“BRITISH JOBS FOR BRITISH WORKERS”
Last night at our union branch committee meeting in Devizes we had a very good discussion about the Lindsey Oil Refinery and Staythorpe Power Station disputes.
Wiltshire and Swindon branch is significant, not only because it is one of the larger branches in the union; we have migrant workers in most of the workplaces covered, and there are several hundred migrant workers in the branch. The branch president is the son of an Italian immigrant, and he expressed the concern that his father had felt about the media reports.
This is the motion we passed unanimously.
This branch committee notes
- The recent unofficial strike at Lindsey Oil Refinery has won the creation of 100 new jobs, and that all workers, both indigenous and migrant workers will now be paid the national agreed NAECI rate, supervised by the trade unions.
- The origin of the dispute was that the Italian contracting firm, IREM, were advertising jobs only in Italy, and employing workers on Italian contracts, at Italian rates of pay, regulated by Italian employment law. IREM are also a non-union firm, operating outside industry wide collective agreements between unions and the construction industry employers.
- The regime of sub-contracting allowed IREM to bypass British anti-discrimination law, and allowed them to exclude applications from workers resident in Britain.
- Such a practice in the building and construction industry should have been specifically protected against by Article 3(8) of the 1996 EU Posted Workers Directive, but the Labour government failed to properly implement the Directive in UK law, despite pledges to do so in the Warwick Agreement with the trade unions, and a specific manifesto pledge. Since December 2007 numerous European Court judgments, including the Viking, Laval and Ruffert judgments, have all interpreted EU law to the benefit of unscrupulous employers, allowing them to pit nationalities against one another in a race to the bottom on pay and conditions.
- The solidarity strikes on construction sites across the UK reflected the fact that this issue affects every worker in the industry, whoever their employer is.
This branch committee believes:
- that sensationalist and misleading reporting of the strike by the TV and newspapers has given the impression that this was a campaign against migrant workers.
- that some migrant workers may have gained the impression that the union is seeking to exclude migrant workers from the British employment market, and from union membership.
- This dispute shows that current legislation against solidarity strikes is unworkable.
The Branch resolves:
- to congratulate members on the unofficial strike committee, and national officers for steering the strike away from the dangerous slogan of “British Jobs for British Workers”. We congratulate the strikers for having no truck with the right wing extremists, including the BNP, who tried to exploit the dispute for their own ends.
- To confirm its support for the on-going campaign by the union to have full implementation of Article 3(8) of the Posted Workers Directive implemented into UK law to prevent “social dumping”, and we resolve to write to Anne Snellgrove MP, and Michael Wills MP asking for their support.
- To continue to campaign against the anti-trade union laws that make solidarity disputes illegal.
- To circulate a brief and simple explanation of the strike to all branch members, explaining the union’s continued commitment to supporting Migrant workers, and explaining that the union does not support the slogan “British Jobs for British Workers”. This statement should be translated into Polish as well as English.
- To forward this motion to Regional Council, modified as necessary to make it applicable to regional policy.
Fantastic. Congratulations.
Comment by vladimir antonov-ovseenko — 13 February, 2009 @ 10:35 am
This is a good statement. Odd that it says that 100 jobs have been created though. 100 jobs have been created for British workers, but the 100 full-time Sicilian IREM workers are now out of a job. Obviously it is better that the jobs are now unionised, but they have in no sense been created. The Siracusa area of Sicily is poor, with high unemployment, so it is not surprising that the workers were prepared to live on a barge in Grimsby.
Comment by talbotelli — 13 February, 2009 @ 10:52 am
#2
My understanding is that no jobs were lost at IREM. The Sicilian workers are part of the core permanent workforce and were to be redeployed at other projects by IREM.
That is what the unions were told;and that is what Total/Jacobs/IREM told the BBC and press.
Do you have information to the contrary?
Comment by Andy Newman — 13 February, 2009 @ 10:55 am
well done andy
Comment by Hamish Ions — 13 February, 2009 @ 11:30 am
very good resolution
would be a problem if 2 were correct
Comment by non-partisan — 13 February, 2009 @ 11:37 am
I did not mean to suggest that there would be 100 redundancies, I was merely making the point that jobs have not been created but simply transferred. But given that IREM only has 1500 permanent workers (according to its website), you would imagine that this might at the very least lead to a hiring freeze. The strike action has very much been interpreted in Italy as a protectionist measure. I have got to say though that if anything, Italy is more protectionist e.g. it is very difficult for foreign academics to work in Italian universities (even if they speak Italian).
Comment by talbotelli — 13 February, 2009 @ 12:06 pm
The term protectionist is slowly beginning to mean `unionised’ in the hands of Mandy and the ultra-lefts. We know that the Maastricht treaty outlaws state support or nationalisation of any industry (even the NHS is considered protectionism by the EU: hence the constant undermining of it) but it doesn’t stop the capitalists of each EU nation acting in their own strategic interests (armaments industries are heavily protected and so to now are the banks) whilst the workers are expected to accept mass unemployment or get on their bikes and work for peanuts in Eastern Europe if they are lucky. The choice is clear: workers protectionism or bourgeois protectionism. The former leads to socialism the latter to barbarism. We need an urgent campaign for the withdrawal from the neo-liberal EU (any Keynesian project will simply suck in unemployment) and for a workers government to initiate the socialisation of the banks and large monopoly concerns and argue for a Socialist United States of Europe.
Comment by David Ellis — 13 February, 2009 @ 12:30 pm
#6 I have got to say though that if anything, Italy is more protectionist
Thanks for saying that, Talbotelli, I do think that we need to acknowledge that free movement of labour across the EU as a full two-way street is more theoretical than real. I can’t prove this (and I would be delighted to be disproved) but it seems to me the chances of a talented Brit being able to go to (say) Italy or France and get a decent permanent job in the public sector would be pretty much nil, however good their skills and language were. Is that fair comment? (I really do hope to be deluged by proof to the contrary.)
Comment by Strategist — 13 February, 2009 @ 12:33 pm
I would prefer Workers Internationalism rather than Workers Protectionism. The latter seems little different from the way US unions have often called for the exclusion of foreign companies from contracts (as with the recent row over steel). In this case the important point is the workers are paid the NAECI rate and allowed to join UK unions, even if 100% of them are Italian, Polish or Zimbabwean. But I totally agree that there should be a EU-wide campaign against the built-in neoliberalism in EU treaties, especially the way the courts have interpreted them in the Viking judgement etc. The subcontracting system should also be a major target, even if the contractors and subcontractors are UK based and employ British workers.
Comment by talbotelli — 13 February, 2009 @ 12:43 pm
Great statement. Just to let know that unemployment in Milton Keynes has risen by 20%!! in the last month and we are now above the nantional average (this in a new City that was founded by people moving to it from all parts of the UK and other Countries and which had one of the lowest unemploymnet rates in the UK until recent times). This is a deep and serious crisis of capitalism that is even deeper than the media lets on.
I have no doubt that all these workers (and we have many 1000’s of permanent residents from Italy [as does Bedford], Somalia and the Middle East who live happily side by side)would support ths motion and especiely “To confirm its support for the on-going campaign by GMB to have full implementation of Article 3(8) of the Posted Workers Directive implemented into UK law to prevent “social dumping”
Comment by Neil Williams — 13 February, 2009 @ 1:27 pm
What a pity then that New Labour and Geoff Hoon have just blown away thousands of potential jobs in Derby in a major train construction project handed to the Japanese. Bob Crow’s comment was: “We need to know why the order was not placed with Bombardier, which has established train-building capacity and a skilled workforce in Derby..” And the Labour MP for Derby commented: “This is a crass decision which gives the Japanese an opportunity of getting into the UK market. I don’t believe for one moment the figure of 12,500 jobs because work will be brought into the United Kingdom from overseas.”
So much for British jobs for British workers and the other useless rhetoric of the Labour government. The dead hand of the market still prevails for New Labour. Perhaps those unions still affiliated to Labour should ask themselves a few questions. And I wonder what LRC have to say on this?
The Green Party are about to issue a statement on this. It runs contrary to all the principles of Green New Deal. And this only two days after Tony Mc Nulty was assuring the unemployed on Newsnight that everything would be done to get jobs one the move again. Yes, to Japan!
Full gruesome details here http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/british-jobs-for-british-workers-pledge-exposed-1608216.html
This from the party who brought you Metronet collapse and other financial horrors. As a Green Party candidate in London for the European Parliament I shall be bringing up issues like this to point out the bankruptcy of New Labour’s economic policies.
Comment by Verde — 13 February, 2009 @ 2:02 pm
PRESS RELEASE
1 of 2 pages
Friday 13th February 2009
Immediate Release
Attention: News desk, Social, Europe, City, Industrial and Political Correspondents
35,000 DROP IN EASTERN EUROPEAN WORKERS IN THE UK WORKFORCE IN FINAL QUARTER OF 2008 REVEALED IN ONS DATA
Employers aim in importing highly skilled labour is to undercut collectively agreed and market clearing rates for UK labour says GMB
Kamaljeet Janju, GMB Equality and Inclusion Officer commenting on the publication by the ONS of statistics relating to non UK nationals in the workforce said, “The UK has a diverse workforce. The ONS data set on the participation of non UK nationals in the UK workforce is not new. Indeed it is well known to GMB and it points to the diversity of the total UK workforce. GMB has long known that Westminster and Kensington & Chelsea are top of the league for boroughs with the highest percentage of non UK nationals of working age, resident in the area. This reflects employment of non UK nationals in the City.
We are beginning to see migration from eastern Europe reversing. The ONS statistics published on Wednesday show that there was a drop of 35,000 workers from the eight eastern Europe Member States EUA8 (see note 1) in the UK workforce in the final quarter of 2008. This seems to have been missed in the reporting of the figures. This is a drop of 7% of the workers from the EUA 8 compared with a drop of 0.7% in the total UK workforce. This 7% drop is reflected in anecdotal reports from GMB migrant workers branches.
Earnings of overseas workers varies enormously .One reason for the drop may be the poor wages paid to this group of migrant workers who may now be looking for a better deal elsewhere in the EU now that those states are open to these workers. Official ONS statistics for 2008 show that the median wage for the EUA8 was £290 per week. This compares with a median figure for the total UK workforce of £436 per week. The median weekly figure for other migrant groups were £510 for EU14 (see note 2), £635 for USA, £577 for Australia and New Zealand, £485 for South Africa, £415 Africa ex-SA, £423 for India. Only those born in Pakistan and Bangladesh on a median of £292 per week had a similar EU8 median figure.
Undercutting is an issue. There is room for serious confusion on this issue. The reason disputes are taking place in the engineering construction sector is that employers are seeking to import highly skilled labour from low wage countries into the UK to undercut the collectively agreed and market clearing rates for this labour in the UK. This is contrary to article 3.8 of the Posted Workers Directive (see note 3). It is a complete try-on by the engineering construction employers. In October 2008 the EU Parliament voted by 5 to 1 to call on the EU Commission and member states to clarify the legislation and put a stop to this recipe for social turmoil. The UK government should take immediate action to mend the botched implementation of the Posted Workers Directive into UK law in 1999 as they promised to do in 2004 (See note 4).”
Ends
Contact: Kamaljeet Jandu, GMB Equality and Inclusion Officer on 07956 237178 or Kathleen Walker-Shaw, GMB European Officer on 07841 181549 or Keith Hazlewood, GMB National Secretary on 07730 434768 or GMB Press Office: Steve Pryle on 07921 289880 or Rose Conroy on 07974 251823.
Notes to Editors:
1 EUA8 Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovak Republic, Slovenia.
2 EU14 Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Holland, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal, Republic of Ireland, Spain (including the Canary Islands), Sweden.
3 The aim of the 1996 EU Posted Workers Directive is to protect the rights of workers sent abroad to work in another European Union country. In regard to the construction industry, it aims to further protect posted workers from exploitation. Conversely, in particular regard to the construction, contracting and building sectors, it protects domestic construction workers and contractors in the host country from unregulated wage competition or social dumping (this was dealt with under Article 3). The Directive addressed the need to create a basic framework of equal treatment for workers within the territory where (building and construction) work is undertaken. Under article 3(8) to apply the directive properly, in the current environment, the United Kingdom has simply to decide which collective agreements to apply. Journalists who require copies of Article 3 of the Posted Workers Directive should call Kathleen Walker-Shaw GMB, European Officer.
4 In 2004, the Labour Party gave the following commitment “Assurance that Posting of Workers Directive will not lead to under-cutting “.
Comment by press.office@gmb.org.uk — 13 February, 2009 @ 2:16 pm
ok
Comment by press.office@gmb.org.uk — 13 February, 2009 @ 2:19 pm
#8 Well it depends what you mean by “proof”.
In the case of France, jobs in the public sector (”la fonction publique”) are not restricted on nationality… as long as you are from the EU.
(in French) http://www.fonction-publique.gouv.fr/article472.html
Language is not even a condition (but remember that many of the positions are applied to through exams!). That’s for the theory.
Now for the practice is impossible to assess, mostly because of the - let’s just say - reluctance to collect census information related to race, ethnic background and religion. Believe it or not, the first employment survey addressing the nationality question only started in 2003 and only asks for the nationality of the respondent’s parents, and the respondents were French themselves!
(in French) http://www.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/rapports-publics/054000049/index.shtml
The French senate is currently proposing a law removing the nationality condition on many jobs that still have it.
Comment by Sarkoland — 13 February, 2009 @ 2:21 pm
#14 Thanks, Pays de Sarko!
Comment by Strategist — 13 February, 2009 @ 5:51 pm
18 Feb 2009
The GMB Central Executive Council (CEC), meeting yesterday, was told that the contractors and sub-contractors building a new power station at Isle of Grain, Kent are seeking planning permission to use an accommodation barge and disused army barracks to house Polish workers who are due to be brought into the UK to build the station. The 70 metre accommodation barge will be moored at Damhead Wharf, Damhead Creek on the River Medway. The disused army barracks is at Chattenden on the Hoo Peninsula in Kent. Planning permission for the barge has already been given to Dr C Wesolowski from Alstom Power Systems to house 200 hundred workers between January 2009 and November 2010
The focus of the dispute about the application of EU Posted Workers directive in the UK has shifted from Lindsey Oil Refinery in Lincolnshire to two new sites of which Isle of Grain is one. New power stations are being built at the two sites, for RWE at Staythorpe in Nottinghamshire and for EON at the Isle of Grain in Kent. Both sites are being managed by main contractor Alstom. Alstom is using sub contractors FNN and Mon Presior at Staythorpe and sub contractors Remak and Zre Katowice at the Isle of Grain. Alstom told the trade unions in January 2009 that they plan to use 250 Polish workers, employed at Alstom’s own execution centre in Poland, to build the next phase of Staythorpe and that they will not be employing any UK workers. Zre from Katowice plan to bring in 120 workers from Poland and will house them in the barge and in the barracks.
The CEC considered how to stop this discrimination against UK workers and how best to protect the terms and conditions of employment in the UK construction engineering industry. The CEC were told that as things now stand, the UK Business Department, EU Commission and European Court of Justice are a powerful and malevolent political force working with employers to cut terms and conditions of the UK construction engineering workforce. The CEC agreed to convene a meeting of all GMB shop stewards and officials to consider how best to deal with this organized threat to hard won terms and conditions of employment in this industry.
One aim is to secure amending legislation in UK Parliament to correct the failure to implement article 3.8 of the Posted Workers Directive into UK law which would make it a legal requirement that posted workers in this sector be paid the nationally agreed rates of pay. Another is to secure action at European Union level to deal with European Court judgements on the Viking and Lavel cases which opened the door to this discrimination. The European Parliament called by 5 to 1 for the Commission and member states to do this. In the meantime pressure has to mount on the employers to stop undermining terms and conditions and to stop discriminating against UK workers. One way of doing this may be to seek improvements to the transparency rules in the national agreement.
Paul Kenny GMB General Secretary said “The CEC has called GMB shop stewards and officers to meet to consider ways in which members in this industry can defend their terms and conditions and stop employers refusing to even consider employing them.
These members have been let down by employers like Alstom, by the UK Government, by ACAS, by the EU Commission and the European Court. They need to look at how they can best defend themselves with the assistance of the union. The CEC have made clear that it will sanction an official strike ballot should that be the route this meeting decides to go”
Ends
Contact: . Keith Hazlewood, GMB National Secretary on 07730 434768 or Kathleen Walker-Shaw, GMB European Officer on 07841 181549 Colin Todd, GMB Organiser on 07966 327982 for Staythorpe. Brian Skipper, GMB Organiser on 07773 359133 for the Isle of Grain. GMB Press Office: 07921 289880 or 07974 251823.
Notes to Editors:
The workforce is engineering construction workers which include steel workers, platers and welders.
Staythorpe power station will be a compact industrial facility located on a brownfield site that housed the two previous coal stations. The power station will comprise four generating units, each around 400MW, with the combined ability to generate power for almost two million homes.
E.ON is building a 1,275MW gas-fired combined heat and power (CHP) station on the Isle of Grain in Kent, UK. The £500m station will have three combined-cycle units that will burn natural gas, and will supply waste heat in the form of hot water to the nearby liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal. That will make Grain one of the world’s largest CHP plants, and will take its overall efficiency to an expected 72%. The Grain plant will be at the same site as the existing oil-fired station. This 30-year-old oil-fired plant develops 1,355MW and is used infrequently, but must close for environmental reasons by late 2015.
The aim of the 1996 EU Posted Workers Directive is to protect the rights of workers sent abroad to work in another European Union country. In regard to the construction industry, it aims to further protect posted workers from exploitation. Conversely, in particular regard to the construction, contracting and building sectors, it protects domestic construction workers and contractors in the host country from unregulated wage competition or social dumping (this was dealt with under Article 3). The Directive addressed the need to create a basic framework of equal treatment for workers within the territory where (building and construction) work is undertaken. Under article 3(8) to apply the directive properly, in the current environment, the United Kingdom has simply to decide which collective agreements to apply.
Journalists who require copies of Article 3 of the Posted Workers Directive should call Kathleen Walker-Shaw GMB, European Officer.
In 2004, the Labour Party gave the following commitment “Assurance that Posting of Workers Directive will not lead to under-cutting “.
Comment by press office — 19 February, 2009 @ 8:06 pm