Read on Twitter
THREAD on @BorisJohnson& #39;s #returntowork announcements & the implications for worker health and safety. /1
To much anticipated fanfare, on Sunday night @10DowningStreet announced the begginning of the easing of the lockdown, including the new policy of encouraging some people to go back to work. The shift is in emphasis; the law hasn& #39;t changed. But the shift is not insignificant. /2
In his speech the PM acknowledged it was not safe to take public transport & go into work, but nevertheless encouraged those who had no alternative to do so. /3
The impact of this will not be spread evenly among across society; it will hit the low paid and BAME workers particularly hard. Indeed this is the trend we& #39;ve seen so far for people who never stopped working. /4 https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-male-security-guards-chefs-and-taxi-drivers-among-those-most-likely-to-die-with-covid-19-says-ons-11986382">https://news.sky.com/story/cor...
The return to work instruction is predicated on workplaces being safe because they follow new government guidelines. /5
The @beisgovuk has since issued 8 different guides for different types of workplace https://www.gov.uk/guidance/working-safely-during-coronavirus-covid-19">https://www.gov.uk/guidance/... /6
The guidance is not law and is not mandatory. The law on health and safety at work has not changed. /7
And in any case, statutory health and safety at work rights cannot be enforced by workers, but only by the @H_S_E. The removal of civil liability was brought in by the @Conservatives in 2013, as part of @David_Cameron& #39;s drive to "kill off the health and safety culture" /8
The man currently in charge of our healthcare, @MattHancock, was so passionate about cutting down health & safety regulations, it was what drew him into politics. /9
As then Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Skills, he moved the amendment that removed workers& #39; ability to sue employers under the health & safety legislation. He was concerned about the excessive burden on business due to perceived health & safety obligations. /10
The @Conservatives have an abysmal record on enforcing employment rights, something I& #39;ve written about quite a bit given that this failure is the main cause of what we see happening in the so-called #gigeconomy https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/20/uber-breaking-law-state-intervene-gig-economy">https://www.theguardian.com/commentis... /11
The enforcement record is a reflection of political values, as enunciated by @MattHancock above. And the fact that the #Coalition Government gutted funding for enforcement bodies, as seen in a report by @Unchecked_UK /12
Much of the new #Covid19 guidance focuses on familiar messages: social distancing, handwashing, wiping down surfaces, etc. And as throughout this #pandemic, low paid workers are instructed to self-isolate for up to 14 days without being given the means to do so. /13
Statutory sick pay doesn& #39;t cover enough people (limb b workers are excluded as are employees who earn less than £120 p/w). And at £95.85 p/w the rate of SSP is not enough to live on, even temporarily. /14
The impact of this is discriminatory and the @IWGBunion is challenging these aspects of the SSP regime in an urgent legal action against the Government. We& #39;d be grateful for your support. https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/sick-pay-for-all-workers/">https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/sick... /15
The most startling aspect of the new guidance is the instruction to employers to NOT provide personal protective equipment (PPE) for #COVID19 purposes /16
It& #39;s hard to understand the idea that "the science" says that all PPE is useless in most settings. What& #39;s easier to understand is the logistical concern that if high quality PPE is bought up by private sector employers that there will be less available for @NHSEngland /17
But if this is the rationale, the Government should be honest about this, as well as about the fact that a failure to prepare, #austerity, depletion of stockpiles & an astounding level of incompetence have also contributed to the PPE shortage. /18 https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/coronavirus-38-days-when-britain-sleepwalked-into-disaster-hq3b9tlgh/17">https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/c...
The guidance isn& #39;t all bad though. E.g. the guidance for people who work in vehicles suggests using physical screening in cars where distancing is not possible. This is something @UPHD_IWGB has called for for @Uber & other private hire drivers. But who& #39;s responsibility is it? /19
UK health & safety law largely implements #EU law. The EU law covers "workers" which includes @Uber & @AddisonLeeCabs drivers, couriers & others. UK law on the other hand, only covers "employees", a much narrower group. The UK has unlawfully failed to implement the EU law. /20
The @IWGBunion is again bringing urgent legal action to rectify this & extend health and safety protections to hundreds of thousands of workers. And again, we& #39;d be most grateful for your support. https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/health-and-safety/">https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/heal... /21
But what about ss44 & 100 of the Employment Rights Act 1996? Doesn& #39;t that protect workers from detriment and dismissal if they refuse to work in dangerous workplaces? In theory, yes. In practice, it depends. A right is only as good as one& #39;s ability to enforce it. /22
In UK law, the right only applies to "employees", not to "workers", something our court case will address. And these are not rights enforced by the Government. /23
If a worker refuses to work and has wages deducted, they can claim this in the employment tribunal, but it could take 2 years to get the money back, hardly much comfort to someone on low wages who doesn& #39;t have the luxury of time. /24
These provisions are no panacea but they are important rights & the @IWGBunion will certainly be exercising them to the full extent possible. But you have way more options with the backing of collective strength and solid legal representation, so JOIN A UNION! /25 /END/
