I spent a while yesterday immersing myself in Parliamentary procedure, in an attempt to explain what was going on with the ‘ping pong’ of shares for rights (or, as the Government call it, ‘employee-owner contracts’) being batted between the Commons and the Lords.

Unfortunately, within hours, it was pretty much game over on that particular ping pong match, as the House of Lords capitulated, and voted shares for rights through.

Now, the Growth and Infrastructure Bill just has to head to the Commons one more time (don’t forget that in-built Tory / Lib Dem majority), then it’s on a fast track to the Queen for Royal Assent.

So, what happened?

It looks like the Government’s ‘concessions’ were enough to buy off many of the Lords who had voted against shares for rights on two previous occasions. Labour peers voted NO yesterday, but by themselves they don’t have enough votes to win – and many of the renegade Lib Dems (and even some very renegade Tories) and Crossbenchers (independent Lords) deserted them last night.

Last time the Lords voted, they had a majority of 68 against shares for rights. This time, there was a majority of 107 in favour. You can see the names here (the ‘Contents’ are those who supported the amendment to scrap shares for rights – the ‘Not Contents’ are those who support shares for rights, and so vote against the amendment to scrap it!).

Letting the cat out of the bag

And do you remember the big debate about whether shares for rights is voluntary or not? The Government keep claiming it is, and everybody else says it’s not very voluntary if a job is only advertised on a shares for rights basis…. Well, they let the cat out of the bag last night.

A Labour Peer tabled a probing amendment (that means it’s not meant to be voted on, but is designed to get an issued discussed), saying that employers should not be allowed to advertise new jobs solely on an Employer-Owner contract. Lord Lea of Crondall, who introduced the amendment, said:

“…if they [employers] then say that the only jobs available for that warehouse, or that factory, are employee shareholder jobs, that is saying that those prospective employees can either have a job and give up their rights against unfair dismissal or redundancy, or not have a job at all. That is not offering options.”

He was followed by Lord Morris of Handsworth (you might know him better as Bill Morris!), who said:

“Here is a very simple example. A job is advertised by an employer who is currently operating an employee shareholder scheme. It is my view that, without this Motion, there is no duty, no guidance to the employer not to discriminate in favour of a shareholder preferred option.”

And then the Tories responded.

Viscount Younger of Leckie, Conservative Business Minister in the Lords made it clear just how ‘voluntary’ this scheme will be:

“It should be up to employers to recruit as they see fit. If a company wants to recruit an employee shareholder, as companies already do with employees and workers, it should be able to do so in its own way. Taking the argument further, if an employer wishes to post a notice for, or advertise, an employee shareholder position, they should be free to place this as one role, just as they would be able to do in an advertisement for any other role.”

Then, just in case there was any doubt about whose side the Tories are on, he added:

“…we must ensure that we do not tie the hands of employers.”

Concessions?

So what were these great concessions that bought off so many people who had previously stood against shares for rights?

1. A seven day ‘cooling off period’ before signing up (not much use if the job is only being advertised on a shares for rights basis!).

2. Written notice of workplace rights lost and shareholder rights gained (obviously this is an improvement on not getting written notice, but were the Government seriously suggesting that people give up their rights at work and enter a new employment relationship as a shareholder without having the right to it all in writing?!).

3. Independent Financial Advice, paid for by the employer (again – not much use if the job is only advertised on an employee-owner basis!).

Lord Adonis summed up the situation neatly in the Lords, saying:

“There have been some safeguards and the Bill is somewhat less objectionable, but the reality is that this shares-for-rights proposal is still fundamentally flawed and fundamentally wrong. It is not the details that are wrong; like the poll tax, the basic idea is wrong. The idea that fundamental employment rights granted by Parliament to ensure that employees are treated fairly can or should be traded for shares, let alone shares worth as little as £2,000, is fundamentally objectionable. We are talking about basic employment rights which, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, pointed out in our deliberations, have been granted by Governments, including Conservative Governments, over recent decades: the right to redundancy pay; the right not to be dismissed unfairly; the right to request flexible working in order to look after dependants; and the right to request training.”

Our campaign

I want to pay credit to the Labour Lords, to Ian Murray MP (Labour’s Shadow Employment Rights Minister) and not least to all of our campaigners who have fought hard against this sell off of our rights at work.

Our campaigning has meant the Government has not had it easy. They’ve been under real scrutiny over this issue, and have been forced to make some small concession that might at least protect the least vulnerable – for example, they’ve clarified that nobody on unemployment benefit can face penalties for refusing to take a shares for rights job.

Game on

It remains to be seen what the impact of this back-of-an-envelope scheme will be. The Government’s own research showed that the vast majority of businesses have no interest in it whatsoever – but that’s not the point. Some employers will go for this scheme, will advertise jobs on a shares for rights only basis, and desperate job seekers (in an economy with not enough jobs to go round) will opt to swap their rights for shares, rather than stay out of work.

But more than that, this scheme has sent a message about rights at work from the Government to all of us – their message is that basic, fundamental rights that we have fought for over decades (like not being sacked at will, the right to redundancy pay, the right to request training or flexible working to care for family) are no longer universal. They aren’t something that all employees should be able to expect and rely on. They are something that can be negotiated downwards, or bought off entirely, in exchange for shares that might be worth nothing in the long run.

Millions and millions of people go out to work every day, and each and every one of them should be able to expect simple things like job security, a fair wage for the job and decent, safe working conditions. 

This Government doesn’t understand that. It sees working people as a commodity, fair pay as a burden, job security as red tape and healthy and safe workplaces as an "albatross around the neck of British businesses" (Cameron’s own words).

So it might be game over for the time being on shares for rights - but game on in the fight against this Government.

Today is the 4th day in a week that members of the Houses of Parliament will be voting on shares for rights (aka selling off our rights at work). 

Parliamentary process is sometimes shrouded in mystery, so I just wanted to give a short update as to where we are in the process, and go into some of the ‘concessions’ the Government has made.

What’s happened so far?

Back in March, the House of Lords voted to remove the section on ‘shares for rights’ from the Growth and Infrastructure Bill (in the Bill it’s called Section 25 - ‘Employee owners’).

As the Bill had then passed its major stages in both the Commons and the Lords, it has entered a phase called ‘Ping Pong’ (no word of a lie, it is actually called that). This means that the Bill as a whole has been generally approved by both the Lords and the Commons, but they have disagreements over certain specific amendments. Those amendments literally bounce (hence the ping pong) from one House to the other, with MPs and Lords voting on them in turn.

So, last week (Tuesday 16th) was Ping Pong Day 1 – MPs considered the fact that the Lords had removed ‘shares for rights’, and then voted to bung it all back into the Bill (you can read our blog on the debate and vote here).

We bounced into Ping Pong Day 2 on Monday, with the House of Lords voting yet again to scrap ‘shares for rights’ and remove it from the Bill. The debate is here, and it’s worth noting that the amendment was won with a majority of 69 – an increase on the first time they rejected it. Senior Tories and Lib Dems even voted against the Government on it.

Thousands of our campaigners had emailed their MPs about this important issue, and we were waiting to see what MPs would do. But the vote never came.

Hundreds of thousands of low-paid rural workers could see their pay and conditions undermined if the AWB is abolished. Yet last week, the Government cast it off without our elected representatives getting a say.

They made the amendment to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill in the House of Lords and then, when it came back to the House of Commons, they put the debate on the AWB so low on the agenda that it simply never happened.

No vote, no debate, no democracy.

We’ve just found out that tomorrow Labour MPs are forcing the Government to debate and vote on this important issue.  

This time, our MPs will vote. Will you email your MP now?

http://www.unionstogether.org.uk/thistime

The Agricultural Wages Board has existed since the First World War, to end rural poverty, and to provide protection for workers who live in precarious communities, where pay is low and the cost of living often high.

Scrapping the AWB will make pay and conditions worse for these workers, and create a race to the bottom in the industry – with farmers undercutting wages, as supermarkets pile on the pressure to cut production costs.

The government’s own figures estimate that farm workers will lose more than £258 million over 10 years in lost pay, sick pay and holiday entitlement. Millions of pounds will be taken away from rural families, communities, shops, businesses, and services.

It is an outrage that the Government forced this through without our elected representatives having a say. Email your MP to make sure they know you want them to vote to save the Agricultural Wages Board, and protect rural wages:

http://www.unionstogether.org.uk/thistime

Together, we can send our MPs a clear message that we want them to debate the AWB, discuss the AWB, and then vote to save the AWB.

Spread the word

Click on our TWEET IT button to tweet at your twitter followers.

Click on our FACEBOOK IT button to be whisked to the unionstogether Facebook page, where you can click 'share' under our 'protect rural wages' graphic, and post it on your wall for your friends to see.

So, the results are in from the ‘shares for rights’ vote yesterday.

We’ve crunched the numbers for you, so you can see how your MP voted, and how many from each Party voted for and against.

There’s more detail below, but although we did not win this vote (don’t forget, the Tory-led Coalition has a built-in majority in the House of Commons) we did see 3 Lib Dems rebel, and all the smaller Parties in the House of Commons vote against this ‘shares for rights’ plan. That’s a testament to the hard work campaigners put in to lobbying their MPs to vote against this foolish plan.

You can read the whole debate on the Parliament website here.

There wasn’t a long debate, as MPs had many House of Lords amendments to discuss (they didn’t even get a debate or a vote on the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board), but this excerpt shows that the case against ‘shares for rights’ was made strongly:

Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab):

What on earth are employees to think if suddenly, out of nowhere, their employer says, “Will you give up all your fundamental rights in this workplace if I give you some shares?” What signal will that send to the employee? [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) says from a sedentary position that it is voluntary, but what does that say about one’s relationship with an employer if they are talking about taking away fundamental rights at work? As Justin King, CEO of Sainsbury’s and until recently a member of the Prime Minister’s business advisory group, said, what will the population at large think of businesses that want to trade employment rights for money?...

My final and principal objection to the proposal is this: last November, I put it to the Business Secretary in this House that an employer in his Twickenham constituency would, under these arrangements, be able to make acceptance of job offers conditional on people agreeing to accept employee owner status. He denied that that was the case, yet patently the arrangements allow for it. The risk in the current jobs market of people being pressurised, or feeling under pressure, to take jobs with this type of status will be increased.

Next steps

The Growth and Infrastructure Bill will Ping Pong (it's actually called that) back to the House of Lords on Monday. Labour Peers will try to remove the 'shares for rights' section again. They won the vote last time, with lots of support from other Parties. There's no guarantee they'll be able to win another vote, as the Coalition has a majority in the House of Lords as well. If they do win a vote, and remove 'shares for rights', then it'll Ping Pong right back to the House of Commons for another vote.

In the meantime, why not hop over to facebook and share our special campaign 'ad', showing 'shares for rights' is the bargain of the century - for your boss, that is!

The numbers

277 of our MPs voted YES to ‘shares for rights’.

239 MPs voted NO.

Of the 277 MPs who voted to allow our rights at work to be sold off (the ‘ayes’), there were:

236 CONSERVATIVES

41 LIBERAL DEMOCRATS.

There were also 2 ‘tellers’ for the ‘ayes’ (people who help count the votes – if someone is a teller for the ‘ayes’ or the ‘noes’ it can be assumed that’s how they’re voting, though their numbers aren’t included in the tally) – these were 1 CONSERVATIVE and 1 LIBERAL DEMOCRAT.

Of the 239 MPs who voted against ‘shares for rights’ (the ‘noes’), this is the Party breakdown:

219 LABOUR

4 SNP

4 DEMOCRATIC UNIONIST

3 LIBERAL DEMOCRATS

3 PLAID CYMRU

2 SDLP

1 GREEN

1 ALLIANCE

1 RESPECT

1 INDEPENDENT

plus 2 LABOUR TELLERS

How did your MP vote?

The ‘ayes’ voted FOR ‘shares for rights’, and the ‘noes’ voted AGAINST. If your MP isn’t on the list, it means they abstained, or weren’t voting for some other reason (in a meeting, on Maternity or Paternity leave etc).

AYES

Adams, Nigel (Conservative), Selby and Ainsty

Aldous, Peter (Conservative), Waveney

Andrew, Stuart (Conservative), Pudsey

Arbuthnot, James (Conservative), North East Hampshire

Bacon, Richard (Conservative), South Norfolk

Baker, Norman (Liberal Democrat), Lewes

Baker, Steve (Conservative), Wycombe

Baldry, Tony (Conservative), Banbury

Baldwin, Harriett (Conservative), West Worcestershire

Barclay, Stephen (Conservative), North East Cambridgeshire

Barker, Gregory (Conservative), Bexhill and Battle

Baron, John (Conservative), Basildon and Billericay

Bebb, Guto (Conservative), Aberconwy

Beith, Alan (Liberal Democrat), Berwick-upon-Tweed

Beresford, Paul (Conservative), Mole Valley

Berry, Jake (Conservative), Rossendale and Darwen

Bingham, Andrew (Conservative), High Peak

Birtwistle, Gordon (Liberal Democrat), Burnley

Blackman, Bob (Conservative), Harrow East

Boles, Nick (Conservative), Grantham and Stamford

Bottomley, Peter (Conservative), Worthing West

Bradley, Karen (Conservative), Staffordshire Moorlands

Brake, Tom (Liberal Democrat), Carshalton and Wallington

Bray, Angie (Conservative), Ealing Central and Acton

Brazier, Julian (Conservative), Canterbury

Bridgen, Andrew (Conservative), North West Leicestershire

Brine, Steve (Conservative), Winchester

Brokenshire, James (Conservative), Old Bexley and Sidcup

Bruce, Fiona (Conservative), Congleton

Bruce, Malcolm (Liberal Democrat), Gordon

Buckland, Robert (Conservative), South Swindon

Burley, Aidan (Conservative), Cannock Chase

Burns, Conor (Conservative), Bournemouth West

Burns, Simon (Conservative), Chelmsford

Burrowes, David (Conservative), Enfield, Southgate

Burstow, Paul (Liberal Democrat), Sutton and Cheam

Burt, Lorely (Liberal Democrat), Solihull

Byles, Dan (Conservative), North Warwickshire

Cable, Vince (Liberal Democrat), Twickenham

Cairns, Alun (Conservative), Vale of Glamorgan

Campbell, Menzies (Liberal Democrat), North East Fife

Carmichael, Alistair (Liberal Democrat), Orkney and Shetland

Carmichael, Neil (Conservative), Stroud

Carswell, Douglas (Conservative), Clacton

Cash, William (Conservative), Stone

Chishti, Rehman (Conservative), Gillingham and Rainham

Chope, Christopher (Conservative), Christchurch

Clappison, James (Conservative), Hertsmere

Clark, Greg (Conservative), Tunbridge Wells

Clarke, Kenneth (Conservative), Rushcliffe

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey (Conservative), The Cotswolds

Coffey, Thérèse (Conservative), Suffolk Coastal

Collins, Damian (Conservative), Folkestone and Hythe

Colvile, Oliver (Conservative), Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport

Crabb, Stephen (Conservative), Preseli Pembrokeshire

Crouch, Tracey (Conservative), Chatham and Aylesford

Davey, Edward (Liberal Democrat), Kingston and Surbiton

Davies, David T. C. (Conservative), Monmouth

Davies, Glyn (Conservative), Montgomeryshire

de Bois, Nick (Conservative), Enfield North

Dinenage, Caroline (Conservative), Gosport

Djanogly, Jonathan (Conservative), Huntingdon

Dorries, Nadine (Independent), Mid Bedfordshire

Doyle-Price, Jackie (Conservative), Thurrock

Drax, Richard (Conservative), South Dorset

Duddridge, James (Conservative), Rochford and Southend East

Duncan Smith, Iain (Conservative), Chingford and Woodford Green

Dunne, Philip (Conservative), Ludlow

Ellis, Michael (Conservative), Northampton North

Ellison, Jane (Conservative), Battersea

Ellwood, Tobias (Conservative), Bournemouth East

Elphicke, Charlie (Conservative), Dover

Eustice, George (Conservative), Camborne and Redruth

Evennett, David (Conservative), Bexleyheath and Crayford

Fabricant, Michael (Conservative), Lichfield

Fallon, Michael (Conservative), Sevenoaks

Featherstone, Lynne (Liberal Democrat), Hornsey and Wood Green

Foster, Don (Liberal Democrat), Bath

Fox, Liam (Conservative), North Somerset

Freeman, George (Conservative), Mid Norfolk

Freer, Mike (Conservative), Finchley and Golders Green

Fuller, Richard (Conservative), Bedford

Gale, Roger (Conservative), North Thanet

Garnier, Edward (Conservative), Harborough

Garnier, Mark (Conservative), Wyre Forest

Gauke, David (Conservative), South West Hertfordshire

George, Andrew (Liberal Democrat), St Ives

Gibb, Nick (Conservative), Bognor Regis and Littlehampton

Gilbert, Stephen (Liberal Democrat), St Austell and Newquay

Gillan, Cheryl (Conservative), Chesham and Amersham

Glen, John (Conservative), Salisbury

Goldsmith, Zac (Conservative), Richmond Park

Goodwill, Robert (Conservative), Scarborough and Whitby

Gove, Michael (Conservative), Surrey Heath

Grant, Helen (Conservative), Maidstone and The Weald

Gray, James (Conservative), North Wiltshire

Grayling, Chris (Conservative), Epsom and Ewell

Green, Damian (Conservative), Ashford

Greening, Justine (Conservative), Putney

Grieve, Dominic (Conservative), Beaconsfield

Gyimah, Sam (Conservative), East Surrey

Halfon, Robert (Conservative), Harlow

Hammond, Stephen (Conservative), Wimbledon

Hancock, Matthew (Conservative), West Suffolk

Hands, Greg (Conservative), Chelsea and Fulham

Harper, Mark (Conservative), Forest of Dean

Harrington, Richard (Conservative), Watford

Harris, Rebecca (Conservative), Castle Point

Hart, Simon (Conservative), Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire

Harvey, Nick (Liberal Democrat), North Devon

Haselhurst, Alan (Conservative), Saffron Walden

Heald, Oliver (Conservative), North East Hertfordshire

Heath, David (Liberal Democrat), Somerton and Frome

Heaton-Harris, Chris (Conservative), Daventry

Hemming, John (Liberal Democrat), Birmingham, Yardley

Henderson, Gordon (Conservative), Sittingbourne and Sheppey

Hinds, Damian (Conservative), East Hampshire

Hoban, Mark (Conservative), Fareham

Hollingbery, George (Conservative), Meon Valley

Hollobone, Philip (Conservative), Kettering

Howarth, Gerald (Conservative), Aldershot

Howell, John (Conservative), Henley

Hughes, Simon (Liberal Democrat), Bermondsey and Old Southwark

Hunt, Jeremy (Conservative), South West Surrey

Huppert, Julian (Liberal Democrat), Cambridge

Jackson, Stewart (Conservative), Peterborough

James, Margot (Conservative), Stourbridge

Javid, Sajid (Conservative), Bromsgrove

Jenkin, Bernard (Conservative), Harwich and North Essex

Johnson, Joseph (Conservative), Orpington

Jones, Andrew (Conservative), Harrogate and Knaresborough

Jones, Marcus (Conservative), Nuneaton

Kawczynski, Daniel (Conservative), Shrewsbury and Atcham

Kelly, Chris (Conservative), Dudley South

Knight, Greg (Conservative), East Yorkshire

Lamb, Norman (Liberal Democrat), North Norfolk

Lansley, Andrew (Conservative), South Cambridgeshire

Latham, Pauline (Conservative), Mid Derbyshire

Laws, David (Liberal Democrat), Yeovil

Leadsom, Andrea (Conservative), South Northamptonshire

Lee, Jessica (Conservative), Erewash

Lee, Phillip (Conservative), Bracknell

Leech, John (Liberal Democrat), Manchester, Withington

Lefroy, Jeremy (Conservative), Stafford

Leslie, Charlotte (Conservative), Bristol North West

Letwin, Oliver (Conservative), West Dorset

Lewis, Brandon (Conservative), Great Yarmouth

Lewis, Julian (Conservative), New Forest East

Liddell-Grainger, Ian (Conservative), Bridgwater and West Somerset

Lidington, David (Conservative), Aylesbury

Lilley, Peter (Conservative), Hitchin and Harpenden

Lloyd, Stephen (Liberal Democrat), Eastbourne

Lopresti, Jack (Conservative), Filton and Bradley Stoke

Loughton, Tim (Conservative), East Worthing and Shoreham

Luff, Peter (Conservative), Mid Worcestershire

Lumley, Karen (Conservative), Redditch

Main, Anne (Conservative), St Albans

Maude, Francis (Conservative), Horsham

Maynard, Paul (Conservative), Blackpool North and Cleveleys

McCartney, Jason (Conservative), Colne Valley

McCartney, Karl (Conservative), Lincoln

McIntosh, Anne (Conservative), Thirsk and Malton

McPartland, Stephen (Conservative), Stevenage

Menzies, Mark (Conservative), Fylde

Mercer, Patrick (Conservative), Newark

Metcalfe, Stephen (Conservative), South Basildon and East Thurrock

Mills, Nigel (Conservative), Amber Valley

Mitchell, Andrew (Conservative), Sutton Coldfield

Moore, Michael (Liberal Democrat), Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk

Mordaunt, Penny (Conservative), Portsmouth North

Morgan, Nicky (Conservative), Loughborough

Morris, Anne Marie (Conservative), Newton Abbot

Morris, David (Conservative), Morecambe and Lunesdale

Mosley, Stephen (Conservative), City of Chester

Mowat, David (Conservative), Warrington South

Mundell, David (Conservative), Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale

Munt, Tessa (Liberal Democrat), Wells

Murray, Sheryll (Conservative), South East Cornwall

Murrison, Andrew (Conservative), South West Wiltshire

Neill, Robert (Conservative), Bromley and Chislehurst

Newmark, Brooks (Conservative), Braintree

Newton, Sarah (Conservative), Truro and Falmouth

Nokes, Caroline (Conservative), Romsey and Southampton North

Nuttall, David (Conservative), Bury North

Offord, Matthew (Conservative), Hendon

Ollerenshaw, Eric (Conservative), Lancaster and Fleetwood

Opperman, Guy (Conservative), Hexham

Ottaway, Richard (Conservative), Croydon South

Paice, James (Conservative), South East Cambridgeshire

Patel, Priti (Conservative), Witham

Penning, Mike (Conservative), Hemel Hempstead

Penrose, John (Conservative), Weston-super-Mare

Percy, Andrew (Conservative), Brigg and Goole

Phillips, Stephen (Conservative), Sleaford and North Hykeham

Pickles, Eric (Conservative), Brentwood and Ongar

Pincher, Christopher (Conservative), Tamworth

Prisk, Mark (Conservative), Hertford and Stortford

Pritchard, Mark (Conservative), The Wrekin

Raab, Dominic (Conservative), Esher and Walton

Randall, John (Conservative), Uxbridge and South Ruislip

Reckless, Mark (Conservative), Rochester and Strood

Redwood, John (Conservative), Wokingham

Rees-Mogg, Jacob (Conservative), North East Somerset

Reevell, Simon (Conservative), Dewsbury

Reid, Alan (Liberal Democrat), Argyll and Bute

Rifkind, Malcolm (Conservative), Kensington

Robertson, Hugh (Conservative), Faversham and Mid Kent

Robertson, Laurence (Conservative), Tewkesbury

Rogerson, Dan (Liberal Democrat), North Cornwall

Rosindell, Andrew (Conservative), Romford

Russell, Bob (Liberal Democrat), Colchester

Rutley, David (Conservative), Macclesfield

Sandys, Laura (Conservative), South Thanet

Scott, Lee (Conservative), Ilford North

Selous, Andrew (Conservative), South West Bedfordshire

Shapps, Grant (Conservative), Welwyn Hatfield

Sharma, Alok (Conservative), Reading West

Shelbrooke, Alec (Conservative), Elmet and Rothwell

Simpson, Keith (Conservative), Broadland

Skidmore, Chris (Conservative), Kingswood

Smith, Chloe (Conservative), Norwich North

Smith, Henry (Conservative), Crawley

Smith, Julian (Conservative), Skipton and Ripon

Smith, Robert (Liberal Democrat), West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine

Soames, Nicholas (Conservative), Mid Sussex

Soubry, Anna (Conservative), Broxtowe

Spelman, Caroline (Conservative), Meriden

Spencer, Mark (Conservative), Sherwood

Stanley, John (Conservative), Tonbridge and Malling

Stephenson, Andrew (Conservative), Pendle

Stevenson, John (Conservative), Carlisle

Stewart, Bob (Conservative), Beckenham

Stewart, Iain (Conservative), Milton Keynes South

Stewart, Rory (Conservative), Penrith and The Border

Streeter, Gary (Conservative), South West Devon

Stride, Mel (Conservative), Central Devon

Stunell, Andrew (Liberal Democrat), Hazel Grove

Sturdy, Julian (Conservative), York Outer

Swales, Ian (Liberal Democrat), Redcar

Swayne, Desmond (Conservative), New Forest West

Swinson, Jo (Liberal Democrat), East Dunbartonshire

Syms, Robert (Conservative), Poole

Teather, Sarah (Liberal Democrat), Brent Central

Thornton, Mike (Liberal Democrat), Eastleigh

Thurso, John (Liberal Democrat), Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross

Timpson, Edward (Conservative), Crewe and Nantwich

Tomlinson, Justin (Conservative), North Swindon

Tredinnick, David (Conservative), Bosworth

Turner, Andrew (Conservative), Isle of Wight

Tyrie, Andrew (Conservative), Chichester

Uppal, Paul (Conservative), Wolverhampton South West

Vara, Shailesh (Conservative), North West Cambridgeshire

Vickers, Martin (Conservative), Cleethorpes

Villiers, Theresa (Conservative), Chipping Barnet

Walker, Charles (Conservative), Broxbourne

Walker, Robin (Conservative), Worcester

Wallace, Ben (Conservative), Wyre and Preston North

Watkinson, Angela (Conservative), Hornchurch and Upminster

Weatherley, Mike (Conservative), Hove

Webb, Steve (Liberal Democrat), Thornbury and Yate

Wharton, James (Conservative), Stockton South

White, Chris (Conservative), Warwick and Leamington

Whittaker, Craig (Conservative), Calder Valley

Whittingdale, John (Conservative), Maldon

Wiggin, Bill (Conservative), North Herefordshire

Willetts, David (Conservative), Havant

Williams, Mark (Liberal Democrat), Ceredigion

Williams, Roger (Liberal Democrat), Brecon and Radnorshire

Williams, Stephen (Liberal Democrat), Bristol West

Williamson, Gavin (Conservative), South Staffordshire

Wilson, Rob (Conservative), Reading East

Wollaston, Sarah (Conservative), Totnes

Wright, Jeremy (Conservative), Kenilworth and Southam

Wright, Simon (Liberal Democrat), Norwich South

Yeo, Tim (Conservative), South Suffolk

Young, George (Conservative), North West Hampshire

Zahawi, Nadhim (Conservative), Stratford-on-Avon

Tellers for the Ayes:

Hunter, Mark (Liberal Democrat), Cheadle

and

Milton, Anne (Conservative), Guildford

NOES

Abbott, Diane (Labour), Hackney North and Stoke Newington

Abrahams, Debbie (Labour), Oldham East and Saddleworth

Ainsworth, Bob (Labour), Coventry North East

Alexander, Douglas (Labour), Paisley and Renfrewshire South

Alexander, Heidi (Labour), Lewisham East

Ali, Rushanara (Labour), Bethnal Green and Bow

Allen, Graham (Labour), Nottingham North

Anderson, David (Labour), Blaydon

Ashworth, Jonathan (Labour), Leicester South

Austin, Ian (Labour), Dudley North

Bailey, Adrian (Labour (Co-op)), West Bromwich West

Bain, William (Labour), Glasgow North East

Banks, Gordon (Labour), Ochil and South Perthshire

Barron, Kevin (Labour), Rother Valley

Bayley, Hugh (Labour), York Central

Beckett, Margaret (Labour), Derby South

Begg, Anne (Labour), Aberdeen South

Benn, Hilary (Labour), Leeds Central

Benton, Joe (Labour), Bootle

Berger, Luciana (Labour (Co-op)), Liverpool, Wavertree

Betts, Clive (Labour), Sheffield South East

Blackman-Woods, Roberta (Labour), City of Durham

Blomfield, Paul (Labour), Sheffield Central

Blunkett, David (Labour), Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough

Bradshaw, Ben (Labour), Exeter

Brennan, Kevin (Labour), Cardiff West

Brown, Lyn (Labour), West Ham

Brown, Russell (Labour), Dumfries and Galloway

Bryant, Chris (Labour), Rhondda

Buck, Karen (Labour), Westminster North

Burden, Richard (Labour), Birmingham, Northfield

Byrne, Liam (Labour), Birmingham, Hodge Hill

Campbell, Alan (Labour), Tynemouth

Caton, Martin (Labour), Gower

Champion, Sarah (Labour), Rotherham

Chapman, Jenny (Labour), Darlington

Clark, Katy (Labour), North Ayrshire and Arran

Clarke, Tom (Labour), Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill

Clwyd, Ann (Labour), Cynon Valley

Coaker, Vernon (Labour), Gedling

Coffey, Ann (Labour), Stockport

Connarty, Michael (Labour), Linlithgow and East Falkirk

Cooper, Yvette (Labour), Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford

Crausby, David (Labour), Bolton North East

Creagh, Mary (Labour), Wakefield

Creasy, Stella (Labour (Co-op)), Walthamstow

Cruddas, Jon (Labour), Dagenham and Rainham

Cryer, John (Labour), Leyton and Wanstead

Cunningham, Alex (Labour), Stockton North

Cunningham, Jim (Labour), Coventry South

Cunningham, Tony (Labour), Workington

Curran, Margaret (Labour), Glasgow East

Dakin, Nic (Labour), Scunthorpe

Danczuk, Simon (Labour), Rochdale

David, Wayne (Labour), Caerphilly

Davidson, Ian (Labour (Co-op)), Glasgow South West

Davies, Geraint (Labour (Co-op)), Swansea West

De Piero, Gloria (Labour), Ashfield

Denham, John (Labour), Southampton, Itchen

Dobbin, Jim (Labour (Co-op)), Heywood and Middleton

Dobson, Frank (Labour), Holborn and St Pancras

Docherty, Thomas (Labour), Dunfermline and West Fife

Dodds, Nigel (Democratic Unionist), Belfast North

Doran, Frank (Labour), Aberdeen North

Doughty, Stephen (Labour (Co-op)), Cardiff South and Penarth

Dowd, Jim (Labour), Lewisham West and Penge

Doyle, Gemma (Labour (Co-op)), West Dunbartonshire

Dugher, Michael (Labour), Barnsley East

Durkan, Mark (Social Democratic & Labour Party), Foyle

Eagle, Angela (Labour), Wallasey

Eagle, Maria (Labour), Garston and Halewood

Edwards, Jonathan (Plaid Cymru), Carmarthen East and Dinefwr

Efford, Clive (Labour), Eltham

Ellman, Louise (Labour (Co-op)), Liverpool, Riverside

Engel, Natascha (Labour), North East Derbyshire

Esterson, Bill (Labour), Sefton Central

Evans, Chris (Labour (Co-op)), Islwyn

Farrelly, Paul (Labour), Newcastle-under-Lyme

Field, Frank (Labour), Birkenhead

Fitzpatrick, Jim (Labour), Poplar and Limehouse

Flello, Robert (Labour), Stoke-on-Trent South

Flint, Caroline (Labour), Don Valley

Fovargue, Yvonne (Labour), Makerfield

Francis, Hywel (Labour), Aberavon

Galloway, George (Respect), Bradford West

Gapes, Mike (Labour (Co-op)), Ilford South

Gardiner, Barry (Labour), Brent North

Gilmore, Sheila (Labour), Edinburgh East

Glass, Pat (Labour), North West Durham

Glindon, Mary (Labour), North Tyneside

Goodman, Helen (Labour), Bishop Auckland

Greatrex, Tom (Labour (Co-op)), Rutherglen and Hamilton West

Green, Kate (Labour), Stretford and Urmston

Greenwood, Lilian (Labour), Nottingham South

Gwynne, Andrew (Labour), Denton and Reddish

Hain, Peter (Labour), Neath

Hamilton, David (Labour), Midlothian

Hamilton, Fabian (Labour), Leeds North East

Hanson, David (Labour), Delyn

Harris, Tom (Labour), Glasgow South

Havard, Dai (Labour), Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney

Healey, John (Labour), Wentworth and Dearne

Hendrick, Mark (Labour (Co-op)), Preston

Hepburn, Stephen (Labour), Jarrow

Hillier, Meg (Labour (Co-op)), Hackney South and Shoreditch

Hilling, Julie (Labour), Bolton West

Hodge, Margaret (Labour), Barking

Hodgson, Sharon (Labour), Washington and Sunderland West

Hoey, Kate (Labour), Vauxhall

Hood, Jim (Labour), Lanark and Hamilton East

Horwood, Martin (Liberal Democrat), Cheltenham

Hosie, Stewart (Scottish National), Dundee East

Hunt, Tristram (Labour), Stoke-on-Trent Central

Irranca-Davies, Huw (Labour), Ogmore

Jackson, Glenda (Labour), Hampstead and Kilburn

Jamieson, Cathy (Labour (Co-op)), Kilmarnock and Loudoun

Jarvis, Dan (Labour), Barnsley Central

Johnson, Alan (Labour), Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle

Johnson, Diana (Labour), Kingston upon Hull North

Jones, Graham (Labour), Hyndburn

Jones, Helen (Labour), Warrington North

Jones, Kevan (Labour), North Durham

Jones, Susan Elan (Labour), Clwyd South

Joyce, Eric (Independent), Falkirk

Kaufman, Gerald (Labour), Manchester, Gorton

Keeley, Barbara (Labour), Worsley and Eccles South

Kendall, Liz (Labour), Leicester West

Khan, Sadiq (Labour), Tooting

Lammy, David (Labour), Tottenham

Lavery, Ian (Labour), Wansbeck

Lazarowicz, Mark (Labour (Co-op)), Edinburgh North and Leith

Leslie, Chris (Labour (Co-op)), Nottingham East

Lewis, Ivan (Labour), Bury South

Llwyd, Elfyn (Plaid Cymru), Dwyfor Meirionnydd

Long, Naomi (Alliance), Belfast East

Love, Andrew (Labour (Co-op)), Edmonton

Lucas, Caroline (Green), Brighton, Pavilion

Lucas, Ian (Labour), Wrexham

MacNeil, Angus Brendan (Scottish National), Na h-Eileanan an Iar

Mactaggart, Fiona (Labour), Slough

Mahmood, Khalid (Labour), Birmingham, Perry Barr

Mahmood, Shabana (Labour), Birmingham, Ladywood

Malhotra, Seema (Labour (Co-op)), Feltham and Heston

Mann, John (Labour), Bassetlaw

Marsden, Gordon (Labour), Blackpool South

McCabe, Steve (Labour), Birmingham, Selly Oak

McCann, Michael (Labour), East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow

McCarthy, Kerry (Labour), Bristol East

McClymont, Gregg (Labour), Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East

McCrea, William (Democratic Unionist), South Antrim

McDonagh, Siobhain (Labour), Mitcham and Morden

McDonald, Andy (Labour), Middlesbrough

McDonnell, John (Labour), Hayes and Harlington

McFadden, Pat (Labour), Wolverhampton South East

McGovern, Alison (Labour), Wirral South

McGovern, Jim (Labour), Dundee West

McGuire, Anne (Labour), Stirling

McKechin, Ann (Labour), Glasgow North

McKenzie, Iain (Labour), Inverclyde

McKinnell, Catherine (Labour), Newcastle upon Tyne North

Meacher, Michael (Labour), Oldham West and Royton

Mearns, Ian (Labour), Gateshead

Miliband, Edward (Labour), Doncaster North

Miller, Andrew (Labour), Ellesmere Port and Neston

Mitchell, Austin (Labour), Great Grimsby

Moon, Madeleine (Labour), Bridgend

Morden, Jessica (Labour), Newport East

Morrice, Graeme (Labour), Livingston

Morris, Grahame M. (Labour), Easington

Mudie, George (Labour), Leeds East

Mulholland, Greg (Liberal Democrat), Leeds North West

Munn, Meg (Labour (Co-op)), Sheffield, Heeley

Murphy, Jim (Labour), East Renfrewshire

Murphy, Paul (Labour), Torfaen

Murray, Ian (Labour), Edinburgh South

Nandy, Lisa (Labour), Wigan

Nash, Pamela (Labour), Airdrie and Shotts

O'Donnell, Fiona (Labour), East Lothian

Onwurah, Chi (Labour), Newcastle upon Tyne Central

Osborne, Sandra (Labour), Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock

Owen, Albert (Labour), Ynys Môn

Pearce, Teresa (Labour), Erith and Thamesmead

Perkins, Toby (Labour), Chesterfield

Pound, Stephen (Labour), Ealing North

Powell, Lucy (Labour), Manchester Central

Qureshi, Yasmin (Labour), Bolton South East

Raynsford, Nick (Labour), Greenwich and Woolwich

Reed, Jamie (Labour), Copeland

Reed, Steve (Labour), Croydon North

Reynolds, Emma (Labour), Wolverhampton North East

Riordan, Linda (Labour (Co-op)), Halifax

Ritchie, Margaret (Social Democratic & Labour Party), South Down

Robertson, John (Labour), Glasgow North West

Robinson, Geoffrey (Labour), Coventry North West

Rotheram, Steve (Labour), Liverpool, Walton

Roy, Frank (Labour), Motherwell and Wishaw

Roy, Lindsay (Labour), Glenrothes

Ruane, Chris (Labour), Vale of Clwyd

Ruddock, Dame Joan (Labour), Lewisham, Deptford

Sarwar, Anas (Labour), Glasgow Central

Sawford, Andy (Labour (Co-op)), Corby

Seabeck, Alison (Labour), Plymouth, Moor View

Shannon, Jim (Democratic Unionist), Strangford

Sharma, Virendra (Labour), Ealing, Southall

Sheerman, Barry (Labour (Co-op)), Huddersfield

Sheridan, Jim (Labour), Paisley and Renfrewshire North

Shuker, Gavin (Labour (Co-op)), Luton South

Simpson, David (Democratic Unionist), Upper Bann

Slaughter, Andy (Labour), Hammersmith

Smith, Andrew (Labour), Oxford East

Smith, Angela (Labour), Penistone and Stocksbridge

Smith, Nick (Labour), Blaenau Gwent

Smith, Owen (Labour), Pontypridd

Spellar, John (Labour), Warley

Stuart, Gisela (Labour), Birmingham, Edgbaston

Sutcliffe, Gerry (Labour), Bradford South

Tami, Mark (Labour), Alyn and Deeside

Thomas, Gareth (Labour (Co-op)), Harrow West

Thornberry, Emily (Labour), Islington South and Finsbury

Trickett, Jon (Labour), Hemsworth

Twigg, Derek (Labour), Halton

Umunna, Chuka (Labour), Streatham

Vaz, Keith (Labour), Leicester East

Vaz, Valerie (Labour), Walsall South

Walley, Joan (Labour), Stoke-on-Trent North

Ward, David (Liberal Democrat), Bradford East

Watson, Tom (Labour), West Bromwich East

Watts, Dave (Labour), St Helens North

Weir, Mike (Scottish National), Angus

Whitehead, Alan (Labour), Southampton, Test

Williams, Hywel (Plaid Cymru), Arfon

Williamson, Chris (Labour), Derby North

Winnick, David (Labour), Walsall North

Winterton, Rosie (Labour), Doncaster Central

Wishart, Pete (Scottish National), Perth and North Perthshire

Woodcock, John (Labour (Co-op)), Barrow and Furness

Woodward, Shaun (Labour), St Helens South and Whiston

Wright, David (Labour), Telford

Wright, Iain (Labour), Hartlepool

Tellers for the Noes:

Wilson, Phil (Labour), Sedgefield

and

Blenkinsop, Tom (Labour), Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland

Not in a “they don’t like it up ‘em!” way, more in a “where the hell has all my money gone?” kind of way. It’s in the nature of economics that price rise, and we call that effect inflation. If it didn’t exist we’d all still be paid a penny a day because-we-can’t-work-any-faster.

It’s one of the key reasons that trade unions are so important – they help ensure that wages rise at about the same rate. Even if you don’t have a union, your employer has to keep up or face losing their workforce to better paid jobs… and that’s where the problem starts, because large swathes of the British workforce are no longer in trade unions. Which means that wages rise more slowly… often beneath the rate of inflation.

Straight and simply put, a basic loaf of bread cost 52p in 2000. Nowadays, the same loaf is £1.26. That’s an inflationary rise of 142%. Over the same period, wages have gone up by an average of 40%.

This is why the national minimum wage is so important. It’s a safety net. It makes sure that no-one is trapped in those awful jobs you used to see advertised in the 1990’s “Security Guard wanted. £1.50 an hour. Bring your own dog.”

It’s also an important way of encouraging economic growth. People on low incomes tend not to buy new cars, fridges or other things that factories produce. If you put more money in their pockets, they are more likely to buy things that keep the rest of us in employment, paying taxes, etc. It also stops them wondering how the hell they are going to replace their children’s shoes when they wear out.

It’s why the announcement by Vince Cable that the National Minimum Wage is going up by 12 pence an hour is both economic nonsense and moral cobblers. A 12 pence rise is worth just 1.9%, when inflation is running at around 3%. I’m sure his audience, the Institute of Directors, were very appreciative of his comments. After all, the net result is that they have to pay low paid workers even less but hey, what’s a 1% cut between friends?

Except it’s worse than that. It’s the fourth cut in four years. Every year since the Coalition were elected, they’ve delivered a real terms cut to the National Minimum Wage. In order to maintain its current spending power, it would have needed to increase to £6.39 an hour this year. It’s now worth the same as it was in 2004. How long before it’s worth less than when it was introduced in 1999?

I’d like to say it’ll never happen, but its happened before. A few years back unionstogether ran a campaign to uprate statutory redundancy pay. When that was introduced back in 1965, it was capped at what was then 203% of a week’s wages, seen as fair reward for many years hard work in the same firm. Inflation pushed wages up, but the cap wasn’t pushed up at the same rate. By 2009, statutory redundancy was worth just 56% of a week’s wages. No-one had made a fuss as its value dwindled away. We can’t let the same thing happen to the National Minimum Wage.

I don’t want to be sat in my retirement home, watching my grand-children look at the job adverts that read “Security Guard wanted. National Minimum Wage. Bring your own (robo)dog”.

Inflation. It’s a funny thing.

There are two KEY ISSUES in these Bills that we are campaigning on – two MASSIVE ATTACKS on our rights at work:

Attack on wages for hundreds of thousands of rural workers

ENTERPRISE & REGULATORY REFORM BILL: Abolishing the Agricultural Wages Board – a body that has guaranteed minimum pay and conditions for thousands of farmworkers for almost a Century.

‘Shares for rights’ – selling off our rights at work

GROWTH & INFRASTRUCTURE BILL: Introducing George Osborne’s daft and offensive plan to let employers force new employees to give up their rights at work (quite important rights, like not getting sacked!) in return for potentially worthless shares in the Company (never before has the phrase ‘the value of shares may go down as well as up’ sounded so ominous!).

UPDATE:

Unsurprising, but frustrating news: government win vote on shares for rights 277 to 239. House of Lords will vote again on Monday. We'll let you know next steps!

You can still email your MP to save the Agricultural Wages Board tho.

So, because our MPs are going to be busy, busy, busy – we need to be too!

We have FOUR ACTIONS you can do right now to help stop these attacks on our rights at work. It only takes a couple of minutes to do them, and it’s really important.

Let’s be honest – the Tories and Lib Dems have a big majority. We’re extremely unlikely to win these votes. I know many of our campaigners are reluctant to email their MPs, because say they always vote with the Government anyway. But that’s not the point – even if your MP is David Cameron himself, it’s worth sending that email. And here’s why:

1. We have to make a stand. Our rights at work were hard-won over decades, and we can’t let them be undermined without a fight.

2. If our MPs don’t get emails and phone calls, they think that their constituents don’t care about these issues. That makes them think rights at work are an easy target.

3. Sometimes, just sometimes, we can make a difference. We won a vote in the House of Lords on ‘shares for rights’, largely down to the fact that campaigners like you had piled on the pressure. If we don’t campaign, if we treat it like a lost cause, then it will be.

4. We have to get angry, and we have to spread the word - because we want them to lose the General Election. The only way we’re going to stop this Government in the long term is to make sure they lose the next General Election. One way to do that is to make sure all our friends, colleagues, neighbours and family know what they are doing to the rights that all of us rely on. That means tweeting, facebooking and emailing – but it also means we have to start having those conversations face to face, and try to get more of our networks involved in the campaign to win the next election.

Action 1: Click to email your MP about the Agricultural Wages Board

Action 2: Click to email your MP about ‘shares for rights’

Action 3: PICK UP THE PHONE! Call your MP and ask them to vote NO to shares for rights. 020 7219 3000. Click for ideas for what to say.

Action 4: head on over to facebook and share our campaign pic to spread the word to your friends.

Tomorrow is the day our MPs get to have their final say on the Government’s ‘shares for rights’ plan.

Thousands of us have emailed our MPs, to ask them to vote NO tomorrow, and to reject this foolish plan to sell off our rights at work.

But if we really want them to get the message, then we need to keep up the pressure.

Even if you've only just emailed your MP, we need you to pick up the phone and ask your MP to vote NO to this scheme. We need to make sure they have heard your views on ‘shares for rights’ before it is too late.

Will you telephone your MP before the vote, and ask them to vote NO?

http://www.unionstogether.org.uk/notforsale-callnow

Here are some of the reasons why ‘shares for rights’ needs to be stopped tomorrow:

We need to make sure that our MPs have heard all of the arguments about ‘shares for rights’ before they vote.

We’ve set up a really simple web page to help you decide what you want to say to your MP, and to make it easy for you to let us know what they said.

Will you call your MP now?

http://www.unionstogether.org.uk/notforsale-callnow

Don't forget, your MP is paid to represent you and everybody else who lives in your constituency. They won't necessarily vote the way you ask them to, but you have a right to let them know your views.

Even if your MP ALWAYS votes with the Tory-led government, please call them anyway. It's really important that they know people oppose this plan, even if there's little chance of you convincing them.

It’s by piling on the pressure that we were able to defeat this in the House of Lords – let’s keep it up now.

Thanks

Helen

In the last few months, we’ve run campaigns on welfare cuts, threats to the minimum wage, and attack after attack on our rights at work.

We’ve delivered massive 6 foot petitions to Downing Street, we’ve emailed and written to our MPs in our thousands, and we’ve facebooked and tweeted again and again.

However, the fact of the matter is that the Conservative-led coalition has a majority in the House of Commons, and that gives them carte blanche to do what they like. The only way we can stop them is to make sure they’re not the Government after the next General Election.

Next Monday we’re co-hosting an event to see what we can learn from the United States about mobilising trade unionists to influence General Elections, and we’d like you to join us:

http://unionstogether.org.uk/US-elections-event

Last year, the TSSA trade union sent two Organisers to work alongside the US equivalent of the TUC (the AFL-CIO) in the state of Iowa.They found highly-organised trade unionists, campaigning among their membership, and working to a powerful electoral targeting strategy that made use of the latest online campaigning.  

Their work was part of a huge national effort by the labour movement to deliver President Obama's return to the White House.

Here in the UK, we have two years until polling day. If we want to beat the Tories and the Lib Dems, and make sure they don’t have another five years to trample on everything we hold dear, then we need to start getting organised now.

Register here to join us at the TSSA on Monday 15^th April at 7pm:

http://unionstogether.org.uk/US-elections-event

Hope to see you there!

Byron

This weekend, we’ve seen the Government hit some of the country’s most vulnerable families with the Bedroom Tax. Cuts for legal aid have kicked in, making it harder for poor people to get justice. And on Saturday, the Government’s tax cut for millionaires begins – with 13,000 millionaires getting a £100,000 tax cut.

But that’s not enough for this Government. This morning, we’ve found out that they’re coming after the Minimum Wage too. They have ordered the Low Pay Commission to consider freezing, or even cutting, the National Minimum Wage, if the economy doesn’t pick up.

Workers earning the lowest legal wage could be paying the price for this Government’s failed economic policies.

Today, we’ve launched an urgent petition calling on the Government to drop this plan, and promise to protect the minimum wage. Add your name now:

http://www.unionstogether.org.uk/protecttheminimumwage

Today’s Telegraph has revealed that the Government are changing the terms of reference for the Low Pay Commission, so they have to formally consider the minimum wage’s  impact on “employment and the economy” when deciding what level it should be set at each year.

This Government’s austerity measures are damaging the economy, and are stifling jobs and growth. And now it could be people being paid the lowest possible legal wage who pay the price, by having their pay frozen, or even cut, while prices continue to rise. They’ve already done this for young workers aged 18-20, whose minimum wage was frozen last year.

Back when David Cameron was Leader of the Opposition, there were rumours that a Tory Government would quietly do away with the minimum wage. In 2008, a senior Tory source said:

"The minimum wage won't be scrapped but it will be allowed to wither on the vine. A series of smaller, more affordable increases will mean it will just melt away."

Today, that’s one step closer to coming true.

Sign our petition now, and let’s show how many of us back the minimum wage:

http://www.unionstogether.org.uk/protecttheminimumwage

It was a wishlist of ways to undermine our rights at work, written by Tory donor Adrian Beecroft, at David Cameron’s request.

The Government definitely remember the Beecroft Report, and they’re working their way through much of it, bit by bit.

This afternoon, at 4.30pm, they’re moving on to Beecroft’s plan to reduce redundancy rights. Hidden away in a Committee Room in the House of Commons, a handful of MPs will be debating the Coalition’s plan to halve the time employers have to consult for when making big groups of staff redundant.

At the moment, if an employer is making 100 or more people redundant in one go, they have to consult on those redundancies for at least 90 days before people can actually be made redundant. During this time, they have to consult with trade union reps, provide reasons for the redundancies, and look at whether the job losses can be avoided.

The government are cutting that consultation time in half, to just 45 days.

Often, the 90 day consultation period leads to jobs being saved – as unions and employees have the time to make sure that every single avenue is explored to find ways to save jobs. 

Will you help us shine a light on this latest attack on our rights at work? The Coalition are hiding the debate away in a Committee Room, but we want to use social media to help spread the word.

Ian Murray MP, Labour's Shadow Minister for Employment Rights, says:

“As has been the case for all the Tory-led government’s proposals on employment rights, they are failing to produce evidence that would merit any change. The Lib Dems are just as culpable. Vince Cable poses as a supporter of employee rights but is leading a sustained attack against rights at work, voting for the introduction of George Osborne’s discredited ‘shares for rights’ scheme and now slashing employee protections in redundancy situations.

“Collective redundancies are, or course, one of the most dramatic forms of job loss. That is why the current legislation on collective redundancy is so vital; it allows for particular care to the process of achieving business restructuring, ensuring that employees are involved as much as possible in the decision-making and if job losses are necessary then all employees and their representatives are closely involved.

“I would urge those opposed to this proposals to join in unionstogether's campaign against the tidal wave which is washing away people’s rights at work.”

Why not nip over to our facebook page, and share our Beecroft is Back campaign graphic. Together we can make sure our friends and contacts find out what the Government are up to now.

Are you on twitter? If so, help us spread the word by tweeting now! You can use our easy-tweet buttons to tweet about the campaign, and also to tweet at MPs on the Committee to ask them to vote NO to attacking redundancy rights today.

Tweet to spread the word.

Click to tweet about what the Government are doing today.

Tweet at Committee Member Gordon Birtwistle MP.

Gordon Birtwistle is Lib Dem MP for Burnley. Send him a tweet to ask him to vote no today.

Tweet at Committee Member Angie Bray MP.

Angie Bray is Conservative MP for Ealing Central and Acton. Send her a tweet to ask her to vote no today.

Tweet at Committee Member Alun Cairns MP.

Alun Cairns is Conservative MP for Vale of Glamorgan. Send him a tweet to ask him to vote no today.

Tweet at Committee Member Tracey Crouch MP.

Tracey Crouch is Conservative MP for Chatham and Aylesford. Send her a tweet to ask her to vote no today.

Tweet at Committee Member Andrew Percy MP.

Andrew Percy is Conservative MP for Brigg and Goole. Send him a tweet to ask him to vote no today.

Tweet at Committee Member Simon Reevell MP.

Simon Reevell is Conservative MP for Dewsbury. Send him a tweet to ask him to vote no today.

Tweet at Committee Member Jo Swinson MP.

Jo Swinson is Lib Dem MP for East Dunbartonshire. Send her a tweet to ask her to vote no today.

Tweet at Committee Member Paul Uppal MP.

Paul Uppal is Conservative MP for Wolverhampton South West. Send him a tweet to ask him to vote no today.

It’s not often we invite you to an event, but this one is rather special.

In a couple of weeks a new campaign is being launched, one that asks the Government to stand up and meet its international obligations. It’s the Campaign for Trade Union Freedom.

We often forget the important role trade unions play in our economy - by negotiating with employers they spread the proceeds of economic growth to employees and their families. It was one of the main reasons Britain was a more equal society during the post war period. The current legal restrictions on trade unions prevent them from carrying out this function, which is why wages have declined over the last 30 years.

Similarly, trade unions are an important form of employment protection. They work with good businesses to make them better, and bring their members together to put pressure on bad employers and make them change their ways.

Unfortunately trade unions have been subject to heavy legal restrictions since the 1980s… and too many employers are now able to get away with treating employees badly.

The Campaign for Trade Union Freedom wants to change this. It wants unions to be able to play their role in building the society we all want to see - a fairer and more equitable society, where no employer can rule by fear and insecurity.

The Launch Rally is on Saturday 23 March. It's from 1.30pm to 4.30pm, at Friends Meeting House at 173 Euston Road in London.

Whether you are a union member, a Party member, someone who supports a fairer society or even just someone who wants to find out more about trade unions, why don’t you come along?

I’ll be there, and I hope you will be too.

Byron
@byrontaylor74

The event was chaired by Katy Clark MP.

Over 50 people attended the meeting, in order to hear from the speakers, and also to contribute to the discussion and feed in to the Labour Party’s policy process.

We started off hearing from three speakers, Carlos Saavedra from the United we Dream organisation, Khadija Najlaou from Justice 4 Domestic Workers (a self-organised group of migrant domestic workers, which is also unionised through Unite the Union) and Piotr Plonka, Branch Secretary for GMB Migrant Workers Branch in Yorkshire Region.

Although all three speakers had different backgrounds and experiences, there was a remarkable amount of crossover in everything that they said. They all talked movingly about their experiences, and the exploitation and ill-treatment they had all experienced or witnessed. And they all identified the fact that whilst strengthening rights and increasing enforcement of those rights is essential, it is by collectively organising that people are really able to change the balance of power in society or the workplace, and raise standards for everybody.

Carlos Saavedra from the United we Dream organisation opened the discussion, giving a passionate account of the campaign he lead which has won new rights for undocumented students, and has helped change the terms of the debate about immigration in the USA.

He raised the importance of getting organised to campaign for change, and described how they had trained thousands of activists in campaigning and lobbying skills. 

He summed up the importance of collective action when he finished by saying “we never knew that a group of undocumented immigrants could get together and change the immigration law of the US”.

Khadija Najlaou spoke next, with a moving description of the exploitation, abuse and ill-treatment she has experienced as a migrant domestic worker in the UK. She raised the long hours that most domestic workers work and the low pay they receive (overseas domestic workers in private households are not covered by working time regulations, and if they are treated ‘as a member of the family’ then neither are they entitled to the National Minimum Wage).

She went on to talk in detail about the fact that the Coalition Government’s changes to the visa system have substantially rolled back rights for domestic workers, and re-introduced modern-day slavery. She explained that it was only because a friend had told her she had the right to change employer that she was able to leave her first abusive employer. Under the Coalition’s new visa scheme, domestic workers are unable to change employers, no matter how abusive or exploitative they might be. (Prior to 1997, migrant domestic workers’ visas were tied to one employer. This meant that if they were exploited or abused, they were unable to change employer. Their only way to escape an abusive employer was to return home, or to go undocumented and enter the black economy. In 1998, Labour introduced the Domestic Workers Visa, which allowed migrant domestic workers to change employer, ending this modern-day slavery.)

Last year, the Coalition radically changed the terms of the visa – anyone who comes to the UK as a domestic worker after 6 April 2012 will be unable to change employer – once again, domestic workers are tied to one employer, no matter how abusive or exploitative they are.

Khadija called on the Labour Party to promise to bring back this basic, fundamental right, and pledge to re-introduce the visa rules they originally brought in in 1998.

She then raised the issue of ILO Convention 189: ‘Decent work for Domestic Workers’ (http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_protect/---protrav/---travail/documents/publication/wcms_161104.pdf - this Convention was passed in 2011, and the UK was one of only 8 countries who abstained, including Sudan, Malaysia, El Salvador, Panama, Singapore, the Czech Republic and Thailand. The Convention covers the most basic rights for domestic workers, including ending abuse and violence, an end to child labour and forced labour, the right to a minimum wage, the right to one day off a week). She called on Labour to promise to ratify the Convention and to include it in UK law.

Piotra Plonka has been active in the GMB for the last 6 years helping to organise migrant workers. He gave an account of his extensive experience in this area, both as a migrant worker and as a union organiser. 

Whilst members in organised workplaces go into existing branches, some three years ago they decided there was a need for a specific branch to link migrant workers scattered across unorganised employers. The new branch now has over three hundred members and has also set up a women’s forum.

He listed the many issues members were trying to deal with, such as a failure to meet basic Health and Safety requirements to provide protective equipment, a lack of maternity rights, and even being denied access to toilet facilities. He explained that his members experienced widespread insecurity and outlined the prevalence of zero-hours contracts, and he said there is often a complete mismatch between the promises on pay and conditions given by recruiters in countries like Poland and the reality faced by workers on arrival in the UK.

He set out a series of proposals that an incoming Labour government could implement that would improve conditions for migrant workers:

• Making English language training free for all, and support training on British culture and history including education on the political situation and TU rights

• Support for union learning reps and equality reps to help educate workers on their rights, but also to ensure that employers couldn’t divide workers according to ethnic and national background

• Revision of the agency worker regulations, as in their current incarnation they have so many loopholes that they have made little real difference to many workers.

• An end to the abuse of zero hours contracts.

Policy discussion

After the speakers finished, we spent about an hour listening to the views of members of the audience on the issues in the Party’s policy paper.

I won’t give a full summary of the discussion here, but you can read it here.

There was a strong sense during the discussion that Labour must act to protect working people, and that means not only strengthening rights and enforcement, but also strengthening collective rights - by supporting unions to represent their members and win a better deal across the board, we can reverse the ‘race to the bottom’ for workers throughout the economy.

The importance of collective rights was demonstrated in one example from the floor: there are many employers who pay the living wage and are able to call themselves a ‘living wage employer’, but don’t recognise trade unions - some have coupled their slight-raising of pay to living wage levels with cutting back on holidays and other terms and conditions, and having lower than expected pay rises for those just above the living wage. If those employees had a recognised trade union, and were able to bargain together with their employer, they could have stood together won a better deal on pay and conditions, and stopped some workers’ pay being traded off against others.

We also discussed the importance of Labour delivering an economy and a labour market that increases standards for everyone. One contributor said:

“as soon as horsemeat is introduced into the supply chain, everyone is up in arms – but when there is slave labour and poverty pay in the supply chain, there is no outcry”.

Specific policy suggestions

Our discussion also came up with a lot of concrete policy demands for Labour.

How should we ensure fair treatment and protection of agency workers?

• Toughen up the Agency Workers Regulations, and close loopholes, including scrapping the twelve-week qualifying period as it leads to people being moved from job to job every 12 weeks without ever accruing employment rights.

What further action should be taken to prevent workers from exploitation and discrimination?

• Take steps to end modern-day slavery by reversing the Coalition’s changes to the Domestic Workers Visa, allowing domestic workers the right to change employer, and extend all rights to domestic workers in diplomatic households.

• Ratify ILO Convention 189 ‘Decent work for domestic workers’, and make any legislative changes needed to enshrine its provisions in UK law.

• Act to stop the exploitation of domestic workers, including reviewing their exemption from working time regulations and ending exemptions from the National Minimum Wage and health and safety regulations.

• Action on ‘zero hours’ contracts, to stop them being used to exploit working people. Working people are entitled to regular hours and protection from unfair dismissal; too often ‘zero hours’ contracts are used to avoid employment law.

• Ensure migrant workers have access to English language training and information about statutory employment protections.

What should a Labour Government do to ensure work pays?

• The more workplaces that have recognised trade unions, the more working people can collectively bargain for better pay and terms and conditions. Labour should introduce specific measures to remove the barriers to trade unions in organising and recruiting members, including a new right of access to non-unionised workplaces to educate working people about their right to join a union and conduct inspections of minimum standards.

• New statutory protections for trade union representatives to ensure that they are respected, resourced and able to negotiate effectively for their members without fear of the consequences.

• Regulate to require companies to publish pay audits across their operations.

How should we incentivise or reward living wage employers and how might a Labour Government use public procurement to promote the living wage?

• Ensure that public bodies (local authorities, etc) who pay the living wage are compensated through the block grant, so that local services are not traded off against pay.

• Make the case that one way to bring the benefits bill down is for employers to pay fair wages that do not need to be subsidised by benefits to make them enough to live on.

• A One Nation approach to the economy means fostering genuine Corporate-Social Responsibility and accountability from all employers, through culture-change, procurement and also through legislation. Stronger rules are needed to make sure business can’t hide behind various forms of ‘disguised’ employment relationships and extended supply chains.

• Labour should legislate to ensure that all employers have to pay a fair wage.

What else should Labour do to foster strong employment rights and job creation?

• Significantly strengthen enforcement of existing rights. Examine how trade unions could be involved in enforcement and inspection of rights, including health and safety and National Minimum Wage.

• Labour should recognise the importance of trade unions in fostering good industrial relations, and in reversing the downwards spiral of pay and conditions.

• Legislate to increase unions’ ability to organise, recruit and win better pay and conditions for more people.

Migrant Workers in One Nation Britain. How do we end the race to the bottom?

In the race to the bottom, it is often migrant workers in the UK who suffer injustice.

What should be the One Nation approach to organising these workers to stop exploitation and for their inclusion in society?

Migrant workers in Britain share their experiences, and Carlos Saavedra offers some answers from the Dream Activists in the United States.

The One Nation Series: Migrant Workers in One Nation Britain

Tuesday 12 February, 4.30pm-6pm, Committee Room 6, House of Commons

Speakers include:

Carlos Saavedra (National Field Co-ordinator of United we Dream)

Khadija Najlaoui (Justice for Domestic Workers / Unite) 

Piotr Plonka (GMB Migrant Workers Branch)

Chaired by Katy Clark MP

Please RSVP if you are planning to attend: office@hopenothate.org.uk.

Last year, thanks to you, unionstogether’s campaigning went from strength to strength.

Together, we have sent thousands of emails to our Members of Parliament asking them to vote against the Government’s attacks on our rights at work. We’ve run local campaigns against regional pay, saying ‘pay us for our work, not for where we live’. And just before Christmas, we delivered a 12,000-strong letter right to the door of Number 10, telling David Cameron that our rights at work are not for sale.

All of this was because of you.

We don’t know what 2013 will hold, but we can guess that this Tory government will continue on their mission to tear up our rights at work piece by piece. Will you help us step up our campaign?

http://www.unionstogether.org.uk/unionstogetherneedsyou

We want to know how you can help us fight for what we all hold dear in 2013. Whether it’s getting the message out online, talking to people in your community or workplace or delivering leaflets in your street, we want to know how you can help.

We have two years until the General Election, when we will have the chance to vote Cameron, Osborne and Clegg out of Downing Street. 2013 is going to be crucial in getting ready for that election, and it’s campaigners like you who are going to make the difference.

Please click here to tell us how you can help campaign this year. It will only take two minutes, but it will make a huge difference to how we can grow unionstogether.

http://www.unionstogether.org.uk/unionstogetherneedsyou

Together we are stronger: it is only with your help that we can campaign to win for working people and their families.

It really was that stark. Having asked the question “What impact do you think the proposal will have on labour market flexibility – that is, in relation to hiring and letting people go”, there must be some flushed faces in Number 10...the vast majority of business responses thought the effect of this change would be negligible or have a negative impact. Even the official Government response had to admit “The removal of rights, some respondents commented, would limit employers’ ability to find high quality, qualified staff.”

Even more impressively, when asked “Would you be likely to take up the new status? What would the impact of the status be on your business?” then response was near unanimous. Out of 184 responses, just three suggested they would take up the scheme. The silence must have been deafening, except for the three who had just read 50 Shades and decided they liked inflicting pain.

It must have seemed so sensible in the chummy Tory old boys circles. What do we need to help business? Allow them to hire and fire at will! Unfortunately it seems that nobody bothered to talk to any businesses before coming up with such a daft proposal, which is now limping through the parliamentary process as unloved as George Osborne himself.

Next year, can’t we have something we want for Christmas?

The Government have already altered the qualifying period for unfair dismissal from 1 to 2 years and with the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, which has now concluded its passage through the House of Commons, introduces changes which will make it easier for rogue employers to exploit people in work. All of these changes combined can be described as an ideological attack on employee rights that delivers by the back door the measures in the widely-criticised Beecroft Report which they claim not to be taking forward. These changes, brought forward without a shred of evidence, have the potential to spawn a new industry of litigation. We opposed these measures not just because they were bad for workers but because they are bad for business too.

The Government claims to want to “remove the perceived barriers around the fear of being taken to an employment tribunal” but rather than deal with these ‘perceptions’ they have decided to fundamentally change the law. Following the Enterprise Bill, they’ve now come forward with another proposal – “employee owners” - which will do nothing of the sort. It is yet another example of how out of touch this Tory led government has become.

The Chancellor proclaimed in his conference speech in October that the proposal represented “owners, workers and the taxman all in it together”. In reality, however, this measure is divisive, goes against the spirit of One Nation and risks creating a two-tier labour market.

This proposal hasn’t been thought through at all. For example, why have the Government introduced legislation prior to the completion of the consultation? This screams of ‘policy on the hoof’ and a government totally lacking in a narrative for growth and concrete policies to get our economy moving again.

Looking at the proposal, the ambiguities are numerous. It is not at all clear whether this new type of employment will be genuinely voluntary. We know that employers will be able to offer ‘employee-owner’ status to new recruits; however, it is far from clear how voluntary the scheme will be in reality, and whether employees or prospective employees will be offered a real choice. At a time when jobs are scarce, people will be under undue pressure to take up a position where they might not be able to fully appreciate the rights which they will be giving up. In truth, few men or women with family responsibilities would want such a contract.

I agree with the prominent employment law blogger who said, “any Government which chooses to introduce a brand new employment status based on share ownership loses all right to complain that employment law is becoming too complicated and legalistic. Even if most employers end up ignoring employee-ownership because it is just too tricky or costly, it will still mean an extra chapter in every employment law textbook.”

I’m a great believer in employee ownership. When it is genuine, it can unlock productivity; help manage change as a workforce can feel assured that it will not be carried out solely at their expense and significantly can lead to less of a differential between the high and the low paid in a business. However, through the Chancellor’s latest wheeze, coupling employee-ownership with a slashing of employment rights, is contradictory and indeed counterproductive. I will work closely with the Trade Union movement to continue to oppose these measures that transport the relationship between employees and employers back to Victorian times.

This is a dishonest attempt to dress up the proposal as a measure that will increase employee involvement and it is one that the yellow half of the Coalition should reject outright, but somehow yet again on the issue of employment rights, I foresee the backbone of the Lib Dems giving way to more of Adrian Beecroft’s proposals by the back door.

Ian Murray MP is Labour's Shadow Minister for Employment Relations, Consumer and Postal Affairs

Labour MPs have been fighting this Bill in the House of Commons, like we’ve been fighting this government’s attacks on working people’s employment rights in other legislation.  Rights are not something that can be traded for cash. We need an equal One Nation Britain where employees are valued and respected in all workplaces.

In this time of economic hardship and high unemployment, it beggars belief that the government keep coming up with new ideas for making it easier to sack people – when they don’t have a plan at all for how to grow the economy and create jobs. We want the Government to make it easier to hire not fire employees.

Will you add your name to our letter to Cameron and Osborne, saying ‘our rights at work are not for sale’?

http://www.unionstogether.org.uk/notforsale

Together, we can send the government a message that we won’t stand for this attack on our rights.

Ian Murray MP
Labour’s Shadow Minister for Employment Rights

In his speech to the Tory conference George Osborne took everyone by surprise by announcing that the government would be changing employment law by allowing employers to remove key employment rights from employees by offering them new contracts which gave them ‘employer owner’ status. Such employees will be given shares in the company they work for in return for surrendering rights to claim unfair dismissal and statutory redundancy payments. The government then embarked on an extremely short consultation which ended on November 8 and the full details of what will be in the legislation is not yet completely clear.

For example, will it be at the absolute discretion of employers as to whether to use these contracts, or will employees have a choice to accept or reject them? Where employees are shareholders will this entitle them to attend shareholders’ meetings and receive dividends in the ordinary way? If an employee leaves can he or she be required to sell the shares back to the company? It will be unlikely, because of the requirements of European law, that ‘employee owners’ will lose all unfair dismissal rights. For example, it will remain automatically unfair to dismiss an employee because she or he joins a trade union or participates in its activities, or a woman is dismissed because she is pregnant or exercising her right to maternity leave.

However, whatever the finer details turn out to be the principle is clear. As part of its general attack on employment rights the Government is enabling employers to induce or pressurise employees to surrender their rights in return for shares. This is the biggest attack on statutory employment rights since the days of the Thatcher/Major Governments when employers were able to use fixed-term contracts containing so-called waiver clauses under which employees ‘agreed’ they could not claim unfair dismissal or redundancy payments in the event of the contract not being renewed.

It is the case that employment rights are not as effective as they could be, and this is even more the case as a result of other changes that the government has made or is proposing to make. Even before the ConDem government took power many agency and casual workers did not have unfair dismissal and redundancy rights. Dismissals are fair if they are deemed reasonable by employment tribunals, and the test for reasonableness is what an employer, rather than you or I, would consider reasonable. Employees who successfully claim unfair dismissal rarely get back their jobs, and average compensatory awards are pretty meagre at less than £5000. (A full-time worker on the national minimum wage will typically be earning between £12,000 to £13,000 a year before tax etc.)

It was and is the case that where a worker is dismissed or faced with redundancy the most effective way of defending that worker is through industrial action. However, in practice, this has often become an abstract position as many private sector workplaces are not unionised, and even in unionised workplaces the anti-strike laws make immediate strike action impossible. Indeed, it often takes unions several months to complete all the complex procedures that are required if industrial action is to be safe from court injunctions.

Employment rights are therefore vital as a means of obtaining some degree of workplace justice and job security. The government has already weakened these rights by increasing the qualifying period from one year to two years for bringing an ordinary claim of unfair dismissal. This gives employers two years to choose to sack an employee for any or no reason by simply giving that employee contractual notice which may be for no more than one week. The government is also proposing further to devalue unfair dismissal rights by reducing the statutory cap on the maximum amount of the compensation that a successful claimant receives. This could be restricted to one year’s pay with a maximum of just over £25,000 (the current maximum is £72,300). For the first time ever, fees are being introduced which employees must pay in order to be able to proceed with a tribunal claim. Taking an unfair dismissal claim to a full tribunal hearing is likely to cost a claimant around £1,200.

Nevertheless, however weakened employment rights become they remain worth keeping in preference to having shares in a company which do not even attract normal shareholder rights. If the final legislative proposals enable employers to impose ‘employee owner’ contracts on new employees the proposals must be actively resisted. They should still be opposed even if employees are able to refuse such contracts as refusal is likely to be possible only in theory rather than in practice. Certainly, where employees are given a genuine choice no employee should voluntarily surrender his or her employment rights.

Dr Roger Welch, Employment Law Researcher, UCU member at the University of Portsmouth

The rights on ‘offer’ would include the right not to be unfairly dismissed, to request flexible working time and will affect maternity rights.

The price tag on these rights would be between the value of £2000 - £50,000. With no guarantee that when the shares are cashed in they would have any value at all.

The Labour Party voted against this bill on Monday. You can read the debate here.

Hilary Benn defended the Labour position by highlighting that this bill is an ill-thought out attempt to destroy the rights of workers:

‘If someone wants to take a job but finds that it is offered only on the basis that they give up their employment rights, that is not a choice. If that is all an employer offers to someone who is unemployed and wants to do the right thing and contribute to the economy, that is no choice whatsoever. As for shares, what if the company is not listed on the stock exchange? Who will assess the value of those shares—they could be worthless? Who will buy them? Will they carry voting rights? The Secretary of State said nothing about any those points this afternoon, and the House must ask why holding shares should mean that someone loses the right to protection against unfair dismissal.’

Unions together began a letter to David Cameron and George Osborne last week to let them know how outrageous we thought this bill was. Below we have listed some of the comments that were written on the letter that is signed by over 6,000 people.

If you haven’t had a chance to sign this letter yet then please click here to join the campaign to protect our rights at work.

Joshua : Basic workplace rights should be for everyone. As soon as you start trading them away, there'll be a race to the bottom, as there has been with final salary pension schemes.

Sean: All workers in Britain should refrain from selling hard fought for rights at work. We owe it to ourselves, those who bravely fought for them previously and for future generations of workers.

Rob: The rights of working people don't belong to individuals, they belong to all workers collectively.

Patience: As a mother with 3 children to take care of and a mortgage to pay, I need assurance that my job is secured and that I will not be dismissed unfairly.

Abigail: This proposal speaks of nothing quite so clearly as this Government's contempt for the working people of this country.

Jason: This is just a trap that will target those worse off in need of some monetary relief. What they may not realise is exactly what they will be giving up until they need to use the rights that they will have sold.

Barbara: This is a race to the bottom, an attempt to turn the clock back to the days when the 'master' could hire and fire at will.

John: "rights" are exactly what they say...they are our RIGHT, so how can they be for sale??

But soon the Government are putting forward one of the most offensive, made-up-on-the-back-of-an-envelope attacks on our rights at work that you can imagine. Today is the Second Reading of the Growth and Infrastructure Bill - a Bill that will literally put our rights at work up for sale.

Their plan, which has been called ‘shares for rights’, will allow businesses to offer employees tax-free shares in exchange for them giving up their rights.

We need you to sign our letter to David Cameron and George Osborne, and tell them that our rights at work are not for sale by clicking here.

Osborne and Cameron don’t have a plan for creating jobs and growing the economy. That’s why they keep coming up with ever more extreme ways of attacking employee protections.

The ‘shares for rights’ plan will allow small and medium-sized businesses to ask new employees to give up some of their key rights at work, in exchange for shares in the business. For as little as £2000 in shares, employees may have to give up the right not to be sacked unfairly, redundancy rights, as well as flexible working and maternity rights.

This plan is not only offensive, it’s also absurdly complicated. It will actually create more red tape for employers rather than reduce it.

The Government should be concentrating on fixing our economy, and getting people back into work, not on inventing hare-brained schemes to make it easier to fire people.

That’s why we’re going to send Cameron and Osborne a massive letter, from thousands of us, telling them that our rights at work are not for sale.

You can help stop this bill by clicking here to add your name to the letter.

Felicity

Just yesterday, new Tory Business Minister Michael Fallon went on the Today programme and pledged the government would be “going further” to remove the protections working people rely on.

He made clear that this week they will announce new proposals to “deregulate further” in this area: it is quite possible we will see a proposal along the lines of Tory Donor Adrian Beecroft’s call to make it much easier to fire people.

That is on top of the radical changes this Government is already making to our rights at work.

In a few weeks time, the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill will come back to the House of Commons. That Bill has been described as ‘Beecroft by the back door’.

Will you email your MP now and ask them to vote against the Enterprise Bill when it comes back to Parliament?

http://www.unionstogether.org.uk/under-attack

The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill waters down many of our rights at work.

It throws up barriers that make it harder for people to access justice if they have been treated unfairly at work, lowers the amount of compensation working people can receive, and introduces “settlement agreements” – making it easier for employers to offer employees money to leave. If employees reject a settlement agreement, they won’t be able to use the discussion about it as evidence in an employment tribunal.

The product of these complex clauses in the Bill, combined with the fact the Government are also going to start charging fees for employment tribunals, has been termed ‘Beecroft Lite’. Many people will agree to a poorly-compensated ‘settlement agreement’, as for many accessing justice will seem too complicated and expensive.

When Beecroft appeared as a witness to the Bill Committee, Tory MP Julian Smith let the cat out of the bag, saying that settlement agreements “are a good halfway house regarding some of the proposals you made”.

We don’t know what the new Business Minister is going to come out with later this week, but we do already know that the Enterprise Bill is going to radically reduce our rights at work, and reduce job security even further.

Email your MP now and tell them that they need to vote ‘no’ to the Enterprise Bill when it comes back to the Commons in a few weeks.

http://www.unionstogether.org.uk/under-attack

Our rights at work are deliberately being hacked away at bit by bit, led by Ministers across lots of Departments. It’s intentionally complicated, making it hard to see what the combined attacks will mean for our rights. But our response is not complicated – it is simple: working people will not stand for these attacks on our rights at work.

Join our campaign now.

Helen

This Tory-led Government want to change the rules, so that nurses, care workers, teachers and all the others who work for the good of society will be paid differently depending on where they live - even though they’re doing exactly the same job.

If the Government gets its way, public sector workers in some parts of the country could see their pay frozen, or even cut. Those hardest hit would be the people working in the regions of our country worst affected by the recession.

Will you email your MP now and ask them to vote to say no to regional pay this afternoon?

http://www.unionstogether.org.uk/fairpay

The Tories’ proposal will make regional inequalities even worse than they already are. Public services in the most deprived parts of the country will be hit hardest, struggling to attract skilled workers because they can't match the wages offered in wealthier regions.

The Government even has the cheek to claim that regional pay will help us out of the recession - when the reality is that they are making public sector workers suffer a long and painful pay freeze. If we force our public sector workers to work for less money, they will have cut back even further on household spending. How can we expect local businesses to grow if their customers aren’t spending?

If the Government do press ahead with regional pay, it could even end up costing taxpayers more. Schools, hospitals and other public bodies will have to spend time and money setting up complex and bureaucratic processes for setting pay.

Today, Labour have called a debate to ask the Government to back down on regional pay before it’s too late. Will you email your MP now?

http://www.unionstogether.org.uk/fairpay

Our public servants - the people who educate our children, care for us when we are ill and who look after our elderly relatives - have already had their pay frozen for two years, despite the cost of living going up. They are already being asked to accept big changes to their pensions.

We owe it to them to stand up for fair, decent pay for the work they do for us all - wherever they live in the UK!

Byron

Yet again, I switched on the radio this morning to hear about another attack on our rights at work. I think this is the third in as many days…

This morning, it was the turn of the Free Enterprise Group – a collection of 40 backbench Tory MPs who have decided the Greek crisis is a good opportunity to have another pop at the rights that millions of ordinary people rely on. Have a look and see if your MP is a supporter.

They want to see the Government pull together a crisis plan to roll out in the event of “Eurogeddon” (presumably by this they mean “if Greece leaves the Euro”). Benefits will be frozen and workplace rights will be abolished for anyone working for a small business. The BBC are also reporting they want to see what sounds like a new category of employment - the Low-paid flexi-job, which would be “exempt from tax and many employment regulations.” Is it possible one of those employment regulations they’re exempt from would be the minimum wage?

Last week, we saw the Queen’s Speech outlining that the “Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill” would make changes to employment tribunals that will surely make it harder for working people to get justice in the event they are treated unfairly at work. Many people will have to pay fees of hundreds of pounds to get access to justice. This is on top of the Government’s recent changes which mean working people have no protection from being unfairly sacked until they’ve been with an employer for two whole years.

Two years of no job security every time you start a new job – how is that going to get people spending and growing the economy? It’s not. These changes will harm the economy, not help it.

And then on Monday Labour forced the Government to finally release the Beecroft Report, after months of delays. The published report was explosive enough, with its call for hire and fire at will. But it’s what was missing from the report that really tells a tale (a draft was leaked in full to the Telegraph at the weekend).

Adrian Beecroft, Tory Donor, Venture Capitalist, made his intentions crystal clear:

“the downside of the proposal is that some people would be dismissed simply because their employer doesn’t like them. While that is sad I believe it is a price worth paying…..”

It’s no surprise those words had disappeared by the time it was published – alongside the chapter on liberalising the laws on child labour!

Beecroft offers not a shred of evidence in his report. In fact, the words “research”, “evidence”, “study” or “statistics” do not appear a single time.

The Government’s own figures give the lie to the myth that employers are desperately calling for these changes. In a survey of Small Businesses conducted by the Government last year, 45% said that the state of the economy was their biggest barrier to growth. 12% said the barrier was access to credit. 10% cited taxation, 8% cashflow and another 8% competition. Just 6% of businesses said that the biggest obstacle was regulation. 

This attack isn’t going to go away. We need to work hard to make people understand that the rights they rely on are at risk – before it’s too late.

We’re starting by asking people to tell their MP to say a resounding NO to the Beecroft Report, but this can only be a first step. If you have ideas for how we can build this campaign from here, please post them below – we have to be ready for what really is the biggest attack on our rights at work for a generation.

Last year, David Cameron asked a venture capitalist called Adrian Beecroft, who has donated more than £500,000 to the Conservative Party, to write a report outlining his suggested changes to our rights at work.

After months of delay,  Labour MPs forced the Government to finally publish his report on Monday night. That report fulfilled all our worst fears – if Beecroft gets his way, nobody will be safe in their job, as employers will be able to fire at will.

This is an attack on every single one of us. Will you email your MP now?

http://www.unionstogether.org.uk/underattack

Mr Beecroft made his intentions crystal clear in the draft of the report that was leaked at the weekend. He wrote:

“the downside of the proposal is that some people would be dismissed simply because their employer doesn’t like them. While that is sad I believe it is a price worth paying…..”

Unsurprisingly, these words didn’t make it into the published version of the report!

But the proposal to take away job security from every single working person in Britain by introducing “no fault dismissal” is only the beginning. Without offering a shred of evidence, the Beecroft Report claims that ripping up rights at work across the board will create jobs and help end the recession.

There is a real risk that the Government will action Beecroft’s plans to scrap our rights. Their austerity programme is making the economy worse, not better, and has pushed us into a double dip recession.

Up until now, Vince Cable’s Business Department has led the way on watering down rights at work, claiming that doing so will create growth - his department is still consulting on whether or not to implement no fault dismissal. There is a real risk that substantial parts of the Beecroft report could become law.

Email your MP now to ask them to oppose this attack on our rights at work.

http://www.unionstogether.org.uk/underattack

Ordinary people did not cause this recession – we should not be paying the price by having our rights at work ripped up.

But instead, in today’s Queen’s Speech, the Tories and Lib Dems have put forward a collection of policies to make it easier for employers to sack people.

Will you sign our letter to David Cameron and Vince Cable telling them they’ve got it wrong?

http://www.unionstogether.org.uk/hiringnotfiring

Yesterday, Cameron said he was listening. But today’s announcement shows he’s not listening to the concerns of ordinary people.

They’ve already sneaked changes through a Parliamentary Committee which mean people have no legal protection against unfair dismissal until they’ve been with an employer for two whole years. That’s millions of people at risk of being put out of work out of the blue – they can be sacked on dodgy grounds with no redundancy pay, no compensation, nothing.

And now they’re announcing plans to make it even harder for employees to go to an Employment Tribunal if they think they’ve been treated unfairly at work – with threats of more hoops to jump through, higher fees to pay, and the removal of lay representatives on tribunal panels.

Making jobs less secure is not a path out of the recession. We need people in good, secure jobs, spending in the local economy - not more people on the dole, and millions more saving instead of spending, as they are worried about whether their job is safe.

Sign our letter to Cameron and Cable and let them know we need a plan to create jobs, not more ways to put people out of work.

http://www.unionstogether.org.uk/hiringnotfiring

Our rights at work matter – let’s take a stand together.

Byron

The Chancellor spoke for an hour.

But there was one phrase that did not pass his lips.

One claim he has abandoned.

We’re all in this together.

And it’s no wonder.

Because after today’s Budget:

Millions will be paying more so that millionaires can pay less.

A year ago the Chancellor said in his Budget speech:

“Now would not be the right time to remove [the 50p tax rate] when we are asking others in our society on much lower incomes to make sacrifices...”

Well that is exactly what he has done today.

Tax credits cut

Child Benefit taken away.

And fuel duty up

And what has he chosen to make a priority today?

For Britain’s millionaires, a massive income tax cut each and every year.

The fairness test for this Budget was whether the Chancellor used every penny he could to help middle income families that are squeezed.

He has failed that test.

Anyone who listened to the Chancellor will be asking the same question:

What planet are he and the Prime Minister living on?

Doesn’t he know:

1 million young people out of work.

50 businesses going bust every day

A cost of living crisis for families.

They promised change, but things have got worse not better.

What did he promise us in last year’s Budget?

He said he would, and I quote:

“put fuel in the tank of the British economy”.

He promised growth of 2.5% in 2012.

But today tells us it will be just 0.8%.

Growth down last year.

Growth down this year.

Growth down next year.

Every time he comes to the House he offers a different excuse but the reality is:

His plan has failed.

Last year he told us unemployment would peak in 2011 and what has he delivered?

We’re into 2012, and unemployment is rising month upon month upon month.

His plan has failed.

He promised us last year the deficit would be gone by the end of this parliament.

But he is borrowing £150 billion more than he said he would.

He has failed.

And in the face of failure, what does he offer?

Not a change in economic strategy.

Not a guarantee of jobs for the young unemployed.

Not targeting every penny he could at working families.

No.

The driving ambition of this Budget, and this Chancellor, is to deliver a tax cut for people earning over £150,000 a year.

There are 30 million taxpayers in this country.

This policy will do absolutely nothing for 29 million, 700,000 of them.

How can the priority for our country be an income tax cut for the richest 1%, at a time when the squeezed middle are facing rising petrol prices, higher energy bills, tax credits and child benefit being cut?

Instead, he could have reversed his cuts to tax credits

He could have done something for pensioners.

He could have done more to undo the damage from his reckless child benefit change.

But he claims he can’t afford it.

Let me tell him, every time in the future he tries to justify an unfair decision by saying times are tough, we’ll remind him:

He’s the man who chose to spend millions of pounds on those who need it least.

Wrong choices.

Wrong priorities.

Wrong values.

Out of touch.

Same old Tories.

And let’s come to his claims on stamp duty.

There are 300,000 people benefiting each and every year from his top rate tax cut.

But there are just 4,000 houses sold each year for more than £2 million.

So 99% of those who gain from his millionaires tax cut will be totally unaffected by his rise in stamp duty, and get a massive windfall from this Chancellor.

The Chancellor didn’t tell us what this meant in pounds and pence, so let me read out the figures just so there is no doubt.

There are 14,000 people earning over a million pounds in Britain.

The Chancellor’s decision today means that each of them will get a tax cut.

Not of a thousand pounds.

Not of five thousand pounds.

Not of ten thousand pounds.

No.

A pay rise of over £40,000.

Not just for this year.

But every year.

That is this Chancellor’s priority – giving 14,000 millionaires over £40,000 each.

And what happens to families who earn in one year half what the Chancellor has so casually given away to the richest in the last hour?

Families on £20,000 a year – the nurse, the lorry driver.

Even after the personal allowance change, they’re not going to be better off, they are going to be worse off.

Putting aside the VAT rise.

And all the other tax rises that have already happened.

From this April alone they will be a further £253 a year worse off.

All he is doing for ordinary families is giving with one hand and taking far more away with the other.

It’s a millionaires budget that squeezes the middle.

Wrong choices.

Wrong priorities.

Wrong values.

Out of touch.

Same old Tories.

Under his tax cut, a banker earning five million pounds will get an extra £240,000 a year.

Let’s call this what it really is:

The Government’s very own bankers bonus.

Presumably he wants us to believe that the £240,000 tax cut is necessary to make them work harder.

And it’s one rule for them, and another for everyone else.

On the very day his millionaires’ tax cut kicks in, this Chancellor will be telling a family working for sixteen hours on the minimum wage that if they don’t work more hours they will lose nearly £4,000 in tax credits.

It tells you everything you need to know about the values of this Chancellor and this Prime Minister.

The poor will only work harder by making them poorer.

And the rich will only work harder by making them richer.

Wrong choices.

Wrong priorities.

Wrong values.

Out of touch.

Same old Tories.

While everybody else is squeezed, what’s the Chancellor’s priority?

A massive tax cut for his Christmas card list.

And what about the hapless accomplice to all this, the Deputy Prime Minister.

Only the Liberal Democrats could be dumb enough to think that a George Osborne budget is a Robin Hood budget.

Calamity Clegg strikes again.

This is what he said just a few months ago about the 50p rate:

"I do not believe that the priority at a time like...[this]...is to give a tax cut to a tiny, tiny number of people who are much, much better off than anybody else."

The party that once followed Lloyd George is now reduced to following George Osborne.

The party that delivered the people’s budget of 1909 supporting the millionaire’s budget of 2012.

They should be ashamed.

For all the talk, all the briefing, the Deputy Prime Minister has done exactly what he’s done on every big issue, from tuition fees to the betrayal on the NHS.

Rolled over and said ‘yes Prime Minister’.

The truth is that for ordinary families, it’s hurting but it’s not working.

And we know why.

Because this Government has been cutting too far and too fast.

What did the Chancellor say in August last year about America’s more balanced deficit plan:

“Those who spent the whole of the past year telling us to follow the American example ... need to answer this simple question: why has the US economy grown more slowly than the UK economy....”

Mr Deputy Speaker, the numbers are in.

And the Chancellor is plain wrong.

The US economy grew at 1.7% last year, twice the rate of ours.

This Government have run out of excuses.

It’s their mistakes which are damaging our future.

It’s the failure of their plan.

Today we heard about more schemes for growth from the Chancellor.

But why should we believe it?

Because every scheme he has put forward so far has failed.

What was the big idea of his first Budget?

The national insurance holiday.

Not a word about it today.

And it’s no wonder.

He told us back then it would help 400,000 firms.

Now we know he’s missed his target by 97%.

This Chancellor’s plan has failed.

What about the centrepiece of last year’s budget?

The Budget for Growth.

This is my favourite.

The Business Growth Fund.

Six regional offices opened.

And how many businesses benefitting?

Six.

One for each office.

The Chancellor’s plan has failed.

We needed a plan for growth that will work.

We needed a guarantee on youth jobs.

We needed a British investment bank to help small businesses.

But on growth, on jobs, on how we pay our way in the world, this Chancellor has failed.

On the proposal on film tax relief, let me say this:

It is great to support the great British success stories like Downton Abbey.

A tale of a group of out of touch millionaires.

Who act like they’re born to rule.

But turn out to be no good at it.

Sound familiar Mr Deputy Speaker?

We all know it’s a costume drama.

They think it’s a fly on the wall documentary.

This Budget will be remembered for his failure on growth and jobs and the top rate tax cut.

This isn’t just a bad policy, or a misjudgement.

It destroys the claim the Prime Minister made about who he was and what he believed.

What did he personally say in his aims and values document, sent out to every Conservative Party member.

“The right test for our policies is how they help the most disadvantaged in society, not the rich”.

It was called Built to Last.

That was his test.

A test this Budget fails spectacularly.

It’s the death knell of his project.

His compassionate Conservatism.

He and the Chancellor have shown their true colours.

They promised change.

But they have failed on growth, on jobs, on borrowing, on fairness.

Unfair. Out of touch.

For the few, not the many.

An unfair Budget built on economic failure.

An unfair Budget from the same old Tories.

“Youth unemployment is at the highest rate since records began, with over a million young people unable to find work. So it is disappointing that the only response from this out of touch Government to the job crisis facing our young people is to impose a real terms cut to their wages.

“This is the first time that the development rate for young people will not rise. The Low Pay Commission's recommendation represents a vote of no-confidence in the Government’s handling of the economy and the prospects for recovery.

“If the Tory-led Government was serious about tackling youth unemployment they would back Labour’s Real Jobs Guarantee by repeating the bank bonus tax and using the money raised to help create 100,000 jobs for young people, which they would be required to take up. We have also called on the government to use public procurement to boost apprenticeship opportunities, but they have failed to do so.”

You can read the text of the debate here.

They have changed the rules, so that employees no longer have protection from being unfairly sacked until they’ve been in their job for two years. At the moment, those rights kick in when you’ve been in a job for a year.

The Government claims that this move will increase jobs, but there is simply no evidence to back this up. The Chief Economist at the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development was quoted by one of the MPs in the debate. He said:

“If you look at the evidence on unfair dismissal, I mean there isn’t actually anything to suggest that watering down those rights would create any more jobs and indeed the job insecurity it would create would actually be bad for the economy and businesses.”

At the moment there are 3 million people who have been in their job more than one year, but less than two. Thanks to this Government, they are no longer protected from being sacked unfairly. That’s an awful lot of people who are losing this important right.

But although it is 3 million people who are currently losing that right, in reality any of us who will ever start a new job are losing out too. Trends show that people are increasingly likely to change jobs regularly over the course of their careers – if protection only kicks in after 2 years, then many people will spend a high proportion of their lives without the job security that is so important. Important to them, but also to the economy.

As Citizens Advice have said:

“Doubling the qualifying time for legal protection against unfair dismissal to two years will make the jobs of three million workers even more insecure than they are already. It’s nothing short of a charter for rogue employers.”

At the Committee yesterday, Labour MPs argued strongly against this right being taken away. Many Labour MPs came along to speak, even though they don’t have a vote on the Committee, because they wanted to have their say. But the Lib Dems and the Conservatives have an inbuilt majority, and the rule change was passed.

Before it becomes law, this measure has to be approved by the House of Commons, but there won’t be a debate, and given the Tory and Lib Dem majority in Parliament it’ll be almost impossible to stop.

This just goes to show the real agenda of this Government – Tories and Lib Dems alike. They’re actually using unemployment, caused by their failed economic gamble, as an excuse to attack the rights at work that ordinary people rely on. 3 million people are losing their job security right now – and no doubt that’s just the beginning of what this Government has in store.

The rights we take for granted, that we rely on, are in danger – it’s up to us to build a strong campaign to defend every one of them.

MPs who voted to remove protection from being unfairly sacked from 3 million people:

Aidan Burley, Conservative, MP for Cannock Chase

Helen Grant, Conservative, MP for Maidstone and the Weald

Sam Gyimah, Conservative, MP for East Surry

Norman Lamb, Lib Dem, MP for North Norfolk

Stephen McPartland, Conservative, MP for Stevenage

Tessa Munt, Lib Dem, MP for Wells

Sarah Newton, Conservative, MP for Truro and Falmouth

Dr Daniel Poulter, Conservative, MP for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich

Craig Whittaker, Conservative, MP for Calder Valley

Jeremy Wright, Conservative, MP for Kenilworth and Southam

MPs who voted against scrapping this important workplace right:

Michael Meacher, Labour, MP for Oldham West and Royton

Jessica Morden, Labour, MP for Newport East

Paul Murphy, Labour, MP for Torfaen

Ian Murray, Labour, MP for Edinburgh South

Chris Ruane, Labour, MP for Vale of Clwyd

Andrew Smith, Labour, MP for Oxford East

Dave Watts, Labour, MP for St Helens North