Category Archives: Wage Slavery

A labour-hire company and its director have been penalised $227,300 for underpaying employees and luring them to Australia with false promises.

Maroochy Sunshine has been penalised $186,000 and its sole director, Emmanuel Bani, an additional $41,300 in the Federal Circuit Court in Brisbane after legal action by the Fair Work Ombudsman.

Twenty-two seasonal workers from Vanuatu were underpaid $77,649 over seven weeks when they were employed to pick fruit and vegetables at sites in Lockyer Valley, Sunshine Coast and Bundaberg.

Seasonal workers have the same rights at work as other employees in Australia, meaning they are covered by the minimum wage and condition entitlements under the Fair Work Act.

Judge Michael Jarrett described Banis appalling treatment of the workers as having deprived them of the appropriate basic living standards expected in Australia and causing a profound impact upon their families.

The offending conduct was clearly designed to exploit this group of vulnerable workers, Judge Jarrett said.

The workers were recruited by Bani as fixed-term employees on special class 416 visas as part of Australias Seasonal Worker Programme in July 2014 after they attended a workshop with Bani in Vanuatu in May 2014.

Judge Jarrett said Bani had promised the workers higher wages than they could have hoped to have earned at that time in Vanuatu and each worker travelled to Australia in response to Banis offer at considerable expense.

Bani required each of the employees to fund the costs of obtaining a visa, airfares to Australia, a medical check-up and a police check. Many of the workers took out loans with the National Bank of Vanuatu to cover these costs.

The promises made to the employees by Mr Bani were for the most part false. Most received no wages while in Australia and had to endure appalling treatment by Mr Bani, Judge Jarrett said.

Under the terms of the Seasonal Worker Programme and his agreement with the employees, Bani was obliged to provide each of the workers with at least 30 hours of work each week and weekly wages of more than $500.

However, Maroochy Sunshine and Bani paid 13 of the 22 workers nothing at all while they worked in Australia. The others were given individual cash payments of between $50 and $300.

The Court heard that Bani would get angry and scream if workers asked him about their pay, sometimes threatening to call police and have the workers thrown in jail.

Moreover, Bani also underpaid annual leave entitlements and breached pay-slip and frequency-of-pay laws, and knowingly failed to comply with a Notice to Produce.

Acting Fair Work Ombudsman Michael Campbell said the experience endured by these workers was particularly harrowing.

"One of the workers gave evidence that working for Banis company was like slavery times and that he had never before experienced working a full day without even a cup of tea and only being fed tomatoes, he said.

Workers were sometimes forced to work entire days harvesting produce without any food or drink and for no pay.

In addition, the workers spent much of their time in remote and isolated transient accommodation, sometimes sleeping in a bus on the side of the road or on chairs in a bedroom owned by a friend of Bani.

View original post here:

Company accused of "slavery", penalised $227,300 - Human Capital

Im pleased to announce that my latest nonfiction book is available for preorder from my publisher. It is titled, Man of the House. And its subtitle tells a tale: A Handbook for Building a Shelter That will Last in a World That Is Falling Apart.

But it doesnt tell the whole tale.

For years I have been angered by people who have no interest in understanding premodern households, but have no hesitation condemning them as the source of so much that is wrong with the world. Their tendentious reasoning is transparent to anyone who has spent any time thinking about how the world really got to its current state. These people are not just ignorant, theyre guilty of libel. And the libel is levied in the service of bureaucracy.

The reason that these people insist that the past is full of liars and cheats is because they would like to divert your attention away from the lies we live by today.

But the house of lies we live in today is showing signs of impending collapse. Modernity is top-heavy and fragile. We all feel it in our bones. And the Humpty Dumpty economy wants us to do anything we can to keep it from fallingincluding selling our children into debt-slavery and even forcing women into corporate wage-slavery.

Ive spent a lot of time around people who think that men are evil and that the old paterfamilias was nothing more than Hitler on a small-scale. These people are fools. Worse than that, theyre guilty of patricide and theft. It is about time someone told the tale of the paterfamilias and not only what we owe to him, but how he can come roaring back.

If this is the sort of thing youd like to know more about, well, Ive got the book for you.

I dont spend much time rebuking the enemies of the paterfamilias. Thats dull, ugly work. Its necessary, but thats not what this book is about. Instead I try to show how the paterfamilias is needed more than ever and how a young man can become one.

Now, Im a pastor in the Reformed tradition. And while I believe that tradition is uniquely situated to support the paterfamilias in his work, this book is intended for a broader audience. If youre looking for straightforward presentation of what it means to be the man of the house with support from some of the best thinking found in western civilization, I think youll like what youll find here.

To conclude, here are some kind things men I respect have said about the book.

With wit and flair and a manly willingness to face the facts of life, Wiley shows us howto have areal householdrather than a chilly wayside inn, and howto help build again the real local communities that require such households for their existence. Without a recovery of manhood, it is not going to happen. Pastors, this book is for you, too.

Anthony Esolen, Providence College; author ofOut of the Ashes: Reclaiming American Culture, andReal Music: The Timeless Hymns of the Church

C. R. Wileys Man of the House is a worthy and valuable heir to the great tracts on the foundations for a good life in this world as penned by the Puritan worthies, by reformers such as Martin Luther, by the Church Fathers of the early Christian Centuries, and even by the Greek philosophers.

Allan C. Carlson, President Emeritus of The Howard Center for Family, Religion and Society; author of Family Cycles: Strength, Decline & Renewal in Domestic Life, 1630-2000.

Heres the link to my publisher: Man of the House, by C. R. Wiley

If youd like to be notified about new posts on this blog, become a fan of Paterfamilias Today on Facebook.

Originally posted here:

Man of the House: Why Did I Write It? - Patheos (blog)

Signing Article 50 today may well give the prime minister her legacy, but it could also derail her other signature policy by increasing modern slavery in the UK.

Philip Toscano/PA Wire/PA Images. All rights reserved.

The signing of Article 50 today marks the point of no return for the UKs exit from the European Union. Although she inherited the Brexit decision, Theresa Mays political legacy as prime minister will stand and fall on how successfully she manages to steer the country through the turmoil.

Without a doubt, Article 50 will bring untold changes to the political, economic and cultural landscape of the country. One change that will certainly be high on Mays radar is its effect on modern slavery in the UK.

Modern slavery has been Mays signature policy since she was home secretary. She introduced the landmark Modern Slavery Act in 2015 prior to becoming PM, and has since continued to champion the cause. In announcing a ramping up of government efforts to improve enforcement last year, she identified modern slavery as the great human rights issue of our time and heralded the UK as leading the way in defeating it.

Forced labour flourishes where local, low-skilled labour is in short supply.

While the act is far from perfect, it has certainly focused increased attention and resources on modern slavery. Prosecution levels also appear to be improving. This was most recently illustrated by the sentencing of the Markowski brothers to six years in prison for trafficking and then exploiting 18 people from Poland, who they brought to the UK to work in a Sports Direct warehouse.

The problem is, despite the advances gradually being made in addressing modern slavery in the UK, the signing of Article 50 is likely to worsen the problem. As May is probably acutely aware (but is so far not saying), Brexit may well undermine the progress she has made to date. It is a case of twosteps forward, one step back.

According to research I conducted with an international team of colleagues looking at forced labour in the UK (initially funded by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation), four main problems are evident.

The Brexit vote has already created uncertainty among the legions of poorly paid, but legal migrant workers from Eastern Europe that are employed in the UKs low wage economy. Signing Article 50 may ultimately help stem the flow of workers into the country as intended. But who is going to replace them?

Workers from the domestic labour force will fill some of the gaps, but companies are unlikely to be willing to improve wages and conditions to attract them in sufficient numbers. So there will be greater opportunities for unscrupulous middlemen to traffic in workers from overseas or prey on vulnerable UK citizens to force them into exploitative situations. Forced labour flourishes where local, low-skilled labour is in short supply.

By triggering Brexit, May will be left trying to solve a problem that she is helping create.

Modern slavery often occurs when workers do not fully understand their legal rights and status. Our research uncovered various examples of migrant workers being exploited because those exploiting them misled them into the belief that they were working illegally. Perpetrators would also wait for or deliberately engineer changes in workers immigration status in order to exploit them. The point is that Article 50 will create a period of increased uncertainty around legal status that will be a significant boon to exploiters.

Modern slavery occurs when people are vulnerable, either because of legal status, poverty, mental health, or drug and alcohol problems. In our research, the most common victims were those from countries such as Romania and Bulgaria who, at the time, were able to enter the country but were unable to work legally. This vulnerability was exploited by perpetrators who were able to coerce them into working in highly exploitative situations. The more the UK puts up barriers to people entering the country legally, the higher the risk of traffickers bringing them in illegally and pushing them into debt. Once workers are in debt, perpetrators are adept at escalating their indebtedness and creating situations of debt bondage.

Our research found that many victims of forced labour in the UK were prosecuted under immigration offences rather than being identified as victims. The Modern Slavery Act has improved this situation but as the UK moves towards Brexit, the chances of this happening will increase because policing around immigration status is likely to intensify far more than around modern slavery.

May claims that under her leadership, Britain will once again lead the way in defeating modern slavery. But the bottom line is that by triggering Brexit, May will be left trying to solve a problem that she is helping create.

See the original post:

Brexit as a driver of modern slavery? - Open Democracy

By Pedro Campos

From a Cuban TV news item on the new policy of giving Cuban patients a non-payable bill for hospital services.

HAVANA TIMES What the Cuban government is doing by handing out bills to citizens for their doctors visits is shameful. This is a country where the State retains the most of Cuban workers net wages, rewarding them with poor salaries plus free health and education.

Everybody knows that these services havent been created out of thin air because the State doesnt produce anything; it rather comes from the sweat and super-exploitation of salaried Cubans by the so-called socialist State.

Although, in reality, socialism doesnt have anything to do with wage slavery: The working class should fight to abolish salaried work and free association laborers will make up the new society. Thats what a man called Karl Marx once wrote, but because the Marxists in Cuba have never read this part, well we cant ask them to understand what the relationship between production, distribution and consumption is, outside of the State-owned framework.

So we will explain this in the most mundane of terms. Quantifying the exploitation of salaried workers working by the State is hard to calculate because, the truth is, there is no way to know how much their labor costs, nor what surplus value these salaried Cubans produce. However, we can clearly identify how much the State retains from their wages, which varies between 70 and 90% from the wages foreign governments pay to contracted internationalist doctors, workers at Mariel Port and on what is left from what foreign governments pay to Cuban employees hired through the State.

Therefore, we can calculate that they also pocket 70-90%, more or less, of the rest of the wages the State pays its employees. Would anyone like to or be able to do the math of just how much money the Cuban State takes from its direct salaried workers, not taking into account those above mentioned? How much is really used to satisfy the upper echelons of bureaucracys narrow interests? How much is used to increase business output? How much is lost in the centrifuge from the high to low levels of bureaucracy?

Where else in the world do workers have to pay for a health and education system for life, which costs them at least 50% of their salary, considering the fact that the other 20-40% (to reach the 70-90%) is used for other expenses? The answer is obvious.

These are the hidden faces of the medical bill, a receipt of nothing, and another attempt to blackmail Cubans who are already waking up from the long stupefying dream of State socialism and they want us to believe that we are looking at the most humane and sensitive country in the history of humanity because it gives its citizens free comprehensive medical care. Who is going to believe this fairy tale in this day and age?

But lets look at the other hidden side of the moon, the one which even the magicians who invented these sums cant imagine. The less visible side of things which they didnt put on the bill and thats the meaning that this attempt to blackmail the population with this bill has, whose figures must be sketchy, like everything monopoly State capitalism offers, disguised as socialism to its paid workers.

Right, so like everything that this cumbersome State does, this giving out medical bills could end up as a boomerang. Its simple: Now people will start asking themselves: And where is the State getting money from to pay for this? And why at this price and not other prices? Are these really the right prices, with the low salaries they pay doctors, even though these are the highest State paid jobs?

Has the salary for medical professionals been well-thought out? What about when we have to take sheets and food to the sick at our hospitals because of the poor quality of services. Do we still have to keep on paying for the cost of hospital sheets and food? Will we stop needing to give doctors snacks and presents, because their fees are included on the bill?

What do they want to do with these bills? Are they paving the way to start charging for healthcare? How can we think otherwise if they are taxing the poor salaries many workers receive? What do doctors think about this new initiative? And where will the State get money from to pay for these pieces of paper? Are they also going to charge for the cost of these bills (paper, ink, employees)?

Will they start charging the self-employed for healthcare? Will they start giving us bills for education services too? Or for the subsidies we receive with the rations book?

In short, this will only lead to many questions and the Cuban peoples concerns can already be heard on the street. Another stupid thing from the historic leadership which will make people ask themselves in the end: And why are the services we receive so poor if this is how much they cost? And what bill will we workers give to the government for robbing from our salaries for so many years in the name of the Revolution, Socialism, healthcare and education? And so on

They could have only done this after raising wages, eliminating the double currency in Cuba, freeing the national market, self-employment, partnerships, cooperatives and facilitating investment from Cubans abroad and foreign investment.

But that would be a lot to ask for. Forget it, the boomerang is coming back to inevitably hit them in the face. Apart from disregarding and underestimating the Cuban peoples productive capacity, they are plain stupid.

Continued here:

The Hidden Side of Cuba's New Medical Bills - Havana Times

By Harry A. Shamir

Consumerism is more than just an economic philosophy, it is socio-economic. Even societal matters must conform to the laws of nature. Including the one that proclaims it is the customer's satisfaction that determines the value of any policy. Especially when the societal matters affect the number of people available for work, and for national security.

Our USA has always been a country of immigrants. Volunteering immigrants or forced immigrants, we have always desired and needed immigrants. The forcing thing we've learned to rue. Bullying is never the smart long-term approach to resolving any problem.

One hundred and sixty years after Emancipation we still suffer from the societal trauma caused by the utterly failed policy of slavism. Slavery was the wrong idea even in Roman times regardless of how grand the empire became - since it delayed by 2000 years the advent of the Industrial Revolution (IR). Remember that the IR came about since slave labor could not achieve the production needs required by the markets, not in quantity, not in complexity, and certainly not in quality. But it took a long time to discover this truth.

Today straight out slavery is out of fashion other than in the sex trade, and quite illegal. Wage slavism is not. Pay a person too little to live satisfactorily, and yes the employer saves some money, but in the end pays a lot more since a satisfied worker is far more productive. Wage slavism is very counterproductive, for the same reasons slavery itself is: it reduces to practically nil the buying power of the underpaid and sales suffer. Without buying power transactions are few and of low quality. The economy of the country suffers, and the employers' businesses stagnate. To compensate, munitions are manufactured and wars waged. One idiocy cascading after another.

The solution is actually to provide more satisfaction to the whole workforce, giving them the wherewithal to have many transactions all increasing yet more their levels of satisfaction from their acquisitions, creating a positive feedback spiral for once. One way to provide general greater satisfaction to the whole population is healthcare provided free by the government, thus freeing personal funds for other spending. Free to the individual, but paid for by the taxes levied upon the increasing profits created by the positive economic spiral.

Of course it is a law of nature that the economic equilibrium continues to exist, with crises avertable by policies obeying the laws of nature recognized in consumerism.

One such law is fundamental to capitalism: where there is demand and given time, competing agents will offer to supply. The "agents" are by definition, entrepreneurs. Conservative Adam Smith ideology lauds and applauds their initiatives. As does consumerism.

Except when warped by narrow interests and/or irrelevant ones.

One such irrelevant interest is the desire of sections of the populace to maintain the importance of their own ethnic group. Irrelevant since this is not the American Way, as we are all immigrants other than the Native Americans, today a minority about whom our conscience is paining. Which ethnic groups are making the most noise I shall not list here, the reader knows who they are. A warping interest is the attitude of that sector of our socio-political makeup, that fears an increase in the number of immigrating people who will vote for political parties representing the economic interests of the lower income communities. (How's that for evading names?). Often the narrow self interest and the warping interests coincide but not always.

Interestingly, we have in the US a strange situation. We have socio-economic groups that suffer from non-employment, that would be affected negatively from the immigration of working age people from Hispanic America. They would compete for the jobs at the lowest pay scale. Yet not all these groups are reacting the same way. The following are generalities: the African-American group is not opposed to Hispanic immigration, documented or not, and the European-American blue collar workers both employed and not, are opposed. The opposition has taken the form of a vote to instate President Trump, who promised to keep Hispanics out by virtue of the Wall.

Could it be that the Euro-Americans are reacting to the galloping change toward no need for more workers by dint of automation, by attempting to reduce competition for the few jobs that will be left? Could it be that the African-Americans are realizing the very same phenomenon and reacting by wishing to increase the number of people present whose jobs are displaced by automation? Why should they? One answer is that by having more voters included in the economy as non-wages-earning consumers, the political and economic strength of this group increases.

In agricultural work that includes picking strawberries and milking cows. Wisconsin and California producers rely on immigrants since no American is willing to work that hard for the low pay offered. Were the pay higher, it would lead to automation and fewer jobs, but product prices would rise, as capital is expensive. Ridding America of immigrants, especially willing wage-slavery undocumented workers, is an invitation to increase the population not-needed-for-employment. Perhaps that is a good thing in the long run.

These days, this period of the 21st Cent. is transitional, from industry and commerce that was labor intensive at semi-skilled levels, to a much reduced need for such workers in the mass production industries. Even people such asAndy Stern, former President of the Service Employees International Union, have recognized the fundamental facts cascading from automation, and argues that "American workers will need a universal basic income to survive in this post-work economy.

Of course that means all Americans deprived of employment opportunity, precisely what Consumerism In The Age Of Overpopulation describes, and whose problems it offers to solve.

Increased employment in maintenance occupations and boutique mfg, will absorb some of the unemployed, but far from all. Featherbedding will absorb some (dole by another name and tactic). Most will require the government provided "universal basic income."

The sooner the system will recognize and act upon these truths, the less we shall see our society and civilization torn apart by attempts to resolve our unemployment problems by resorting to war and munitions building. Do we really want to sacrifice our youth on the altar of partial-job-security?

As for immigrants, yes vet but not too long, and do recognize that it is the very people that overcame huge odds to make it here, that are the very ones we want to keep. The law is in the way? It iswe that create the law! Is current law counterproductive? Let's change it! That's politics. That's democracy.

Part 2 of this chapter uses consumerism to analyze the impact of immigration on the drugs scourge. Keep your attention on these pages sharp.

The author may contacted via Fencing_SaEF1@verizon.net, or from https://igg.me/at/TrExS.

Read more from the original source:

TOUCHE: Consumerism on immigration - Wicked Local Carver

23:53 Saturday 25 March 2017

The words modern slavery should have no place in 21st century Britain or, indeed, in any other country. It should, literally, be inconceivable.

But, to our shame, it does exist.

Prime Minister Theresa May hit the nail on the head when introducing the Modern Slavery Act in 2015 as Home Secretary. She said it is the greatest human rights issue of our time.

The full gravity of the situation was brought home to me recently when I completed the Stronger Together workshop which focused on tackling the issue. It was possibly the most emotional training I have experienced in my 17 years in the recruitment industry.

And it hit the headlines again this month with revelations that Eastern European lorry drivers moving goods for retail giant Ikea are being paid just 3 an hour and are forced to sleep, eat and wash in their vehicles.

I now plan to champion the combating of this modern scourge in our own business, Brightwork, which can employ more than 2,000 temporary staff across Scotland at peak times. Other recruitment agencies should follow suit.

Because the sad fact is that recruitment agencies had the largest amount of forced labour on their payroll out of all business sectors in the UK in 2014, most of them unwittingly. But we have to ask: is ignorance really an excuse?

And can agencies really say that they remain unaware if, for example, a worker is being paid just 20 for working more than 60 hours with the pay being controlled by a gangmaster who has a connection to the recruitment firm?

A very low price should set off alarm bells rather than fill anyone with the pleasure of negotiating a good deal. The Stronger Together group advises employers in all sectors that if they are offered cheap rates by an agency they must ask: why are they so cheap?

Recruitment agencies operate in a complex and highly regulated environment. From next Saturday the National Living Wage for over-24-year-olds will be 7.50 an hour. Once National Insurance, holiday pay, the apprentice levy and pension costs are added, the total wage cost is 9.05.

Agencies have to cover the costs of their overheads, sickness pay, holidays and maternity pay and have to ensure their staff who are knowledgeable and up-to-date with legislation concerning the right to work and health and safety. They also, incidentally, have to make a profit to ensure they pay their own staff a living wage.

But while an agency may operate on low margins, that does not provide an excuse not to question the supply chain. The reputational issues associated with the use of forced labour are huge. Every major retailer is funding the Stronger Together movement and the construction industry is about to roll it out too.

The role that recruitment agencies can play in eradicating this human misery fuelled by greed is vital. When presented with cheap rates, they can ask themselves what corners have been cut to keep the cost so low.

They can ensure regulatory compliance, co-operate with UK border checks and ensure that all staff are trained and aware of how to identify, deal with and report any signs of forced labour.

It is a fair to ask labour providers about what processes they have in place, how much the workers are paid and how they work with the UK Borders Agency. They can visit their offices, audit their records and speak to the temporary workers who are on the site.

The ethics of labour suppliers are a legitimate concern for recruitment agencies. If they dont take them into account, the Modern Slavery Act could put them in the dock.

Shan Saba is Business Development Director at Brightwork, the Scottish recruitment specialist

Original post:

Shan Saba: Agencies have vital role in ending slavery - The Scotsman

Posted on Mar 23, 2017

April is the busiest time of the year for changes to employment law taking effect and employers need to be ready. We asked the UKs leading employer advice services to look at the changes in legislation which are due to take effect on 1st April, so HR can prepare:

Emma OLeary, employment law consultant for the ELAS Group, highlighted:

Apprenticeship Levy A new initiative which will take effect in April 2017 is the new apprenticeship funding for 16-18 year olds and 19-24 year olds to encourage employers and young workers alike to increase job opportunities and production accordingly. A levy of 0.5% of an employers pay bill will be introduced on large employers (those with payrolls over 3million) to fund 3 million additional apprenticeships over the next five years. Each employer will receive 15,000 to offset against their levy payment. A full copy of the new structure can be downloaded from the Department of Education and employers can use the Skills Funding Agency tool to check whether they will be liable for the levy and if so, how much funding will be available. It is important to note that the levy will apply to all employers if their annual pay bill hits the criteria. The annual pay bill is all payments to employees that are subject to Class 1 secondary National Insurance Contributions, which includes all wages/pay, bonuses and commissions.

Gender Pay-Gap Reporting This new law requires employers with more than 250 employees in England, Wales and Scotland to publish mean and median gender pay gaps from April 2017. The first reports are due to be published in April 2018 for the period covering April 2017-April 2018. Information on any bonuses paid also needs to be published in April 2018 for the 12month period ending April 2017. Employers cannot ignore this. Companies should be gathering the data now to ensure that they comply with the reporting procedures ready for April 2017.

There is no obligation for companies to explain the gender pay gap nor any duty to address it if a company is complying with the Equality Act, neither is there any penalty for failing to publish (as of yet). That said, reputational penalties will be significant as there is no doubt the press will be waiting with baited breath to discover who has failed to produce their report and why and will be looking establish a gender pay gap in high profile organisations. Furthermore, the best candidates may not be attracted to working for companies with a big gender pay gap if they feel that their gender will adversely impact on their career prospects. The reason for this new piece of legislation is self explanatory; research has demonstrated that despite huge equality progress, women are still being paid less than their male counterparts.

National Minimum Wage / National Living Wage These are two areas which will continue to increase in 2017, with the next raise coming on 1st April taking the National Living Wage up to 7.50 per hour for those aged 25 and above. We are unlikely to see any changes when it comes to NMW/NLW following the triggering of Article 50 as this was very much a British idea and regulation is not required by European law. Furthermore, the UK National Minimum Wage is significantly higher than that in similar European systems and the government recently introduced the National Living Wage. The government introduced a name and shame policy for employers who are found to be paying under the National Minimum Wage so it is important for businesses to take this seriously.

The National Minimum Wage& Living Wage rates will be as follows from 1st April:

Aged 25 and over National Living Wage increases to 7.50 per hour (up from 7.20)

Aged 21-24 7.05 (up from 6.95)

Aged 18-20 5.60 (up from 5.55)

Aged 16-17 4.05 (up from 4.00)

Apprentices 3.50 (up from 3.40) **applicable to apprentices aged 16-18 and those aged 19 and over who are in their first year. All other apprentices are entitled to the NMW for their age

Modern Slavery The Modern Slavery Act came into effect for any private organisation operating business in the UK with a turnover of 36 million or more (including subsidiaries) obliging them to either provide a statement showing the steps they have taken to ensure that slavery and human trafficking are not taking place in any part of their business or supply chain, or a statement that it has not taken any such steps. Such companies are advised to file the required statements as the Secretary of State can apply to the High Court for injunctions against them if not done and prison sentences can follow for directors. The purpose of the Act is to eradicate modern slavery, which includes forced labour, human trafficking and domestic servitude. Even if you are a smaller business with a lower turnover, you may still be asked for a statement or policy on Modern Slavery if you trade with a larger business i.e. in order for the larger business to comply with their own obligations under the Act, they would need to ensure everyone in their supply chain also complies. Certain industries would be more at risk that others especially those using raw materials such as cotton or cocoa, which they import from at risk countries across the world.

Salary sacrifice schemes As of 6 April 2017 the government will abolish tax savings through many salary-sacrifice schemes, aside from those related to pension savings, child care, cycle-to-work or ultra-low emission cars. Those which are in place prior to April 2017 will be protected until April 2018 while any arrangements related to cars, school fees or accommodation will be protected until April 2021. This would also affect employers who operate a buying and selling annual leave scheme under salary sacrifice.

Data Protection Changes The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDRP) was passed in May 2016. While it doesnt take effect until May 2018, the scale of the changes mean that preparing for GDRP should be a priority for employers in 2017. This regulation will take effect before the UK exits the EU so employers need to be prepared. Those who are not compliant risk fines of up to 20 million or 4% of their annual worldwide turnover, whichever is higher. Its difficult to predict exactly how the Data Protection Act will be affected by Brexit however its unlikely that it would be repealed as to do so would cause public outrage.

Alan Price, HR Director for employment advice servicePeninsula,added:

Increase to statutory payments

The weekly amount of statutory maternity pay, statutory paternity pay, statutory adoption pay and statutory shared parental pay will increase for the first time in two years from 139.58 to 140.98 from the 2nd April.

In addition, the rate of statutory sick pay will increase from 88.45 to 89.35 per week from the 6th April. The amount an employee has to earn to receive the statutory payments will also increase from 112 to 113 per week.

Tribunal compensation limits

Employers who are being taken to tribunal from April will see their compensation awards increase as new limits come in to force on the 6th April. From this date, the maximum amount of a weeks pay will increase from 479 to 489 and the maximum basic award for unfair dismissal will increase to 14,670.

The maximum compensatory award for unfair dismissal will also increase from 78,962 to 80,541. This means that the total basic and compensatory award for unfair dismissal has now gone over 95,000 for the first time.

Changes to foreign worker rules

Further to changes made in the autumn of 2016, the Tier 2 minimum salary threshold will be increasing to 30,000 per year although certain roles will remain exempt until July 2019. An Immigration Skills Charge will be introduced to be paid by all Tier 2 sponsors from 6th April. This will cost 1,000 per year for each Certificate of Sponsorship, with a reduced rate of 364 to be paid by small and charitable sponsors.

Link:

Important HR changes from 1st April - HR News (press release) (registration) (blog)

Matthew Taylor, who is leading a review into the gig economy, appears on Peston on Sunday. Photograph: S Meddle/ITV/Rex/Shutterstock

Theresa May backs plans for an overhaul of workers rights to reflect 21st-century employment practices, according to the chair of Downing Streets review into modern work.

Matthew Taylor, a former adviser to Tony Blair who was appointed by the prime minister to lead the review into the gig economy, said he would be recommending changes to the rights of self-employed workers when his review was published in June.

Taylor said his review would highlight the blurring of boundaries between people who are self-employed and therefore get few employment rights and people who are classified as employees, eligible for full rights.

If you are subject to control if as an individual in the relationship with the person whos hiring you, they control your work, they control the basis upon which you work, they control the content of your work that looks like the kind of relationship where the quid pro quo should be that you respect that persons employment rights and entitlements, he told ITVs Peston on Sunday.

The question has led to a number of high-profile court cases in recent months. In October, Uber lost a landmark employment tribunal case brought by drivers, who said the stringent conditions placed on their work by the taxi hailing app company meant they were not self-employed, but employees who were entitled to minimum wage and sick pay.

Taylor said he defined the boundary as a question of control that companies have over workers. If you want to control your workers, you will have to respect their rights and provide entitlements, too, but if you really dont want to control them, thats fine, then theyll be self-employed, he said. But there look like there are cases at the moment where firms both want control but not to provide those workers with entitlements and rights.

Taylor said he believed that more industries would soon be faced with workers who were no longer prepared to accept punishing conditions. In the 21st century, a time when we have so much autonomy and choice and we expect control in our lives, we dont accept the idea of kind of wage slavery, the idea of people at work having no choice, no voice, no capacity to influence whats going on around them and I think people feel that doesnt really fit with the times, he said.

Automation was one of the biggest challenges for the his review, Taylor admitted. People want it to be that robots create the possibility for human beings to have fulfilled work, not that we end up serving the machines, he said.

Taylors review has found evidence of companies asking employees to incorporate themselves as sole traders, rather than go on the company payroll, enabling them to avoid benefits such as statutory maternity pay or sick pay, according to the Times.

Taylor expressed some disappointment at the budget U-turn over national insurance contributions, which he said was a kind of battle between politics and policy which he said he hoped would not affect the implementation of his review after it was published in the summer.

I kind of hoped the policy would win this time because it was essential policy, but in the end the politics won and I think that the fact that the Conservatives have made a manifesto pledge about taxes have made it an unsustainable policy, and I do hope the lesson that is learned from this, he said.

Though government sources told the Times they expected May to put her full weight behind Taylors recommendations, the reviews chair said that although the prime minister had been supportive so far, he was realistic about what might happen in future political battles. [What] I have to do is produce the best recommendations I can in the end its up to government to decide what they can implement and that puts us back in the domain of politics, he said.

Read more here:

PM backs plans to overhaul workers' rights to reflect gig ecomomy ... - The Guardian

Theresa May is to back plans for a radical overhaul of workers' rights to better reflect 21st-century employment practices, says The Guardian.

Matthew Taylor, who was appointed by the Prime Minister to lead a review of the gig economy and modern work, said he would be recommending changes to the rights of self-employed workers in his report, which will be published in June.

He added he will highlight the blurring of boundaries between the rights afforded to the self-employed and those classified as employees.

A growing number of companies, particularly in the delivery sector, now use self-employed workers, who are not entitled to the likes of holiday or sick pay.

However, some argue they are not truly self-employed as their work is typically dictated by the firm for whom they work.

In the UK, a company cannot classify anyone as self-employed if they do not take any financial risk or set the terms and hours they work.

Employment law, however, has a middle ground option of "worker", the status accorded to Uber drivers by a tribunal last year, although this still does not bring with it the right to redundancy pay or to claim unfair dismissal, for example.

Taylor said: "We don't accept the idea of kind of wage slavery, the idea of people at work having no choice, no voice, no capacity to influence what's going on around them."

A number of high-profile legal cases in the past few months have hinged on the balance between employers' control and the rights and entitlements offered to those they employ.

In October, Uber lost a landmark employment tribunal case brought by drivers "who said the stringent conditions placed on their work by the company meant they were employees who were entitled to minimum wage and sick pay", says The Guardian.

There could also be tax implications from the review, after this month's Budget saw Philip Hammond attempt to increase national insurance contributions for self-employed workers.

People who work for themselves currently pay three per cent less national insurance than those directly employed, despite having the same pension rights following reforms in recent years.

More here:

Theresa May to back radical overhaul of workers' rights - The Week UK

Prime Minister Theresa Maywillsupport an overhaul of gig economy workers rights, according to Government sources speaking to the Times.

Speaking on ITVs Peston on Sunday, Matthew Taylor, who was appointed by May to review the gig economy, stopped short of confirming these reports [she has been] supportive so far and acknowledged the political reality of the situation: [What] I have to do is produce the best recommendations I can in the end its up to government to decide what they can implement and that puts us back in the domain of politics.

He spoke about the gig economy as a whole on the rival to The Andrew Marr Show, especially the blurred lines that currently exist in this sphere.

He said: If you are subject to control if as an individual in the relationship with the person whos hiring you, they control your work, they control the basis upon which you work, they control the content of your work that looks like the kind of relationship where the quid pro quo should be that you respect that persons employment rights and entitlements.

A key differentiator in the gig economy, and one that has already caused a bloody nose to Uber and Pimlico Plumbers, is that companies think they are giving workers flexibility, while some of the said workers feel they are being exploited. This, Taylor continued, is down to a question of control.

If you want to control your workers, you will have to respect their rights and provide entitlements, too, but if you really dont want to control them, thats fine, then theyll be self-employed, he explained. But [it] look[s] like there are cases at the moment where firms both want control but not to provide those workers with entitlements and rights.

In the 21st century, a time when we have so much autonomy and choice and we expect control in our lives, we dont accept the idea of a kind of wage slavery, the idea of people at work having no choice, no voice, no capacity to influence whats going on around them and I think people feel that doesnt really fit with the times.

Taylors view seems to fit in with the mood of the times. A survey by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) accused gig economy employers of having their cake and eating it. Two-thirds of the gig economy workers surveyed said the Government needs to step in to ensure basic workers rights.

The CIPDs report, To Gig or Not To Gig: Stories from the modern economy, also threw up a few more interesting statistics: 14% of respondents said they did gig work because they could not find alternative employment; the commonest reason for gig economy work was to increase income (32%); and that gig economy workers are as satisfied with their job as traditional employees (46% compared to 48%).

View original post here:

Theresa May WILL back gig economy workers' rights changes, sources say - Business Grapevine