Category Archives: Low Pay

Teachers and the Summer 2013 uprising in Turkey

Burcak_Ozoglu
Burcak OZOGLU- CERIC

The grand[i] uprising in the Summer 2013 in Turkey raises important questions for social scientists and prevailing conceptual frameworks for understanding social movements and resistance. This blog examines the dynamics of the uprising in terms of class struggle via the case of school teachers.

The spark that ignited the uprising, at the end of May 2013, was an environmentalist issue, protesting the destruction of one of İstanbul’s few green public park areas (Gezi Park at Taksim square). However, the action on the streets quickly transformed into an anti-AKP[ii] /anti-government movement. The brutal intervention of the police force, at the instigation of president Erdoğan, provoked demonstrators, as the sphere of resistance shifted from Taksim Square to the whole country.

Hundreds of young teachers also took to the streets, participated in public forums and marched at the rallies in the Summer 2013. Although their primary revolt was about their basic social rights as a citizen and against the government’s brutality via the police, they also had their own agenda. Whenever teachers were chanting “Everywhere is Taksim!” they meant their schools and classrooms as well as the streets of their neighbourhoods. Boyun eğme (Do not surrender!) was a call for them not only to fight back to the authoritarianism of the AKP government over their everyday lives at home, but also against the deteriorating labour processes and employment issues at work. In otherwords, the young teachers were rebelling against the brutal police, the oppressive government and their coercive “employer”.

Three key points of argumentation should be noted:

1)  The provocative role of the AKP government, led by Erdoğan, was a key factor triggering the 2013 Turkish uprising. For more than a decade, Erdoğan and his governments meticulously followed an aggressive path of neoliberalism as well as an obscurant and oppressive strategy. The AKP government has sought to restructure processes across public employment in general, including increasing reforms of the education sector.

The reforms have covered recruitment and appointment systems at the primary and secondary levels in the public education sector in Turkey and have led to an obvious deterioration in the employment relations of teachers:

  • Teaching as an occupation and professional has been trivialised.
  • A precarious and iniquitous employment model has been formed.
  • Considering the yearly teaching time and the time spent at work, teachers in Turkey are working considerably more but teaching less than the OECD average.[iii]
  • Teachers are being paid less than the OECD average.[iv]
  • By the newly introduced applications of performance management and business like appraisal methods, teachers have been experiencing loss of autonomy and control over their labour processes and high level of deskilling.

2)  The uprising in Turkey might have been triggered by environmentalist concerns of the urban middle classes but was in no way an apolitical gathering of the It should be noted that there is a particular history of unrest in the country. Tensions have been gradually rising for more than a decade.

Before the uprising of 2013, August had become the month for teachers’ demonstrations. The candidates, who have their university degrees but have not yet been appointed as a teacher, met every year on the streets of the main cities of the country. By March 2012, there had been 30 suicides as a consequence of not being appointed as a teacher.

On the other hand, the obscurant policies of AKP had been turned into direct pressure in the schools over the teachers. The backward changes in the curricula besides the new laws regulating Islamic religious schools and courses created an intense unrest within the teachers as well as the parents.

3)  The last issue relates to the presence (or absence) of the so-called traditional forms of employee organizations. Although the overwhelming working class character of June 2013 is now accepted, neither the unions, other representative association or any of the opposition parties played a key role in the actions. Teachers, for example, would name their neighbours, relatives or friends before their unions as comrades of June 2013.

I have to note that, current industrial relations` regulations in Turkey do not provide industrial action rights for public unions. In the education sector unionisation is more than 65 percent (1 007 865 employees of which 651 234 are union members), but with no rights for collective agreement and strike action.

Despite these constraints, I would still argue that unions largely neglected their members` struggle politically during June 2013 uprising.

Revealing these points, the teachers’ actions can be considered as an illustrative case for discussing the anti-capitalist characteristics and the class struggle dimensions of the uprising in Turkey and the movement beyond.


[i] Beginning from the end of May for more than three months, millions of people in most of the big cities of Turkey were active in one way or another in the protests. AKP government executed an improportionate force to the appeal of the people in response. Summer 2013 has been over, closing the first round with 6 deaths, couple more still struggling in coma, tens of young people who left their eyes and many others with serious injuries. Yet the tension has never decreased, on the contrary new agenda has been raising constantly since last summer. People who have been killed by the police forces has reached to 10 people.

[ii] AKP Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi (Justice and Development Party), the political party currently holding the government of Turkey with a 49.9% vote power from the general election in 2011. The overall vote percentage of AKP has only decreased by 4.3 points (45.6%) in the `post-Gezi` local elections at March 30th 2014.

[iii] OECD 2009 Education at Glance Report

http://www.oecd.org/document/24/0,3746,en_2649_39263238_43586328_1_1_1_1,00.html#4

[iv] ibid

Fast food workers strike in the US, but who will unionise the UK’s chippies?

Jane Holgate WEB
By Jane Holgate, CERIC, University of Leeds

Low-waged workers in small workplaces are, statistically, the least likely to go on strike. They are unlikely to be unionised, are under close supervision from the boss and are easily replaceable. Traditionally, unions have paid little attention to these workers. Organising in small workplaces with high staff turnover provides little return for lots of effort.

Yet in the US, thousands of fast food workers from outlets such as McDonald’s, Domino’s and KFC have walked out of their workplaces taking their colleagues with them in a series of day-long strikes that began in 2012. The most recent of these involved coordinated action in 150 cities across the US last month.

But nothing of a similar scale has happened in the UK, and it doesn’t look like it will happen any time soon. The reasons for this go to the heart of the differences between unions on either side of the Atlantic.

Poverty wages

It is easy to see why campaigners in the US have targeted fast food. The industry’s workers are the lowest paid in the country, according to government data. Their median salary is just $11,000 per year. They also suffer a high degree of “wage theft”, where employers dock their pay or force them to work unpaid hours.

Workers are demanding the right to join a union and are pushing the Obama government to increase the minimum wage nationwide. Currently, the federal minimum wage stands at $7.25 but individual states and cities have the power to set their own rates above this figure. Since the strikes began minimum wages increases have been secured in seven states and two cities. SeaTac, near Seattle, in Washington State was the first city to win an increase to $15, followed by the city of Seattle itself.

Complex labour laws mean unions face difficulties getting recognised by employers and the unions often experience expensive legal challenges from employers. The unions and unionised workers also face intimidation and bullying from multi-million dollar union-busting companies. To avoid this, unions have adopted a new tactical approach to organising in this sector.

New tactics

Campaigners have targeted the state and federal legislatures to increase the minimum wage. As many fast food restaurants are franchises, the owners have little room for manoeuvre when it comes to wages, as the price of supplies and food is set and regulated centrally by companies like McDonald’s and Wendy’s. Low profit margins mean the owner of an individual McDonald’s franchise has little scope to increase wages.

The unions also chose to organise fast food workers in the community as opposed to in the workplace. They set up Fast Food Forward – a community coalition – where they have funded organisers to work with local groups and workers centres. Faith leaders in local churches and community activists have shown their support for the strikers. In one example, from late last year in New York, “Clergy and city council members walked a Wendy’s worker back in after her manager told her she was fired. The high-powered delegation convinced the manager to ‘unfire’ her”.

Workers are also legally protected from dismissal (largely), as it is unlawful to fire workers for attempting to organise a union.

Could these tactics work in the UK?

One reason this form of organising hasn’t spread to the UK is that local councils don’t have the power to set minimum wages. A minimum wage campaign could be directed at the national government, but unions in the UK have tended to use their political links with the Labour Party to press for demands for worker-friendly legislation and are unlikely to think it worthwhile to demand progressive labour laws from the current coalition government.

Unions in the UK also tend to be too focused on servicing their current members rather than on expanding into new, non-unionised workplaces. While some unions have adopted the language of organising, where this does take place, it tends to be where unions already have membership. For a typical UK union, a trip round the local high street’s fast food places would be a leap into the unknown.

It’s a leap the unions might be willing to take, if it weren’t for another problem: they simply don’t have the resources of their US counterparts. The UK trade union sector has seen merger after merger (a consequence of a failure to invest in organising) as unions need to consolidate in order to cut costs and survive.

In the US, unions are able to draw strength from being part of a wider tradition of community-based organising, including a number of national networks of faith-based and community coalitions. Geographically based community organising – while starting to take place in Unite, the largest private-sector union – is not a feature of UK trade unionism. But even Unite’s community membership is aimed at organising those not in work to campaign for social justice rather than workers in the workplace.

For unions in the UK looking enviously at the success their counterparts have had across the Atlantic, there are lessons to be learned. British trade unions could recast themselves as broader social justice organisations where their role is to create benefits for all workers rather than just their members. Forming genuine common-cause coalitions with progressive community organisations campaigning for social justice, instead of just requesting assistance when unions need support for an industrial dispute or campaign, could prove valuable in reaching into communities where unions do not have a base.

Further, the campaign for a living wage began in London in 2001 when London Citizens – a community coalition explicitly based on US organising tactics – began working with unions to secure wage increases for hospital workers in East London. Since then, this small organisation has managed to persuade dozens of employers to pay a living wage of £8.80 in London (£7.65 outside of London) per hour – £2.49 (£1.34) more than the national minimum. More than 100 local authorities have now committed to paying the living wage.

At the same time they have managed to shift the political discourse around low wages to that of a “living”, rather than a “minimum” wage, such that the Labour Party has committed to its introduction, should it be returned to government.

Unions need to get smarter and more flexible in the way they organise in order to adapt to the constantly changing labour markets and laws that make organising workers difficult. It can be done, but it requires a fundamental shake-up of the way unions currently operate and the adoption of more innovative and tactical approaches to organising.

Jane Holgate does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

The growing problem of zero hours contracts in the UK

Image

Chris Forde
Chris Forde is Professor of Employment Studies at CERIC.

@CERIC_LUBS

In May, Vince Cable announced a review of zero hours contracts, amidst concerns that such contracts may be ‘abusing workers at the margins of the labour market’. Under zero hours contracts, workers agree to be available as and when required, but they have no guaranteed hours or times of work.  In healthcare, hospitality, and education, such ‘on-call’ workers are increasingly commonplace, cleaning hotel rooms, waiting in restaurants, or providing care to people at home. A number of reports have highlighted the precarious nature of many zero hours contracts, characterised by low pay, few employment rights, and little opportunity for progression.

Getting a handle on the numbers engaged in zero hours contracts has proved difficult. A Resolution Foundation report, using Labour Force Survey data, puts the number of workers on zero hours contracts at 200,000, although the authors recognise that this is likely to be an underestimate.  This would certainly seem to be backed up by figures cited last week by Norman Lamb, the Care and Support Minister who stated in Parliament that in social care alone, 300,000 workers – one fifth of the workforce – were employed on zero hours contracts. Why have they have become so commonplace in some sectors, and what are the experiences of those workers at the sharp end of these contracts?

In our recent research at the Centre for Employment Relations Innovation and Change (CERIC) at the University of Leeds, Ioulia Bessa, Sian Moore, Mark Stuart and I have been able to look at the realities of zero hours contracting in the domiciliary care sector. Our study for the Low Pay Commission examined contracts, hours of work and pay for workers who provide care for clients in their own homes. We have looked at pay levels in this sector in a previous blog, but what about the prevalence of zero hours?  One of the most striking findings from our analysis of a national dataset on work and employment in social care was that zero hours contracts have become the norm for domiciliary care workers over the last few years. Between 2009 and 2012, 56% of domiciliary care workers were employed on zero hours contracts. As figure 1 below shows, in the private sector, it is rare to see a care worker on a standard employment contract: in 2012, a staggering 4 in 5 domiciliary care workers was on a zero-hours contract. Our analysis suggests that there were approximately 100,000 domiciliary care workers in total on zero hours contracts in 2012.¹

Figure 1: Proportions of Domiciliary Care Workers on zero-hours contracts, 2009-2012, National Minimum Data Set for Social Care.

Image

Source: Bessa, Forde, Moore and Stuart (2013) Report for Low Pay Commission

Our case studies showed that it was changes in the commissioning process and well-documented falls in ‘block contracts’ (where providers are given guaranteed numbers of hours of care under local authority contracts) that had driven the rise in zero hours contracting. As a manager from one large national home care provider put it:

‘It would be difficult to not sustain a zero hours contract because  you don’t have any guaranteed or block hour contracts from the local authority, because they’re all commissioned and framework (agreements), there’s no guarantee of business, it’s difficult to guarantee a workforce business or work’ .

Advocates of zero hours contracts point to the flexibility of such arrangements, and the benefits to both employer and worker of adaptable work schedules. To be sure, we found some evidence of workers who valued flexibility over how many hours they worked (in particular those with second jobs, students or those with other commitments). However, the problem is that zero hours contracts remove any element of continuity for workers in the hours they worked from one week to the next. One respondent who had worked as a care worker described how his ‘heart sank every Sunday night’ when he received a work schedule for the coming week from his employer, typically setting out less hours for the worker than they were expecting. Whilst these hours were often topped up by the employer with additional hours during the week, it made planning very difficult. Our case studies also highlighted how working variable hours each week also had implications for the receipt of Statutory Sick Pay, and benefits such as Working Family tax Credits.

Some have called for these contracts to be outlawed, whilst others suggest tighter regulation, and better enforcement of those rights that zero hours contract workers do have. As one commentator has noted, those on zero hour contracts do have a modest advantage over those on casual contracts, in that an employer does have an obligation to provide work to employees on fixed-term contracts over casual workers, if work is available.  The problem is that under zero hours contracts, the risks associated with work not being available are predominantly borne by the worker, .

If we are arguing that commissioning practices in social care are one of the causes of the rise in zero hours in the sector, are there better solutions? Our case studies highlighted how the practice of contracting for hours of care from suppliers (with no specified pay rates or employment conditions that suppliers must adhere to) was a barrier to improving contract arrangements of the care workforce. ‘Fair fee models’, where authorities could give a specified rate for hourly pay and for overheads (with the capacity for increases), or ‘open book’ approaches, where the local authority would pay what a service costs and then allow a certain percentage profit might lead to a reduction in the reliance by employers on zero hours arrangements to maintain margins. However, the dominance of the current commissioning model in social care would seem to suggest that such radical changes are unlikely to happen any time soon.

¹ Our analysis of zero hours in the NMDS-SC dataset in 2012 was primarily concerned with wages and hours worked, and we focused on the 42,908 zero hours contract workers who provided information on their contracted hours and additional hours. We excluded from the analysis of those workers who indicated that their contracted hours were zero, but who provided no information on actual hours worked in a given week. These involved the exclusion of 60% of cases from the dataset. Including these workers in the count of zero hours contracts would give the higher count of 100,000 reported above.

Government rhetoric is likely to turn off business and undermine a flagship policy

Image

Dr Jo Ingold

Everyone knows someone who has experienced, or is currently experiencing, job insecurity, unemployment or underemployment. In the past, it was largely those at the lower end of the labour market with low, or no, skills or qualifications who were most likely to find themselves without work. But in the current recession, anyone can be unemployed – whatever their skill or qualification level, whatever job or industry they’re in.

The Government repeatedly claims that they want to help people into work. They argue that their combination of tax and benefits reforms and the expansion of welfare to work programmes are the best ways to do this. They also make little secret of the faith they place in enterprise and the private sector to get the economy moving and to tackle unemployment. As Iain Duncan Smith said in a speech in Madrid in July, 2011: “Government cannot do it all. As we work hard to break welfare dependency and get young people ready for the labour market, we need businesses to give them a chance”.

There can be no doubt that employers are fundamental to the success (or failure) of welfare to work initiatives, such as the Work Programme, introduced in 2011. The Work Programme is the cornerstone of the Coalition Government’s employment policy. Central to its design is a network of mainly private providers, contracted to deliver tailored assistance to get the long-term unemployed back into work.

As the CBI has highlighted, the Work Programme can offer a range of benefits to employers looking to hire, including tailored packages which reduce recruitment costs and on-going support. Recently, here at CERIC, I’ve been researching (1) whether and why employers do or do not recruit from the Work Programme, and (2) how providers can persuade employers to give more job opportunities to the long-term unemployed. In the past year I’ve surveyed employers and interviewed providers and other key stakeholders. This research has highlighted two important barriers to persuading employers to recruit unemployed people. These are employers’ negative perceptions about unemployed people, and their portrayal in the media.

The first barrier is relatively well-known: for example, in a survey by the Institute of Leadership and Management a quarter of employers said that they were less likely to recruit people who were long-term unemployed.

Also well-known are the views put forward by some of the media about people claiming benefit. However, the Government itself is also increasingly talking about shirkers, scroungers, welfare dependency and benefits as a ‘lifestyle choice’. Government ministers present erroneous statistics about unemployment, worklessness and benefit receipt. They also focus on specific, individual and unrepresentative cases. This not only presents an extremely misleading picture. It is potentially sabotaging the delivery of a key government policy, hindering both those searching for work and those at the coalface who are actively involved in assisting them. Kayleigh Garthwaite  highlighted this recently in relation to long-term sick and disabled people.

Those who took part in my research, as well as employer organisations such as the CBI have suggested that the Government should do more to promote the benefits of the Work Programme to employers. Painting those who are unemployed, lone parents or disabled as shirkers is unlikely to address employers’ concerns about hiring people who have been out of work for a long time. On the contrary, it is far more likely to lead to the cementing of any existing perceptions that employers may have: that people on benefit lack motivation, self-discipline or that they are never going to be the most promising candidates for jobs. At a time when finding any work is difficult enough – let alone sufficient, regular work that pays the bills – this seems perverse.

The Government says that they want to move people off benefit and into work. To this end, Ministers and MPs need to be ambassadors for unemployed people. A myriad of evidence over the years makes it clear that very few people actually want to live on benefit. Most people who are unemployed want to work. One thing that is unlikely to be effective in helping them into work is portraying unemployed people as somehow ‘deficient’, reinforcing stereotypes based on prejudice, rather than evidence. This is doing unemployed people – and businesses – a severe disservice. Through its rhetoric around benefit receipt and unemployment, the Government is not only kicking people when they’re down. They’re undermining their own policy and potentially wasting large amounts of public money in the process.

Dr Jo Ingold is a Post-doctoral Research Fellow at CERIC.

Paying the price for commissioning in social care? The minimum wage and domiciliary care work in the UK

Image

Chris Forde
Chris Forde is Professor of Employment Studies at CERIC.

@CERIC_LUBS

When The Low Pay Commission’s annual recommendations were released a fortnight ago, most attention focused on the 12p and 5p rises in the minimum wage for adults and 18-20 year olds. As in previous years, these recommendations have attracted headlines about the level of the minimum wage, and the effects of the NMW on employment. Yet, whilst there is broad consensus over the importance of setting a floor for wage levels, the focus on a minimum wage may detract attention away from the more fundamental problem of low paid jobs in the UK economy. Why are there so many low paid jobs in sectors such as hospitality, retail, social care and personal and protective services? There is a need for a clearer understanding of how a diverse range of factors, including employer strategies, government commissioning regimes, and sectoral norms combine to institutionalise low pay in particular sectors.

In this respect, it is worth focusing in on one of the LPCs supplementary recommendations in their 2013 report. The Commission has recommended that contracts issued by public bodies which commission the provision of social care should contain a clause requiring at least the NMW to be paid.  One in 12 jobs in social care were paid at or below the minimum wage by 2011 and there has been much interest from the LPC in whether the commissioning of social care by local authorities is a contributory factor.

Within social care pay in domiciliary care has attracted most attention, and it was this sector was the focus of my report with colleagues Ioulia Bessa, Sian Moore and Mark Stuart from the Centre for Employment Relations Innovation and Change (CERIC), for the LPC this year. Almost 700,000 workers are now employed in the UK providing care for people in their homes, with the number of jobs expanding rapidly as the population ages. As commissioning of public service delivery of domiciliary social care has increased, so the number of directly employed care workers has fallen sharply. A decade ago, most domiciliary care workers were employed by local authorities, whereas now they are much more likely to be employed through one of the 6000 registered home care providers in the UK. The vast majority of publicly funded home care is provided by these private and voluntary organisations through contracts commissioned by local authorities. A recent survey found that there was increasing pressure on providers in terms of what they can cost in contracts. Local authorities may effectively pay only for workers’ ‘contact time’ with a client, rather than including any provision for ‘travel time’ between visits, which can be considerable.

Our research was able to shed light on the realities of work and pay for those in front-line domiciliary care roles. First, we analysed a unique national dataset on employment in the domiciliary care sector, the National Minimum Dataset for Social Care, gathered by Skills for Care. This dataset contains information on pay levels for domiciliary care workers, although, critically, it does not allow us to identify directly whether travel-time is included in hourly pay. Nonetheless, even without adjusting for unpaid travel time, we found that between 2008 and 2012, 1 per cent of domiciliary care workers were paid below the minimum wage, a figure which rose to 2.5 per cent in 2012.   Our case studies of five local authorities all revealed that none currently specified payment of the NMW in its contracts or actively monitored compliance, although two had undertaken research on provider pay rates as part of budget scrutiny exercises and quality assurance. One local authority representative argued that it was not their responsibility to monitor compliance amongst its providers, noting: ‘That is their business, that’s not something that we would get involved in.  It is up to them how they deliver’.

We do make it clear in our report that these percentages should be seen as a lower-bound estimate of those paid under the minimum wage, as they do not take into account the significant amount of travel time that domiciliary care workers undertake within their working day. In our case studies, commissioning documentation sometimes explicitly stated that tenderers would not receive any separate payment from local authorities for workers’ travel costs and that they should cost travel time into their tender prices.  Yet providers typically set charge rates that did not incorporate travel time between visits. With tender contracts awarded on the basis of clear price and quality criteria, Commissioners were acutely aware of the potential impact of including travel time. As one noted:  ‘….we know the impact of not paying travelling time.  However, if it were to be included, it’s probably going to make the service unaffordable for us.  It’s a dilemma.  It doesn’t sit comfortably.… In terms of finance, I can’t give you a figure because we haven’t done that piece of work.  But yes, it would be significant, it would make a significant difference to the cost of the service at a time when we’re having to make huge cuts’.

The other factor that is crucial to understanding hourly pay for the domiciliary care worker is visit length. Most homecare visits being commissioned by local authorities are for periods of 30 minutes or less. For workers this may result in their work being arranged so that they have too many visits too close together or ‘call cramming’, resulting in their having to rush their work or leave a client early to get to their next visit on time.  Clearly, there are implications for compliance with the minimum wage, if extensive travel time is sandwiched between a series of short 15 minute visits, which are only paid for contact time. Some local authorities had begun to move away from commissioning 15 minute visits, and some paid enhanced rates for shorter visits. At one local authority in a semi-rural location, there had been a consultation of the cost implications of paying for travel time. This had revealed that additional allowances, including travel time, might add as much as £2 per hour to costs for providers, and the local authority was considering changes to its commissioning practices as a result.  It also highlights how much unpaid time is borne by the domiciliary care worker as a standard, typically non-negotiable part of their job, and suggests that the numbers paid under the minimum wage will be much higher when travel time is taken into account.

To begin to tackle these issues, Local authority contracts with care providers should explicitly state that external providers pay care workers an hourly rate for all working time, including the time required to travel between visits. There should also be transparency in procurement processes and contractors should be required to state what hourly rates comprise in terms of working time and specifically whether travel time is included, and whether there are enhanced rates for short visit lengths. Only then will it begin to address the realities of travel time, visit lengths and unpaid labour that currently characterise work in domiciliary care.