Latest news with #EmploymentRightsBill
Business News Wales
3 hours ago
- Business
- Business News Wales
Changing Statutory Sick Pay Rules Is A Positive Step But It's Costly
This March, the UK Government announced changes to the Employment Rights Bill. If the Bill is approved, once it comes into effect employers would have to pay statutory sick pay (SSP) from day one of an employee's illness, rather than day four, as it was previously. As the People and Operations Director here at Mrs Buckét, we've always placed people at the heart of our business, many of whom have traditionally worked in physically demanding roles with lower pay and unsociable hours. The face of cleaning is changing and with it, the way we pay and treat our staff. At Mrs Buckét we have led the way and embraced this shift, something we are very proud of. However, for many businesses, these changes in SSP will be a significant additional cost, on top of recent increases to employer National Insurance contributions and the National Living Wage, which will create further financial strain. Companies aren't reimbursed for sickness costs – they have to swallow them, and for a business like ours, totally dependent on its workforce, that's a difficult balance. The UK Government is also proposing the removal of the Lower Earnings Limit (LEL) meaning employees earning less than £123 per week would now qualify for sick pay – either £116.75 per week or 80% of their weekly salary, whichever is lower. As a company with a large number of part-time workers, this again is going to have a big effect on us. Mrs Buckét is all about our people. They are our ambassadors and our flag bearers around Swansea, where we are based, and around South Wales and beyond where we have many clients. We are committed to looking after them and supporting them. But pressure is being felt across every sector at the moment, every penny is being squeezed out of every bid and every tender we go for, and cost pressures are mounting. We aren't going to change the way we currently treat or pay our staff. But it's important that there is a level of understanding from the Government of the impact on businesses who are having to pay for it all- we are feeling the pressure, and we are trying to navigate these new financial burdens without affecting quality or jobs. Professionalising and championing the cleaning industry is a key part of our ethos and there are positives to these changes – paying SSP from day one will make our workforce feel more valued, it will help with employee retention and I believe it will reduce the number of days people are off sick. It will have a positive impact on cleaning industry standards and practices. Still, we must acknowledge that it will also add to pricing pressure, it will add to our administration costs, it will stress our company's cash flow. Companies should already be looking after, investing and nurturing their staff – they shouldn't be forced into it by a policy change, but because it's the right thing to do. But this commitment also needs to be met with the understanding that small to medium-sized businesses are the lifeblood of the UK economy, and at some point, some may break under the continuing financial pressure of employment.
Observer
2 days ago
- Business
- Observer
Finance chiefs call for ‘clearer' tax policy
UK Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, is facing pressure to provide a 'clearer, more stable tax environment,' when she delivers her growth strategy next month. The Chancellor is once again in the spotlight after a damning report from finance bosses indicated the industry was prepped to support growth ambitions, but structural barriers were holding them back. Top players in the financial services ecosystem – KPMG, UK Finance and PIMFA (Personal Investment Management & Financial Advice) – said 'potential will remain untapped unless underlying structural challenges' are addressed'. The report said reforms to tax policy posed a 'valuable opportunity' to drive up greater confidence'. Business confidence sank in the fall out of Reeves' maiden Budget, where taxes were hiked £40bn. The Chancellor's controversial change to employer's national insurance came into effect last month, with rates for firms upped 1.2 per cent to 15 per cent. Managing director of personal finance at UK Finance, Eric Lendeers, said: 'Investors and firms need stability to make informed decisions and to invest for the future. Mixed signals on taxation only compound the problem.' He added it was crucial to avoid 'knee-jerk reactions' on tax policy. The Chancellor is facing mounting speculation of another tax hike after it was calculated half of her £9.9bn in fiscal headroom had been wiped out just 48 hours after the Spring Statement. Chief executive at PIMFA, Liz Field, said: 'Uncertainty surrounding non-dom tax status has driven more capital and talent overseas which impacts UK investment and competitiveness.' Field added: 'Frequent shifts and speculations around issues like tax-free cash, pensions, and ISAs undermine confidence and disrupt financial planning for clients.' Reeves inaugural Financial Services Growth and Competitiveness Strategy is pencilled in for 15 July, where the industry will be anticipating the Chancellor's plans to boost the economy. Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves gives a speech at the Treasury in London, Britain. — Reuters Partner at KPMG UK, Daniel Barry, said: 'As risk to the UK's finance stability are rising, the government has a significant opportunity to instil greater confidence among sector leaders at a time of great uncertainty and geopolitical volatility.' The report from KPMG, UK Finance and PIMFA compiles views from chief executives and senior leaders across the private bank and wealth management industry, as well as financial advice and related services. The sector holds over £1.6 trillion in assets and bosses said reforms were needed to 'unlock the full potential'. Field said: 'There's a concern across our sector that without a more stable, proportionate and joined-up policy environment, we risk missing a vital opportunity to unlock investment, drive innovation, and promote greater financial resilience across society.' A separate issue that is causing concern to firms in the UK is the Employment Rights Bill which is currently progressing through parliament and expected to become law in the coming months. Small business owners would continue hiring new staff despite fears around the government's workers' rights package if it contained a rebate on the overhaul's new sick pay rules. According to a poll by the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB), 35 per cent of entrepreneurs and small business owners believe that a rebate for their firms over sick pay would make them to employ people currently out of work. The government claims its Employment Rights Bill represents the biggest overhaul of workers' rights in a generation. Other important changes within the package include outlawing 'exploitative' zero-hours contracts and so-called 'fire and rehire' practices. Under the current package, bosses have to grant staff statutory sick pay from their first day of employment, removing the current waiting period of three days. But small businesses fear the sick pay reform will cost them millions and deter them from taking on new employees. Of the 92 per cent of FSB members that have concerns about the workers' rights bill, 74 per cent believe they will recruit fewer workers. Executive director of the FSB, Craig Beaumont, said the spending review was an opportunity for the Chancellor to incorporate the sick pay demands of small businesses.
Euronews
3 days ago
- Business
- Euronews
Exclusive: EU Parliament at odds with Amazon over hearing with boss
Amazon and the European Parliament are at odds over whether a boss from the US tech giant should appear before a parliamentary committee later this month, sources familiar with the matter told Euronews. The Parliament has made the 26 June hearing at the Employment and Social Affairs Committee (EMPL) a precondition for Amazon regaining access to its premises, after the tech giant's access badges were withdrawn in February last year because the company failed to attend a series of hearings and factory visits in 2021 and 2023 related to workers' rights. The committee has asked London-based Senior Vice President Russell Grandinetti to appear before it. Grandinetti joined the company in 1998 and is now responsible for leading Amazon's international e-commerce business across Europe, UK, Japan, India, China, Brazil, Mexico, Turkey, the Middle East and Australia. In an email exchange seen by Euronews, Amazon responded saying that two other senior officials – Luxembourg-based Stefano Perego, vice president of international operations and global operations services, and Lucy Cronin, a Dublin-based vice president for EU public policy – would be better placed to answer the committee's questions on working conditions. But the committee is resisting those speakers, claiming they don't meet the required level of seniority, and is refusing to accept them. The email did not specify whether the hearing would be cancelled. Euronews understands that the hearing will still go ahead. Other speakers that were scheduled to attend the EMPL hearing were representatives from unions as well as Amazon workers. During a UK parliamentary hearing on the Employment Rights Bill last December, Amazon representatives that attended were directors, a level below Perego and Cronin in terms of seniority. During its previous five-year mandate, the EMPL committee twice invited Amazon to discuss working conditions in its EU facilities. But in May 2021 and January 2024, the company declined the invitations. Planned visits to facilities in Poland and Germany scheduled for December 2023 also never took place. Last November the Parliament said Amazon must attend a hearing and arrange for MEPs to visit one of its fulfilment centres before it would consider lifting the restrictions. Lawmaker Laila Chaibi (France, GUE/NGL) said in a reaction to Euronews that: "Workers are deprived of their rights, they are watched continuously, pressured by their leadership constantly. [...] And once again, when elected representatives ask for a visit, we are blocked, it's easier to visit a prison facility than an Amazon warehouse." Oliver Roethig, Regional Secretary at trade union UNI Europa, echoed this comments and said that decisions about Amazon workers' conditions "are not made in Luxembourg." "They are made at the highest echelons of Amazon's management structure: the S-Team. We demand that Amazon make available S-Team members to be held accountable by the Committee," Roethig added. Amazon said in a previous statement that it treats its responsibilities to the Parliament and other institutions 'seriously', and that it agrees 'that a company such as ours—with over 150,000 employees in the EU alone—should be scrutinised.' 'We also believe that it's important to scrutinise the whole industry in addition to individual companies, and to have sessions that are designed to understand facts, not just make political points,' the statement said. Amazon and the European Parliament were contacted for a comment. The pending ban on the popular social media app TikTok will likely be extended on Thursday. US President Donald Trump told reporters on Tuesday that he would 'probably' extend the TikTok ban for a third time but he would need approval from China's President Xi Jinping to do so. The Supreme Court upheld a decision in January that forces ByteDance, the Chinese company behind TikTok, to either sell the app to an American buyer or face a nationwide ban. June 19th was the new date that the ban was supposed to take effect. Euronews Next takes a look at what could be next for the app and evaluates whether the extension is a sign that the national security concerns around TikTok have changed AND if it is a geopolitical move by Trump It's not a surprise that Trump is likely to extend the TikTok ban because he believes it's being used in further negotiations with China, said Darío García de Viedma, fellow of technical and digital policy at the think tank the Elcano Royal Institute in Spain. 'I don't see a scenario in which both [Xi and Trump's] interests are met with a purchase or a ban,' García de Viedma told Euronews Next. 'It would have to be part of a broader negotiation, where one concedes TikTok and the other concedes something else, like tariffs or export control'. Last week, Trump claimed the US and China agreed to a new trade relationship where the US would receive magnets and rare earth minerals in exchange for allowing Chinese students to enrol in American colleges and universities. The deal also brought their respective tariffs down to 55 per cent imposed by the US on Chinese products and 10 per cent imposed by China on American products. Despite their relationship appearing to have calmed, it still isn't the right time to force a TikTok sale, said García de Viedma. It also wouldn't be the first time that a TikTok ban is be used to gain political leverage over China, he added. Indian President Narendra Modi banned TikTok along with 58 Chinese apps in 2020 after border skirmishes with China. The app was gone overnight but accounts and old videos are still online, the BBC reported. García de Viedma said Indian policy experts he has spoken to, the move is 'populist' to show that '[Modi] is taking care of the conflict with China and that this is a very big move towards Indian sovereignty'. 'President Trump is doing the opposite,' García de Viedma said.. 'His discourse right now is, I'm going to save TikTok. [Trump] is saying the opposite to Modi, but it's actually the same trend, using it as a sovereignty discourse.' Jan Penfrat, senior policy advisor with European Digital Rights, said he wouldn't be surprised if a movement to ban all Chinese apps like Modi comes up later. 'I wouldn't be surprised if later in the administration, [there is] an idea to basically just say 'hey let's just ban all Chinese things that are kind of in competition with [what] America offers,' Penfrat said. The main argument from the Republican Party that passed the bill to divest TikTok is that ByteDance could be compelled to send US data to the Chinese government if they requested it. This is largely a 'theoretical concern' because there are opposing views from officials about whether there have been TikTok data transfers to the Chinese government, García de Viedma said. But data privacy concerns haven't resonated with TikTok creators, who have stayed on the platform despite conflicting stories from officials, he added. The US also has a similar data transfer law to China called the Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act (CLOUD). Passed during Trump's first mandate, the US government can subpoena American technology companies for data stored on any server in the world to help them investigate serious crimes. Penfrat and García de Viedma argue that TikTok has just as many security risks as other social media apps due to how they share and store data. 'All of these social media apps are a security risk if you work in a sensitive area because they all do massive data collection through the device that they're installed on,' Penfrat said. 'And this has nothing to do with the fact that TikTok comes from China and everything to do with the business model that the company has'. This business model involves collecting personal data and selling it to advertisers to feed it into recommender systems, Penfrat said, referring to algorithms. If a US or Chinese government body wants data, they don't have to compel the social media companies to hand it over - they can just participate in real-time bidding for personal data on the targeted advertising market and bypass the social media companies entirely, he added. 'It's an incredibly messy industry which leads to hundreds of parties eventually having access to personal data and it's totally out of control in a way,' Penfrat said. 'Eventually, government agencies like ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement)in the US have started buying personal data on the commercial market because they can get all the information they want without needing a warrant'. It's also not clear if and when the sale goes through, whether ByteDance would be forced to sell the TikTok algorithm or just its US-based operations, according to García de Viedma. If the US only buys the operations and not the algorithms, it could change what content is seen or recommended for users in Europe, said García de Viedma. This could then lead to the possible 'implosion' of the so-called 'TikTok economy' that is moving money mostly from the United States. 'In a matter of days, the big TikTok community could move to another platform and this would have a big impact on all the intellectual movements and culture and politics that is created on TikTok,' he said. But that could be what Trump wants by creating this uncertainty about the ban, García de Viedma said, by forcing creators to move to other platforms like Instagram to keep their income streams alive. By doing this, Trump could be using a 'midterm strategy to just kill TikTok from its user base and to reduce its impact and the price,' he said.
Telegraph
3 days ago
- Business
- Telegraph
Rayner's ‘jobs police' could intimidate political enemies, Lords warn
Angela Rayner's workers' rights overhaul risks creating an employment police force capable of intimidating political enemies, peers have warned. Lord Carter of Haslemere, a former general counsel to the Prime Minister, has claimed that new powers designed to give ministers the ability to search and arrest people for labour market offences could be abused. He said: 'Effectively, the Secretary of State will, through his or her enforcement officers, have his or her own employment rights police force to direct operationally in whatever way he or she chooses. 'This is in contrast, for example, to our regular police forces and the National Crime Agency, which are both operationally independent of the Home Secretary.' He is demanding that the so-called 'jobs police', which will be introduced as part of the Employment Rights Bill, 'enjoy complete operational independence from ministers and their advisers' to avoid politicians abusing their new powers. Lord Carter said: 'It is not impossible to imagine an unscrupulous Secretary of State requiring them to operate in a way that is not in the public interest and might even constitute an abuse of power, to target an unfriendly media organisation for political purposes or for some other wholly inappropriate purpose.' 'Real teeth' The former government lawyer is among a growing number of peers to have raised concerns about the planned strengthening of workers' rights in recent months as the House of Lords examines individual parts of Ms Rayner's Bill. The latest focus has been on the Fair Work Agency, which is set to become a new super regulator that will fold in several existing units. Current plans will see the new body have 'real teeth' to punish companies that treat staff badly or fall foul of the new rules. This means the agency will have the ability to inspect workplaces, levy fines or bring proceedings in the employment tribunal on a worker's behalf. While supporters argue that it will make the system less fragmented by combining several units into one, critics have raised fears that the new body could spook small business owners who don't have large legal teams. The package of reforms, spearheaded by Ms Rayner, includes handing staff full employment rights from the first day in a job and strengthening the power of unions in the workplace. Businesses could, for example, face thousands of pounds in penalties if they fail to tell staff in writing that they have a right to join a union. Addressing fears about the new enforcement body, Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, the business minister, argued that 'while the Secretary of State will set the overarching direction and priorities of the fair work agency through its enforcement strategies, they will not direct the day-to-day operation of staff'.
North Wales Chronicle
4 days ago
- Politics
- North Wales Chronicle
Tearing up strikes law branded ‘recklessness' by Government opponents
In moving to scrap the legislation, introduced by the previous Tory administration, the Government argued it was ineffective, having failed to prevent a single day of industrial action while in force. The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act became law back in July 2023 in the face of fierce opposition. The controversial move allowed ministers to impose minimum levels of service during industrial action by ambulance staff, firefighters, railway workers and those in other sectors deemed essential. It was brought in against a backdrop of disruptive strikes in the NHS and on the railway. Labour promised at the time to repeal the legislation if it got into office. Provisions contained in the Employment Rights Bill, currently going through the House of Lords, will deliver on this pledge. The Conservative opposition frontbench has called for a review to assess the impact on the emergency services of ripping up the law. Describing it as 'a public protection measure', Tory shadow business minister Lord Sharpe of Epsom said: 'The truth is that this law has teeth, it provides leverage, and it establishes a legal baseline. 'The Government want to remove it not because it is useless but because it places limits on how far certain interests can allow disruption to stretch.' He added: 'What is the Government's alternative? If we strip away the only existing mechanism for maintaining safe service levels during strikes, what replaces it? Nothing in the Bill offers an equivalent safeguard.' Lord Sharpe went on: 'We are about to discard the only statutory mechanism for ensuring minimum service level provision during strikes… without evidence, without a plan and without a single word of accountability to Parliament. That is not governance; it is recklessness.' But former general secretary of the Trades Union Congress (TUC) and Labour peer Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway pointed out the legislation had not been used. She said: 'That was because the Act was so widely regarded as unfair and unworkable and, in addition, that it would put fuel on the fire of difficult industrial disputes when all decent people wanted to resolve those disputes. 'Finally, it ignored the fact that life-and-limb voluntary agreements are in place in the industries and sectors where safety is genuinely at stake.' Conservative peer Baroness Noakes said: 'I accept that those in the party opposite, throughout the passage of that Bill, registered their strong opposition to it. 'So I understand that, in power, they seek to expunge it from the statute book. However, that is a grave mistake that ignores the needs of ordinary citizens and places unions above the needs of ordinary citizens.' Fellow Conservative peer Baroness Lawlor said repealing the legislation would appear to many 'as an irresponsible act of Government'. Responding, Labour minister Lord Leong said scrapping the strikes law had been an election manifesto commitment. He told peers: 'It has not prevented a single day of industrial action but has contributed to industrial unrest. 'Before the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, most industrial action was consulted on, and voluntary agreements were put in place for minimum service levels in the interests of security. The system worked perfectly, so I do not see why this Act should be in place.' In reply, Lord Sharpe said: 'All we have done is ask for the Government to pause and consider the real-world consequences of repealing a law that was designed to protect public safety during times of industrial action.' He added: 'There is no analysis of outcomes, no tracking of safety impacts, no consultation findings and no plan for what replaces the protections that they are so eager to tear down. In short, there is no case, just conviction without content.'
