The International Labor Organization predict that the economic downturn will lead to 50 million workers being unemployed globally by the end of 2009. This week BMW fell under heavy criticism from union leaders after axing the jobs of 850 agency workers, following on from an additional 300 temporary job cuts last December at its Mini factory.

Reports of BMW giving one hour of notice and agency workers facing a struggle to find alternative employment saw Tony Woodley, joint general secretary of Unite, comment “Sacking an entire shift like this and targeting agency workers who have no rights to redundancy pay, is blatant opportunism on BMW’s part and nothing short of scandalous.”

The case again raises the tension between businesses and trade unions regarding the rights of agency workers. Businesses require a flexible workforce, the ability to terminate positions when faced with falling demand and the necessity of cutting costs to survive. Flexibility also brings benefits to workers who are able to work short or no notice period, have control over their work life and a way of getting a foot in the door.

Yet, in some cases agency workers can be engaged for much longer periods, even years, without being offered a permanent position within the company they already work for. Union leaders have put great pressure on the government to put a stop to the use of agency workers as a reliable, but disposable workforce, by affording them certain employment rights.

In May Impactt commented on a new deal between businesses and trade unions that would give agency and temporary workers employment parity with permanent workers after 12 weeks. However debate has stalled in the EU Parliament due to opposition against the continued use of an opt-out of the Working Time Directive. Impactt continues to support this measure which would prevent companies hiring temporary labour in the long term without giving them the associated benefits that a contract of employment provides.

By Joanna Buckley

 The government have this week revealed a new deal between businesses and trade unions which is to give agency and temporary workers employment parity with permanent workers after 12 weeks at work.

The measures should come in to force during the next session of Parliament, provided the government is able to ensure that agency workers are able to opt out of the Working Time Directive. This requires action in Europe to ensure that any EU directive includes the provision of an opt out.

The agreement comes after months of debate in Parliament and between businesses and trade unions in order to thrash out a deal which would prevent workers from being exploited, but also allow UK businesses to benefit from a flexible workforce. The business secretary, John Hutton, claimed that the measures would “give people a fair deal at work without putting their jobs at risk or cutting off a valuable route into employment”. The Confederation of British Industry, which was at the negotiating table with other employers’ groups, described the agreement as the “least worst option”.

In an effort to ensure that agency and temporary workers are still an attractive option for employers, the deal does not provide them with Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) or pension benefits after the 12 week mark. Such workers would have to work as long as permanent workers in order to benefit from full maternity rights, but it is not clear when such workers would be able to claim SSP.

Impactt welcomes this new deal, and hopes that the implementation of the measures will be timely and effective. It remains to be seen how the government will prevent employers from evading the regulations, although the agreement includes ‘anti-avoidance measures’. The risk that labour users will simply dismiss agency workers after 11 weeks and 6 days remains a concern. Perhaps the model of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority could be used to empower the Employment Agencies Inspectorate, in order to license and prosecute employment agencies who breach any new and existing rules, and regulate the conditions of workers when they are working.

The Guardian has speculated that the measures have been forced through a scared and meek Labour government, eager to gain approval from voters who are edging away from them in the polls, in a similar way to the implementation of equal pay legislation whilst Harold Wilson’s government was ‘on the ropes’.

We believe that it is a troubling thing when the rights of workers are only defended by a Labour government during times when they are desperate for political approval.  However, as a pragmatic bunch, we also commend the trade unions for standing their ground and utilising the weakness of the government in order to protect the rights of an under-represented group of workers, which has for many years supported many industries in the UK such as agriculture, hospitality and construction.