Unions and employers attack plans to resurrect agency worker plans
Ministers urged to abandon plans to end a ban on agency workers filling in for workers who go on strike.
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Unions and recruiters have combined to call on the Government to abandon plans to end a ban on agency workers filling in for workers who go on strike.
The TUC and the Recruitment & Employment Confederation (REC) urged ministers to reconsider the ”ill-judged proposal”.
The Government was defeated in the High Court last year over moves to allow agencies to supply employers with workers to fill in for those on strike.
Bringing in agency staff to deliver important services in place of strikers risks worsening disputes and poisoning industrial relations
A joint TUC-REC statement said despite strong opposition from employers and unions, the plans are being resurrected.
The statement said: “We both believe that using agency staff to cover strikes only prolongs and inflames the conflict between employers and their permanent staff.
“It also risks placing agency staff and recruitment businesses in the centre of often complicated and contentious disputes over which they have no control.
“Where a dispute occurs, the focus should instead be on negotiation and resolution to return to a normal service.
“The proposal is simply impractical. There are currently significant numbers of vacancies for temporary agency workers. This suggests that many can pick and choose the jobs they take and are unlikely to opt for roles that require them to undermine industrial action.”
The ban on direct replacement of striking workers reflects global good practice and protects temps and agencies from being drawn into disputes that are nothing to do with them
REC chief executive Neil Carberry said: “Agencies across the country have been clear that they do not want the law changed again.
“The ban on direct replacement of striking workers reflects global good practice and protects temps and agencies from being drawn into disputes that are nothing to do with them.
“Removal of the ban does nothing to resolve those disputes either. The REC was clear in 2022 that this is a step that only causes problems for businesses and workers in reality – however good politicians think it sounds.”
TUC general secretary Paul Nowak said: “The humiliating High Court defeat should have been the final nail in the coffin for these unworkable, shoddy plans to overturn the long-standing ban on agency workers filling in for striking workers.
“Now they are trying to resurrect the proposal despite strong opposition from unions and employers. It’s spiteful, cynical – and it won’t work.
We want to ensure that there is an appropriate balance between the right to strike and the rights of the general public to go about their daily lives and access vital public services
“Bringing in agency staff to deliver important services in place of strikers risks worsening disputes and poisoning industrial relations.
“Agency recruitment bodies have repeatedly made clear they don’t want their staff to be put in the position where they have to cover strikes.
“It’s time for ministers to listen and drop these plans for good.”
A Government spokesperson said: “We want to ensure that there is an appropriate balance between the right to strike and the rights of the general public to go about their daily lives and access vital public services.
“We believe there is a strong case for this change to help employers to manage any disruption, and people expect the Government to act in circumstances where their rights and freedoms are being disproportionately impacted.”