If an army marches on its stomach, a navy gets hungry too and it's the job of Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships to supply the Royal Navy. What's this got to do with probation? Well it turns out there is no area of public service that the Tories haven't fucked up. RFA crews are about to go on strike because of poor pay and conditions. Out of 7 RFA vessels built to resupply RN vessels at sea, just 2 are active due to crew shortages. So we've spent billions on 2 aircraft carriers and have virtually no ships to replenish them. Morale is at rock bottom and recruitment campaigns have failed. Sound familiar? This from navylookout website:-
Diminishing strength of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary undermines the Royal Navy’s global reachThe size of the workforce continues to reduce and members of both Trade Unions have voted for strike action over pay. The RMT Union which represents RFA ratings says around 500 personnel are prepared to take action over pay and will go on strike on Sunday 19th May. 79% of RFA Officers who are members of the Nautilus Union also voted in favour of strikes although they have not yet announced a date. Industrial action by sailors on ships actually at sea is not permitted for obvious reasons but there may be some modest effects. At this stage, walkouts are primarily symbolic and designed to raise awareness rather than have a big impact on naval operations. No one wants to go on strike but the grievance is genuine, RFA sailors have seen a pay cut in real terms of around 30% more than workers in the emergency services since 2010.
RFA personnel were involved in strikes over pay in 2000 and in 2010 and came close in 2019. Poor pay is not a new issue but has been exacerbated by the recent rise in the cost of living and a global shortage of seafarers. Like almost every other area of the public sector, people are under pressure as the tasking and workload has increased without resources to match. Many RFA vessels are now operating a Tailored Scheme of Compliment (TSOC), the minimum level of crew possible to run the ship safely which can mean being up to 30% short-handed. This lowers morale and may limit evolutions the ship can safely perform.
The seriousness of the issue has been widely recognised and an early day Parliamentary motion signed by 34 MPs in December demanded a pay increase for the RFA. An FOI submitted last year revealed the total annual wage bill for the RFA in 2022/23 was just £92M. If there is supposedly now a ‘growing’ defence budget, in relative terms it would not take much to increase pay by 20-30% that is needed to make salaries competitive again.
The Faststream Recruitment Group was recently commissioned by the MoD to investigate how RFA pay and conditions match up with commercial equivalents. Their independent benchmarking report completed in March 2024 provides interesting reading, comparing like-for-like roles in the Cruise Ship, Deep Sea, Offshore and Ferry industries with the RFA. While there are some variations by ranks and roles, overall the key conclusion is “the RFA’s current offering pays lower than the market average for the net day rate in every rank benchmarked.” In some cases, RFA personnel may be paid more overall than their counterparts in the commercial sector but they have to work more days at sea, and often in more high-risk areas. Furthermore, the RFA’s appointment length is longer than is typical for British seafarers and the RFA offers less time off per day worked than any other sector. The only remuneration area where the RFA does better is the generous pension but this is not a big priority for the younger recruits the service needs to attract.
Ok, but who is there to vote for ? Seems that the main three parties are all as bad as each other, and it might actually be better off having a weak tory government instead of a strong Labour one, which will likely use its position with unions to just further crush workers.
ReplyDeleteDon't be silly labour should be returning to unions they are funded mainly by donations . On the floor crossing a leader once said he has and would reject floor crosses stating it his job to get the trash out not bring it in.
DeleteI think you mean Count Binface said that the other day!
Delete@Anon15:23 - what do you mean ? The unions are in Labour's pocket, and if Labour get in power with Sir Trouser Press as leader, they will more than likely use that position to crush workers - just look at Keirs attitude towards Labour mps who were going to join pickets. Labour are also likely to continue with NHS privatisation too.
DeleteNo . Starmers position on picket is not the same as his belief. He wanted labour to appear political not radical. MPs on lines just reinforces old labour radical stuff. As for NHS get real no labour party could contemplate the selling of the labour backbone of our party NHS free at source do some history.
Delete"Starmers position on picket is not the same as his belief"
DeleteHe demonstrated his beliefs - that hes anti-worker - by threatening to remove the whip from mp's who entertained the idea of joining pickets, and when he happily announces his admiration of Thatcher, thats a nod to the elite, not the working class.
"He wanted labour to appear political not radical"
That simply doesn't make any sense.
"MPs on lines just reinforces old labour radical stuff"
Firstly, Labour are reformist, not radical, and secondly, its that socalled radical stuff that got thousands joining the party under St Jeremiah of Islington.
"As for NHS get real no labour party could contemplate the selling of the labour"
Meanwhile;
"By the time the Labour government had completed its first term of office it had resurrected most of the structures of a market oriented system and the stage was set for more reform. The NHS Plan 2000 outlined in chapter 3 was premised on far greater autonomy for hospitals and much more rigorous exposure to market forces. Labour now proposed to push privatization into the core of the NHS by bringing competing private providers into the NHS hospital sector."
(source; NHS - PLC by Allyson Pollock).
How does the above fit in with your assertion about Labour not attempting to privatise the NHS ?
It will, and almost is, like probation, where its just a name above a door. All the work is going to various other agencies and services, and todays PO, much like many nurses, especially in things like mental health, are doing lots of pen pushing.
"do some history"
Stop projecting.
https://cyprus-mail.com/2024/05/12/broken-britain-right-wing-defection-drama/
ReplyDeletePolitics in the UK turned farcical last week when Natalie Elphicke, the Conservative member for Dover, defected to the Labour Party. In the jargon, she crossed the floor and sat among Labour MPs on the opposition benches in the UK legislative assembly.
DeleteIt was an embarrassing event even by the low standards of the present UK parliament. As a colleague in the Conservative said of her politics, “there is no space to the right of Natalie.” The right-wing Conservative MP, Jacob Rees Mogg, known affectionately as the member for the 19th century, added that her politics are to the right of his own.
But she was welcomed by the current Labour leadership, although for backbench Labour MPs it looked more like the leadership had set a cat among the pigeons. Many members of the party in and out of parliament questioned why good socialist left wingers like Jeremy Corbyn and Diane Abbot are excluded from their ranks while this right-wing Conservative rodent has been allowed to join with political baggage, most of it at odds with basic Labour Party principles.
She said that she will not stand again but why switch so near a general election – expected in the Autumn – if she has no further political ambition? Why not go quietly? Her motives are suspect, as are the motives of the Labour Party leadership for taking her in without properly checking her politics. She was the second MP to defect to Labour in as many months. The other was Dr Dan Poulter MP, but he is a medical man and did it out of concern for the National Health Service that the Conservative government has allowed to atrophy over the last 14 years.
The best-known rat in British politics was Winston Churchill who crossed the floor and joined the Liberal party in 1904 and remained a member until 1924 when he rejoined the Conservatives.
He was forgiven and became a Conservative economics minister in 1924 shortly after re-ratting. He spent most of the 1930s in the wilderness until he joined the war cabinet on the outbreak of World War II in 1939 as navy minister and then prime minister in 1940.
As an expert on ratting and re-ratting Churchill, is reputed to have said, playfully, “anyone can rat, but it takes a certain amount of ingenuity to re-rat.”
Churchill also explained the choices open to MPs contemplating crossing the floor incisively when he said: “some change their party for the sake of their principles; others change their principles for the sake of their party.” So, there you have it. Natalie Elphicke is no Winston Churchill, but her politics suggest she is likely to re-rat assuming the Conservatives are not wiped out at the next election in in the Autumn – a distinct possibility if you believe the opinion polls.
Alas there are no aphorisms for political parties that change their principles to welcome right-wing rats into their ranks. The Labour Party is famously a broad church – or a big tent if you prefer. But that does not mean that anyone can join just because they cross the floor and there are tactical reasons for letting them join. The fact that a right-wing Conservative has been allowed to join the Labour Party raises serious questions about its future as a principled progressive force on the left of British politics. It is after all a party of the left – the party of Aneurin Bevan and Michael Foot and Tony Benn and Barbara Castle and the much-maligned Jeremy Corbyn.
DeleteIf Labour forms the next government, it will have the same economic policy and the same foreign policy as the present government. People will vote Labour because they are fed up with the Conservatives, but they do not just want a change of personnel when the UK needs a change of direction – a new direction away from the broken Britain the Conservatives will leave behind.
There has been an unforgivable lack of investment in the UK’s infrastructure that needs the state to step in and fix. An incoming Labour government will be expected to rebalance British society and they better come up with radical policies rather than aping the Conservatives for fear of the UK’s right-wing press – to hell with the right-wing press, the young do not read its organs anymore.
In my view, the politician that crosses the floor is a ‘Crosstitute’. That then making the receiving political party the ‘Pimp’. Principles don’t matter to the party, just a new asset and a helpful ‘means to an end’. Prostitution happens in politics too 😢.
Delete"socialist left wingers like Jeremy Corbyn"
DeleteSurely you meant social democrat, and let's not forget that people like Aneurin Bevan supported neo-colonialism.
Two people have very kindly given me the benefit of their views on why voting Labour in a general election is important:-
ReplyDelete"The Tories are actively crushing the workers rights and will go into overdrive on this should they win a further election. Labour will make minor concessions on worker's rights but the ability to fight back should increase under a labour government. At present people are keeping their heads down so as not to undermine the prospect of a labour victory. That changes on the election of a labour government. There will be a reaction to a continuation of austerity policies, exactly what form that takes remains to be seen but for it to happen we need a labour government. It isn't easy supporting labour at the moment but they are going to win the election and only after that will they really be exposed. It will be the most right wing labour government ever and there won't be a honeymoon period."
--oo00oo--
"Those on the right, I mean the far right, will argue that only after the election will Labour really be exposed. Also, in a global political climate which has shifted way to the right, there are only two choices, democratic change, which means in order to displace a far right government you have to appeal to the new centre ground which is to the right of where it was even in Blairs day, or revolution, basically. There is a proper academic/theoretical term for this
Even assuming that the current Labour party leadership would wish to be more left wing, in order to have any positive effect on the mess the Tories are leaving, they will need at least two terms and in much more difficult economic circumstances than Blairs. It's going to be gruesome. Tories are now actively pursuing scorched earth, so they and the Daily Mail etc can blame Labour for the tricky decisions that need to be made. You can of course argue that this is neo-liberal capitalism on its last legs and Labour is just part of the problem.
Where I am coming from: I can wring my hands and debate and discuss in the pub, and in forums like [this]. Or I can admit that I have neither the skills or the knowledge to actually be in charge, and just get on with doing what I can. Right now, it's spending effort and time in displacing this government with a Labour one (there is no other option). Then spend inordinate effort and time lobbying that government. That lobbying might be best achieved by avoiding the continued handwringing and decrying Labour in the pub etc, but joining the Labour Party, deciding what your priorities are, and doing the really hard graft of organising, with an eye on a prize which wont be exactly what you wanted anyway. Democracy is hard work. Complaining that things aren't how you want them is easy.
I find it completely easy to be supportive of a future labour government (wearing out shoe-leather!) and completely aware that they will be absolutely shit on Criminal Justice, but at least I will be lobbying friends... actual friends in some cases. That's politics! [This} blog is about probation and criminal justice, primarily. Get them in and then get to work I say."
I personally don’t believe any of the parties are now capable of sorting out this quagmire that this government and the previous government have left the country in.
DeleteWhat this country needs is not career Chief Clown politicians with no experience of real life lived as captains of industry but those who have run multinational companies and understand basic economic principles and the reality of the challenges of the global environment.
The last two governments have exposed how incompetent and unpatriotic the politicians have been. Clueless and brainless espousing vanity projects with no clear analysis and strategy or even planned output. Constantly seeking meaningless sound bites to try and prove they have a grip instead of clear analytical solutions that might not achieve popularity for them but would be strategically, economically and morally right.
The following quote comes to mind that was bandied about regularly in a Commonwealth country decades ago when serving in the Armed Forces.
“We, the unwilling, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have done so much, for so long, with so little, we are now qualified to do anything with nothing.” ― Konstantin Josef Jireček
All citizens, Civil Service and Probation in particular have become ‘cannon fodder’ for them to retain their positions. It’s about time there was a mechanism to dispatch them from their elected positions should they not fulfil their original electoral mandates which shift faster than Quicksilver .
You, or the person you spoke to, thinks we should put our discontent into joining the Labour Party, but they don't say what Labour offers, especially in light of the fact that under its current leader, its gutted out its left-wing, been anti-worker, and pro-genocide.
DeleteJoining Labour is a dead end.
I think Starmer is further to the left than people realise. He is underestimated. Leaders should be pragmatic and they must appeal to all parts of their party. A bit dull but competent is how I would describe him. Which is actually quite a welcome change!
ReplyDeleteI’m sure there are a few true blues in our line of work, who probably keep their head down and not get involved in discussions about politics. But I can’t see how you can argue any public service is safer in the hands of the Tories than under Labour. John Major said of some of his colleagues [in the Tory party] that the NHS is about as safe with them as a pet hamster would be in a cage with a hungry python!
Although Corbyn was a disaster for Labour the Corbyn / McDonnell manifesto which was criticised at the time for being far too radical has turned out to be bang on the money for what was and is needed. All the flaws in our society have exposed and laid bare by Covid. Now it is pretty much accepted that utilities need renationalising, railways need renationalising, the health and social care act and the attempt to force everyone into a commissioning model has been an expensive experiment.
This country needs a change. Labour aren’t perfect but I fancy lobbying them for change is likely to be more effective than lobbying these over-privileged Etonians none of whom understand the value of money!
"I think Starmer is further to the left than people realise"
DeleteWhat you think and what's the objective reality are two different things. Starmers already said he likes Thatcher, so that's the opposite of being left-wing.
"Leaders should be pragmatic and they must appeal to all parts of their party"
Which under Starmer, has come at the cost of people leaving or being kicked out, often from the left.
"A bit dull but competent"
Is him more or less going along with the tories part of him being competent? I think even Blair posed more opposition to them than Starmer.
"But I can’t see how you can argue any public service is safer in the hands of the Tories"
Who said that ?
"John Major said of some of his colleagues [in the Tory party] that the NHS is about as safe with them as a pet hamster would be in a cage with a hungry python!"
And Labour under a Blairite like Keir Starmer would also try to privatise it, just through the backdoor. And don't forget whole pfi fiasco that Tony endorsed, something that still costs the NHS millions.
"This country needs a change. Labour aren’t perfect but I fancy lobbying them for change is likely to be more effective than lobbying these over-privileged Etonians none of whom understand the value of money!"
People are tired of this lesser of two evils shtick and continuing to think like that keeps helping us end up with, as Galloway said, two cheeks of the same ass.
"The current, highly centralised model of prison and probation management, including staffing, has not succeeded. Perhaps governors would make more effective recruiters? Why not make them part of wider, ongoing discussions about devolution? There is so much room for improvement."
ReplyDeleteCase in point: Napo Cymru, Napo in Wales, has been working diligently since 2015 making the case for devolution of Probation to Wales, and chiming with various commissions and reports all reccommending this. Preparation for this is already started, however Napo's aim is to have this included in the Labour manifesto. If you fancy contributing to the lobbying, write to your MPs, right accross England and Wales.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/12/the-guardian-view-on-dangerous-prisons-wandsworths-failure-is-one-of-many
Many, though not all, of England’s prisons are in a terrible state. The alleged escape last year of Daniel Khalife from HMP Wandsworth, and the manhunt that led to his recapture, focused attention on staffing and other problems at the south London prison (Mr Khalife has pleaded not guilty and goes on trial in October). Last week’s letter to the justice secretary, Alex Chalk, from the prisons inspectorate, put paid to any hope that this dramatic episode could have led to improvement. The warning it contained, known as an urgent notification, criticised “poor leadership at every level” including at the Ministry of Justice. The prison’s governor, Katie Price, has resigned.
DeleteThe failures at Wandsworth are acute. After four years as chief inspector of prisons, Charlie Taylor said the jail was characterised by “a degree of despondency he had not come across” before. Seven self-inflicted deaths have occurred in the past 12 months. In drug test results from February, 44% of prisoners were positive.
Ministers have 28 days to respond with an improvement plan. But the problems at Wandsworth are far from unique. Last year, five other prisons were subject to urgent notifications – the highest number in a single year since the mechanism was introduced. While the mood inside Wandsworth was judged by Mr Taylor to be exceptionally low, many of the reasons cited are wearyingly familiar. While more than half of inmates were on remand, waiting to be tried, staff were a combination of inexperienced and burnt-out. Cells were seriously overcrowded and filthy, and the smell of cannabis was “ubiquitous”. There was a chronic lack of purposeful activity and officers did not know what prisoners were doing.
In the past, some prisons have shown themselves capable of changing in response to criticism. In his annual report last year, Mr Taylor described Birmingham as having been transformed under the leadership of Paul Newton, and there are up to 30 other governors he sees as “visionary”. But elsewhere, systemic and cultural failings have proved intractable. Four prisons including Rainsbrook youth prison, before it closed down, were the subject of more than one urgent notification within five years.
Overcrowding is recognised to be among the hardest challenges, and is linked to rising levels of drug use and violence. Keeping thousands of men locked up in tiny, unhygienic cells with nothing to do not only fails to rehabilitate them, it exacerbates problems. If offenders are to become better at functioning within the law outside prison, they need to be able to work while carrying out their sentences, mixing with staff and each other. Yet ministers’ promises of more prison places have not been linked to a strategy for education and employment. Mental health care is another area of concern, recently highlighted by the inspectorate with reference to women’s prisons, and also in our series on the suffering caused by indeterminate (IPP) sentences.
To say that prisons need reform is to state the obvious. Just as urgent is serious work on alternatives to prison, to reduce the ceaseless churn that so destabilises them. Mr Taylor’s suggestion of a comprehensive redrawing of responsibilities should also be looked at. The current, highly centralised model of prison and probation management, including staffing, has not succeeded. Perhaps governors would make more effective recruiters? Why not make them part of wider, ongoing discussions about devolution? There is so much room for improvement.
It's all about prisons, now recognised widely as in crisis. (That's an institution in crisis and an appalling humanitarian crisis). Its across the whole public sector. Controversially maybe I suggest that having to wait for an excruciating year or two for your hip replacement isn't as horrific as being banged up for stealing a cigarette decades ago, with no end date of your sentence.
DeleteThe divide between these cases is how relatable the suffering is to middle class voters.
And how "deserving" the receiver of benefits of the state
What a state we are in when principles fly out of the window, transaction, be it with dosh or votes...decreasing difference there...is the dominant driver.
https://bylinetimes.com/2024/03/06/fixing-broken-britain-starts-with-changing-a-broken-light-bulb/
ReplyDeleteI see little-rishi-half-mast has gone fully negative via Policy Exchange in a bid to revive the 'demon eyes' strategy of 1997.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-speech-on-security-13-may-2024
https://insidetime.org/mailbag/its-all-about-risk/
ReplyDeleteRisk, the phrase that is thrown around by anyone in probation to justify their stupefying actions. Whether that be blatantly lying, or making things up, or covering up their own incompetence with innuendo and bluster, they appear to be free to cause harm to anyone they see fit with zero justification.
DeleteI have experienced this with an unfounded recall. But this is not just an isolated situation, it is widespread and to me speaks of prejudice within the system against prison leavers. That is when they throw around the word ‘risk’ as a reason to do anything they want. No evidence required, just a gut feeling or suspicion. Words that seem to litter all recall forms, with zero account taken of individual circumstances.
I have a life, we all do. I also accepted responsibility for my actions, as many others have. I served my time and got out and did everything that was asked of me. Apparently, this was not good enough for the people at probation, who instead felt the need to lie and clutch at straws to put me behind bars.
They claim to have credible intelligence, which, by the way, turns out to be far from correct, by their own admission. They will happily use anything, no matter how trivial, to put people behind bars, and the only justification they have is the word ‘risk’.
Why do they ruin people’s progress and reform? Risk. Why do they torture and tear families apart? Risk. Why do they take away all the support networks from prison leavers? Risk. It seems to me that probation is forgetting that they are part of the justice system and therefore their actions should be justifiable.
Everyone is one mistake away from being behind the wall. But we all are also individuals with our own stories that should be taken into account. We should not be subjected to lies and deceit on the notion of risk.
Yes and the number of service users who do reoffend indicates risk to public and of reoffending remains for some, SFO with more victims anyone?
DeleteSo what does the zeitgeist say about this 38-year-old, of no fixed address?
ReplyDelete1. serves her right, jail her - "In support of his ongoing proactive problem-solving work, PCSO Cooke built up an overwhelming file of evidence against Clay which resulted in her criminal behaviour order being initially imposed and later varied. He said: “Clay has persisted in her offending despite being given chances to mend her ways and repeated warnings about her criminal behaviour."
2. offer this woman some help, some hope, some options to make meaningful change - “Clay has persisted in her offending despite being given chances to mend her ways and repeated warnings about her criminal behaviour."
https://westbridgfordwire.com/prolific-nottingham-shoplifter-returned-to-jail-after-breaching-behaviour-order/
What do you say, Rob Canton?
I note with interest that the government is finally getting to grips with the state of the nation and the fearful security concerns we will be facing in the next few years. As part of this strategy they have recognised that the mismanaged Civil Service needs to stand straight and true blue. Prisons in meltdown, courts overwhelmed by delays (continuous improvement), injustice heaped upon injustice, probation on its knees……etc etc etc. The cause….rainbow lanyards. Apparently these have been behind all known major policy disasters in the last 14 years. Now to be banned, and replaced with patriotic lanyards. Baroness Mone is busily identifying a suitable sweatshop to produce these items at considerable cost to the tax payer. Patriotic lanyards will proudly display the union flag (no EEC rubbish) alongside a collage of patriotic imagery including migrant children drowning in the channel, street sleepers being urinated on by junior ministers, rivers and beaches swimming in shit and police beating the merry hell out of anyone who should disagree (resisting arrest as they say). Thank god for the Minister for Common Sense….all hail Esther the nations saviour….
ReplyDeleteYesterday's Guardian:-
ReplyDeleteHigh-risk offenders including a domestic abuser who posed a risk to children have been freed from jail under the government’s early release scheme, a watchdog has revealed.
Charlie Taylor, the chief inspector of prisons, said the Ministry of Justice’s plan to relieve the pressure in overcrowded jails raised “serious concerns” and had undermined safety and risk management.
The disclosure comes amid accusations that the justice secretary, Alex Chalk, has broken a pledge that the scheme would only apply to “low-level offenders”.
In a report published on Tuesday, Taylor said a “high-risk” inmate at HMP Lewes who posed a danger to children had his release date brought forward despite “having a history of stalking, domestic abuse and being subject to a restraining order”.
Another high-risk prisoner with significant class A drug use issues and a recent history of suicidal thoughts and self-harm was released from the segregation unit into homelessness, despite appeals for the decision to be reversed and staff having serious concerns for his and the public’s safety.
Concerns emerged from an inspection at the East Sussex jail carried out in February, shortly after the scheme was brought into force. Inspectors uncovered major problems with drugs, violence and self-harm at the category B Victorian prison, the report said.
The government’s early release scheme was designed to relieve the pressure in overcrowded jails. It initially involved inmates having their sentences cut by up to 18 days. That was increased to between 35 and 60 days in March and will rise again from 23 May to 70 days.
Taylor said: “The need to release offenders early to free up space in our jails is a further sign of the pressure that our prison service is under, with local leaders having to make difficult choices as the day we run out of places draws closer.
“The current situation was entirely predictable and is simply not sustainable, for either the prison or probation service. Although some of these issues may, I hope, reduce as the scheme embeds, more fundamentally, an urgent conversation is needed about who we send to prison, for how long, and what we want to happen during their time inside.”
Drove past North Liverpool probation office yesterday afternoon around 3pm and all the windows and doors appeared tinned up.
ReplyDeleteAnybody know why this might be?
From Twitter:-
Delete"Fire damage, will reopen later in the year."
BBC News today:-
ReplyDeleteDown an unassuming street in south London the man who could be prime minister within months met leaders of some of the country’s biggest trade unions. At Labour’s new headquarters in Southwark they were thrashing out what the party would say it would do about conditions at work and the rights of workers if it won the general election.
It gets right to the heart of one of the most important dynamics an incoming Labour government would juggle: its relationship with business and its relationship with, well, labour – i.e workers. For a party born out of the unions, seeking office in a world where union influence is shrunken, there is a dilemma and it involves trade-offs.
A desire to be true to its heritage but a desire too to win and to win over recent Tory voters among whom there may be few union members and even suspicion of their influence.
So, will Labour ban zero-hours contracts? What about companies firing and then rehiring? What about the right to switch off, and not be hassled by a boss when you’re not at work? Back in 2021, which in political terms feels like just after the last Ice Age, Labour published what it called A New Deal For Working People, external. It was - it still is - described as a Green Paper, which is Westminster speak for a consultation document, the start of a conversation. It promised to ban zero-hours contracts. It promised “all workers, regardless of sector, wage, or contract type, will be afforded the same basic rights and protections.
"This included - and still does - rights to sick pay, holiday pay, parental leave, protection against unfair dismissal and many others.” It promised “from day one, a Labour government will strengthen workers" rights and make Britain work for working for people”.
Fast-forward to last summer, when there had been some back-pedalling. On timing, on practicalities, on specifics. Some union figures fear yet more back-pedalling still. They thought the party was going wobbly. They thought businesses had managed to lobby them into watering the whole thing down and, a bit like Labour's about turn in February on green investment, things could end up getting ditched. A leak to the Financial Times, external spread the jitters further.
This is the backdrop to the leaders of the 11 trade unions affiliated to the Labour Party turning up at party headquarters to meet Sir Keir Starmer. The occasion was a gathering of the Trade Union and Labour Party Liaison Organisation or TULO – which does exactly what it says in its title.
But the subject matter was high stakes. General secretaries rearranged their diaries to make sure they were there. They were on the premises for around five hours, meeting Sir Keir and other senior party figures for around an hour.
Afterwards, an intriguing joint statement from Labour and TULO which said: "Labour and the affiliated unions had a constructive discussion today. "Together we have reiterated Labour's full commitment to the New Deal for Working People, as agreed in July. We will continue to work together at pace on how a Labour government would implement it in legislation."
Union leaders think this amounts to a retreat from any further tinkering to the plans last altered last summer. But it appears telling they are meeting again in three weeks' time and unions are yet to see "words on a page" as one figure put it to me. And neither have we, the wider public.
I understand the meeting was told Labour would introduce an Employment Rights Bill within about three months of winning the election and this would make it illegal for companies to fire their workers only to rehire them on worse pay and conditions. There would be an exemption if the employer was about to go under.
DeleteSo there is a get-out clause and it won’t happen instantaneously (which was never likely, but the language of the past suggested it would). The outright ban on zero-hours contracts has gone. Instead the party wants to ban what it calls “exploitative” zero-hours contracts.
The idea is some people like zero-hours contracts but those who don’t must be offered a contract equivalent to the average hours worked per week over a 12-week period.
And creating a “single status of worker” as initially suggested three years ago, which would mean all workers could be afforded the same basic rights, is actually quite complicated and will need in-depth discussions and consultation that, the party thinks, can only begin once it is in government. So that is not likely to happen quickly.
Add to that the conventional expectation, again not fleshed out in the original proposal, that big ideas leading to changes in the law almost always begin with a consultation period of around three months, not least to minimise the likelihood of later legal challenges.
But all of this adds to a sense of delay, which spooked some union leaders. And so the conversation continues. Not just a conversation with trade union leaders but employers too – as the wider public watches, listens and forms judgements, as judgement day for Labour approaches at the ballot box.
Little wonder these conversations are sensitive, fraught and not easily resolved. And there are more of them to come before we find out precisely what Labour is promising.
"And there are more of them to come before we find out precisely what Labour is promising"
DeleteNot sure theres much need to wait - Starmers already been open about his admiration for Thatcher
That should tell everyone all we need to know.
this uk govt will criminalise anyone but their own:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.aol.co.uk/news/ministers-apologise-return-7-000-060036037.html