I would like to scrap the law of the Agency Workers Directive.
Why does this idea matter?
The law is not due to come in until October 2011, and so would not cost the Government anything to scrap. The law is anti discriminatory which assume that recruitment is discriminatory in the first place, and therefore built on shaky grounds. The assumption appears to have been that all recruitment is the exploitation of immigrants or British workers by Gangmasters within the field of casual labour. The reality is that temporary employment in the
This new law will potentially cripple the temporary employment industry with the insistence that workers HAVE to have the same rights after 12 weeks as those of workers who work in that company. This sounds right in principle, but in practice it is almost unworkable.
People will "temp" for many reasons, they may be between jobs, or it may suit their lifestyle. Companies also like temps for many reasons, they may have a lot of work on all of a sudden, maternity etc. What will happen once the law is bought in is that after 12 weeks the company may not have the budget to pay for the increase in pay that will be required to keep that worker as they will now be entitled to the same pay as the employees.
This is especially pertinent for Supply teachers, a vital cog within schools. Supply teachers often cover for maternity, or a gap in skills that a school may only need for a term or so. In this case, what is now an affordable option for the school will turn into a headache when they realise that half way through a term they will have to let an excellent Science teacher go as the funds will not be there. Many supply teachers are retired or returning to work, and the lifestyle suits. No supply teachers are cryng out for this, and schools are dreading it. Also how can a teachers holiday pay be taken into account when the average holiday for a teacher is 15 weeks. The school would have to pay a lot more than a normal company whose holiday entitlement may only be 4 weeks.
Repealing this law would help Britain grow out of the recession, keeping it would have the opposite effect of what many think the reason for the law was in the first place; it would cost companies more money to keep talent, and increasing benefits paid out for the Government.