The news will be welcomed by business groups who have long held that a working week which can be flexible and extended if workers wish to, is essential to the economic prosperity of the UK. Trade unions and campaign groups continue to claim that this is a myth, and hold up other European countries such as France and the Netherlands as shining examples of how to prosper with a good work / life balance.

The Government claims the collapse of talks as a victory to the UK in Europe, continuing to assert that the right of a worker to determine his or her own working hours is vital.

In Impactt’s experience vulnerable workers tend to work excessive hours in high risk industries, which is enabled by the use of the opt-out. We are disappointed that political in-fighting may have prevented MEPs from securing further protection for such workers from exploitation.

Many workers’ groups and unions such as the AFL-CIO argue that The Employee Free Choice Act is a landmark step in the fight for workers’ rights. It enables workers and unions to push for recognition, despite resistance from employers. But others argue that the act restricts the right of workers to a free and secret ballot, by imposing a ‘card check‘.

The Bill is intended to amend the existing National Labour Relations Act to make it easier for unions to gain recognition. The aim of the act is to increase workers’ opportunities to organise to improve their working and living conditions, and to reduce the power of businesses to stall the process or retaliate against workers who attempt to organise.

The Bill provides for workers to file a petition to have an organisation recognised for the purposes of collective bargaining, without the requirement of holding an election. Unions claim that the organisation of elections can be used by employers to delay the process of recognition and intimidate and coerce workers to prevent them from voting in favour of a union.

The Bill would require that the petition show the majority of workers within the bargaining unit have authorised an organisation to represent them. Once the organisation has been authorised, it and the employer would have 90 days in which they can conclude a collective bargaining agreement. If they are not able to come to an agreement, they must go through mediation and, if necessary, arbitration in order to do so.

The Bill requires that employers do not engage in anti-union campaigning activities during the recognition or bargaining processes or act in a discriminatory way towards union members and activists. If the employer engages in such activities then they would potentially be subject to remedial actions such as fines or paying workers back pay.

One contentious issue (aside from businesses’ concerns that forced recognition of unions would sound a death knell for them in a time of economic recession) seems to be that the views of named workers are revealed through a ‘card check’ or ‘majority authorisation ballot’. However, under the current system majority authorisation is required to show that there is support for the union, but does not result in recognition. Instead the site moves to a secret ballot, while the employer is in possession of signed authorisation slips from all workers who are in support of the union.

By enforcing recognition after the majority authorisation, without requiring a ballot, unions are far more likely to be recognised and there is no opportunity for employers to affect the decisions of employees. In Impactt’s view this is a step forward in US trade union law, which should strengthen workers’ bargaining power and allow them greater opportunities to protect their own interests.

Impactt’s own research has shown that where there are effective unions in place at a work site, workers are more likely to be paid the minimum wage and overtime premiums, and be treated fairly. They are also less likely to work excessive hours or be fined. The promotion of good labour standards is facilitated most effectively through a representative union. In Impactt’s opinion, the strengthening of workers’ ability to unionise will promote workers’ rights and improve labour standards across the USA.   

Minimum wage rates for over 21s will rise from £5.52 to £5.73 per hour, whilst the minimum wage for 18 to 22 year olds increases from £4.60 to £4.77, and from £3.40 to £3.53 for those aged 16 and 17.

This latest change represents a total increase of 59% since 1998, compared to a 44% rise in average pay over the same period.  The TUC has stated that more than one million workers will benefit from this rise.

Whilst Impactt applauds the commitment of the government to increase the minimum wage, research indicates that there is still confusion and lack of awareness  amongst small businesses about NMW levels. In addition, workers in particular industries such as hospitality, care and domestic service are often being denied these minimum rates.  A TUC report from December last year indicated that around 150,000 workers were not being paid the legal minimum.  Recent reports of ‘scrooge’ employers also highlighted the widespread use of tips in the restaurant trade to ‘top up’ workers’ wages to NMW levels. 

The minimum wage has undoubtedly benefitted a significant number of low-wage workers in its 10 years of existence.  However, inadequate enforcement of the minimum wage requirements continues to thwart the realisation of the regulation’s full potential.