Rights for agency workers – but only after three months!

Better than nothing, obviously. Will benefit around half a million workers, so a step in the right direction. But crucially only because Labour is at a weak point and only because the EU is pushing for legal harmonisation:

Agency workers will be given the same employment rights as permanent staff after 12 weeks under proposals agreed between the government and unions.

Ministers plan legislation this autumn to guarantee agency staff equal treatment but this depends on a similar EU directive being passed before then.

Unions, which have campaigned for the measure for years, said the agreement offered much stronger legal protection.

The Morning Star comments:

Fruits of flexibility
(Tuesday 20 May 2008)

IT is understandable that the trade unions that have been pressing incessantly for the government to honour its 2002 Warwick agreement undertakings should celebrate the tripartite accord on agency workers.

But it is equally important not get carried away, imagining that what the government and its big business friends have grudgingly conceded matches trade unionists’ aspirations.

Trade unions remain committed to employment rights from day one, in line with late Labour leader John Smith’s pledge in opposition.

And this agreement imposes a 12-week qualifying period of employment and also omits any reference to sick pay and pensions.

Alarm bells should ring when CBI deputy director-general John Cridland describes it as “the least worst outcome available for British business.”

Business Secretary John Hutton, who yields to no-one in his worship of big business, attempts to straddle a gap of Grand Canyon proportions when he invokes “our twin objectives of flexibility for British employers and fairness for workers.”

New Labour’s obsession with economic flexibility lies at the heart of organised labour’s problem with winning workplace rights.

Flexibility collides with trade union rights and employment security and new Labour invariably adjudicates in favour of flexibility.

Mr Cridland’s recognition that half of all agency placements last less than 12 weeks indicates that this accord will be less than all-encompassing.

In addition, although there is broad agreement on the need to prevent repeat short-term contracts being imposed on individual workers as a way to sidestep the legal provisions, employers will not be short of ideas on how to do so.

The problem with referring to agreements such as this as a breakthrough is that, as far as the government and employers are concerned, it is job done, game over. They are neither looking for nor expecting ongoing improvements in the conditions of grossly exploited agency and temporary workers.

Nor are they upset by the effect that the inferior conditions applied to this considerable section of the workforce has and will continue to have on permanent staff.

To new Labour and the bosses the insecurity and weaker bargaining power of unionised workplaces are the fruits of flexibility, which lay the basis for greater profitability.

Given Labour’s current electoral meltdown, losing over 330 council seats in the English and Welsh local elections, suffering defeat in the London mayoral poll and facing humiliation, if the opinion polls are to be believed, in Thursday’s Crewe and Nantwich by-election, some party strategists are suggesting that a hand of friendship be extended to its previously ignored support base.

This would explain the tax threshold changes to attempt to compensate for the 10p-tax-band-abolition debacle and this latest measure to help some agency workers. But it would be a mistake for the people around Mr Brown to imagine that these baby steps would be regarded by out of sorts Labour voters as a giant stride forward.

It would be equally unwise for trade union leaders to make such declarations on Labour’s behalf.

To take the wheels off the Cameron bandwagon will require the derailing of the new Labour project, putting the rights and living standards of working people before those of big business and the rich.

Police vote to push for full workers’ rights

A historic vote took place today, marking a huge step forward for working people – and it happened largely because of the government’s policy of capping public sector pay at a time of growing inflation:

Police officers in England and Wales have voted by a big majority to lobby the government for the right to strike.

Of those who voted, 93% wanted independent Police Arbitration Tribunal decisions to be made binding.

And in the absence of binding arbitration, 86% said the Police Federation should lobby for officers to be allowed “full industrial rights”.

The vote followed a dispute over a 2.5% pay rise to be awarded in stages, which reduced the overall increase to 1.9%.

‘Trust betrayed’

The result of the ballot was announced at the Police Federation’s conference in Bournemouth.

Ballot papers were sent to 140,000 police constables, sergeants and inspectors, and 60,572 of them voted – a turn-out of 43%.

An informal survey of 9,000 members of the Police Federation in Northern Ireland produced similar results on a “satisfactory turnout”.

Police Federation chairman Jan Berry said there was a sense of “betrayal” when agreement was not reached over pay.

She told BBC News: “Because we don’t have the right to take industrial action, we have arbitration.

“Arbitration is binding on the police officers and it wasn’t binding and it isn’t binding on the home secretary.

“Whilst we’ve had 28 years of being able to trust the government to honour either the arbitration finding or the agreement of the Police Negotiating Board, last December they decided to betray that trust.”

Ms Berry added it was not a vote for strike action, but a go-ahead to lobby the government on the issue.

Turning green England grey

From the A World to Win blog, Penny Cole writes on the marketisation of our green and pleasant land:

England is disappearing rapidly as New Labour presides over the concreting over of the countryside. Since 1997, over 1,100 hectares of Green Belt have been lost each year and at least 45,240 homes – equivalent to a city the size of Bath – have been built on Green Belt land.

The purpose of the Green Belt, introduced in the 1955, was to give local authorities not only a means, but also an incentive to halt urban sprawl and leave a clear definition between communities. Green Belt land was formerly viewed as sacrosanct, but these crucial “green lungs” – and the contribution they make to ecology and environment – are being rapidly eroded.

The Council for the Protection of Rural England reports that the Government’s own planning inspectors are undermining Green Belt policy, with statements that suggest they no longer view it as a permanent designation, but subject instead to shifts in market demand, for example for housing and air travel.

At present, local authorities are preparing their regional plans, and so far 10,000 hectares of Green Belt have been put forward for development. A key reason for seeking to lift Green Belt controls is to deliver to developers the kinds of green field sites they find cheap and attractive for house building.

The CPRE reports: “Speculators are dividing up dozens of areas of Green Belt land with stakes and fences, and marketing them in small plots to people, often overseas, who want to make money from building on them. When time passes with no prospect of the land being developed, the land often becomes overgrown and blighted by fly-tipping – thus increasing the pressure to develop the land in order to tidy it up.” Since 2004 the total Green Belt area has shrunk in East Anglia, and in the East and West Midlands.

Paul Miner, CPRE’s senior planning campaigner, says despite minister’s pledges, “in reality the Green Belt is being seriously eroded”. He warns: “Too much development has already been permitted, and some Government Inspectors appear to be interpreting Green Belt policy in their own way. This is making a mockery of the permanence which Green Belts are supposed to have.”

Whilst paying lip service to protecting the Green Belt, the Government is sending local authorities a different message. For example a Treasury-sponsored review of land use planning called for more frequent reviews of Green Belt policy. And, the CPRE reports, between May 1997 and March 2004, 162 planning applications referred to central government for decision, were permitted.

In addition, the Aviation White Paper supports airport expansions that would take place on 700 hectares of Green Belt. This month the government agreed a development plan for the East of England aimed at delivering a minimum of 508,000 additional dwellings up to 2021 and Green Belt reviews will be held throughout Hertfordshire, much of it designed to facilitate expansion at Luton and Stansted airports.

The hypocrisy of the government knows no bounds. In April, ministers announced their shortlist of proposed “eco-towns”. Of these, CPRE has found that two are likely to involve significant development in designated Green Belt: Rossington (in South Yorkshire); and Weston Otmoor (near Oxford). No wonder local people are up in arms about these far from ecologically-sound proposals.

Cameron’s promises on tax cuts are guarantees for big business

He’s confident – hinting on lower taxation (promises for you and me, guarantees for big business!), preparing for power by arranging meetings with the Sir Humphreys.

If, as expected, the Tories win the Crewe and Nantwitch by-election, Cameron will be claiming he’s the PM in waiting. Liberal leader Nick Clegg – who was a student Tory – will shore up Cameron’s “New” Conservatives in the event of a hung parliament.

Cameron hasn’t explained how cutting public expenditure squares with other commitments on health and military spending. I mean, selling schools and impoverishing benefit claimants will leave substantial ammounts of cash spare, but not enough to fund conflicts in the Middle East and a cut in income tax…

As the multinationals get uppity with the Treasury over plans to tax overseas profits – and as the by-election approaches – Cameron’s speech is timely for the Tories. It’s just as well for them that they will not be forming a government any time soon, because economic conditions are worsening…

For big business, those tax cuts could be coming sooner than two years and a Tory government. After all, they’ll be able to lobby for tax cuts directly:

Some of Britain’s biggest corporation tax payers are to advise the Government about new tax proposals.

The financial directors of oil giant BP, Britain’s biggest banking group HSBC and engine-maker Rolls-Royce were among those named as members of a “multinational tax forum”.

The 12-strong body, which is to be chaired by Financial Secretary Jane Kennedy, will discuss a series of potential tax system changes, including controversial proposals to tax intellectual property rights held overseas.

And the Jelly Chancellor will be doing even more pandering to the plutocrats:

Business leaders will tonight put the screws on the chancellor, Alistair Darling, with demands for a broad sweep of tax cuts after forcing a climbdown in a long-running battle over corporation tax reform.

Calls for a more business-friendly approach from ministers will be led by the CBI president, Martin Broughton, who will use his speech to the annual CBI dinner to accuse the government of increasing the cost and complexity of tax measures. Referring to strained relations between business and government after the battle over capital gains tax rule changes and the botched tax of non-doms, Broughton will call on Darling to resist making business the “fall guy” for the global credit crunch through higher taxes or more regulation.

The CBI has intensified calls for Britain to cut corporate taxes to prevent companies moving abroad. The government recently cut the headline rate of corporation tax to 28% in response to intense lobbying, but has indicated it will cut the tax further when the Treasury’s coffers are healthier.

It’s a bit rich of them to be complaining, though:

Some of Britain’s biggest listed companies, including several that have threatened to redomicile abroad, paid little or no corporation tax in Britain in 2007.

Research by The Times shows that FTSE-100 companies – Cadbury, Standard Chartered and British American Tobacco, which have a combined market capitalisation of £75 billion, employed almost 11,000 UK staff and generated more than £6 billion in global profits, – paid zero corporation tax in Britain last year.

Although there is no suggestion of impropriety, the research indicates that some of Britain’s biggest and best-known companies contribute startlingly little to the Exchequer in corporation tax. Most of the companies earn the bulk of their profits overseas, meaning that they also pay most or all of their taxes outside the UK, allowing them to offset these against domestic tax liabilities. In some cases, this allows them to pay no British corporation tax at all.

Other large UK-domiciled firms that pay little tax qualify for exemptions that are, for example, linked to scientific research. Nevertheless, the study will fuel the debate over whether the Government should reform the way in which British-based companies are taxed on their overseas income, or whether doing so would have a corrosive effect on the economy by driving jobs and investment offshore.

Richard Murphy, an accountant with Tax Research UK, who contributed to the research, believes that the system is in urgent need of reform. He said: “Why does the UK have a tax structure where you can have significant operations in the UK but pay all your tax overseas? We have an extremely generous corporate regime, which needs to be reexamined if this is the case.”

A spokesman for Vodafone, which has 18 million UK customers, said that the company refused to be drawn into the debate over relocating and emphasised that even though the company had paid no UK corporation tax in 2007, it had done so in previous years and made other tax payments.

Mr Murphy cited Rolls-Royce, the jet-engine maker, which employs 22,900 of its 38,600-strong global workforce in the UK but paid only £13 million in British taxes last year because the majority of its £733 million pretax profit was earned from overseas sales. Rolls-Royce, which says that it has no plans to relocate overseas, pointed out that its UK manufacturing and research operation was costly.

However, Mr Murphy said: “This cost structure is inevitable, but international rules for pricing within a group of companies allow for this and should usually result in tax being paid where the profit is generated. I’d usually expect that to be where most of its people are, especially in an R&D-based company.”