This has been a pretty bad year work-wise. So bad is it, I’m reduced to doing some agency work to tide me over. The experience – and it is always bad – was brought sharply into focus yesterday when I read Thomas Sutton’s comments regarding unionising agency workers which sort of reminded me of Stephen’s comments on this thread.
There is a massive section of the workforce that has no voice, seemingly very little protection at work and little trade union representation. I am referring to agency workers, one of which I have been on and off for the past three years, working in a variety of factories and warehouses in the north-east of England.
The reality is that in the quest for a flexible labour force to seek the investment of capital, the situation on many factory floors has become uncomfortable and divisive. These are workplaces where EU directives such as the 48-hour week do not really exist. I know personally of examples where agency workers who have refused to do yet another 84-hour week have been told not to come back. And although I can’t say this with certainty, I doubt this is that rare throughout the country.
Some valid points here. Agency workers are paid by the hour and it is generally a pretty low wage. Certainly, it’s a fraction of my normal daily rate. Yesterday, I did a twelve-hour shift and pretty much again today. And I won’t be doing any more as I regard a decent period of rest as essential – I prefer not to get a migraine from insufficient rest.
This arrangement was not because I was taken on to do shifts this long, but due to a management system that tries to fit too much into a working day. I have asked the agency for a different client for next week, and reading between the lines, this is not an unusual request from workers sent to this company.
The excessive hours, though, is not confined to agency workers. During a briefing this morning, everyone was instructed that they would be doing full Saturdays – so that’s six days per week at somewhere between ten and twelve hours. Failure to comply will mean disciplinary action.
No one and I do mean no one should be placed under such pressure to work that many hours in a week. Me, I’m voting with my feet. There are other companies to work for and if the steady flow of agency staff doing likewise continues, this company might get the message – but I’m not holding out a great deal of hope. They’ll just go back to the agency for more.
Sutton’s solution is unionising. Waste of time, frankly. Sure, unions have their place and can provide support in the event of discipline for example. In theory, the pressure to work excessive hours should be an issue that is right up their street, but the reality is that any refusniks simply wouldn’t be hired anymore and it would be difficult to prove that there was any ulterior motive. The very nature of temporary workers is that they are temporary.
A flexible workforce may be good for capital but for agency workers, this often results in employment insecurity – which in turn means that when the bosses say jump, you jump. If you are asked by the agency to go miles away from your home to do half a day on minimum wage, you are inclined to do it, so that you won’t be ignored for future work.
Well, generally, that’s true enough, but the arrangement between the agency and the worker is a two-way street. If I don’t like a placement, I’ll speak to the agency and request a new one. If I’ve done everything they’ve asked of me, merely asking for a more suitable placement is reasonable and I’ve always had it taken that way. Indeed, the agencies I’ve worked with have welcomed feedback rather than a temp simply leaving without telling them what the problem is.
The mere presence of agency workers within the workplace also immediately threatens the terms and conditions of the permanent staff: they are paid less than them, and in the hunt for a permanent job at their temporary workplace are more enthused to go out of their way to please their bosses.
Not always. At the moment, being paid on an hourly rate, the involuntary overtime means that I have been paid more than the regular employees. They get paid the same regardless of how long the drops take. And I have no desire whatsoever for permanent work with them or any similar company. This is strictly a stop-gap until I get back on my feet, nothing more.
This is interesting. In the oil and gas business, the agency workers get paid more than the staff (as compensation for having no sick pay, paid leave, etc.) and are paid a day-rate. Some people much prefer this as it gives them greater flexibility and enables them to pick and choose what jobs to work on. If another job offers more money, they walk away from their current one and off they go. The downside is you can be told not to come into work tomorrow.
Personally, I prefer it (I’m now staff, but was 2 years as a contractor working through an agency). When projects might not go ahead, no company is going to employ a load of staffers, so they get contractors in safe in the knowledge that if the job gets canned they can dismiss a chunk of the workforce. Without the contracting arrangement, I think work would be much harder to come by in my industry.
In my role as a trainer, assessor, verifier and auditor, the same applies. Unfortunately, there’s bugger all work at the moment, hence my current situation.
I would be most interested in how you get on with your request for a different placement from your agency LR.
Both my wife and I have done agency work.
Fine for a young guy with no ties doing stuff like contract CAD work and suchlike.
But for the warehouse/labouring work, a different interpretation of the rules seems to apply; ie, work all hours for minimum wage or fuck off. The agency will also have this attitude – it’s just that they won’t tell that to the workers. They will dance to the tune of their client because if they don’t then there are plenty of other agencies.
Forgot to add, hope you find some more suitable work soon.
No one and I do mean no one should be placed under such pressure to work that many hours in a week. Me, I’m voting with my feet. There are other companies to work for and if the steady flow of agency staff doing likewise continues, this company might get the message – but I’m not holding out a great deal of hope. They’ll just go back to the agency for more.
And so it goes on with companies not valuing staff and in this work climate, seeing them as cogs of which more can be bought next week if one malfunctions. Stress out your talent pool, buy new ones next week.
Such firms do eventually collapse or else replace the recruiters.
Agreed James, apart from the bit about these companies getting the message.
They know all about this “message” and simply don’t care. They don’t need to provided the work that is put out to agencies is relatively unskilled.
There are plenty more bodies out there and plenty more agencies too.
There is no reason for them to “get the message” or care about their temporary workforce.
Th-th-th-th-that’s capitalism folks!
Looks like the latter, I’m afraid, which is different to my previous experience a few years back. I realised as soon as the words came out of my mouth that this was the case. The client had, to my observation, breached employment law – forcing people to work in excess of 48 hours under the threat of discipline – and road traffic law, allowing vehicles onto the road with defective tyres and lights. The agency really did not want to know about this and it became immediately obvious that I was deemed to be a trouble maker. So, looks like I’m looking for another agency while still trying to get work back in my own sector.
But what do you do? If I went out with a defective vehicle while tired due to excessive hours, it would be my driving licence on the line. Or, if I was involved in an accident, possibly much worse.
To be blunt but not wishing to cause offence LR – no-one likes a smart arse and you were rocking their boat.
As for the vehicle defects, this is not strictly a matter for the agency, although I’m sure you could make some tedious legal arguement based on H&S laws, employer liability etc.
Far better just to inform the Police or local MOT enforcers. I’d call that very public spirited of you, as it’s not just company employees that are being put at risk. This way at least you’d see some sort of justice, even if not the kind you were looking for.
And there you sum up precisely why the original author is wrong about unionising temps. Anyone who joined a union would be deemed a smart arse who is rocking the boat.
Far from being a smart arse, I was doing the only thing I could – asking for a reassignment because I was unhappy. In previous engagements, this has not been a problem. The agency naturally wants to know why – as in previous engagements, they have said that they don’t know what’s going on if they are not told.
I don’t expect the agency to do much if anything about it as it is outside their control. Although, yes, they have legal obligations. The problem with informing the police is that not all of the vans have the company logo and I don’t recall number plates, so the police wouldn’t know which ones to stop and investigate. And, in the case of the bald tyre, that was replaced a day later, so the evidence no longer exists. So likely as not, nothing would be found.
Unfortunately, my refusal to risk my driving licence and possibly my life, makes me a trouble maker or smart arse who is rocking the boat. Which goes back to my question – what the fuck am I supposed to do? Put up with it and get fined and points on my license? Have an accident because either the vehicle is defective or I am so tired I cannot concentrate?
Stephen who comments here usually suggests more legal restrictions. I usually disagree with him and this is a prime example of why. This company is driving a coach and four though existing legislation, so what purpose would more serve?
It’s called vicarious liability 😉
Actually, one more comment on this. In my own sector – railway training and assessment, I have observed track safety trainers advising trainees that the law allows them to refuse to work if they deem the job to be unsafe. On every occasion, the agency guys say the same thing; “if we do that, we will be told not to come back”.
The trainers tell them that they have to make a judgement – which is, effectively; unemployed and alive or employed and dead, because getting killed is a real possibility.
Again, they are between a rock and a hard place and it is nigh on impossible to catch the perpetrators with sufficient evidence to stop it.
You don’t have to tell anyone whether you’re in a union or not y’know. Just wait till the soft brown and smelly hits the fan, then let the union deal with it from there while you look for another job.
Union member or not, once you open your mouth then you’re a marked man, so you may as well leave the company with a few well deserved problems.
Stephen who comments here usually suggests more legal restrictions. I usually disagree with him and this is a prime example of why. This company is driving a coach and four though existing legislation, so what purpose would more serve?
True, our disagreements do turn on the question of regulation. But in the case of agency workers, they do now have much more protection under employment law. The problem is, it is not enforced. I don’t think it is fair to imply that I simply suggest more regulation without enforcement. Enforcement is key. Fewer regulations with proper enforcement is self-evidently more effective than more onerous regulations with no enforcement at all. The unions have done themselves no favours by, in many cases, neglecting agency workers. But it’s not true of all unions in all circumstances; and organisations can change and need to change, as things are likely to worse before they get better.
True, but I don’t see that changing due to the kind of difficulties I outline here.
No such implication was intended. While there remains a conspiracy of silence due to loss of work for opening one’s mouth, enforcement ain’t going to happen.
The agencies play fast and loose with the EU directive on the 48 hour week. They are allowed to average it out over 17 weeks or, as in the case of the agency I have just been dealing with, they can extend this to 26 weeks. So a temp can be expected to work sixty or seventy hours in a period of several weeks, but because, spread over half a year, it “averages” out to less, they get away with it. The whole point about limiting drivers’ hours is to combat fatigue. Averaging them out over six months makes a mockery of this. The law has a whacking great loophole in it, so enforcement is a moot point.