E has got longer. These policies have not been redistributive; they haven’t addressed regional inequalities in any way and have arguably benefited some of the better off – creating a bigger gap between the rich and poor.
The components are there for a better Scotland. Trade unions are involved and have played a positive role in post-devolution politics in Scotland. Unions are very much viewed as social partners – certainly in a bilateral sense – although there is still very little tripartite engagement between government, trade unions and business. Despite the potential in this relationship between trade unions and government, trade union membership in Scotland either falls faster or grows more slowly than in any other part of the UK. There could be a number of factors that feed into those figures but given the apparently sympathetic view of the role of trade unions and their involvement, it is disappointing that more progress hasn’t been made in terms of consolidating and growing trade union membership in Scotland. This means that thousands of workers in Scotland – particularly those in the private sector – are not benefiting from the safer, smarter and more rewarding workplace environment that responsible trade unionism delivers.
Perhaps there isn’t a real appetite currently for the level of engagement needed to be an influential social partner? This could be down to the reluctance of many trade unions in Scotland being seen to work in partnership (at least publicly) with employers and the business community more generally.
Notwithstanding the complications the constitutional debate has brought to Scotland over the last few years there has also been a poor level of serious discussion about the issues facing the Scottish economy – many of which are similar to those facing other parts of the UK.
Before the financial crash in 2008, business organisations used to complain about “red tape” and the “crowding out” of the private sector by the public sector. (Read employment rights for “red tape” and public sector spending for “crowding out”.) The red tape argument still has some resonance within certain sections of society, while, ironically, the crowding out argument has morphed into the need for government to support industry through procurement.
This needs to improve. There has to be a more sensible, measured and constitution-free discussion about the future direction of Scotland. Any union that regularly engages with the issues facing its members and the companies they work for will tell you that the current economic debate in Scotland doesn’t bear any resemblance to the issues that have to be dealt with in individual workplaces, different sectors and various industries. These issues are often global, most definitely strategic and in many cases common to other parts of the UK and Europe.
Again, the components are there. The Scottish Parliament has a range of new powers on the blocks. Scotland is uniquely placed amongst the regions of England, Wales and Northern Ireland to make decisions about the specific problems we face as a country within the pooled resources of the UK.
We would hope that the constitutional question now begins to settle and we can now have a real debate about the kind of Scotland that Community’s members want to live and work in. From our perspective it’s not complicated. We want to see a Scotland that has good jobs and puts fair employment at the heart of meeting the challenge of globalisation. We want to see a growing and more relevant trade union movement – a movement that uses that growth and renewed relevance responsibly in the interests of all. Above all, we want to see a Scotland where anyone, no matter their background, can go on to fulfil their potential and play their part in Scotland’s future.
This snappy title for a new book by former trade union leader, John Edmonds and former teacher/adviser on equality, Eva Tutchell, should influence the important current debate around that topic. As their focus is on the workplace, it should interest all active trade unionists. The book has a striking cover design showing the different roads to success of men and women in blue and red, and with unerring timing, Man-Made could catapult this issue to the forefront of the general election campaign.
Of course, all the political leaders – even the coalition parties are already paying lip-service to the ideal of gender equality in the higher echelons of companies, public bodies and generally in the economy and society. But by recording the stories of over 100 women, (including five current or former trade union leaders), who have broken through the usual barriers to success, Man-Made adds a new ingredient and urgency to the policy debate. Here is testimony which cannot be easily dismissed or brushed-aside by policy-makers in government, whoever forms the government after May 7th.
Man-Made’s recommendations are for a radical programme of positive action which would give extra advantages to women so as to balance the gender gap. It calls for a transformation of our current culture and significant changes in the law. These include:
- Better enforcement of equality legislation;
- Greater transparency in appointments and pay;
- Introduction of quotas, targets and in-house equality programmes;
- Introduction of a scheme offering work breaks
As you would expect from authors with considerable experience and practical knowledge of the system, their case is extremely well-argued and thoughtful. It is clearly pitched at opinion-formers and policy-makers across the political spectrum and will probably be all the more influential for that. Nonetheless, they are under no illusions but that some of their ideas, particularly quotas, will encounter serious opposition, depending on the political complexion of the next Parliament.
Although the quotas system will be the more controversial, perhaps their most interesting idea is the work breaks scheme, based as it is on ‘the explosion of longevity’ which is extending everybody’s working lives. They suggest that men and women should be given funded breaks of up to three years to enable them to share child-care responsibilities more equally, while they take the opportunity of bringing their academic and vocational skills up to date in the face of further technological change.
This may be ‘an idea whose time has come’ and trade unionists could have a special role in promoting it. Man-Made will be an essential tool to equip the proposed equality reps in making the case in every workplace.
The utterly appalling and reactionary howls that greeted Rachel Reeve’s maternity leave plans remind us that although we have come a long way, there is still just as far to go on when it comes to recognising that (1) women have babies and (2) women can have babies and hold down jobs too.
Of course, the point some commentators and others was making was it wasn’t the “baby” bit of this that is a problem – but the maternity leave.
It is an unavoidable issue that for the human race to survive, we need to reproduce. If we reproduce, our offspring and their parents need to be looked after. The quality of the “looking after” stuff makes a big difference to other things – life chances, health, wellbeing, etc.
But – and let’s not fudge this issue -having staff absent from work can be disruptive. But just because it can be doesn’t mean it has to be.
Here in the Communication Workers’’ Union, we have been trying to address these issues. Our national youth committee has now had numerous young women members who have taken maternity leave during their term of office. Committee members are all lay representatives – they are not our employees. So while the companies that employ them are obliged under he law and their collective agreements with us to release them from duty, what about their union work?
There are all sorts of issues here; if you are on leave, then surely that’s it – you are away from work full stop. How can the demands of occupying a national representative position be compatible with caring for an entirely dependent very young child? If you are absorbed in your new baby’s welfare, how can you concentrate on union work?
But on the other hand, if we happened to have a number of women away on maternity leave at the same time, that would denude effective membership of the committee. The classic “impact on small organisations” scenario.
Let’s try and nail a few of these issues.
Setting aside the trend towards parental (or adoptive) leave, as well as maternity leave, we have shown that it is possible to turn a pessimist’s problem into to an optimistic solution.
Funnily enough, we knew that there would be a need to manage a maternity leave vacancy on the committee some time in advance – usually around 4-5 months. So this should not be something that catches peole by surprise.
Even in democratic organisations, when decisions can sometimes take longer to make, there is time to take soundings and secure agreement – in this case for someone to be co-opted to the committee to cover the maternity leave.
Our youth committee is comprised of regionally and occupationally based representatives. So we agreed to co-opt someone from the same geography and ideally the same industrial sector as the person on leave. But above all we were clear that the co-optee had to be a woman to preserve the gender balance of the committee.
But we did not want to disadvantage the person on maternity leave – nor lose her input into decisions. So the committee agreed to maintain contact with her, but recognised that she may not always want to to contribute to virtual debates or email exchanges.
We adopted a similar approach with attendance at committee meetings and events. If our colleague on maternity leave is able to attend, that would be great. Would we expect her to attend? No, not necessarily. The approach was designed to keep women on maternity leave involved, without making any presumptions about what that involvement would mean in practical terms.
And of course, we make sure that appropriate practical support is available, in terms of arrangements for partners to travel with mothers.
On some occasions, the member on maternity leave and their maternity leave cover would attend the same meeting. But any potential problems about who gets to use the vote associated with one place on the committee that they are both associated with, is overcome by discussion before –hand.
On one occasion, a colleague insisted on standing down from the committee because of her baby being due. The committee promptly co-opted her for the duration of her maternity leave.
All these things are not charitable acts. That would be arguably patronising in the extreme. As a union, we need to do more to attract and retain young activists, and young women activists. Women are after all over 50% of the UK workforce. Without the steps outlined above, we would have lost the expertise, insight, involvement and support of young women in the very leadership positions needed to promote better ways of working.
So we should loudly proclaim our support for Rachel Reeves for identifying as someone who will demonstrate that the sort of work-life balance that promotes a better society is both desirable and achievable. If she can do it in that set of circumstances, the doom-laden nay-sayers will be forced to think again.
Originally published on the CWU Youth blog: http://www.cwuyouth.org/view-blog.html?blog_id=404
Victoria Phillips is head of employment rights at Thompsons Solicitors
The ground-breaking Health and Safety at Work Act is 40 years old and there has been a lot of progress over the years which should be celebrated. Britain is one of the safest countries in the world for workers and HSE statistics show that fatalities at work are on the decline.
But there is no cause to rest on our laurels. The most recent statistics show that for those 133 workers who were killed last year and anyone who took any of the 28.2 million working days lost to work-related ill health or injury, injury, ill-health and death at work are not a thing of the past.
As those concerned with improving the statistics further reflect on the successful impact of the Act over the years, this government is moving health and safety backwards. It’s now de rigueur for Tory MPs and ministers (ably assisted by their Lib Dem stooges and their mates in the media) to lampoon health and safety and dismiss anything associated with it as “red tape”.
Any death and any injury at work is a tragedy. At Thompsons we know how unnecessary and how avoidable they almost always are. Avoidance isn’t rocket science, it’s often blindingly basic.
No government should rest on its laurels. Certainly, no government should take action that could risk a deterioration in health and safety and yet that’s exactly what we are witnessing. It’s a dismissive arrogance of the worst kind.
It appears that laws introduced and respected by the courts since the times of the Victorian factory can be thrown aside. Strict Liability can be junked and self-employed workers removed from health and safety laws. Written agreements with insurers to stitch up mesothelioma sufferers and their families (over 2,500 people died of the fatal cancer mesothelioma, caused by exposure to asbestos last year) are pushed through parliament. Misstating the words of the Professor you appoint to review health and safety is fine if you can get away with it (which thankfully due to some good old fashioned leaking they haven’t).
The insurers are happy (a billion £’s in dividends from two car insurers when there’s meant to be a so-called whiplash fraud ‘crisis’). Lawyers being slapped down and straight jacketed into deals that limit their ability to get the maximum amount of compensation is dressed up for the media as a great advance. The judicial establishment get their wish for injured people to ‘have some skin in the game’ – i.e. face deductions from compensation to pay their lawyers – and all the while backbenchers can belittle and scoff and make health and safety a joke. You can even feed them red meat by seeking to blame it all on those pesky Europeans.
At a time when the battle for proper health and safety is gradually being won the last thing we need is a government more concerned with winning favourable headlines in tabloids and currying favour with powerful corporate interest groups than taking proactive steps to ensure that workplace injury and ill-health really become things of the past. But that’s what we’ve got and the battle goes on.