Latest News

The reality of flexible working for working mums

Government

The government’s proposals in their latest consultation on flexible working fall far short of their aim of making flexible working the default.

To unlock the flexibility in all jobs and for all workers the government should introduce:

•  a legal duty on employers to consider which flexible working arrangements are available in a role and publish these in job advertisements, with the new postholder having a day one right to take up the flexible working arrangements that have been advertised. If an employer does not think that any flexible working arrangements are possible, they should be required to set out the exceptional circumstances that justify this decision.
• a day-one right to request flexible working for all workers, with the criteria for rejection mirroring the exceptional circumstances set out above. Workers should have a right to appeal and no restrictions on the number of flexible working requests made.

Employers

Employers do not need to wait for legislative change in making genuine flexible work the default in their workplaces and ensuring that all workers have the opportunity to benefit from positive flexibility that helps them to balance work and home life.

Employers should include the specific types of flexibility available in job adverts with the postholder being able to take this up on the first day of the job.

In our ‘Future of flexible working’ report, we have published a set of principles that employers should follow when implementing flexible working. These include important measures to ensure flexible working becomes the norm for all workers, tackle negative workplace cultures and stereotyped attitudes towards flexible working and ensure that those who work flexibly are not disadvantaged or discriminated against.

Employers should monitor the implementation of flexible working to ensure it is promoting equality. This may be particularly important for employers introducing hybrid ways of working following the pandemic, as research suggests blanket approaches can lead negative impacts for women.

Trade unions

Trade unions should:

• work with employers to review flexible working policies and practices and should negotiate for increased access to flexible working and for the protections outlined in our principles. Trade unions are best placed to ensure the needs of employers and preferences of staff are reconciled through constructive dialogue and negotiation.
• train reps in negotiating for flexible work policies and supporting members with flexible working requests. Unions should train reps in organising hybrid workforces, where members may be spread across different locations and working different hours.
•  monitor the impact of flexible working and negotiate for any necessary changes in the future.

For more detail on our recommendations on flexible working, see our Future of flexible working report.

Download denied and discriminated against full report (pdf)

Nine in 10 disabled workers surveyed (90 per cent) who worked from home during the pandemic want to continue doing so at least some of the time, according to a TUC poll published today (Wednesday).

• An overwhelming majority of disabled workers who worked from home during the pandemic told the TUC that they want to continue doing so permanently 
• Employers have a duty to put in place reasonable adjustments for disabled workers which can include enabling flexible and home working, says union body 
• TUC calls for government to make sure that disabled workers who worked from home during the pandemic can continue to do so 

9 in 10 disabled workers surveyed (90 per cent) who worked from home during the pandemic want to continue doing so at least some of the time, according to a TUC poll published today (Wednesday). 

The poll – run by YouGov for the TUC – found that many disabled workers experienced working from home for the first time during the pandemic. 

Working from home was a gamechanger for many disabled workers  

Disabled workers who were able to work from home told the TUC that it had had a positive impact on them and their working lives: 

• Nearly two-thirds (63 per cent) said that it gave them greater control over their working hours 
• Just under half (47 per cent) said they had been able to change their work routines 
• Two in five (40 per cent) said that it reduced their tiredness and fatigue 
• More than a quarter (26 per cent) said their mental health had improved  
• More than one in five (21 per cent) said that working from home had helped them better manage their caring responsibilities 

Not all organisations managed the transition to working from home well enough, though. One third of disabled workers (34 per cent) who worked from home said that they lacked proper office equipment such as a desk, chair or computer.   

One in 11 (nine per cent) experienced difficulties taking part in online meetings because of their disability, impairment or heath condition and one in 14 (seven per cent) lacked the software they needed to do their job – such as speech to text programmes. 

Widening access to flexible work helps disabled people stay in work 

TUC research has found that only just over half (55 per cent) of those who asked their employers for reasonable adjustments during the pandemic said that they had been made in full. Employers have a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments for all disabled employees – both those working from a workplace and those working from home.

The TUC says that enabling flexible working practices can be a reasonable adjustment – and should be considered to support disabled workers. Most disabled people told the TUC that they wanted continued access to flexible working practices after the pandemic: 

• Three in four (75 per cent) disabled workers who can work from home said that they would like to be able to do so at least some of the time 
• Just under seven in 10 (68 per cent) of all disabled workers want some form of hours based flexibility. 25 per cent said their ideal work pattern would be to work flexi-time, and 23 per cent want to work part-time 
• A quarter (25 per cent) said they wanted to have flexibility around start and end times, sometimes called flexitime 

TUC General Secretary Frances O’Grady said:  

“Disabled people were hit hard by Covid-19.  Six in ten of all Covid deaths were of disabled people.  

“Disabled workers still face barriers getting and keeping a job – and are often paid less than their non-disabled peers. 

“During the pandemic, many disabled people were able to work flexibly or from home for the first time – often after being previously told that it was not possible in their job. Even amid the grief and isolation of the pandemic, these changed working patterns improved the experience of many disabled people at work.   

“We can’t go back. Employers must offer all disabled people who can work from home the right to continue working from home, as a reasonable adjustment. And they must offer appropriate flexible working options as standard in all jobs – both as a reasonable adjustment for disabled workers, and as a right for every worker.  

“Ministers must change the law so that all jobs are advertised with flexible options clearly stated, and all workers have the legal right to work flexibly from their first day in a job.” 

Action needed 

The TUC is calling for action to help disabled people get the flexibility they need to stay in work, including: 

• Make sure that disabled workers who worked from home during the pandemic can continue to do so.  
• Unlock the flexibility in all jobs. Every job can be worked flexibly. Employers should think upfront about the flexible working options that are available in a role, publish these in all job adverts and give successful applicants a day one right to take it up. 
• Making flexible working a genuine legal right from the first day in a job: People should be allowed to work flexibly from day one, unless there are exceptional circumstances that prevent it. They should have the right to appeal any rejections. And there shouldn’t be a limit on how many times you can ask for flexible working arrangements in a year. 
• Make sure every disabled worker gets the reasonable adjustments they need to do their job – which are their legal right. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) should update their statutory Code of Practice on disabled people and employment, so it includes more examples of what timely implementation of reasonable adjustments looks like and reflects the advances in home and flexible working during the pandemic.  

In her own version of the appalling call of Tebbit in 1981 to get on your bike to look for work, Thérèse Coffey has claimed that the six million Universal Credit claimants set for a £1,000 annual income loss from this October merely need to work two more hours.

You would be forgiven for believing that Thérèse Coffey just hasn’t grasped the basics of Universal Credit (UC) when she claimed that UC claimants would only have to work 2 hours a week to make up the £20 cut, but not for long, as there is evidence to the contrary and a quick internet search reveal that she is in fact a Phd graduate.  Further still many would find it difficult to believe that she was unaware of the UC taper given the number of civil servants and advisers she has to hand.

The resolution foundation however are very clear

“The Foundation notes that a UC claimant earning the National Living Wage (NLW) – currently £8.91 an hour – and with an income of at least £6,100 a year, would not take home an extra £20 a week for two hours work, as Ministers have implied.

In fact, they would take home just £6.60, falling to £4.48 if they pay tax and NI. Take home pay would be even lower than £2.24 an hour once any pension contributions or additional childcare or travel costs are taken into account.

A Universal Credit claimant on the NLW would need to work an extra six hours a week to make up the £20 cut in support, rising to nine hours if they pay tax and NI.”

The other group of UC recipients are those that have been assessed unable to work, what chance do they have to work 2 more hours, or 6 as the Resolution Foundation calculate it?

The two hour claim is a deliberate attempt to minimise the impact of the cut and in doing so give ammunition for those seeking to vilify UC claimants.

It is a crying shame that the only hope left is to rely on the architect of UC, Iian Duncan Smith and a group of backbenchers who are demanding a U-Turn

£37 bi££ion to Serco means that shareholders get greater dividends, they invest that dividend and demand growth.  That growth can really only be achieved by more exploitation of the environment and the workforce.

£20 UC to the 34,000 families of Bolton means that there will be less likelihood of those families being driven into poverty and dependency on charity. They will spend that money in the local community creating employment which in turn generates more spending.

If we apply the principle of local multiplier then for every £1 introduced into the local economy a re-spend of between £1.80 and £2.20 is generated, and hence if we remove £1 of income then the effect is to shrink the economy by between £1.80 and £2.20.

If 34,000 Bolton families have their income reduced by £20 per week that equates to £680,000 each and every week or a staggering £35,360,000 each and every year henceforth.

If we then apply the Local Multiplier principle that the £35m would be expected to generate between £63m and £77m the consequences are staggering for our local economy

There is also the double impact for Bolton generated by the £35m of council cuts.

The plight of those Bolton families in receipt of £20 pw uplift.

For those unable to work

The Consumer Prices Index (CPI) rose by 3.2% in the 12 months to August 2021, up from 2.0% in July: the increase of 1.2 percentage points is the largest ever recorded increase in the CPI National Statistic 12-month inflation rate series, which began in January 1997

Gas prices set to raise consumer costs up by over £100 a year

For those in work (in addition to the above)

An increase of NI from 12% to 13.25%

An end to furlough is likely to increase unemployment.

Bolton TUC, the trade union body that represent the whole of the Bolton workforce, are calling upon the 2 Bolton Conservative MPs, Christopher Green and Mark Logan to join almost 60 other Conservative MPs and vote against the removal of the £20 uplift to Universal Credit.

With nearly 60 Conservative MPs now opposing the planned cut to universal credit (UC), and Boris Johnson facing a considerable revolt for pursuing policies in direct contradiction to his flagship “levelling up” agenda MPs of all parties must oppose this cut.

The consequences of removing the uplift will not only impact upon the families of 21,000 disabled people and those 13,000 on the lowest wages immediately but will also have dire consequences for the town as a whole as the economy will shrink by £680,000 each week which is a staggering £35 million each and every year which when combined with the council cuts of over £30 million will decimate our local economy.

With Consumer Price Inflation at 2.1% the purchasing power of Universal Credit will fall behind as prices rise without the reduction of £20 and if this was not enough the end of the Job retention (Furlough) scheme may well force more people onto Universal Credit and into unemployment as many forecasters, including those at the Bank of England and the government’s spending watchdog, the Office for Budget Responsibility, are expecting a rise in unemployment after furlough ends.

From October this situation will be further exacerbated for energy customers on default tariffs paying by direct debit who will see an increase of £139 from £1,138 to £1,277 per annum. With Pre-payment customers seeing costs rise by £153, from £1,156 to £,1309 per annum.

Further still to impact upon families is the announcement of National Insurance increases

The picture in Bolton is set to look a lot bleaker as over 34,000 families have their benefit cut by £20 per week

                                  UC Claimants           Workers on UC               % in work

Bolton NE                  12,400                        4,183                                      33.7%

Bolton SE                  14,077                        4,934                                      35.1%

Bolton W                    8,105                          3,119                                      38.5%

But this is not just an impact that will be felt by those 13,000 families with the total loss to the borough of Bolton of over £13 million per year which in itself will cause the local economy to shrink and create further job losses but the loss to those 21,000 sick and disabled as well

We have already been assured by Yasmin Qureshi MP that she will oppose the cuts and now call upon the MP’s for Bolton NE and Bolton W to do the same and  abandon this reckless cut that will hit the poorest and consign many of our neighbours to the poverty trap If the Conservative government is serious about levelling then we must have investment that offers skills and training that will equip the people of Bolton to face the challenges of climate change in a post Brexit economy.

Find my MP

Boris Johnson and his clown car government have let slip any suggestion that they are the party of working people as he prepares to announce an increase in national insurance contributions to fund health and social care, and, rip up the triple lock, thereby break 2 manifesto promises

Today 07/09/2021, Johnson will reveal plans to break two manifesto commitments increasing national insurance by 1.25% and to breaking the pensions triple-lock, possibly the single decent thing that they have ever done, a pledge to increase the state pension each year in line with the rising cost of living, increasing average wages, or 2.5%, whichever is greatest.

The increase in NI will costs the lowest paid £255 per year on top of the removal of £20pw Universal Credit and further shrink local economies and generate unemployment.

If Johnson is serious about levelling up then there is a simple equitable answer open to him.

During 2020 the combined wealth of UK billionaires increased by 21.7% (£106.582 bn) and policy makers are talking about increasing National Insurance to pay for social care rather than a wealth tax is testament to the ability of the rich to convert £s into political power.

The burden of tax should fall on the shoulders of those more able to stand the loss so the £106.582bn should be used to pay for Social Care and to retain the triple lock along with a progressive taxation regime that will see those who wouldn’t notice the loss paying more

COP26 is the 2021 United Nations climate change conference.

In November, the UK, together with our partners Italy, will host an event many believe to be the world’s best last chance to get runaway climate change under control

For nearly three decades the UN has been bringing together almost every country on earth for global climate summits, known as COPs or Conference of the Parties. In that time climate change has gone from being a fringe issue to a global priority.

This year will be the 26th annual summit – giving it the name COP26. With the UK as President, COP26 takes place in Glasgow.

In the run up to COP26 the UK claims to be working with every nation to reach agreement on how to tackle climate change.

Most experts believe COP26 has a unique urgency.  The last real chance to make the necessary changes

I thought it would be useful to look at the 4 stated objectives of the United Nations climate change conference and compare and contrast them with the actions of the UK government and offer a view of an environmentalist and trade unionist who has been calling for action since before the COP began 26 years ago

Objective One

Secure global net zero by mid-century and keep 1.5 degrees within reach Countries are being asked to come forward with ambitious 2030 emissions reductions targets that align with reaching net zero by the middle of the century.

To deliver on these stretching targets, countries will need to:

1. Accelerate the phase-out of coal

2. Curtail deforestation

3. Speed up the switch to electric vehicles

4. Encourage investment in renewables.

Right from the off we find ourselves at odds with the objective.  The fundamental flaw seems to be that the participants seem to want to continue with current activity of use and consumption and expect science to come up with answers to enable this and industry to voluntarily risk their high profit margins.

As trade unionists we should argue for zero carbon, not net zero. The difference being net zero aims to recover the environmental degradation done by business as usual, whereas zero carbon reduces the environmental degradation to zero.  Recovering the environmental degradation will demand the use of scant resources and risks passing the tipping point.  As one activist put it, net zero is to carry on smoking and rely on science or a lung donor, whereas, zero carbon would achieve smoking cessation.

Accelerate the phase-out of coal

Whilst we agree that the phasing out of coal is a good thing, we do have to wonder if Boris Johnson would feel the same level of embarrassment and hint at calling for a public enquiry into the Cumbria coal mine if he was not to be the host of COP26

Curtail deforestation

This is an admirable step but must go further to allow the worlds forests to recover back to their diverse state by removing the intense monoculture plantations of grain for beef.  It is not enough to create swaths of pine trees.

Speed up the switch to electric vehicles

Assumes that we will carry on as usual making the same trips when the real answer is mass transport and a coordinated system for moving people and goods across the nation and world.  The technology to operate from our own homes has been around since the internet yet it took a pandemic to give up business lunches and use it.  It also comes up against those in the fuel industry that seek to confuse the issue by calling for the roll out of hydrogen and thereby delaying the decline of demand for oil.  We know from the behaviour of the big tech companies that they will not introduce version 2 until they have distracted all possible profit from version 1

There is also an unanswered question of battery reuse or disposal as unlike the well recognised domestic batteries that now have rechargeable options there is not yet a standard for car batteries that would govern reuse and disposal.

Encourage investment in renewables

The government and many financial institutions hide behind a claim that they engage, or encourage investment in renewables from polluters to get them to change their ways, this is nothing more than a distraction as only this month –

A candidate for the position of Unite secretary said recently “Britain is surrounded by off shore wind generation yet none of it is built or installed by British workers”

And a FOI revealed that Taylor Wimpey, one of the UK’s biggest house builders, opposed government plans to slash carbon dioxide emissions from new homes by at least three-quarters and argued against heat pumps, which are proposed as a replacement for gas boilers, one of the UK’s biggest causes of greenhouse gases. 

Acknowledging how far the UK is behind the rest of the developed world we are only just addressing the issue of Built in obsolescence where manufacturers refuse to allow parts to be made available to the general public thus creating a market for new products instead of repairing the existing.  This don’t repair but replace approach means we throw away machines and devices damned as out of date, the result is a growing mountain of e-waste. Last year alone, it was reckoned that more than 50m tonnes of it were generated globally, with only around 20% of it officially recycled. Half of the 50m tonnes represented large household appliances, and heating and cooling equipment. The remainder was TVs, computers, smart phones and tablets.

The UK must legislate to achieve zero carbon and as trade unionists we must demand that this new industry must have safe, secure well paid employment at its core as well paid employment drives the local economy as workers with expendable incomes create demand and hence further employment, reduce the burden upon the benefit system and increase tax revenues.

Objective 2

Adapt to protect communities and natural habitats

At COP26 we need to work together to enable and encourage countries affected by climate change to:

1. Protect and restore ecosystems

2. Build defences, warning systems and resilient infrastructure and agriculture to avoid loss of homes, livelihoods and even lives.

An admirable objective which we would all support but when will it start?  We had global coverage of a reservoir bursting its banks and the armed forces holding back the water yet no mention of the cause of the swelling reservoir nor lack of investment and foresight to protect the Victorian damn.

These works can only be achieved by a state controlled response, not a state tendering exercise.  We have the workforce, skills and ability to achieve these objectives yet monetisation will get in the way as creating profit for the city, or even my local pub landlord, will come first. 

We are willing to deploy the armed forces to stack shelves and transport food, then why not to protect and restore eco systems and build flood and erosion defences.

So again global governments will fail to act in a timely manner, waiting for the lung donation instead of stopping smoking……

Objective 3. Mobilise finance

To deliver on our first two goals, developed countries must make good on their promise to mobilise at least $100bn in climate finance per year by 2020. 

International financial institutions must play their part and we need to work towards unleashing the trillions in private and public sector finance required to secure global net zero.

Unfortunately, a lot of states around the world have invested their funds into National Oil Companies (NOC), and are continuing to do so, even though the oil majors are lowering their price estimates. With the energy transition speeding up, these state oil firms risk losing 400 billion dollars that could have been spent on healthcare, education or other things that enrich the lives of their citizens.

Rather than transitioning away from deadly fossil fuels, we’re seeing a renewed push for dangerous false solutions. The latest nonsense is from the Swedish State-owned Space Company that is involved in the development of solar geoengineering technology that would reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the earth. Our governments would rather fight the sun rather than change our economic system!

Another idea doomed to fail is the use of Carbon Markets

Carbon markets are being pushed by big corporations at the UN climate talks, but decades of experience tells us they won’t cut emissions.

Carbon markets are, as the name suggests, market-based mechanisms for reducing climate change emissions. They allow polluters to continue emitting greenhouse gases, for a price. There are two main kinds: cap and trade, and offsetting.

Cap and trade is where a limit is set at the country, state or regional level on how much pollution can be emitted, within a certain timeframe. If a party (e.g. a polluting company) emits less than their limit, they can sell what’s left of their quota to another party who doesn’t want to reduce their emissions. 

Offsetting is where a country, state or region pays another to make carbon savings, theoretically beyond what they otherwise would have done, so as to avoid making emissions reductions themselves.

The most obvious problem for carbon markets under the Paris Agreement is that theoretically, even if we were in a perfect world, with perfect rules which everybody abided by, we have simply run out of time to play around with trading and offsetting. 

What’s more, carbon offsetting projects have a track record of serious human rights abuses, particularly to Indigenous Peoples. One of the most infamous offsetting schemes known as REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) – in addition to failing to do what it is supposed to do and reduce emissions – has seen violent evictions of Indigenous people and small holder farmers in the name of conservation projects, land-grabbing that sees forests destroyed to make way for monoculture plantations, and even ‘carbon slavery’ where families are tied into decades long contracts to tend forests for next to no pay.

Geo engineering includes a range of technologies from the dangerously distracting Carbon Capture and Storage, which the Scottish Government and the UK oil and gas industry are keenly pursuing, to the terrifyingly uncontrollable: ‘fertilisation’ of oceans with iron to cool them down, and solar radiation ‘management’ in which aerosols are sprayed into the stratosphere to block sunlight. The fundamental problem with all of these technologies is that they are impossible to test without actually putting into practice at a large scale. By the time we learned whether they worked or what their knock on adverse impacts were, it would simply be too late. 

Ultimately, carbon markets are a dangerous distraction from the just and people-centred solutions to the climate crisis that we know will cut emissions. Like putting a date on the end of oil, gas and coal extraction –  in Scotland and in all fossil fuel producing nations around the world – and planning for a rapid phase out of fossil fuels alongside a just transition for the workforce and wider communities. Like transforming the way we travel and how we produce and consume food, relying on public transport and agro ecology instead of private cars and industrial farming.

It’s not surprising that fossil fuel companies, including Shell and BP, are amongst the most ardent advocates of carbon markets. These companies have free reign to lobby openly and behind closed doors in the side events and corridors of the annual UN talks on climate change. In fact Shell boasts that it wrote the Paris Agreement. The same Shell that is paying the Scottish Government £5 million towards existing tree planting and calling it carbon offsetting.

That’s why we need to kick polluters out of the UN climate talks, like the World Health Organisation eventually kicked Big Tobacco out of its processes.

Objective 4. Work together to deliver

We can only rise to the challenges of the climate crisis by working together.

At COP26 we must:

Finalise the Paris Rulebook (the detailed rules that make the Paris Agreement operational) and, accelerate action to tackle the climate crisis through collaboration between governments, businesses and civil society.

We must finalise the Paris rulebook and the clock is ticking.  Working together means different things to different people.  It is the authors view that the world states must be driven by science not markets.  As trade unionists we have argued for decades that outsourcing does nothing more than privatise profit and nationalise risk.  If there are skills that only exist in the private sector then those skills should be brought in to the public sector.  An international threat requires an international response

Smoke and mirrors

We have a government who make bold claims, indeed Britain claims it is at the very fore of tackling climate change with targets to reduce emissions by 78% by 2035, however, actions speak louder than words

Prospective oil projects in the North Sea with the capacity to produce more than a billion barrels will avoid a new test designed to assess their impact on the climate crisis.

It has emerged that proposed new developments representing some 1.7bn barrels of oil will not have to undergo the forthcoming “climate compatibility checkpoint”, designed to determine whether they are consistent with the government’s climate commitments.

The test will be applied before projects are given an initial licence. But the government has confirmed that previously licensed projects will not have to meet it.

It comes as ministers face mounting pressure over the Cambo heavy crude field off the coast of the Shetland, which could be given approval before Cop26 begins. The oilfield is expected to operate until 2050. Campaigners say the project contradicts recommendations made by the International Energy Agency, which has called for “no investment in new fossil fuel supply projects”.

This is further compounded by the proposed Cumbria coal mine the ultimate approval for which lies with Communities Secretary Robert Jenrick.  Under planning law he’s supposed to make that decision without referring to his colleagues.

But it’s barely conceivable that Boris Johnson, with his reputation on the line, won’t find a way of pointing him in the right direction – whichever way he thinks that is, but probably after COP26……..