Agency Workers Directive off the agenda

The EU's controversial Agency Workers Directive has all but died a death to the dismay of the trade unions and to the relief of many freelancers who were concerned they could be inadvertently caught by the proposals.

Background

The Temporary Agency Workers Directive was aimed at providing temps with the same pay and conditions as their permanent counterparts. It was seen as a move to protect workers from employers who insisted on 'agency' status in order to avoid their statutory obligations.

The freelancing sector is much more mature in the UK than other parts of Europe and there was concern that the drafting of the Directive was so wide that freelancers, who neither wanted nor required protection, could also be caught in the net. This could have acted as a deterrent to large companies in using freelancers' services.

Big business, led by the CBI, has actively campaigned against the introduction of the measure, claiming that it was unnecessary and wrong to drag firms into negotiations over pay and conditions when hiring people from an agency for short periods. That should remain a matter for the agency and worker.... taking on temps will be less attractive and that will do irreparable damage, not just to business but to employees as well.

The unions on the other hand, led by the TUC, have campaigned vigorously in favour of the measure claiming that the government had sided with business interests to 'scupper' the prospect of agency workers getting equal pay and basic rights in the foreseeable future and that it is bad for business and unjust for agency workers to be denied protection from sub-standard treatment.

Meanwhile, freelancers, particularly in the UK, were caught in a no-man's land of uncertainty in the middle - not wanting protection from clients, clients not wanting to give it and conflicting views as to whether or not they would be affected by it.

Stumbling block

In June 2003, the EU Council of Ministers met to agree the Directive, but could not reach agreement on the qualifying period. The Directive called for six weeks, but the UK, Germany, Denmark and Ireland held firm to the CBI line that this should be extended to 12 months.

It could have reappeared on the agenda of the last EU Council of Ministers meeting of 2003, due to be held on December 1. However, the TUC has claimed that a UK co-ordinated blocking minority has effectively removed the Directive from the agenda.

The Italians hold the next Presidency and could put it back on the agenda if broad agreement appears possible but this is unlikely if the UK government continues to demand that agency temps should only receive equal pay and basic rights when they have been in a job for over a year.

TUC

But the TUC has not surrendered the fight.

Brendan Barber, TUC General Secretary, said: "The UK are keeping this issue off the table and delaying the decent treatment of agency workers. But there is still time for the government to keep its commitment to get this sorted by the end of the year by dropping demands for a qualifying period.

"The government and business case for a qualifying period for agency workers rights confuses ‘flexibility’ with ‘low cost’. Research by temp agencies themselves shows that employers use temps because of the natural flexibility they provide, not to do things on the cheap. There is no solid argument for denying agency temps fairness at work from their first day in the job."