CIPD: Agency Worker Directive 'Bad for British Jobs'

One possible crumb of comfort for employers is that the Committee has suggested that the comparison should be defined as being no less favourably than if they had been engaged directly by the end user. This seems to us to create the possibility that companies could create terms and conditions that would apply to temporary workers which could then become the point of comparison for agency workers rather than the company?s permanent work force.
The Directive is still very much at the discussion stage and these early deliberations may not actually reveal the shape that the final directive takes although it is useful to have an early indication of the thinking amongst the UK?s social partners.

Prior to working with my current employers, I was on contract with a big Telecoms company. When they felt the pinch of the bursting bubble within the telecoms industry, they got rid of all their contractors and temporary staff. I was told I was no longer required in the car park on my way to buy lunch by the VP of my department. I felt so degraded and worthless. It was the best thing that could have happened, but I had no sick pay, no holiday entitlement and an agency that could not care less if I did not work again, unless, of course, they placed me. For me it was a short term thing until I found another job, and I can sympathise with all the other temporary staff out there doing a very good job. Whilst temping, I found that little or no instructions are given at the beginning of a contract, you are expected to fill in for others so that they can go to the pub or take long lunch breaks. The work is mundane and demoralising. You are always referred to as "the temp", like you are put into a box and your personality stripped from you. The agency would just place you anywhere for any rate just to make their numbers. I also found that if I turned down a job - invariably I would because the travelling did not suit or the rate was far too low - you have a black mark by your name.
If we have temporaries at my current place of work, we make them feel part of the team, even if the contract is short. As I have experience as a Temporary, I would do all I could to ensure they felt comfortable. I strongly agree that the pay, conditions and benefits need to change for all temporary workers within the UK. We should treat others as we would like to be treated!

Whilst I agree with some of the comments posted, I think that some people are missing the point. Some unscrupulous employers (and I've worked for some of them)have been employing people on a "Casual" basis and getting away with not paying the basics which would be due to permanent staff (e.g. Sick/Holiday/Pensions etc.), whilst reserving the right to dismiss the employee (sometimes without even an hour's notice) on the basis of flexibility ("We don't need you tomorrow"). I know of cases where this ploy has been used to circumvent the normal disciplinary procedures, as the employee then has to ring up tomorrow, only to be told that they won't be needed the following, or any other day.
The same employers do not seem to appreciate that a key factor with "Flexible" employment such as this is that the employees are as entitled to say "I don't want to work tomorrow / I'm taking next week off". The bad employer's response here is often that "they've gat a bad attitude", and the employee loses their job by default as they aren't offered further work.
Flexible contracts, workers (and employers) are a vital part of our modern economy, especially with more mothers working, but employees who are prepared to commit to their employer should be entitled to the ful range of benefits (say after 6 months (pro rata)of sevice. Otherwise, the employees will become less motivated, will be less productive, and move on more often, whichcan only be bad for the economy. After all, if you expect loyalty, commitment, trustworthiness and respect from your staff, you should treat them with these same vaules.

We seem to have an issue of balance between the fundamental rights of temporary workers to basic sick pay, holiday and pension with that of an "administrative head-ache". If this is really the argument against temporary and agency workers receiving benefits on a par with that of permanent staff then it is nonsense. I also submit that anytime further rights to temporary workers is raised the CIPD resorts to the scare-mongering tactics of stating that business in the UK will not hire temps and unemployment will rise? At present, temporary and agency workers are an essential tool for UK business enabling them to hire and fire to maintain flows of head-count throughout the year for cost purposes. This ease with which employers can hire staff to perform a job on a par with a permanent member of staff and offer nothing more than an hourly rate with no fundamental right to sick pay, holiday or pension is unacceptable. I dispute Mr Emmotts comments that temporary workers have the benefits derived by temporary workers is the freedom to chose when and where to work. In the majority of instances the temporary worker is not in a postion to negotiate working conditions and terms of employment. It is often a route into a company with the hope of going permanent and gaining permanent benefits. Temporary workers on the whole do not take temporary roles because it suits their indecision over which jobs to accept. As it stands, many agencies avoid the Working Time directive on holiday pay by getting round it with 'rolled-up' pay. It is about time that this and other fundamental issues with regard to temporary workers is addressed in this country bearing in mind the significant proportion of temporary/agency workers in the UK who at present who do not receive any benefits. However, we wouldn't want to cause any further adminstration as a result would we?

Should this EU draft be implimented, could we now expect that each temporary worker/employee
conform with our qualifacation requirements, as
this is a constant problem when taking on temporary staff. Especially Electricians. I also see this as a massive administration headache, and agree with the CIPD, and Anne that it would not be worth the hassle for one temp for a day.

I have to agree with the CIPD. This could be a bureaucratic nightmare. Working out the benefits owed to a temp who could be with an organisation for a week or even a few days wouldn't be worth the hassle and personally I'd think twice before getting a temp in.

Considering the fluid nature of business today, flexibility is a core issue for every organisation. Having access to temporary agency workers who can integrate to consolidate our gains or leverage our opportunities seems to me to be as important as what core group we need to have at any time.
Since business survival is hinged more and more on this flexible workforce, the EU directive in its rearrangements of advantages in the relationship between companies and these workers seems correct.
The relationship should not be about paying less money or benefits so that the savings(or at least part of it) could be transferred to recruitment agencies for their work in placing the worker. It does appear in current structures that these workers have the onerous responsibilty to keep the employing organisation and placing agency in business at great personal cost.