The intention to bring in agency staff to Makerfield Contact Centre can only be viewed as an attempt to undermine PCS members terms and conditions and PCS has no alternative but to actively oppose this.
To do it in a town where there has recently been successful industrial action, by the Bakers Union at Hovis, against agency workers being brought in on lesser terms and not just insisting that any were on equal rights with the main workforce from day one but taken on directly by the company. This puts the Branch in a particularly difficult position. It is frankly a challenge that we cannot ignore.
Whilst we have had it confirmed that they would be paid the AO band minimum, it remains unconfirmed what annual leave (paid or unpaid) they would qualify for.
What we do know is that they will not be DWP employees. They will not be covered by the Contact Centre Standard Operating Approach (SOA) or the Contact Centre Dispute Agreement.
They will also be expected to work longer hours than DWP staff with set hours between 9am and 5.30pm with an hour for lunch. They will have no scheduling preferences.
DWP has yet to confirm (and it is doubtful that they will) have rights to:
- trade union recognition
- not to be dismissed without notice
- rest breaks outside of a lunch break
- paid or unpaid sick leave
- paid or unpaid special leave
- flexible working (as they will have set hours)
- pension rights
- performance pay
- be covered by DWP Policies including the safeguards within the; Probation, Attendance
Management, Discipline, People Performance, Dispute Resolution, Diversity and Equality, Wellbeing at Work or Health and Safety to name just a few.
Only after 12 weeks could they under employment law get access to:
- paid bank holidays
- pregnancy rights including even the basic right to paid time for antenatal appointments
- rest breaks
This demonstrates the difference between a unionised workplace and agency status. We have to resist the abolition of workers' rights at all costs.
Clearly the DWP prefers to offset the recruitment fees paid to the Brook Agency than recruit directly and pay towards the terms & conditions of employing it's own staff. Whether this costs more to the taxpayer has clearly been seen as less important to sending a clear message about how they would like to staff the DWP in future.
The idea that our own members will be expected to train, mentor and even Line Manage them is totally unacceptable.
Whilst we believe that the CCS network is seriously understaffed and needs urgent recruitment we reject the DWPs stated reasons for bringing in agency staff rather than directly recruiting. The staffing situation has been known for months if not years but constantly denied by CCS until now.
Only after 12 weeks could they under employment law get access to:
- paid bank holidays
- pregnancy rights including even the basic right to paid time for antenatal appointments
- rest breaks
This demonstrates the difference between a unionised workplace and agency status. We have to resist the abolition of workers' rights at all costs.
Clearly the DWP prefers to offset the recruitment fees paid to the Brook Agency than recruit directly and pay towards the terms & conditions of employing it's own staff. Whether this costs more to the taxpayer has clearly been seen as less important to sending a clear message about how they would like to staff the DWP in future.
The idea that our own members will be expected to train, mentor and even Line Manage them is totally unacceptable.
Whilst we believe that the CCS network is seriously understaffed and needs urgent recruitment we reject the DWPs stated reasons for bringing in agency staff rather than directly recruiting. The staffing situation has been known for months if not years but constantly denied by CCS until now.
It is not believable that staff could not have been recruited directly within the same timeline that has been used to negotiate with the Agency.
This is a blatent attempt to undermine PCS at Makerfield where we have nearly 90% membership and a proud history of supporting campaign activity. The branch is sure that members will continue to show solidarity in opposing this attack.
We must oppose attempts to pitch worker against worker. If we do not challenge this then there will be a group of workers, on site, unable to participate in any campaign to improve terms, conditions or even enforcement of the Contact Centre Dispute Agreement. Whilst at the same time undermining any attempts to get them civil service status.
Branch reps will be meeting early next week to decide upon a response to put to members.
This is a blatent attempt to undermine PCS at Makerfield where we have nearly 90% membership and a proud history of supporting campaign activity. The branch is sure that members will continue to show solidarity in opposing this attack.
We must oppose attempts to pitch worker against worker. If we do not challenge this then there will be a group of workers, on site, unable to participate in any campaign to improve terms, conditions or even enforcement of the Contact Centre Dispute Agreement. Whilst at the same time undermining any attempts to get them civil service status.
Branch reps will be meeting early next week to decide upon a response to put to members.
No comments:
Post a Comment