The Right Dishonourable – Page 117 – As truthful as resources permit

What the ONS data tells us about zero-hour contracts

Posted on 2 September, 2015 by Jimmy Nicholls

The number of workers on zero-hour contracts, which guarantee no working hours to staff, has risen 19 percent in the year to June to 744,000, or 2.4 percent of those in employment, according to data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) released on Wednesday.

The use of such contracts has been controversial in the past, with some arguing they disadvantage workers and allow firms to dodge the greater obligations to staff that come with full or part-time contracts. Frances O’Grady, the general secretary of the union TUC, said of the figures:

“Zero-hours contracts are a stark reminder of Britain’s two-tier workforce. People employed on these contracts earn £300 a week less, on average, than workers in secure jobs. I challenge any minister or business leader to survive on a low-paid zero-hours contract job, not knowing from one day to the next how much work they will have.”

But supporters of the contracts argue that they allow people to work flexible hours, and are actually popular among those that use them. To find the truth the Right Dishonourable dug into the data.

Continue reading →

Blog

Unite chief Len McCluskey disputes Tory dalliance with minimum wage

Posted on 2 September, 2015 by Jimmy Nicholls

Len McCluskey of Unite called for more power for trade unions as he attacked the Tories’ record on prosecuting firms that avoid paying the minimum wage, in the wake of enforcement reforms from the governing party.

Speaking on Tuesday after the Conservatives detailed their plans, the head of Britain’s largest trade union questioned whether the self-declared “party of working people” truly had the plebs’ best interests at heart, claiming there is “no substitute for strong unions at work”:

“Given the record of the Tory party on worker protection it will take some leap of faith to believe that they are now converted to the cause.

“Ministers themselves admit workers rarely secure the full return of the wages swindled out of them by an employer, and under this government exploited workers have been priced out of pursuing justice through industrial tribunal.”

On the same day the Tories announced plans to double penalties for those flouting minimum wage laws, increase the enforcement budget, set up a prosecution unit in tax authority HMRC, and disqualify wage cheats from directing companies for up to 15 years.

Though the business secretary Sajid Javid claimed the “one nation” Tories were “committed to making work pay and making sure hardworking people get the salary they are entitled to”, in July 2013 his party introduced employment tribunal fees for aggrieved workers and claims have since dropped.

Unrestrained by the Liberal Democrats, Javid and his ilk are also attacking union rights through the Trade Union Bill, which seeks to undermine unions’ ability to strike and potentially restrict Labour’s access to them as a source of funding.

“Trade unions are the frontline response to workplace injustice,” McCluskey said. “The truth is, when the government brings forward its bill to bring ruin to unions they will give rogue employers the upper hand.

“Instead of making it a mission to destroy unions, the government would be better occupied talking to us on solutions to the problems of Britain’s workplaces.”

Early this summer Unite backed hard leftist Jeremy Corbyn in the Labour leadership election, one of the moves that has led the North Islington MP to become the expected winner of the contest.

Image Credit – Transport House, Belfast in May 2015 by William Murphy

Blog

Chuka Umunna calls off, er, nonexistent resistance against Jeremy Corbyn

Posted on 2 September, 2015 by Jimmy Nicholls

Chuka Umunna told New Labour stalwarts on Tuesday that they must back the next leader of the Labour party, despite rumours his recently formed faction was plotting a resistance against the likely winner Jeremy Corbyn.

Speaking to the Policy Network think tank in a defence of the achievements of the premierships of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, the Streatham MP and former Labour leadership hopeful urged his party to embrace “solidarity”.

“In every generation social democracy is besieged from left and right,” Umunna whined. “But the achievements of each generation are defined by the strength of a complex political tradition that strengthens solidarity through protecting democracy and liberty, a role for the state and the market and seeks to shape the future through an inclusive politics.

“Solidarity is key which is why we must accept the result of our contest when it comes and support our new leader in developing an agenda that can return Labour to office.”

Umunna’s comments come after reports that the Labour for the Common Good faction he formed with Tristan Hunt, MP for Stoke-on-Trent Central and another former leadership contender, was plotting a to resist Corbyn.

Umunna later denied that any such resistance group existed, so, er, obviously the reports must be untrue.

Other MPs who nominated Corbyn in a bid to widen the Labour leadership debate have expressed regret at doing so, including former foreign secretary Margaret Beckett, who said she had been a “moron” for backing the North Islington MP.

Umunna had briefly stood in the leadership contest before backing out over concerns the press was penetrating too deeply into his personal affairs and those of his family, scrutiny the Streatham MP would have seen former leader Ed Miliband experience.

The full text of Umunna’s Policy Network speech can be read in the New Statesman.

Image Credit – Chuka Umunna and Tristram Hunt, June 2015 by the FT

Blog

Why SNP’s ‘double majority’ EU referendum rule shows the nats are unionists after all

Posted on 1 September, 2015 by Jimmy Nicholls

Calling the Scottish National Party parochial is an exercise in tautology, but the response of the party’s Europe spokesperson Stephen Gethins MP to the revision of the EU referendum question still comes off as amusingly narrow:

“Scotland’s first minister Nicola Sturgeon put forward the case for a ‘double majority’ – to ensure Scotland cannot be ripped out of the EU against its will. Any decision to leave the EU, taken against the wishes of the people of Scotland, Northern Ireland Wales or England, would be unacceptable and should be taken to ensure this does not happen.”

This, followers of politics will note, is a quotidian example of reeling out an old message to new events. Under this double majority rule all four nations in Britain (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) would have to opt to leave the EU for the country to quit – or to put it another way, if one wanted to stay, all must stay.

Clearly it is an absurd stance. Under the rule any one of the nations might well be forced to stay inside the EU against its will – surely as great an injustice as Scotland being “ripped out…against its will”, if one is to take the right of nations to independence seriously.

And even that assumes that the relationship is equal between the four. But it’s hardly a secret that the potential for democratic illegitimacy is greatest in the case of England, home to 53m compared to a mere 5.3m in Scotland, 3.1m in Wales and 1.8m in Northern Ireland, according to the 2011 census.

Of course Sturgeon’s proposal is in itself part of the Nats existential challenge to Britain, with the party arguing that Scots’ interests should be considered as distinct from their English (non)brethren.

But there is also an intriguing whiff of unionism to her proposal, which argues in constitutional democratic fashion that the wishes of the majority cannot snuff out those of the minority, however large the difference in population. It is on such a principle that the United Kingdom was built, and shows even the Fishmonger of Holyrood has some unionism left in her.

Image Credit – Scottish parliament in Edinburgh by Tharnton345

Blog

EU referendum question faces scrapheap over bias fears

Posted on 1 September, 2015 by Jimmy Nicholls

The referendum question on Britain’s membership of the EU will likely be revised over concerns from the Electoral Commission that the outcome of the vote might be seen as illegitimate.

The Tory government agreed on Tuesday that the current question – “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union?” – should be amended with the phrase “or leave the European Union”, thus avoiding a “Yes or No” vote.

Instead voters will be asked to select from the two options: “Remain a member of the European Union” or “Leave the European Union”, removing the perceived advantage for the pro-EU “Yes” campaign.

Jenny Watson, chair of the Electoral Commission said:

“Any referendum question must be as clear as possible so that voters understand the important choice they are being asked to make. We have tested the proposed question with voters and received views from potential campaigners, academics and plain language experts.”

Whilst voters understood the question in the Bill some campaigners and members of the public feel the wording is not balanced and there was a perception of bias. The alternative question we have recommended addresses this. It is now for Parliament to discuss our advice and decide which question wording should be used.’

Whilst parliament has yet to approve the recommendation, it will likely come as a boon to eurosceptics campaigning to sever close links with the continent, including Ukip which revealed today it would be forming it’s own campaign on the side formerly known as “No”.

During the Scottish referendum last year many felt being able to choose “Yes” to the question “Should Scotland be an independent country” had more of a feel-good factor than “No”.

That question was put forward after much musing by the Electoral Commission, a previous proposal having been “Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?”, which was perceived by test subjects as being biased in favour of a “Yes” vote.

Image Credit – EU flag by MPD01605