Post by Mitch on Sept 9, 2004 10:06:42 GMT
Homeworkers’ Continuing Legal Battle
By Michelle Simmons and Mark Wilding
Homeworkers in Hampshire will on Thursday (15th January) go to tribunal to claim they have been victimised for enforcing their right to be paid the national minimum wage. The workers pay National Insurance contributions and some have worked for the company for as long as fourteen years. This is however only the latest episode in an ongoing battle to achieve legal protection and the minimum wage.
With more than twenty years experience between them, Bev Dew and Diane Bridges like many of their homeworking colleagues are particularly adept at their work. They trim light domes (‘cat’s eyes’), stoppers for walking sticks, and even motorcycle parts. Yet there is little recognition of their skills from the management at Industrial Rubber based in Fareham on the South Coast.
Work is irregular; sometimes the delivery van does not turn up at all, with workers having to wait in all day. They are paid on a piece-rate, must take breaks in their own time, and their homes are in constant danger of being completely overrun with rubber. Despite this they continue to work at home so that they can earn a wage to support their families, with several of the workers providing the sole income.
In spite of their best efforts and the support of NGH (the National Group on Homeworking - http://www.homeworking.gn.apc.org) and the T&G, the rubber trimmers are seemingly unable to take advantage of the legal protection that many workers take for granted. A tribunal ruled last October that Bev, Diane, and their workmates are not employees, so those who suddenly stopped receiving work have not been unfairly dismissed and are not entitled to redundancy payments. Suspiciously there is a correlation between those workers campaigning for the minimum wage and those who have stopped receiving work.
The fact that they do the same work as Industrial Rubber employees in the factory is not considered to be important. Rumour has it that their work is now being done even more cheaply by prisoners.
In 2002, Industrial Rubber was ordered to pay 63 homeworkers a total of £140,000 in back pay because a Fair Estimate Agreement was not in place, with the workers piece-rate wages falling far below the minimum wage. The company has appealed against this, and so none of the workers have yet received back pay. Some of the homeworkers, so disheartened, have given up their fight for the minimum wage, and left their jobs.
While the DTI has announced the changing of the ‘four fifths’ rule where homeworkers are only entitled to eighty percent of the hourly rate it must do more to ensure that all workers get the minimum wage. The legislation is of little use to many groups of workers if it is not enforced properly, and workers are unable to use the law without being victimised. The Equal Opportunities Commission has called for casual and self-employed workers to be included in the legal definition of ‘employee’.
It would be easy to think that homeworkers are the exception, were it not for their abundance. Most people underestimate the numbers working from home, as at first glance the work is invisible, done predominantly by women behind closed doors. The National Group on Homeworking places the figure at around a million homeworkers in the UK, some of whom earn less than fifty pence an hour. According to the Equal Opportunities Commission fifty percent of homeworkers may not receive the minimum wage.
The situation facing homeworkers in the UK has prompted a forthcoming campaign. Oxfam, the TUC and the Ethical Trading Initiative will work with the NGH to support homeworker’s efforts at self-organisation by prompting the government to take greater responsibility and persuading companies to commit to improved employment rights.
It is vital that the workers are able to prove their employment status and protect their rights. They should not be forced to go through such a protracted court struggle for what started out as their campaign to get the minimum wage. As homeworkers at industrial rubber commented ‘there is little deterrent for employers who do not comply with the regulations’.
Full-time, permanent ‘employees’ must see the connection between exploitation of atypical ‘workers’ and themselves, for in a system which is increasingly placing power in the hands of employers, further erosion of employment rights will soon be coming your way.
By Michelle Simmons and Mark Wilding
Homeworkers in Hampshire will on Thursday (15th January) go to tribunal to claim they have been victimised for enforcing their right to be paid the national minimum wage. The workers pay National Insurance contributions and some have worked for the company for as long as fourteen years. This is however only the latest episode in an ongoing battle to achieve legal protection and the minimum wage.
With more than twenty years experience between them, Bev Dew and Diane Bridges like many of their homeworking colleagues are particularly adept at their work. They trim light domes (‘cat’s eyes’), stoppers for walking sticks, and even motorcycle parts. Yet there is little recognition of their skills from the management at Industrial Rubber based in Fareham on the South Coast.
Work is irregular; sometimes the delivery van does not turn up at all, with workers having to wait in all day. They are paid on a piece-rate, must take breaks in their own time, and their homes are in constant danger of being completely overrun with rubber. Despite this they continue to work at home so that they can earn a wage to support their families, with several of the workers providing the sole income.
In spite of their best efforts and the support of NGH (the National Group on Homeworking - http://www.homeworking.gn.apc.org) and the T&G, the rubber trimmers are seemingly unable to take advantage of the legal protection that many workers take for granted. A tribunal ruled last October that Bev, Diane, and their workmates are not employees, so those who suddenly stopped receiving work have not been unfairly dismissed and are not entitled to redundancy payments. Suspiciously there is a correlation between those workers campaigning for the minimum wage and those who have stopped receiving work.
The fact that they do the same work as Industrial Rubber employees in the factory is not considered to be important. Rumour has it that their work is now being done even more cheaply by prisoners.
In 2002, Industrial Rubber was ordered to pay 63 homeworkers a total of £140,000 in back pay because a Fair Estimate Agreement was not in place, with the workers piece-rate wages falling far below the minimum wage. The company has appealed against this, and so none of the workers have yet received back pay. Some of the homeworkers, so disheartened, have given up their fight for the minimum wage, and left their jobs.
While the DTI has announced the changing of the ‘four fifths’ rule where homeworkers are only entitled to eighty percent of the hourly rate it must do more to ensure that all workers get the minimum wage. The legislation is of little use to many groups of workers if it is not enforced properly, and workers are unable to use the law without being victimised. The Equal Opportunities Commission has called for casual and self-employed workers to be included in the legal definition of ‘employee’.
It would be easy to think that homeworkers are the exception, were it not for their abundance. Most people underestimate the numbers working from home, as at first glance the work is invisible, done predominantly by women behind closed doors. The National Group on Homeworking places the figure at around a million homeworkers in the UK, some of whom earn less than fifty pence an hour. According to the Equal Opportunities Commission fifty percent of homeworkers may not receive the minimum wage.
The situation facing homeworkers in the UK has prompted a forthcoming campaign. Oxfam, the TUC and the Ethical Trading Initiative will work with the NGH to support homeworker’s efforts at self-organisation by prompting the government to take greater responsibility and persuading companies to commit to improved employment rights.
It is vital that the workers are able to prove their employment status and protect their rights. They should not be forced to go through such a protracted court struggle for what started out as their campaign to get the minimum wage. As homeworkers at industrial rubber commented ‘there is little deterrent for employers who do not comply with the regulations’.
Full-time, permanent ‘employees’ must see the connection between exploitation of atypical ‘workers’ and themselves, for in a system which is increasingly placing power in the hands of employers, further erosion of employment rights will soon be coming your way.
