European ministers failed to agree yesterday on the Agency Workers Directive that would have given temporary workers the same rights as permanent employees.
Most of the EU states are in favour of the proposals, yet the British government – in a minority – opposed the plans.
The Recruitment and Employment Confederation (REC) stated it was “relieved to see an agreement was not reached”.
Commenting on the negotiations, Helen Reynolds, acting chief executive officer of the REC, said: “We have never understood the raison d’être behind the Agency Workers Directive. The current draft of the directive would have resulted in greater bureaucracy, more risk in engaging temps and therefore less job opportunities.”
The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) congratulated the UK government in fighting off pressure from other EU states.
Mike Emmott, CIPD employee relations adviser, welcomed the news. “If implemented, [the directive] would undermine the UK’s flexible labour market. The concept of ‘flexicurity’ is a myth behind which those in Europe opposed to any form of flexibility can shelter. EU governments who back this rigid, backward-looking proposal destroy the credibility of their proclaimed intention to move towards greater flexibility.”
He added: “This directive would hit Britain disproportionately hard, and would cost jobs. It is vital that the British government remains resolute in its efforts to permanently consign this proposal to the EU’s legislative dustbin.”
However, the Trades Union Congress general secretary Brendan Barber remarked that it was a “bad day” for rights at work across Europe, especially in the UK.
“It is very disappointing that there has been no progress on the directive. There is real anger among unions today that the UK government played the pivotal role in blocking progress today on this modest measure to improve workplace justice.
“Contrary to business scare-mongering, this directive would not stop agencies providing temporary staff to employers who need them. What it would have done was both make it more difficult for employers to undercut wages and conditions and help slow the growth of a two-tier workforce.”
