'A slap in the face'
(19/03/08) UNISON described a 2.2% pay offer from local government employers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland tonight as "a slap in the face".The offer came at talks with the employers in central London which took much of the day.The joint trade unions submitted a pay claim for an increase of 6% or 50p an hour, whichever was the greater, earlier this year.UNISON head of local government Heather Wakefield reacted to the offer by saying: "A 2.2% offer is a slap in the face for 1.4 million local government workers, who have already put up with 10 years of below-inflation pay settlements. "The employers have completely ignored the justice of our claim and are prepared to let every teaching assistant, librarian, social worker and park attendant face increasing hardship. "They talk about unpleasant choices, but our members are already facing unpleasant choices between feeding their families and heating their homes. "Our members live in the real world, with real inflation and 2.2% does not go anywhere near to covering the huge hikes in basic living costs such as food, housing, gas and electricity. "You can't build world-class public services on poverty pay and it’s time that local government employers faced up to this."The government’s favoured measure of inflation, the CPI, rose to 2.5% yesterday and is expected to go even higher by the summer. "The employers need to take stock and come up with a more realistic offer in the next round of negotiations," Ms Wakefield added. UNISON's Pay Matters campaignLocal government pay
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Monday, March 17, 2008
HMRC say tax avoidance could be costing every
household more than £1,500 a year
In a document published late on budget day with no publicity, HMRC has said that the cost of tax avoidance in the UK could run as high as £40 billion a year. This tax avoidance could cost every household in the UK more than £1,500.
The HMRC admission, contained in the report 'Measuring the tax gap - an update', estimates that in 2005 tax avoidance was between £10b and £40b. This figure is even higher than the £25 billion a year estimated by the TUC in it's 'Missing Billions' report. The HMRC say that avoidance has fallen since 2005.
TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber said: 'Even if the HMRC claim is true it still leaves huge amounts of unpaid tax by the super-rich - enough to cut taxes for ordinary people, boost public services and do far more to tackle child poverty than the limited measures in yesterday's budget.
'The Government has been hit by concerted lobbying by non-doms and the super-rich, who describe even the mildest attempt to make them pay a fair share of tax as a prelude to the sky falling in on national prosperity. But rather than retreat, ministers should pay more attention to ordinary voters, who are becoming more and more aware that a significant group of Britain's wealthiest people dodge paying fair taxes.
'The Chancellor was wrong to rule out further efforts to tax non-doms. Instead, he should call their bluff when the super-rich exodus fails to materialise, as a result of yesterday's very modest changes.'
household more than £1,500 a year
In a document published late on budget day with no publicity, HMRC has said that the cost of tax avoidance in the UK could run as high as £40 billion a year. This tax avoidance could cost every household in the UK more than £1,500.
The HMRC admission, contained in the report 'Measuring the tax gap - an update', estimates that in 2005 tax avoidance was between £10b and £40b. This figure is even higher than the £25 billion a year estimated by the TUC in it's 'Missing Billions' report. The HMRC say that avoidance has fallen since 2005.
TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber said: 'Even if the HMRC claim is true it still leaves huge amounts of unpaid tax by the super-rich - enough to cut taxes for ordinary people, boost public services and do far more to tackle child poverty than the limited measures in yesterday's budget.
'The Government has been hit by concerted lobbying by non-doms and the super-rich, who describe even the mildest attempt to make them pay a fair share of tax as a prelude to the sky falling in on national prosperity. But rather than retreat, ministers should pay more attention to ordinary voters, who are becoming more and more aware that a significant group of Britain's wealthiest people dodge paying fair taxes.
'The Chancellor was wrong to rule out further efforts to tax non-doms. Instead, he should call their bluff when the super-rich exodus fails to materialise, as a result of yesterday's very modest changes.'
Monday, March 10, 2008
Prentis calls for a fairer Britain
UNISON is calling on the chancellor to use his debut budget on Wednesday to release the stranglehold on public service pay."Alistair Darling's first budget gives him an ideal opportunity to show his mettle and set out a vision for a fairer Britain," said UNISON general secretary Dave Prentis.Subjecting low-paid public sector workers to a 2% pay squeeze was "grossly unjust", he said, warning the consequences would be damaging.Enforcing the limit risks derailing reforms, and threatens to throw the public sector back into the recruitment and retention crises of the 1990s, Mr Prentis said.Setting out UNISON's vision for fairness, he stressed: "It is catch-up time. Our members are struggling with rising food, energy, and housing costs and cannot afford to take a pay cut."At the same time we see the incomes of the super-rich continue to soar away. The chancellor must stick to his guns and ensure that the non doms are made to pay for the public services they use without making a contribution to their funding and upkeep."The union is also pressing for urgent action to ensure equal pay for women.Without funding from the government, employers were meeting their legal obligations by cutting pay and jobs, Mr Prentis pointed out."We know that this is hitting services vital to our country's future - from local environmental services at the frontline of tackling climate change to school support staff essential to improving literacy and numeracy."
UNISON is calling on the chancellor to use his debut budget on Wednesday to release the stranglehold on public service pay."Alistair Darling's first budget gives him an ideal opportunity to show his mettle and set out a vision for a fairer Britain," said UNISON general secretary Dave Prentis.Subjecting low-paid public sector workers to a 2% pay squeeze was "grossly unjust", he said, warning the consequences would be damaging.Enforcing the limit risks derailing reforms, and threatens to throw the public sector back into the recruitment and retention crises of the 1990s, Mr Prentis said.Setting out UNISON's vision for fairness, he stressed: "It is catch-up time. Our members are struggling with rising food, energy, and housing costs and cannot afford to take a pay cut."At the same time we see the incomes of the super-rich continue to soar away. The chancellor must stick to his guns and ensure that the non doms are made to pay for the public services they use without making a contribution to their funding and upkeep."The union is also pressing for urgent action to ensure equal pay for women.Without funding from the government, employers were meeting their legal obligations by cutting pay and jobs, Mr Prentis pointed out."We know that this is hitting services vital to our country's future - from local environmental services at the frontline of tackling climate change to school support staff essential to improving literacy and numeracy."
Sunday, March 09, 2008
UNISON lodges 40,000th equal pay case
(07/03/08) UNISON lodged its 40,000th equal pay claim this week, as 300 women members found out the union has won payouts for them of up to £35,000 each.The compensation follows UNISON's successful equal pay case on their behalf. It is on average 50% higher than the settlements achieved by no win, no fee lawyers."I am delighted that UNISON has been successful in achieving pay justice for this group of low paid women workers," said general secretary Dave Prentis.The union provides free legal advice and aid on equal pay to all members.It submitted the claim against Kirklees Council in 2006. The women, who worked in traditionally female jobs such as home carers, kitchen assistants and cleaners, were excluded from bonuses awarded to men working in comparable roles at Kirklees, such as gardeners and refuse collectors. Mr Prentis said the union was working hard to deliver equal pay through collective bargaining and negotiation.However, he warned: "We will not shy away from litigation if necessary - just this week UNISON lodged its 40,000th equal pay claim."This is a massive body of work for the union but equal pay is not a take it or leave it option; it is the law of the land and we will fight to enforce it." Sue Townend, 51, has worked for Kirklees Council for 22 years as a homecare assistant. She was originally offered just £7,000 to settle her claim but is due to get more than £20,000 in compensation.She said she was satisfied with her settlement and grateful to UNISON, adding: "I would urge all women in the same situation to go to their trade union and not line the pockets of no win, no fee solicitors."Christine Howarth, a home care assistant for 31 years is also due more than £20,000. She said: "The union has worked very hard on my behalf. It has taken time but the outcome has been well worth the wait."
(07/03/08) UNISON lodged its 40,000th equal pay claim this week, as 300 women members found out the union has won payouts for them of up to £35,000 each.The compensation follows UNISON's successful equal pay case on their behalf. It is on average 50% higher than the settlements achieved by no win, no fee lawyers."I am delighted that UNISON has been successful in achieving pay justice for this group of low paid women workers," said general secretary Dave Prentis.The union provides free legal advice and aid on equal pay to all members.It submitted the claim against Kirklees Council in 2006. The women, who worked in traditionally female jobs such as home carers, kitchen assistants and cleaners, were excluded from bonuses awarded to men working in comparable roles at Kirklees, such as gardeners and refuse collectors. Mr Prentis said the union was working hard to deliver equal pay through collective bargaining and negotiation.However, he warned: "We will not shy away from litigation if necessary - just this week UNISON lodged its 40,000th equal pay claim."This is a massive body of work for the union but equal pay is not a take it or leave it option; it is the law of the land and we will fight to enforce it." Sue Townend, 51, has worked for Kirklees Council for 22 years as a homecare assistant. She was originally offered just £7,000 to settle her claim but is due to get more than £20,000 in compensation.She said she was satisfied with her settlement and grateful to UNISON, adding: "I would urge all women in the same situation to go to their trade union and not line the pockets of no win, no fee solicitors."Christine Howarth, a home care assistant for 31 years is also due more than £20,000. She said: "The union has worked very hard on my behalf. It has taken time but the outcome has been well worth the wait."
Thursday, March 06, 2008
Joint Statement by UNISON, GMB and Unite
Shropshire Job Evaluation – Phase 2
We refer to the statement issued unilaterally by Shropshire County Council to employees on 4 March 2008. This statement refers to the difficulties in obtaining national authorisation of the proposals for implementing job evaluation and lists the beneficial aspects of the proposals that the County Council is putting forward.
All of the beneficial elements of Phase 2 have been negotiated by the trade unions on your behalf and on the face of it appear to be an attractive package. However, the joint trade unions have been unable to persuade the County Council through negotiation to implement a job evaluation scheme that is fit for purpose, i.e. one that at least begins to address the gender pay gap between female and male employees. Currently, the average pay of the 80% of employees in Phases 1 and 2 who are women is 17% less than the average pay for male employees in the two phases.
1. The impact of job evaluation should be to reduce that gender pay gap, in fact it increases it. Part of the reason for this is that almost 200 employees in Phase 2 who are on linked grades will not be placed on their job evaluated grade for up to 3 years, which is unacceptable.
2. Further, there are issues around the drawing of the grade boundaries which has led to a large group of female workers just missing moving to a higher grade.
3. There is also the issue of those employees who go up from the top end of Phase 2 into Phase 3. The County Council has point blank refused to give a commitment to a date when Phase 3 will be implemented and when those employees will receive their correct job evaluated rate of pay.
4. There is a further important issue of what happens on 1 April 2009 when unitary status is brought in. Shropshire County Council has not discussed with the trade unions the mechanism that will be used to ensure that job evaluation applies fairly across the whole of the new unitary authority.
5. The reason why the trade unions are not able to agree, either at local or national level, the proposals is that, as they currently stand, when unitary comes about there will need to be a further complete job re-evaluation because of the issues raised above. We do not believe it is in members’ medium term interests for they and their colleagues in district councils to have to go through the stress and uncertainty created by a further complete job re-evaluation. In order to try to avoid the need for that and to agree a process which both addresses the pay gender gap issue and the transition to unitary, the trade unions have offered to jointly fund with the County Council a report by an independent equal pay expert to try to understand how these problems can be dealt with. However, the County Council has not responded positively to this offer and, given their unilateral issuing of the statement yesterday, this offer is now withdrawn.
The trade unions are committed to try to negotiate a beneficial outcome for all our members of job evaluation but given the issuing of yesterday’s statement will oppose any attempts by the authority to seek to impose a pay and grading structure that is not in members’ long term interests.
Shropshire Job Evaluation – Phase 2
We refer to the statement issued unilaterally by Shropshire County Council to employees on 4 March 2008. This statement refers to the difficulties in obtaining national authorisation of the proposals for implementing job evaluation and lists the beneficial aspects of the proposals that the County Council is putting forward.
All of the beneficial elements of Phase 2 have been negotiated by the trade unions on your behalf and on the face of it appear to be an attractive package. However, the joint trade unions have been unable to persuade the County Council through negotiation to implement a job evaluation scheme that is fit for purpose, i.e. one that at least begins to address the gender pay gap between female and male employees. Currently, the average pay of the 80% of employees in Phases 1 and 2 who are women is 17% less than the average pay for male employees in the two phases.
1. The impact of job evaluation should be to reduce that gender pay gap, in fact it increases it. Part of the reason for this is that almost 200 employees in Phase 2 who are on linked grades will not be placed on their job evaluated grade for up to 3 years, which is unacceptable.
2. Further, there are issues around the drawing of the grade boundaries which has led to a large group of female workers just missing moving to a higher grade.
3. There is also the issue of those employees who go up from the top end of Phase 2 into Phase 3. The County Council has point blank refused to give a commitment to a date when Phase 3 will be implemented and when those employees will receive their correct job evaluated rate of pay.
4. There is a further important issue of what happens on 1 April 2009 when unitary status is brought in. Shropshire County Council has not discussed with the trade unions the mechanism that will be used to ensure that job evaluation applies fairly across the whole of the new unitary authority.
5. The reason why the trade unions are not able to agree, either at local or national level, the proposals is that, as they currently stand, when unitary comes about there will need to be a further complete job re-evaluation because of the issues raised above. We do not believe it is in members’ medium term interests for they and their colleagues in district councils to have to go through the stress and uncertainty created by a further complete job re-evaluation. In order to try to avoid the need for that and to agree a process which both addresses the pay gender gap issue and the transition to unitary, the trade unions have offered to jointly fund with the County Council a report by an independent equal pay expert to try to understand how these problems can be dealt with. However, the County Council has not responded positively to this offer and, given their unilateral issuing of the statement yesterday, this offer is now withdrawn.
The trade unions are committed to try to negotiate a beneficial outcome for all our members of job evaluation but given the issuing of yesterday’s statement will oppose any attempts by the authority to seek to impose a pay and grading structure that is not in members’ long term interests.
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Minimum wage rise ‘falls short’
(05/03/08) UNISON has welcomed a 21p boost in the national minimum wage as a step in the right direction, but says it is still too low.The union is urging a "bolder" approach to prevent the gap between rich and poor widening further.The adult minimum wage will rise from £5.52 to £5.73 an hour in October, the prime minister said today.The new rate for 18 to 21-year-olds will be £4.77, up from £4.60, while 16 to 17-year-olds will get £3.53, up from £3.40.UNISON general secretary Dave Prentis said there was no doubt the rise would benefit many low-paid workers."However, it falls short of its aim to protect the poor from the constant price rises in essentials like fuel, food and housing," he said."A much more realistic figure would be a minimum wage of £6.75 an hour, which would lift many more families out of poverty and off means-tested benefits."UNISON believes the government was too cautious when it introduced the minumum wage in 1999.In its evidence to the Low Pay Commission last year, the union made the case for an inflation-busting boost to the minimum wage, and called for an end to youth rates and regional variations.It also pressed for stiffer penalties and stronger enforcement powers to crack down on rogue employers who underpay staff.The TUC believes 150,000 workers still being paid less than the statutory minimum.
(05/03/08) UNISON has welcomed a 21p boost in the national minimum wage as a step in the right direction, but says it is still too low.The union is urging a "bolder" approach to prevent the gap between rich and poor widening further.The adult minimum wage will rise from £5.52 to £5.73 an hour in October, the prime minister said today.The new rate for 18 to 21-year-olds will be £4.77, up from £4.60, while 16 to 17-year-olds will get £3.53, up from £3.40.UNISON general secretary Dave Prentis said there was no doubt the rise would benefit many low-paid workers."However, it falls short of its aim to protect the poor from the constant price rises in essentials like fuel, food and housing," he said."A much more realistic figure would be a minimum wage of £6.75 an hour, which would lift many more families out of poverty and off means-tested benefits."UNISON believes the government was too cautious when it introduced the minumum wage in 1999.In its evidence to the Low Pay Commission last year, the union made the case for an inflation-busting boost to the minimum wage, and called for an end to youth rates and regional variations.It also pressed for stiffer penalties and stronger enforcement powers to crack down on rogue employers who underpay staff.The TUC believes 150,000 workers still being paid less than the statutory minimum.
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
Time to restore redundancy pay value
The TUC is today (Friday) calling on the Chancellor to increase the weekly limit on statutory redundancy pay from £330 to £500 in the forthcoming Budget as a major step towards restoring the real value of the limit when it was first introduced at £40 in 1965.
Anyone who has worked for the same employer for more than two years is entitled to redundancy pay (which is paid by the Government if the employer goes bust). It is calculated as half a week's pay for each year of employment between the ages of 18 to 21; plus one week's pay for each year of employment between 22 to 40; plus
one and a half week's pay for each year of employment between the age of 41 or over but under 65. No more than twenty years service can be counted.
But there is a statutory maximum limit to what counts as a week's pay - anything earned in excess of this limit is not counted when working out redundancy pay. This is set annually and is currently £330 per week. Official figures show that more than half the working population earn more than this a week (53 per cent). Mean pay is £452 a week, so the current limit is just 73 per cent of average pay. Employers are free to offer more generous terms, and many do.
When redundancy pay was introduced for the first time in 1965 the limit was set at £40, more than twice the average wage (£19.60). If the limit had been uprated in line with prices it would now be a little over £500, and if increased in line with earnings it would now be in excess of £1,000.
TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber said: 'Now is the right time to start to restore the value of redundancy pay. When it was introduced the big majority of the workforce had all their wages counted when working out their redundancy pay, but now more than half the workforce would lose out.
'The Government pledged in its manifesto for the last election to boost redundancy and that pledge should be implemented. A one off rise to £500 and a link to earnings rather than prices in future is the minimum we need to see to start to restore some fairness.'
The TUC is today (Friday) calling on the Chancellor to increase the weekly limit on statutory redundancy pay from £330 to £500 in the forthcoming Budget as a major step towards restoring the real value of the limit when it was first introduced at £40 in 1965.
Anyone who has worked for the same employer for more than two years is entitled to redundancy pay (which is paid by the Government if the employer goes bust). It is calculated as half a week's pay for each year of employment between the ages of 18 to 21; plus one week's pay for each year of employment between 22 to 40; plus
one and a half week's pay for each year of employment between the age of 41 or over but under 65. No more than twenty years service can be counted.
But there is a statutory maximum limit to what counts as a week's pay - anything earned in excess of this limit is not counted when working out redundancy pay. This is set annually and is currently £330 per week. Official figures show that more than half the working population earn more than this a week (53 per cent). Mean pay is £452 a week, so the current limit is just 73 per cent of average pay. Employers are free to offer more generous terms, and many do.
When redundancy pay was introduced for the first time in 1965 the limit was set at £40, more than twice the average wage (£19.60). If the limit had been uprated in line with prices it would now be a little over £500, and if increased in line with earnings it would now be in excess of £1,000.
TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber said: 'Now is the right time to start to restore the value of redundancy pay. When it was introduced the big majority of the workforce had all their wages counted when working out their redundancy pay, but now more than half the workforce would lose out.
'The Government pledged in its manifesto for the last election to boost redundancy and that pledge should be implemented. A one off rise to £500 and a link to earnings rather than prices in future is the minimum we need to see to start to restore some fairness.'
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Agency worker statement
Speaking after a meeting between the Prime Minister and a TUC delegation to consider agency worker rights, TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber said:
'The Prime Minister recognised the importance of the issue and the problems that many agency workers face. Gordon Brown reassured us that he wants to make progress on this vital issue. We need to consider very carefully the best mechanism to achieve this.'
Speaking after a meeting between the Prime Minister and a TUC delegation to consider agency worker rights, TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber said:
'The Prime Minister recognised the importance of the issue and the problems that many agency workers face. Gordon Brown reassured us that he wants to make progress on this vital issue. We need to consider very carefully the best mechanism to achieve this.'
Sunday, February 24, 2008
TUC welcomes second reading for Agency Workers Bill
Commenting on the Commons vote to give a second reading to the Agency Workers Bill, TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber said:
'This is good news for agency workers as it is an important milestone on the road to achieving fair treatment. We welcome the big turn out by MPs to support the Bill today. It puts even more pressure on the Government to drop their opposition to effective rights for agency workers.'
Commenting on the Commons vote to give a second reading to the Agency Workers Bill, TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber said:
'This is good news for agency workers as it is an important milestone on the road to achieving fair treatment. We welcome the big turn out by MPs to support the Bill today. It puts even more pressure on the Government to drop their opposition to effective rights for agency workers.'
Thursday, February 21, 2008
UNISON calls for windfall tax after
British Gas profits soar
(21/02/08) UNISON called for a windfall tax on excessive profits today, after energy supplier British Gas reported annual profits of £571m at its residential arm - just weeks after hiking its pricesd for gas and electricity by around 15%.The news of the profits - which are up from £95m in 2006 - follows a UNISON and National Right to Fuel Campaign demand for an official inquiry into fuel profits.And Centrica, the parent company of British Gas, has reported a 40% rise in operating profits to £1.95bn. Centrica has increased its full-year dividend to shareholders by 17% to 13p a share.UNISON national officer Steve Bloomfield said: "It is clear that the UK's energy market is not operating in the public interest."It's a scandal that a growing number of people are suffering from genuine fuel poverty – including many families, elderly and disabled people – when energy companies are making record profits. "We need a windfall tax on profits to put a stop to this profiteering."A new report, Gas and electricity costs to householders, which has been produced by Cornwall Energy Associates and co-sponsored by UNISON, shows how much extra ordinary customers are having to fork out to fund this profits boom. The report revealed that spending by households on gas and electricity increased by £8.2bn between 2003 and 2006, but companies' costs increased by £5.9bn - only £4.5bn of it due to higher fuel costs.Nearly 30% of the extra spending by customers has gone in increased profits amounting to £2.3bn – at a time when the government is telling public service workers to tighten their belts and accept 2% pay limits.
British Gas profits soar
(21/02/08) UNISON called for a windfall tax on excessive profits today, after energy supplier British Gas reported annual profits of £571m at its residential arm - just weeks after hiking its pricesd for gas and electricity by around 15%.The news of the profits - which are up from £95m in 2006 - follows a UNISON and National Right to Fuel Campaign demand for an official inquiry into fuel profits.And Centrica, the parent company of British Gas, has reported a 40% rise in operating profits to £1.95bn. Centrica has increased its full-year dividend to shareholders by 17% to 13p a share.UNISON national officer Steve Bloomfield said: "It is clear that the UK's energy market is not operating in the public interest."It's a scandal that a growing number of people are suffering from genuine fuel poverty – including many families, elderly and disabled people – when energy companies are making record profits. "We need a windfall tax on profits to put a stop to this profiteering."A new report, Gas and electricity costs to householders, which has been produced by Cornwall Energy Associates and co-sponsored by UNISON, shows how much extra ordinary customers are having to fork out to fund this profits boom. The report revealed that spending by households on gas and electricity increased by £8.2bn between 2003 and 2006, but companies' costs increased by £5.9bn - only £4.5bn of it due to higher fuel costs.Nearly 30% of the extra spending by customers has gone in increased profits amounting to £2.3bn – at a time when the government is telling public service workers to tighten their belts and accept 2% pay limits.
A DECISION AT LAST ON UNITARY !
I hope that this will mean that those so vigorously opposed to this will now use the same energy to support it. Daniel has yet again shown his ability to back a loser as he seems to throw himself on every passing bandwagon I suppose on the law of averages this is bound to happen but he does seem good at it!
From the Trade Union point of view those who clung to the belief that this would never happen have done nothing to help protect those staff and jobs they now hope will be protected. The rush to spend all the family silver in the District Councils will also be unhelpful. I have never liked Councillor Pate's politics but he is one of the few thinking Tories and a shrewd business man.
There is no doubt that those council tax payers in band D who stand to save £93 per year will not have been asked their opinion it does seem like a rather expensive Tory club that we cannot afford. What is often missed is that our members are Council Tax payers including myself and we also understand the frustration of the duplication in the current system. The Governments stranglehold on our pay will make any saving in overheads at home most welcome.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Work Your Proper Hours Day (22 Feb 2008)
is the day when the average person who does unpaid overtime finishes the unpaid days they do every year, and starts earning for themselves. We think that's a day worth celebrating!
Check your balance: Find out your office working style and you could win an iPod
The Work / Life Map: check out how the UK works
the Breaktime game: can you work your proper hours?
decorate your office with free posters
send your boss a secret boss-a-gram to fill them in
Nearly five million people in the UK regularly do unpaid overtime, giving their employers an average £4,955 of free work a year. If you're one, why not take some time to reflect on how well (or badly) you're balancing your life?
This is one day in the year to make the most of your own time. Take a proper lunchbreak and leave work on time to enjoy your Friday evening - You deserve it!
Here's our four point plan for having a great Work Your Proper Hours Day:
1: Put yourself on the map!
We're building a big interactive map of the UK's attitudes to work / life balance. Take our quiz to find out what your workplace style is, and then add yourself to the map to see how you stack up against everyone else, and get the chance to win a swanky iPod Touch. Or check the map, to see what others have said.
2: Spread the word
Help get the word out by sending your friends an e-card, or linking to the campaign. You can download or order free posters to spruce up your office. And don't leave your boss out - let them know about the day with an anonymous Boss-A-Gram.
3: Enjoy your Friday!
If you normally just cram a sandwich at your desk, and only leave work long after the sun's gone down, take just one day to make a stand and see what a difference it can make. Plan to take a proper lunchbreak - why not treat yourself to a nice lunch? Then arrange with colleagues or friends working nearby to go out and make the most of your Friday evening. Bonus points for anyone who gets the boss to buy the team a drink to say thanks for all the year's hard work!
4: Tackle your own hours problems
Long hours are not good for us; they cause stress; they're bad for our health; they wreck relationships; they make caring for children or dependents more difficult; and tired, burnt-out staff are bad for business.
People do long hours for a variety of very different reasons. Find out more about the UK's long hours culture.
Work Your Proper Hours Day for 2008 will be 22 February, but your own pay day may come earlier or later, depending on the hours you work above your contracted hours.
Use our online unpaid overtime calculator to find out when you can celebrate paying off your long hours debt.
is the day when the average person who does unpaid overtime finishes the unpaid days they do every year, and starts earning for themselves. We think that's a day worth celebrating!
Check your balance: Find out your office working style and you could win an iPod
The Work / Life Map: check out how the UK works
the Breaktime game: can you work your proper hours?
decorate your office with free posters
send your boss a secret boss-a-gram to fill them in
Nearly five million people in the UK regularly do unpaid overtime, giving their employers an average £4,955 of free work a year. If you're one, why not take some time to reflect on how well (or badly) you're balancing your life?
This is one day in the year to make the most of your own time. Take a proper lunchbreak and leave work on time to enjoy your Friday evening - You deserve it!
Here's our four point plan for having a great Work Your Proper Hours Day:
1: Put yourself on the map!
We're building a big interactive map of the UK's attitudes to work / life balance. Take our quiz to find out what your workplace style is, and then add yourself to the map to see how you stack up against everyone else, and get the chance to win a swanky iPod Touch. Or check the map, to see what others have said.
2: Spread the word
Help get the word out by sending your friends an e-card, or linking to the campaign. You can download or order free posters to spruce up your office. And don't leave your boss out - let them know about the day with an anonymous Boss-A-Gram.
3: Enjoy your Friday!
If you normally just cram a sandwich at your desk, and only leave work long after the sun's gone down, take just one day to make a stand and see what a difference it can make. Plan to take a proper lunchbreak - why not treat yourself to a nice lunch? Then arrange with colleagues or friends working nearby to go out and make the most of your Friday evening. Bonus points for anyone who gets the boss to buy the team a drink to say thanks for all the year's hard work!
4: Tackle your own hours problems
Long hours are not good for us; they cause stress; they're bad for our health; they wreck relationships; they make caring for children or dependents more difficult; and tired, burnt-out staff are bad for business.
People do long hours for a variety of very different reasons. Find out more about the UK's long hours culture.
Work Your Proper Hours Day for 2008 will be 22 February, but your own pay day may come earlier or later, depending on the hours you work above your contracted hours.
Use our online unpaid overtime calculator to find out when you can celebrate paying off your long hours debt.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Job applicants facing more drug tests
More companies are checking on potential employees by carrying out drug and alcohol tests on their hair, according to a supplier of testing products. Trimega Laboratories, established in 2005, announced in January it had signed a deal with the Nursing and Midwifery Council to provide its testing services in misconduct cases where drug or alcohol dependency is thought to be an issue. Trimega managing director Avi Lasarow said employers in other sectors were increasingly calling on his company's services. 'More and more corporates employing high-profile executives are looking to test potential employees,' he said. 'If an individual has nothing to hide, then what is the problem?' Many individuals - including those falsely fingered (Risks 335) - and unions, civil liberty and statutory bodies do have a problem with workplace drug and alcohol testing, however. A November 2007 report from Hazards magazine acknowledged Britain's employers have a big drug and alcohol problem, concluding they are wasting millions on testing and firing workers. It said impairment testing is a better approach (Risks 332). This can take account of the impact of drugs or alcohol use as well as work factors like fatigue, stress and exposure to physical and chemical hazards that might mean a worker is performing under-par. The report said non-punitive, peer-to-peer counselling and support is the most effective way to ensure drug and alcohol use is dealt with effectively at work. It warned UK workplace privacy rules laid down in official Information Commission guidance mean in most cases drug and alcohol tests could fall foul of the law.
More companies are checking on potential employees by carrying out drug and alcohol tests on their hair, according to a supplier of testing products. Trimega Laboratories, established in 2005, announced in January it had signed a deal with the Nursing and Midwifery Council to provide its testing services in misconduct cases where drug or alcohol dependency is thought to be an issue. Trimega managing director Avi Lasarow said employers in other sectors were increasingly calling on his company's services. 'More and more corporates employing high-profile executives are looking to test potential employees,' he said. 'If an individual has nothing to hide, then what is the problem?' Many individuals - including those falsely fingered (Risks 335) - and unions, civil liberty and statutory bodies do have a problem with workplace drug and alcohol testing, however. A November 2007 report from Hazards magazine acknowledged Britain's employers have a big drug and alcohol problem, concluding they are wasting millions on testing and firing workers. It said impairment testing is a better approach (Risks 332). This can take account of the impact of drugs or alcohol use as well as work factors like fatigue, stress and exposure to physical and chemical hazards that might mean a worker is performing under-par. The report said non-punitive, peer-to-peer counselling and support is the most effective way to ensure drug and alcohol use is dealt with effectively at work. It warned UK workplace privacy rules laid down in official Information Commission guidance mean in most cases drug and alcohol tests could fall foul of the law.
Friday, February 15, 2008
TUC guide to romance in the office
With romance in the air this Valentine's Day, the TUC is urging employers not to ban love from the office or the factory but instead to consult an online guide to relationships at work published today (Thursday).
With the long hours culture enjoying a renaissance, and unpaid overtime on the increase, it's no wonder that around a quarter of long-term relationships begin at work, says the TUC guide.
It says employers should avoid the adoption of love contracts, a practice popular with employers in the US but thankfully still rare in the UK, and instead should be drawing up sensible guidelines that try to protect everyone - the lovers, their colleagues and their employer - should the romance ever turn sour.
The guide provides advice to staff who have just started a relationship at work and are worried that their employer may sack them as a result. It also warns what may happen if they are found in a compromising position in the stationery cupboard, reminding would-be lovers of the need to maintain an acceptable standard of behaviour in work at all times.
TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber said: 'With the long hours that many spend in work, it's hardly surprising that lots of people end up getting together with colleagues. Office romances rarely cause any problems so it would be wrong for employers to adopt a heavy-handed approach to office flirting and introduce strict rules or blanket bans.
'But office Romeos and Juliets may need to be reminded of where to draw the line at work. Guidelines reminding staff of the need to keep their love lives separate from work, and to not let lover's tiffs make workmates feel uncomfortable will prove useful to staff and employers alike.'
Office romantics keen on starting a relationship with one of their colleagues can find a host of useful tips in the guide. They can find out where they stand on relationships at work, what to do when they happen, what to do when they break up and what to do if they want to say no. The full guide is at www.worksmart.org.uk/valentine
With romance in the air this Valentine's Day, the TUC is urging employers not to ban love from the office or the factory but instead to consult an online guide to relationships at work published today (Thursday).
With the long hours culture enjoying a renaissance, and unpaid overtime on the increase, it's no wonder that around a quarter of long-term relationships begin at work, says the TUC guide.
It says employers should avoid the adoption of love contracts, a practice popular with employers in the US but thankfully still rare in the UK, and instead should be drawing up sensible guidelines that try to protect everyone - the lovers, their colleagues and their employer - should the romance ever turn sour.
The guide provides advice to staff who have just started a relationship at work and are worried that their employer may sack them as a result. It also warns what may happen if they are found in a compromising position in the stationery cupboard, reminding would-be lovers of the need to maintain an acceptable standard of behaviour in work at all times.
TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber said: 'With the long hours that many spend in work, it's hardly surprising that lots of people end up getting together with colleagues. Office romances rarely cause any problems so it would be wrong for employers to adopt a heavy-handed approach to office flirting and introduce strict rules or blanket bans.
'But office Romeos and Juliets may need to be reminded of where to draw the line at work. Guidelines reminding staff of the need to keep their love lives separate from work, and to not let lover's tiffs make workmates feel uncomfortable will prove useful to staff and employers alike.'
Office romantics keen on starting a relationship with one of their colleagues can find a host of useful tips in the guide. They can find out where they stand on relationships at work, what to do when they happen, what to do when they break up and what to do if they want to say no. The full guide is at www.worksmart.org.uk/valentine
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Blue Valentine
(14/02/08) UNISON is calling upon the government to abandon plans to impose pay cuts on public service workers for another year running.The union's national secretaries for health, education and local government delivered a giant Valentine's card to the House of Commons. It reads: "Roses are red, violets are blue, but 2% just won't do."The government's 2% pay limit on public service workers comes as they are faced with steep hikes in the cost of housing, fuel and food. And economists predict even higher inflation is on the way."With even less in their pockets, our loyal, hard-working public service workers such as teaching assistants, ambulance drivers and nurses are going to have to dig deep to keep up," said UNISON general secretary Dave Prentis. UNISON, through its united Pay Matters campaign, is fighting for a fair deal for public service workers, one that recognises the difference they make to local communities, and respects and rewards their work with decent pay.
(14/02/08) UNISON is calling upon the government to abandon plans to impose pay cuts on public service workers for another year running.The union's national secretaries for health, education and local government delivered a giant Valentine's card to the House of Commons. It reads: "Roses are red, violets are blue, but 2% just won't do."The government's 2% pay limit on public service workers comes as they are faced with steep hikes in the cost of housing, fuel and food. And economists predict even higher inflation is on the way."With even less in their pockets, our loyal, hard-working public service workers such as teaching assistants, ambulance drivers and nurses are going to have to dig deep to keep up," said UNISON general secretary Dave Prentis. UNISON, through its united Pay Matters campaign, is fighting for a fair deal for public service workers, one that recognises the difference they make to local communities, and respects and rewards their work with decent pay.
Friday, February 01, 2008
Training not enough to prevent back strain
Commenting on research published today (Friday) on the BMJ website, which suggests that training people how to lift heavy objects is failing to prevent back injuries, TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber said:
'This is an important piece of research. It shows that employers shouldn't be relying on their employees lifting heavy weights 'correctly' to prevent back injury, but instead should be reducing the weight of things that need to be lifted manually. The Health and Safety Executive will now have to review its advice on manual handling as a matter of urgency.
'If employers want to protect their staff from the pain of back strain, they should not be banking on their staff using the correct techniques to lift heavy objects at work. The best way to keep staff injury free is to make sure that everyone understands the importance of not lifting heavy weights on their own.'
Commenting on research published today (Friday) on the BMJ website, which suggests that training people how to lift heavy objects is failing to prevent back injuries, TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber said:
'This is an important piece of research. It shows that employers shouldn't be relying on their employees lifting heavy weights 'correctly' to prevent back injury, but instead should be reducing the weight of things that need to be lifted manually. The Health and Safety Executive will now have to review its advice on manual handling as a matter of urgency.
'If employers want to protect their staff from the pain of back strain, they should not be banking on their staff using the correct techniques to lift heavy objects at work. The best way to keep staff injury free is to make sure that everyone understands the importance of not lifting heavy weights on their own.'
Tax avoidance by companies
and the wealthy costs
everyone at work £1,000 a year
New research for the TUC published today (Friday) reveals that the public purse loses £13 billion a year through tax avoidance by the wealthy and £12 billion a year through tax avoidance by corporations. Altogether this adds up to £25 billion - or around £1,000 a year for everyone at work in the UK.
The research, conducted by accountant and tax specialist Richard Murphy, is published in The Missing Billions, the first in a new series of TUC pamphlets designed to stimulate debate called Touchstones. The research includes the analysis of 344 sets of accounts from Britain's 50 largest companies and analysis of HMRC and other official statistics.
Analysis of the top 50 companies' accounts shows that their effective corporation tax rate is 22.5 per cent - not the 30 per cent agreed by Parliament. The companies almost always pay 5 per cent less tax on average than they declare in their accounts and in the seven years up to 2006 their effective tax rate fell by 0.5 per cent each year.
The report shows how super-rich individuals avoid paying their fair share of tax. £3.2 billion tax is lost by turning earned income into investment income (which is taxed more favourably) or by shifting the income to others (such as spouses) in lower or nil tax bands. Another £3.8 billion is lost moving transactions out of the UK, £0.5 billion by turning income into a capital gain and £4.8 billion from various kinds of tax planning.
Half the amount lost to tax avoidance could raise the level at which higher rate tax starts being paid by £10,000 a year, which would also offer significant help to those on middle incomes; or increase the state pension by 20 per cent; or reduce income tax by 3p in the pound; or build an extra 50 hospitals a year.
The Touchstone pamphlet calls for:
a minimum rate of tax to be paid by all those earning more than £100,000 a year to limit their use of tax avoidance and tax planning, without affecting the tax rates of middle Britain
a stop to HMRC staff cuts so that there are sufficient resources to effectively collect tax
the non-dom tax loophole to be abolished
capital gains on assets held for less than a year to be charged to income tax
a change to the tax treatment of charities to give them more income and close a tax loophole, and
the introduction of a new 'general anti-avoidance principle' to make it easier to tax the super-rich and large companies.
TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber said: 'There is mounting concern at the growing gap between the super-rich and the rest of society, but so far there have been few practical proposals to do anything about it. This TUC pamphlet is therefore doubly helpful. First it carefully works out just how much the super-rich and big companies rip the rest of us off by not paying their fair share of taxes. Secondly it sets out a practical set of policies that close loopholes, end abuse and starts the process of making the super-rich make a proper contribution - all without raising a single tax rate.
'Our strong view is that the proceeds should be used to properly fund public services, where six million are facing cuts in their real pay, and relieve poverty - particularly child poverty. But you do not have to agree with our spending priorities to back our call for fair tax, and we recognise the argument at this difficult economic time for boosting the income of low and middle Britain through tax cuts.
'This is not the politics of envy but the economics of fairness. It is all about getting rich and powerful people to understand they must play by the rules, not look for ways round them.
'Most people think that we have a progressive tax system, but it has now been hollowed out by so many loopholes and allowances that too much tax is now voluntary for the rich. It's time for a new campaign for a fair tax system - a campaign that can unite the vast majority of the population who do play by the rules and have nothing to fear from our proposals.'
and the wealthy costs
everyone at work £1,000 a year
New research for the TUC published today (Friday) reveals that the public purse loses £13 billion a year through tax avoidance by the wealthy and £12 billion a year through tax avoidance by corporations. Altogether this adds up to £25 billion - or around £1,000 a year for everyone at work in the UK.
The research, conducted by accountant and tax specialist Richard Murphy, is published in The Missing Billions, the first in a new series of TUC pamphlets designed to stimulate debate called Touchstones. The research includes the analysis of 344 sets of accounts from Britain's 50 largest companies and analysis of HMRC and other official statistics.
Analysis of the top 50 companies' accounts shows that their effective corporation tax rate is 22.5 per cent - not the 30 per cent agreed by Parliament. The companies almost always pay 5 per cent less tax on average than they declare in their accounts and in the seven years up to 2006 their effective tax rate fell by 0.5 per cent each year.
The report shows how super-rich individuals avoid paying their fair share of tax. £3.2 billion tax is lost by turning earned income into investment income (which is taxed more favourably) or by shifting the income to others (such as spouses) in lower or nil tax bands. Another £3.8 billion is lost moving transactions out of the UK, £0.5 billion by turning income into a capital gain and £4.8 billion from various kinds of tax planning.
Half the amount lost to tax avoidance could raise the level at which higher rate tax starts being paid by £10,000 a year, which would also offer significant help to those on middle incomes; or increase the state pension by 20 per cent; or reduce income tax by 3p in the pound; or build an extra 50 hospitals a year.
The Touchstone pamphlet calls for:
a minimum rate of tax to be paid by all those earning more than £100,000 a year to limit their use of tax avoidance and tax planning, without affecting the tax rates of middle Britain
a stop to HMRC staff cuts so that there are sufficient resources to effectively collect tax
the non-dom tax loophole to be abolished
capital gains on assets held for less than a year to be charged to income tax
a change to the tax treatment of charities to give them more income and close a tax loophole, and
the introduction of a new 'general anti-avoidance principle' to make it easier to tax the super-rich and large companies.
TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber said: 'There is mounting concern at the growing gap between the super-rich and the rest of society, but so far there have been few practical proposals to do anything about it. This TUC pamphlet is therefore doubly helpful. First it carefully works out just how much the super-rich and big companies rip the rest of us off by not paying their fair share of taxes. Secondly it sets out a practical set of policies that close loopholes, end abuse and starts the process of making the super-rich make a proper contribution - all without raising a single tax rate.
'Our strong view is that the proceeds should be used to properly fund public services, where six million are facing cuts in their real pay, and relieve poverty - particularly child poverty. But you do not have to agree with our spending priorities to back our call for fair tax, and we recognise the argument at this difficult economic time for boosting the income of low and middle Britain through tax cuts.
'This is not the politics of envy but the economics of fairness. It is all about getting rich and powerful people to understand they must play by the rules, not look for ways round them.
'Most people think that we have a progressive tax system, but it has now been hollowed out by so many loopholes and allowances that too much tax is now voluntary for the rich. It's time for a new campaign for a fair tax system - a campaign that can unite the vast majority of the population who do play by the rules and have nothing to fear from our proposals.'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)