No Racism: Refugees Welcome Here

The St Andrew's Day Anti-Racism March and Rally this year has the theme 'No Racism: Refugees Welcome Here.' The rally will take place on Sat 28th Nov, Assemble 10:30am Glasgow Green. Below is a Guest Blog from Alastair Pringle, Equality and Human Rights Commission on the importance of this March.

Communities across Scotland have long played a proud and welcoming part in offering shelter to those seeking asylum. Our history of fairness, dignity and respect are shown in the recent outpouring of public support for helping those in need fleeing across Europe.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has written to the Governments at Holyrood and Westminster to offer our assistance and expertise as they develop plans to tackle the current refugee crisis. We, in towns and cities all over Scotland, have a role to play. We must demonstrate that refugees are welcome in this country, that we will support their inclusion in our society to make it a more diverse and tolerant place. This should be in keeping with the international laws for the right to asylum which must always be upheld.

Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights prescribes that everyone has the right to seek and enjoy asylum in other countries, provided it is appropriately invoked. The Equality and Human Rights Commission will support efforts that welcome refugees and protect their human rights.

Together, we need to recognise and challenge any attempt to discriminate against refugees, directly or indirectly. This might mean we need to look critically at our own actions and those of our friends, families, colleagues and neighbours. It might mean we have to challenge and speak out against hurtful language or deeds. It also might mean that our public services need to look again at how they provide essential health, care, education, employment and support services to these groups of people who come to Scotland seeking a safe and secure future.

We should continue to show compassionate leadership on this matter, reflecting our influence and the extent to which we benefit culturally and economically from migration so we can let the world know that refugees are welcome here.


Alastair Pringle
Equality and Human Rights Commission

Refugees Welcome Here

The St Andrew's Day Anti-Racism March and Rally this year has the theme 'No Racism: Refugees Welcome Here.' The rally will take place on Sat 28th Nov, Assemble 10:30am Glasgow Green. Below is a Guest Blog from John Wilkes, Scottish Refugee Council on the importance of this March.  

Scottish Refugee Council is proud to support the STUC’s important annual Anti-Racism march.

The theme of this year; No Racism: Refugees Welcome Here tells the story of how the refugee crisis in the Middle East and the Mediterranean has become a central issue for Europe in the last few weeks.

Until recently, the refugee crisis wasn’t on many people’s radar. That was until the heartbreaking image of three-year-old Alan Kurdi whose lifeless body was found washed up on a Turkish beach was shown across the world.
Alan’s [inaccurately reported as Aylan] five-year-old brother and mother also drowned on that perilous trip across the Mediterranean.

This Syrian family is not the first and sadly will not be the last victims of what is the worst global humanitarian crisis since the Second World War. Desperate men, women and children are risking their lives every day in a bid to reach safety.

However this image has galvanised public support and empathy and forced the UK Government into long overdue action. Scotland has been central to this and the Scottish Parliament and Government have shown great leadership on the response that is needed and continue to put pressure on the UK Government to do more. Scottish Refugee Council has experienced much of the positive compassion, generosity and support from the Scottish public at a scale rarely seen in our 30 year history.

Thousands of people across this country are saying loud and clear that they welcome refugees. These are not just empty words, but are being put into action.
But we’re also very aware of those who wish to play on people’s fears and who are using this as an opportunity to voice their racist views towards those seeking safety on our shores.

We need to speak up for refugees, address people’s genuine concerns, and stand up to those exploiting this refugee crisis to spread racism and divide people.

Scotland is ready and willing to play its part in welcoming refugees. We must remember that they are people just like us with their own hopes and fears. They are ordinary people living through extraordinary circumstances. Let’s make sure that all refugees are welcomed irrespective of race.

Scotland can be a beacon for how we treat refugees. Say no racism: refugees are welcome here.
Thank you for showing your solidarity with refugees today.

For more information on the developments on the crisis and to register your own offers of help please visit www.scotlandwelcomesrefugees.scot


John Wilkes
CEO of Scottish Refugee Council

Why the Scottish Parliament should demand a Legislative Consent Motion and refuse to comply with aspects of the Trade Union Bill

Calling for the devolution of employment law alone, is not a sufficient response to the Trade Union Bill

The STUC advocates the devolution of workplace protection law to Scotland.  This includes employment law, health and safety, equalities, minimum wages and of course the regulation of trade unions.

This position is supported by the SNP, but currently opposed by the Labour Party and by the TUC.

This blog is not primarily about the rights and wrongs of that policy.  However, the most commonly cited reason for opposing it is that it would presage a ‘race to the bottom’ in which the different legislatures competed to lower employment  regulation to gain competitive advantage and/or that it would provide encouragement or pretext to the UK Government to introduce different protections on a regional basis in England. 

The STUC rejects this view on three grounds.  Firstly, there is no evidence that the current Government in Scotland - nor its most likely replacement - would seek to lower workplace protection here (surely the opposite is true?).  Secondly, the Westminster Government already possesses the powers and majority required to introduce such regional variations if it so desired.  Thirdly, Northern Ireland already has a number of devolved workplace protections and neither of the feared outcomes has ensued.

It is also undeniable that, were trade union regulation already devolved, we would not be subject to the vicious Trade Union Bill currently being rushed through Westminster.

But arguing for the devolution of workplace protection is an insufficient response to the Trade Union Bill.  This is for two reasons.

Firstly, time is not on our side.  The Trade Union Bill if passed will become law in March/April of next year, whereas there is no prospect of the devolution of employment law in the near future.  Had theTories not been elected with a majority in May 2015, and had we successfully convinced Labour to support our position, things might have been different. But that’s not where we are.

Secondly, even if employment protection was devolved, or indeed if Scotland were independent, it would still be necessary for us to campaign against the Trade Union Bill. This would be partly as an act of solidarity, but also because no sensible analysis of the way in which the UK economy and labour market works could fail to understand that the way in which employment and trade unions is regulated in the UK would have a continuing impact in Scotland.

So, whilst the STUC will continue to campaign for the devolution of employment protection, the question is what do we do in the here and now?

Obviously, we continue to work with Scottish MPs in their efforts to defeat or amend the Bill at Westminster and obviously, we work to unite as many people in Scotland as we can to oppose it.  But our key priority in the week ahead is to explore what the Scottish Parliament can do.

The case for a Legislative Consent Motion (LCM)

The first thing the Parliament can do is demand that aspects of the Trade Union Bill are subject to an LCM  – the process whereby parts of the Act if passed would only be applicable in Scotland with the agreement of the Scottish Parliament. The aspects in question would be:

·      the clause in the Bill determining that public sector bodies should not offer ‘check-off’ facilities to their employees (the system whereby employees, if they wish they can pay their union dues directly from their salary); and

·      the part of the Bill which forces UK public sector funded bodies to give an account of the amount of facility time they offer to union reps (paid time off to represent members) and, the empowers the UK Government  to cap the amount of time public sector bodies offer  if it deems it ‘excessive’.

The UK Government has justified these provisions on the grounds of ‘saving taxpayers money.’ Of course, the real purpose is to attack public sector unions but even this Government cannot say that.

Crucially, the Government has not said it with wants to do away with payroll deductions per se.  It is not banning their use for charity giving, pension payments or cycle lease schemes. Neither is it banning payroll deduction schemes for union dues in the private sector.

The same is broadly true on facility time.  The Government is not banning facility time, nor does it want the power to limit its use in the private sector.

Essentially it does not want (or dare) to interfere with agreements reached between employers and employees in the private sector, particularly where these might be contractual.

Thus, we are facing a discriminatory piece of legislation in which some workers will have rights that others will not.

By applying this legislation in a non-universal way, the UK Government is openly admitting that these parts of the Bill are about what public money may, or may not, be used for rather than whether the concepts of payroll deductions or agreed facility time agreements are wrong per se.

I am no constitutional lawyer, but it seems to me that this introduces a number of complications and a clear problem relating to the spirit of the devolution settlement.

Now, as it happens, quite a lot of public sector employers make money out of check-off (unions pay for the service) and Government analysis of facility time shows a positive benefit to business, but this is not really the point.
The point is that the taxpayers’ money that the UK Government is looking to ‘save’ IS NOT ITS MONEY! This is not just a matter of principle, but of fact. At the point that resources are devolved to the Scottish Parliament or indeed raised through devolved tax-raising powers, it is a matter for our Parliament , and our Parliament alone to decide how to spend it.

It is important to be clear that the question about whether a Legislative Consent Motion is required does not simply centre on whether an act passed by the UK Government might impact on the way the Scottish Parliament may deploy its resources. To use a topical example, if the UK Government were to use its reserved powers on abortion to change the time limits for terminations, it would matter not a jot whether the Scottish Parliament wished NHS Scotland to do differently.  The law is reserved and the law is the law. No LCM would be required.

But if the UK Government were to maintain the legal right to a termination at a certain point in pregnancy, but that that such terminations could not be provided by the Scottish NHS, this I think would be viewed differently.  At least it should be viewed differently.

This is effectively what the UK Government is proposing in relation to the parts of the Trade Union Bill. Nick Boles, the Minister in charge, has confirmed that under the provisions of the Bill the NHS in England will be able to tell the NHS in Scotland how it can and cannot spend its money in relation to facility time and check-off.  This effectively means that the UK Health Minister can tell the Scottish Parliament what it can or cannot do with respect to its own resources.

The question of whether an LCM is required revolves around whether the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament is affected.  In his blog Alan Trench argues that the Trade Union Bill involves no such interference. 

I’m not so sure.

Take a hypothetical example - though a good one!  As far as I can see, the Scottish Parliament would currently be empowered to enact legislation providing that all public service employers under its control MUST offer facility time, or check-off etc. to its employees.  This power would have to be limited to areas of its devolved competence (i.e. where it was the employer or had ultimate administrative competence) and it could not be extended to cover non-government employers as this would breach reserved employment legislation.

If the Trade Union Bill were to be enacted as currently written, the Scottish Parliament would no longer be able to do this. NOT because it was forced to comply with a universally applied law (i.e. the general banning of all payroll deductions or facility time) but because a law had been written that specifically banned it from using its resources in that way. To my mind, the Scottish Parliament should be looking into this issue very closely indeed. At the very, very least it should be the subject of debate on Tuesday.

If no Legislative Consent Motion

Presuming that the above argument is wrong, what should the Scottish Parliament do?

Irrespective of whether it breaches the letter of the devolution settlement, these parts of the Trade Union Bill surely breach its spirit. 

Therein lies the case for the Scottish Government to state its clear intention not to comply with these clauses. Local government in Scotland has already done so, and there is a very strong case for local government in England and Wales to do the same.

In practice, this would mean refusing to publish details of how facility time was used and how much was spent on it; refusing to cap facility time if the UK Government demanded it; and refusing to abandon check-off.

We do not yet know what the penalties for such an action would be. Although surely any such penalty must be proportionate to the ‘offence’? If, say, a local authority were to refuse to abandon check-off, and was able to show that by so doing it was actually saving the tax-payer money because it would lose revenue by stopping it, how punitive might a penalty reasonably be?

In any case, many will take the view that the penalty is immaterial because the principle is too great.

This returns me to the first part of this blog.  The devolution of workplace protection is a policy the STUC advocates, but alone it not an adequate response to the Trade Union Bill because the threat we face is more immediate and is a matter of principle.

By clearly stating its intention to refuse to comply with the clauses of the Bill, the Parliament can make a clear statement about its own legislative and administrative integrity and lay down a challenge to the Westminster Government which would resonate across the UK.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On the irony of being in London to campaign against the Trade Union Bill during Living Wage week

The new Living Wage rate was announced on Monday and Living Wage week has involved a range of campaigning activities, including events rightly recognising the progress made by some employers in paying the wage, which provides ‘a low cost but acceptable standard of Living’. 

The phrase ‘low cost but acceptable’ makes me uncomfortable, though I am required  to use it often.  People could certainly be forgiven for failing to get very excited about the fact that between 300 and 400 employers in Scotland should be lauded for reaching those dizzy heights in the payment of their staff.  However, whilst 1 in 5 of the working population are still being paid a wage which by this definition allows for a ‘lower cost and unacceptable standard of living’ (i.e. poverty) – needs must.

The irony is that reliance on Minimum Wages and campaigns for a decent Living Wage are mainly necessary because successive governments have legislated away or failed to support meaningful trade union power.  I use the words ‘trade union power’ advisedly, knowing that for some this conjures up images of all powerful trade union bosses and ‘one out-all out’ 1970s memes.  The media has done an effective job over decades of caricaturing trade union activity so that simple phrases throw up negative connotations. However, trade union power matters.

People will disagree about when exactly trade union power was at its height.  Union membership peaked in the late 1970s and many would argue that the 1974-1979 was the pinnacle of trade union strength.  Here is the graph of income equality in the UK since 1961.  Fairly clearly, inequality is at its lowest when trade union strength is at its greatest.

 

There is another way of looking at the figures and trend, which describes union membership as a proportion of the working population and sees it peaking earlier.  This graph correlates trade union membership with the share of income of the top 10%.  It is a different way of looking at the same phenomenon.

 

Now it is not suggested, by me at least, that trade union strength is the only factor which relates to income inequality.  For sure, the attacks on the social security system, which began with Thatcher and have been continued, are a fundamental driver of poverty and inequality as was the destruction through the 1980s of a range of industries which previously provided decent ‘middle’ wages for working class people.

But union power matters and the primary reason it matters is probably less to do with union membership levels per se (though that’s important) and more to do with the incidence of collective bargaining in the economy.  This graph gives a Europe-wide picture of the correlation between income inequality and collective bargaining.  With France and Belgium which have vastly different levels of trade union membership (Belgium relatively high, France very low) both performing far better than the UK on the gini coefficient, but both sharing similar levels of collective bargaining.

It is therefore important to understand the Government’s current attack on trade unions to be aimed at further undermining our collective bargaining power.  The Government calculates that it can achieve this by attacking union capacity through reducing time off for reps and wrapping unions in red-tape meanwhile undermining the potential for, and the effectiveness of industrial action.

However hard we campaign (and we will) for a decent statutory minimum wages and however persuasive we are about the advantages to employers of setting a positive example (and we will be).  There is no more important factor than maintaining and enhancing trade union power.  Opposing the Trade Union Bill is the first step.

Dave Moxham

 

Opposing the Trade Union Bill in Parliament - guest blog Ian Murray MP

Ian Murray MP, Labour Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, along with Stephen Doughty MP, outline the Labour Group's opposition to the Trade Union Bill in the UK Parliament, and the joint campaigning against it.

There is a grim irony to the fact that the Tory Government’s Trade Union Bill coincides with the 100^th anniversary of the death of Keir Hardie, a hero of the workers’ movement and the man perhaps most responsible for forging the close links between the Labour Party and the Trades Union movement that endure to this day. As my colleague Stephen Doughty MP, Labour’s lead spokesperson on this Bill, has stated, Labour MPs will oppose every aspect of this pernicious Bill with every sinew.

 

Since Hardie’s era, the Labour Party has built on the foundations he established and developed a close relationship with the Trades Union movement, based on mutual interest, reliance and support. Every trade unionist and good employer knows that businesses thrive when employees and employers work together for the benefit of the business.  Viewed in this context, the Bill is not just an affront to civil liberties; it is a devious and dishonest attempt to rupture that relationship and to place workers and employers at loggerheads. As Jeremy Corbyn has said, it infringes international labour rights and conventions. What’s more, it is just bad legislation: transparently partisan, poorly conceived and porously drafted.  

 

This Bill has so many holes that it is difficult to choose which thread to pull on: arbitrary turnout and voting thresholds that, had they been applied at the General Election, would have seen many Tory MPs fail to get elected, and which will, if enforced, have a disproportionate impact upon women seeking parity of pay and conditions. A profusion of petty regulations to smother unions in red tape, and changes to political funding which could undermine successful campaigns such as the Hope not Hate, or UNITE’s “Fair Tips" and USDAW’s “Freedom from Fear” campaigns. A self-serving redefinition of “essential” public services. Finally, absurd restrictions on facility time, and the abrogation of check off, a proposal that former Lib Dem MP, Danny Alexander – hardly a totem of the Trade Union movement – previously dismissed as pointless and open to legal challenge.  In essence, we are dealing with a full-frontal assault on the Trades Unions and Labour movements.

 

The Government’s justification for the Bill is utterly spurious. They argue the need to reduce the incidence of industrial action – citing the recent rail strikes in London as an example. However, and as Alan Johnson MP pointed out when the Bill was debated at second reading, industrial action has declined significantly over the past 30 years. Since 2010, an average of 647,000 days have been lost, compared with 7,213,000 lost in the 1980s and these proposals would not have prevented the London Tube strike or that CWU postal strike that had huge turnouts and massive support.

 

Labour has led the charge against this Bill and I have been working very closely with the Shadow BiS Team on this issue, and with Stephen Doughty MP, who has been taking the Bill through Parliament.  We have tabled over 70 amendments to try and derail the Bill.  As well as opposing the Bill overall, in areas where we believe it to direct contravene of the devolution settlement, we have taken a more focused approach, tabling amendments to protect workers across the UK form its worst aspects.  In its assault on workers’ rights and entitlements, this Bill is no respecter of boundaries and borders, and while the Bill is itself divisive, we must show solidarity in opposing it.

 

That is why Labour’s amendments apply equally to every part of the country: the Greater London Authority; English local authorities; and the devolved administrations in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. SNP MPs have already supported many of these amendments, and we welcome their support.  

 

If we are to defeat this Bill, as I believe we can, we need collective action across the UK. The Supreme Court judgement on the abolition of the Agricultural Wages board in Wales has given us grounds for hope. Carwyn Jones, Labour’s First Minister in Wales, is vigorously opposing the Bill as infringing on devolved policy, and is poised to demand a Legislative Consent Motion, for which the above ruling provides legal precedent, should the Government proceed regardless.

 

In Scotland, our Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale MSP has urged all Scottish local authorities to agree a motion of non-compliance, and every Labour-led administration in Scotland has done so. We need everyone else to follow suit and the Scottish Government to encourage them to do so. We also need the Scottish Government to table their own LCM, and to state clearly and unequivocally that they will not abide by any Bill that affects the devolved settlement in Scotland. This Bill encroaches upon devolved public services so a Scottish LCM is both necessary and justified.

 

The Trade Union Bill is part of a wider Tory agenda to curtail rights and quell dissent; an agenda which encapsulates the charities gagging bill, fees for employment tribunals, the dilution of individual rights, the undermining of collective rights, and cuts to legal aid. All those who believe in democratic rights and sound industrial relations have a duty to oppose it.   We are doing all we can in the Parliamentary process and we welcome the support of the STUC and member unions.  What this Tory Government forgets is what we have always known: that effective trade unions are good for employees, good for businesses, good for jobs and good for the economy.  This Trade Union Bill is an all out assault on them all.

 

STUC General Secretary at SNP conference

On the morning of Saturday 17^th October, Grahame Smith our General Secretary got to his feet, delivered a speech to SNP conference and received a standing ovation. It was described as an ‘historic’ moment.  STUC leaders haven’t tended to be sought for, or to seek out, prime platform spots at the SNP conference.

The subject was the Trade Union Bill and the SNP took the unusual step of suspending their Standing Orders to allow Grahame to speak in the debate, on a motion proposed by Chris Stephens MP and seconded by Roseanna Cunningham MSP. 

Now, to be sure, for me as a veteran of student, Labour Party and trade union democracy, it seemed an odd procedure.  But that is a matter for the SNP.  For us it represented an opportunity to speak to the party of Government, supported by at least half of the Scottish population (and of trade union members) on the greatest existential threat to our movement for a generation, during a debate on a motion which was completely opposed the Bill.  Grahame also used the opportunity to raise the highly concerning current threat to the Scottish steel industry.

It is however, a decision that has been criticised. A number of trade union and Labour activists took to social media to accuse the STUC of ‘endorsing the SNP’ ‘abandoning Labour’ and ‘naively falling into an SNP trap’.

The argument (I think) goes thus.  The SNP are a right wing, anti-trade union party masquerading as the opposite.  By speaking during one of their debates the STUC has effectively endorsed them and in so doing damaged Labour.

Just for the record, the STUC is a not a political party affiliated organisation, most of its unions are not affiliated to Labour and probably fewer than half of its members pay the Labour levy. The STUC has spoken at Labour Party conferences for as long as anyone can remember, and last week, Grahame spoke at the Green Party conference.  Were a similar invitation to be received from, say, the Tories, I would be recommending that we accepted, though I wouldn’t be able to guarantee that the assembled delegates would like what they heard!

It is certainly true that the SNP was keen to highlight the fact that Grahame was speaking at the conference and that a key theme of the weekend was, as a number of journalists noted, a clear attempt to connect with working class voters. On the Trade Union Bill, their MPs are pledged to vote out the whole Bill, and are working closely with the STUC, TUC and Labour MPs to effect its defeat.  The Scottish Government opposes the Bill in its entirety (including, incidentally the political fund clauses even though it might be to their advantage);  is investigating whether an argument can be made for a Legislative Consent Motion, and is considering how it can refuse to co-operate with legislation if it is enacted.

It should be recognised and applauded, that Scottish Labour, including Labour councils have gone somewhat further than this.  Some have already stated their intention to refuse to comply with aspects of the Bill such as caps on facility time; the removal of the right of employees to pay their union dues through the payroll; and the use of agency workers to break strikes.  The Green Party has adopted a similar view.

This is enormously welcome and, whilst the primary aim at this point is to defeat the Bill, the STUC will continue to press all parties, including the SNP, to support a non-compliance position, if this nasty Bill in enacted.

This approach reflects a wider one, which will continue.  When the SNP Government does things which we disagree with, we will say so - as we did, last Wednesday when we criticised the First Minster on youth employment figures.

But what we won’t do is to pass up the opportunity to work with the Scottish Government in areas of broad agreement, nor with the SNP on our key priority campaigns.

There are some, on all sides of the party political divide in Scotland who would like the STUC to fight a proxy battle on their behalf to do damage to the other.  Our members and their interests are implicitly seen as acceptable collateral in a bigger war for political power.

This isn’t going to happen.

 

Dave Moxham

Is youth unemployment at a 10 year low?

On Sunday's Marr Show (at 37.00 mins), Nicola Sturgeon, First Minister stated that "youth unemployment is at its lowest level in a decade". If true, this is surely good news. People worry about youth unemployment for very good reasons. Like all varieties of unemployment, it is a terrible waste of resources for the country as a whole and expensive to the public purse. Periods of unemployment, particularly if prolonged, do significant damage to a young person's future life chances. There is a duty therefore on politicians of all stripes to ensure interventions on the subject are evidence-based and precise.

So is the First Minister correct? Well, she referred to the 'level' not the rate of youth unemployment so let's start with the latest (published 16 September) numbers drawn from the Annual Population Survey:

Chart 1: Youth unemployment, level (000s), Scotland 2004-March 2015

On the 18-24 years measure [note: I've chosen to focus on the 18-24 years group but have included information on the 16-17 sand 16-24 groups for completeness. All the arguments presented below hold true for both 18-24 and 16-24 groups. The 16-17 group is a special case as we shall see] it is clear that unemployment remains significantly higher than it was a decade ago: the latest figures, covering the April 2014-March 2015 period, confirm that 51,000 young people were unemployed compared with 36,000 during the period April 2004-March 2005. The last time the figure was lower than 51,000 was in the July 2008-June 2009 period when 18-24 years unemployment was 46,000. 

However, focusing on the level (i.e. the number of young people unemployed) isn't very illuminating. If for the sake of argument the economically active population aged 18-24 had doubled over the decade then a figure of 51,000 would represent a very decent outcome (i.e. a much lower rate) . So it makes sense to look at the rate:

Chart 2: Youth unemployment, rate (%), Scotland 2004-March 2015

The current 18-24 years rate of 14.5% is 4.1% higher than it was a decade ago; it was last lower in 2008. 

The above measures are based on the Annual Population Survey which are the most reliable statistics available for employment/unemployment/inactivity by age in Scotland. The APS is based on a sample size four times larger than the Labour Force Survey from which the headline figures we hear discussed each month are drawn. However, ONS also publishes an 'experimental' series of data on employment and unemployment by age. This series has the advantage of being more up-to-date (the latest figures cover the May-July 2015 period) but ONS are careful to apply the following strong caveat: "These estimates are derived from the same data source as the headline figures, but due to the relatively small samples sizes and subsequent sampling variability, the figures should be used with caution and are designated as experimental statistics".

The STUC has in the past taken issue with the Scottish Government using these statistics whilst failing to note the caveat. But do the experimental statistics support the proposition that youth unemployment is at its lowest level in a decade?

Chart 3: Youth unemployment, level (000s), Scotland, 2004-2015 (experimental series)

Even on this measure, 18-24 years unemployment is currently higher than it was a decade ago (54,000 compared to 47,000). However, this is a more volatile series and the number of 18-24 year olds unemployed increased by 9,000 between March-May 2015 and May-July. So if the First Minister had been speaking to Marr before the latest statistics were published on 16 September, her statement would have been technically correct on this measure. Perhaps the error is simply attributable to a short lag in updating official advice/Ministerial lines.

What does the unemployment rate from the experimental series reveal?

Chart 4: Youth unemployment, rate (%), Scotland, 2004-2015 (experimental series)

The current 18-24 rate of 14% compares to a rate of 12.9% exactly a decade ago. However, as with the level above, the rate did drop to 11.8% earlier this year. So, again, it would have been technically accurate to argue before the latest statistics were published in September that youth unemployment on this measure was lower than a decade ago.

It would have been possible but to have done so would have been more than a bit mischievous. As the charts above show, both the level and the rate fell during the period between 2004 and 2007 hitting lows of 32,000 and 8.8% respectively in Nov-Jan 2007. Surely a more accurate gauge of progress is to compare current performance against pre-recession peaks/troughs not an entirely arbitrary time period of a decade?

But does any of this really matter? Is the unemployment rate really an effective gauge of the position of young people in the labour market? I would argue it isn't and would refer people to this excellent 'heretical' post by Mike Campbell for an explanation as to why. As he points out, the unemployment rate measures the proportion of economically active (in work or looking for work) young people who are out of a job. The denominator is not the whole population aged 18-24. Economic activity amongst this age group is always relatively low because so many are in full-time education. Many young people looking for a job will also be in full-time education. If the number of unemployed young people remains constant, and the numbers going into full-time education increase, this would show as an increase in the unemployment rate.

So what more do we know about young people in the labour market in Scotland in 2015? 

Chart 5: Employment, Unemployment and Inactivity, rates (%), Scotland 2004-2015

The gradual fall in unemployment since 2012 is mainly attributable to rising inactivity; the increase in employment has been extremely slow although the very latest statistics - not yet sufficient to show a clear trend - are more encouraging. If the rising numbers of inactive young people simply reflect more entering full-time education then this it is clearly not a trend to fret about unduly. If however more young people are simply leaving the labour market altogether and not engaging in education or training then the Scottish Government - and the rest of us - should be extremely concerned. 

Chart 6: Inactivity rate (%), Scotland, 2004-2015

The huge leap in the 16-17 year olds inactivity rate almost certainly reflects the higher numbers staying on at school. We know that the number of 16-19 years olds not in education, employment or training has fallen significantly over the last decade. Of more concern is the 18-24 years group. Rising inactivity might simply reflect higher numbers in full-time education (and not looking for a job) but I'm unaware of official statistics we can draw on here.

But the slow increase in employment is a concern. It is unambiguously the case that fewer young people are in work than a decade ago whilst the employment rate for the over 50s has increased significantly. There is a worry that young people are being squeezed out of entry level jobs. We also know that young people are much more likely to be on a zero hour contract or paid less than the national minimum wage or the living wage. The under-25s will not benefit from the introduction of the 'National Living Wage'.

In conclusion, the First Minister was incorrect to state that youth unemployment is lower than a decade ago although it is certainly possible that, when the new statistics are published tomorrow, this may become true. My concern is that by focusing only on unemployment, and being guilty of using what at best are incomplete and out of date statistics, the First Minister is in danger of leaving the impression that young people's situation in the Scottish labour market is improving much more rapidly than is the case. One day politicians may start using labour market statistics with due care and precision. We're not there yet.

Stephen Boyd
STUC

The fight for 5050 and fair politics for everyone

As the arguments over women’s representation in public and political life are rehearsed again during the parliamentary scrutiny of the Scotland Bill, it may be appropriate to reflect on the wider political context. When looking back to the early days of the campaign for the Scottish Assembly, subsequently Scottish Parliament, we should remember how women’s voices played a key role in shaping that new institution in 1999.

The Scottish Constitutional Convention of the 1980s had a Women’s Issues sub group, convened by Maria Fyfe MP, with trade union and civic organisation representation. Yvonne Strachan Transport and General Workers Union, and STUC Women’s Committee, brought a strong voice for trade union women and wider working class involvement. Submissions to the Women’s Issues Group contained a range of ideas for changing the face of Scottish political representation, and the Reports from the Scottish Constitutional Convention in 1989, in 1990, and in 1995, all made clear that the working structures and patterns of a Scottish Parliament should positively encourage the involvement of women, ethnic and other minority groups.

The STUC Women’s Committee triggered a wide discussion with its very straightforward proposal that 50% of the elected representatives should be men and 50% should be women. This was tied to the idea that the new parliament would have two representatives for each constituency, a proposal which had emanated from the Kilbrandon Commission. The STUC Women’s Committee took this, and specified one male and one female, drawn from two lists in each constituency.

As the campaign around 50/50 grew, the trade unions also took their proposal to the political parties, and in 1990 the Scottish Labour Party adopted support for the 50/50 approach. The arguments at that time included the preferred format of the Parliament and the voting system to be used, whether First past the Post or some form of proportional representation. This had been resolved by 1997, when the UK General Election returned a Labour Government, and the Scotland Act was subsequently passed, to set up the Scottish Parliament. As we know, the suggestion on two member constituencies was not adopted, although the combination of first past the post and the list system does give every citizen in Scotland more than one representative, and some of the political parties continue to try to devise ways of using the electoral system to increase women’s representation.

The STUC Women’s Committee, and all those campaigning for women’s voices to be heard, shaped those early days of the Scottish Parliament, and the legacy is still here today.

However, looking outwards at the wider political agenda, we should remember we do not campaign in a political vacuum. The Conservative Government today seeks to significantly limit the role of trade unions both in the workplace and in wider civic society. The Trade Union Bill currently being rushed through the Westminster Parliament, will restrict the most basic rights to organise collectively, and will inhibit much of the progress made through workplace representation, on equality, on health and safety, and on pay, terms and conditions.

This should be of concern to us all, and it is not simply an attack on trade unions. The restrictions proposed on the Political Funds of trade unions will mean it is increasingly difficult for trade unions and their members to campaign in the political arena, be that on wages and decent work, or on women’s representation such as the 50:50 campaign. The basis for this has already been laid in the Transparency of Lobbying Act, Non Party Campaigning, and Trade Union Administration 2014,

which requires additional registration procedures for third party organisations when campaigning in the run up to Elections.

The media may portray this as being concerned with trade union links with the Labour Party, but make no mistake, it is about far more than that. Without those legitimate union political funds, trade union women and men will lose their voice on social and economic policy – and the 50/50 campaign all those years ago, led so effectively by the trade unions, would not have been possible.

So, please add your voice now to the growing opposition to the Trade Union Bill at Westminster, as it will do nothing to strengthen women’s voices in the workplace or in wider society, in fact, quite the opposite.

#TUbill

Ann Henderson

USDAW COST OF LIVING SURVEY

On the 20-22 April the STUC Congress will be meeting in Ayr. The theme of this year's Congress is Decent Work and Dignified Lives. In the run up to Congress this blog will host a series of articles prepared by STUC affiliated unions. These articles reflect the positions and priorities of our affiliates and are designed to give a flavour of the disparate work that the trade union movement is undertaking in pursuit of decent work and dignified lives.

Usdaw is the UK’s fourth largest trade union and has over 45,000 thousand members across Scotland. Usdaw members, like workers all across the country have been hit by the ongoing effects of the cost of living crisis. Last year, Usdaw surveyed our membership to gather evidence on how the crisis is affecting their daily lives.

The survey generated over 2,000 responses, providing heart-felt individual anecdotes from members struggling in the face of austerity. When asked to compare themselves to five years earlier, nearly 80% of members felt financially worse off. The financial strain that members are now experiencing can be seen clearly in their day to day lives with many struggling to pay bills and turning to payday loan lenders.

For example over 80% of members reported that they have struggled to pay gas and electricity bills over the last five years. One of our members in East Ayrshire reported that,

“It has become increasingly difficult to makes ends meet, although I am able to do this it seems every month to get increasingly harder.”

Over 20% of Usdaw members are regularly missing meals to save money to pay bills and nearly 75% of members reported cutting back on other essentials to cover transport costs. It is clear from the results that disposable income has all but disappeared with all money now going on necessities. A member from the Scottish Highlands reported,

“Me and my partner both now work full time and we still can’t afford holidays or any luxuries. We can’t even afford to heat our tiny flat.”

The survey also looked at the issues created through a lack of affordable housing, with 43% of respondents stating that they occasionally or regularly missed rent or mortgage payments. The problems faced in housing were summarised by the following two quotes received from Scottish members:

“Housing should be a priority as my house costs take 75% of my wage.”

“I am fortunate in the sense that I live with my mother so we help each other however if I lived alone I could not survive on my income only.”

A complete lack of affordable housing is pushing people into poverty and removing their independence. In an effort to fix this, over 80% of respondents supported Labour’s home building programme and over 93% of respondents agreed that there should be more control on rents.

Usdaw is now using the results of this survey in discussions with employers and politicians to promote the policies needed to resolve the crisis. Over the past five years, Usdaw has been delivering above average pay rises on behalf of our members. However with working people struggling to meet their housing needs, struggling to heat their homes and struggling to feed their families, the cost of living crisis will not be resolved by pay negotiations alone.

For this reason, Usdaw is fully committed to achieving a UK Labour Government at next month’s General Election.

Lawrence Wason
Divisional Officer, Usdaw

WHY THE DEBATE ON REFORMING HIGHER EDUCATION GOVERNANCE MATTERS TO TRADE UNIONS

On the 20-22 April the STUC Congress will be meeting in Ayr. The theme of this year's Congress is Decent Work and Dignified Lives. In the run up to Congress this blog will host a series of articles prepared by STUC affiliated unions. These articles reflect the positions and priorities of our affiliates and are designed to give a flavour of the disparate work that the trade union movement is undertaking in pursuit of decent work and dignified lives.

The governance of our universities… no hang on, don’t turn the page yet - what’s going on in higher education at the moment is an important bellwether of how employers and the Scottish Government regard Trade Unions.

At the moment how Universities are governed varies institution to institution. In some the Chair of the Governing body is elected and in others they’re appointed by Committees themselves made up in part of appointees. Governing bodies are important both because they make the decisions that affect UCU members’ work and lives but also because universities have a key role to play in society and the economy.

In 2012 an independent review carried out by a University Principal, Current Chair of Court, and STUC and student representatives recommended, amongst other proposals, that all Chairs be elected and that Trade Union and student nominees have places on the new more democratic Governing bodies. The Scottish Government have promised legislation and recently ran a consultation on these proposals.

So far so uncontroversial you would think – elections, democracy and Trade Union nominees on the Board of institutions that receive over one billion pounds of public money each year.

Apparently not so. Universities’ Scotland, the body that represents University Principals, described proposals to include Trade Union nominees onto Governing bodies as ‘undemocratic’ and worse also described the inclusion of Trade Union nominees as being contrary to the Nolan Principles of Public Life - selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. That Principals believe trade unionists on University Courts wouldn’t be able to act in a way conducive to those standards betrays a mind-set that is stuck in the 1980s rather than one which recognises the positive role of Trade Unions.

Universities are and must be autonomous, independent bodies but in return for substantial public funding the least Government should demand is a robust and transparent governance framework. The truth is that the current system simply doesn’t work. This year alone we’ve seen some Principals awarded pay rises of up to 13 per cent and many of the awards are shrouded in secrecy. This year UCU submitted freedom of information requests for copies of Universities’ Remuneration Committee Minutes. Out of 16 requests sent three simply refused to send any Minutes at all and of those that did almost twenty per cent significantly redacted the Minutes. This is despite assurances made following previous criticism that higher education in Scotland was now setting the benchmark for transparency.

On one side of the debate you have the staff in our Universities represented by the Trade Unions on campuses and the students under the leadership of NUS Scotland. On the other, University Principals who believe that things are just fine (at least for them) as things stand at present. The question is who Ministers will listen to? What they decide is an important indicator for the SNP Government under the new leadership of Nicola Sturgeon and an early test for her new Education Secretary, Angela Constance. She can choose either to make our Universities more democratic, representative and transparent or on the other hand to listen to Principals who attack Trade Unions and our right to be involved in Universities’ governance.

University and College Union, Scotland

Maritime and Offshore Jobs Worth Fighting For

On the 20-22 April the STUC Congress will be meeting in Ayr. The theme of this year's Congress is Decent Work and Dignified Lives. In the run up to Congress this blog will host a series of articles prepared by STUC affiliated unions. These articles reflect the positions and priorities of our affiliates and are designed to give a flavour of the disparate work that the trade union movement is undertaking in pursuit of decent work and dignified lives.

The current assault on offshore workers’ jobs and terms and conditions highlights a failure to require oil companies to make contingency plans. But whilst these opportunistic attacks are taking place the Scottish Government will say they do not have any legislative powers to stop them. That does not mean the Scottish Government is powerless and we support the Scottish Energy Jobs Taskforce and will be using it to seek to protect jobs, safety and employment rights.

The Scottish Government’s campaign for decent jobs and fair work must start where it does have the power to protect jobs and improve pay and conditions. Scottish ferries are one example, yet the decent jobs on Clyde and Hebrides Ferry Services (CHFS) are under threat from this Government.

The CalMac unions’ secured a postponement in the re-tendering of the 26 route CHFS contract but the competition to run these services has now begun in earnest. The next contract, valued at up to £1 billion over eight years will be awarded in May 2016 but the Scottish Government has not yet at the time of writing this article provided assurances to the CalMac unions over employment and pension protections for our members. Failure to, at the very least honour existing protections would be an invitation to a private bidder to base a cheaper bid and projected profits on redundancies and cuts to pay and pensions of our members.

And we have been here before when the Scottish Government privatised Northern Isles ferries in May 2012 by awarding Serco the £350m (nearly 70% subsidised) 2012-18 contract. Within six months of the contract start, Serco announced staff cuts and an attack on pension rights, contravening earlier agreements with the unions. Whilst RMT’s strike action prevented Serco from cutting seafarers’ pensions, nearly 40 jobs have been lost and passenger fares, including for pensioners and school children have been hiked.

CalMac could still win the next CHFS contract but the SNP’s Ferries Plan to 2022 seeks to open Scottish ferries up to greater competition rather than remove lifeline ferries from EU maritime competition law requiring re-tendering. A wealth of trade union and academic opinion supports an exemption for Scottish ferries from this disruptive rule but the bottom line for workers and passengers on Scottish ferries is that this Government’s approach puts the rights of private sector shareholders’ access to a large stream of public revenue above the rights of ferry workers and passengers.

A reminder of where privatisation leads is provided on the two Seatruck vessels currently chartered to work on the Northern Isles and CHFS ferry routes. Polish and Estonian seafarers working on these vessels are paid as little as £3.66 per hour and Seatruck’s refusal to bring their pay into line with the collectively bargained rates for the industry demonstrates the dangers of private sector involvement in Scottish ferry services.

By the time we go to the polls next year, the Scottish Government may have privatised the entire Scottish ferry network. That would probably be seen by some in the Holyrood bubble as shrewd appeasement of powerful multi-national but most in the trade union movement would see it for what it is – a betrayal of Scottish communities and workers. Lets campaign together to make them see sense.

National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers

BULLYING AND HARASSMENT CAMPAIGN

On the 20-22 April the STUC Congress will be meeting in Ayr. The theme of this year's Congress is Decent Work and Dignified Lives. In the run up to Congress this blog will host a series of articles prepared by STUC affiliated unions. These articles reflect the positions and priorities of our affiliates and are designed to give a flavour of the disparate work that the trade union movement is undertaking in pursuit of decent work and dignified lives.

The Society of Radiographers (SoR) has long been committed to eradicating bullying and harassment in the workplace. The SoR defines bullying as “unwarranted, humiliating, offensive behaviour towards an individual or group of employees”.

In 2009 the SoR published the document “Bullying and Harassment: Achieving dignity at work for all our members.” In this document the CEO stated that bullying and harassment was a “sensitive” matter that “destroyed team working, undermined trust and ruined careers”.

In 2010 the SoR released further guidance entitled “Dealing with Bullying and Harassment: Advice for SoR Reps”. This laid out a step by step approach for reps to support victims of bullying in the workplace.

The guidance states the importance of knowing the employers bullying and harassment policy to see what action is appropriate. Members who are being bullied are encouraged to keep a diary of any incidents in order to evidence what is happening to them. It is encouraged that an informal resolution be achieved if possible, as often the person accused of bullying will be unaware of their misconduct. If this has not been possible formal procedures should be initiated and the policy followed.

At the 2012 Annual Delegates Conference (ADC) the Eastern Region noted that bullying and harassment still appeared to be an issue. According to the SCoR Graduate Student Survey 2011 students cited dissatisfaction with clinical placements including bullying and harassment as the main reason for not completing the course. The SoR were called upon to promote the document further and conduct further research into the subject. This resulted in the SoR starting the “Stamp Out Bullying” campaign.

In 2013 the SoR sent a survey to all members to ascertain the level of bullying they were facing. A link was sent to the 18, 701 members registered at the time, 1463 responded. The day the survey was sent out 800 members responded making it the quickest completed online survey in SoR history. The survey highlighted that 21% of respondents believed there was a serious problem with bullying in their department. An alarming 31.3% of respondents said they had been bullied by their line manager.

During 2013 the SoR trained their accredited reps throughout the regions. The training was a two day course. The first day focussed on behaviour and “it’s not what I say, it’s how I say it”. The second day focussed on legislation and how to support a member who was being bullied.

In April 2014 the SoR held a bullying and harassment conference. H&S reps attended with their managers in the hope that they would be able to work in partnership to understand the issues and work progressively to manage them.

In July 2014 the SoR emailed all radiography managers to ask them to sign up to a pledge to eradicate bullying in their department. Several departments throughout Scotland and the UK signed up to the pledge.

Ross G. Baxter-McGhee,
The Society of Radiographers