In my view, the amendments put forward by Conservative and Liberal Democrat peers would have watered down the protections of the Employment Rights Bill. Here’s why I and my Labour colleagues voted down those amendments.
When we speak about work and what it means to people, the word ‘security’ will often come into play, that from work can come the security of food on table, a place to call home, and so much more. But for too long for so many across Britain, the word that follows has been insecurity, not knowing if they’ll have work the next month, week, or sometimes even the next day, this is the reality of Zero-hour contracts. The reality of this for someone looks like 40 hours one week and none the next, unable to budget and plan financially because of the uncertainty that underlines their working life, the unknown that constantly lies ahead of them.
This is why this I’m proud this Labour Government acted and set out to deliver an employment rights bill with banning exploitative Zero-hour contracts and a right to have a guaranteed hours contract at the heart of it and was elected on a manifesto to do just that. Of course, flexible working should be recognised as something that works for many workers, this however should be a choice rather than fact.
Under Amendment 1 to clause 9 put forward by the Tories and Liberal Democrat peers, this right would be stripped away and would change from a ‘ right to have ‘ to a right to request ‘meaning that it would be at the discretion of the employer not the employee and would essentially render all intended legislation within the Bill that intends to tackle zero hours contracts meaningless. ‘A right to request ‘as the amendment states would put an unfair onus on the worker to seek such an entitlement, they should not have to seek security and fairness, it should be guaranteed. Through its stages in the house, the aspects of the Bill have been debated and scrutinised to ensure that it is in the best possible place for both workers and business.
This amendment should be seen for what it is, a political stunt by the opposition parties in the Lords to prevent of the most important pieces of legislation of this Government’s agenda, and through this denying workers the rights they rightly deserve and are entitled to.
Furthermore, Protection against unfair dismissal from day one is a protection that is long overdue. Since the Employment Rights Act of 1996, the rights of workers have come a long way, a guaranteed minimum wage, protections against unfair dismissal, statutory sick pay, paid parental leave, protection from discrimination at work, limits on working hours, holiday pay, rights to request flexible working, and safeguards against exploitative zero-hours contracts.
But despite much progress, of which we should be proud and vocal about, there are still gaps that need filling, so that when we say rights for workers, we mean all workers.
Section 108 of the 1996 Act, enshrined in law a two-year service qualifying period for unfair dismissal, meaning that in the past 29 years where we have made so much of that progress, workers who fail to meet that two-year time frame have still been exposed to unfair dismissal.
Clause 23 of this Government’s Employment Rights Bill seeks to bring an end to the risk they face and enshrine from the day one, the same protection enjoyed by those who currently meet that criteria. This will have a truly substantial impact, with as noted by the Trade Union congress around 8.5 million Workers benefitting from this change.
Yet the opposition in their amendments 49, 51, 53, 56 combined with a new schedule 3 which would if accepted contain a provision for ‘reducing the qualifying period of employment for unfair dismissal and introducing provisions in respect of an initial period of employment ‘meaning that they believe it is only workers over six months who they believe are entitled to such rights? As the Conservative Party claim to be the party of business, I’m sure they would be keen to know that when asked 73% of employers support such protections from day one, so maybe they should take more time listening to it.
Out of 38 OECD Countries, we are the fifth least regulated on dismissal protectors, so Clause 23 is important not just in what it would mean for workers but for our standing as showing we believe in employment regulation that is both fair and effective.
