I’ve talked about temporary working before. It has been drawn to my attention again by reports of the trades unions likening temps’ working conditions to those of the dark ages. This might seem a little exaggerated, but is worthy of a closer look, because they make some interesting points. The TUC has delivered a dossier of their findings to ministers.
“The dossier included instances of temps being denied training, having to pay for work clothing and receiving lower wages than permanent staff.”
Having been a temp on and off over the last twenty years or so, I can empathize with some of these points. Indeed, recently when applying for temporary work, I was asked if I had my own protective boots. Yet this is the responsibility of the employer – our health and safety legislation specifically states that personal protective equipment must be provided and paid for by the employer. Yet temps must provide their own.
“The dossier contains sometimes harrowing depictions of life as a temp worker. One temporary factory worker said her life was filled with insecurity and she felt treated as a second-class citizen.”
Again, I know how this person feels. Recently when working at a warehouse, I was told to sweep the floor. This was not because it desperately wanted doing, but because none of the permanent workers wanted to do it and none of them had the wit to plan the working day effectively in order to maximize the use of my time.
All of this is underpinned by the agency charging around £500 per week for my time and barely paying me less than a half of that. For little over the minimum wage, I am effectively on-call 24 hours a day. I can be expected to go anywhere and pretty much do anything. Of course, I could say “no”. However, doing that too often simply means no offers of work. It’s a viscous circle.
The article also gives the employers’ reactions to the TUC claims.
“However, employers said the TUC’s case studies were not representative of how temps are treated generally.”
Really? How come every time I have taken on a temporary job in the past twenty years, the TUC’s picture is rather more realistic than the employers’ one? It is in the employers’ interests to have a body of peripatetic employees to pick up and put down at will; not having to worry about employment rights, leave, sickness or even getting to know them. As one of the correspondents to the piece points out,
“The temps themselves are just human units to be shifted around and jammed into whichever job is available, regardless of suitability.”
How true that is.
It isn’t all bad, of course. If the temp is contracting in a specialized field, the pay will be that much higher, making it a chosen pursuit for many. The IT industry is particularly lucrative for those who operate in it. So, too, is the rail industry for the right people. For those who have no particular skill, it is an uncertain and thankless existence. Consequently, I am somewhat dismissive of employers’ organizations that make comments such as this:
“We are not condoning poor treatment, but to talk about dark age treatment just isn’t right,” said REC deputy chief executive Marcia Roberts.
“Our research suggests that temp working suits the employer, the lifestyle of the worker and boosts the UK economy.”
Of course it boosts the economy. It is cheap, hire-and-fire labour. What more could an employer want? To suggest that temps choose this lifestyle is using far too broad a brush. Many do, that’s true enough. Many, though, are forced through no fault of their own into this lifestyle. Certainly as soon as my own business picks up, I’ll be off the temporary register. In the meantime, it helps a little, but not much. Would I recommend it? What do you think?
—–