🤝 Unionised Workers in the Housing Sector: Pay Discrimination

Commons Chamber

🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️

Unionised workers at Livv Housing in Knowsley are facing pay discrimination as the employer offers raises only to non-union members, sparking a prolonged dispute. Anneliese Midgley highlighted this issue in Parliament, calling for legislative changes to prevent such practices and urging Livv to negotiate fairly with unions. The Minister for Business and Trade, Justin Madders, acknowledged the problem and supported strengthening workers’ rights through the upcoming Employment Rights Bill. The government encourages employers like Livv to engage with unions and resolve disputes collaboratively.

Summary

  • Debate Focus: Anneliese Midgley, MP for Knowsley, addressed a parliamentary session about pay discrimination against unionised workers in the housing sector, specifically highlighting a dispute with Livv Housing.

  • Livv Housing Issue: Livv Housing, a major housing association in Knowsley, has been offering a 5% pay rise only to non-union members, which undermines collective bargaining rights and creates a divide among workers.

  • Background: Livv Housing has substantial financial reserves and has been profitable, yet its workers have experienced a real-terms pay cut of over 30% since 2011. Union members have been on strike since October of the previous year due to ongoing disputes.

  • Legislative Concerns: The practice of offering pay rises to non-union members is seen as contrary to the spirit of the Employment Relations Act 2004, which aims to protect collective bargaining. Midgley noted this as a potential loophole in existing laws.

  • Government Response: Minister Justin Madders commended Midgley’s commitment to workers’ rights and outlined the government’s support for collective bargaining through the Employment Rights Bill. This bill aims to repeal restrictive trade union laws and enhance worker protections.

  • Union Support: Jim Shannon, another MP, shared a personal anecdote about the benefits of union membership, supporting Midgley’s position.

  • Call to Action: Midgley urged the Minister to consider amendments to the Employment Rights Bill to prevent employers from undermining unions through discriminatory pay practices.

  • Minister’s Commitments: Madders confirmed the government’s commitment to resetting industrial relations and mentioned the role of ACAS in resolving disputes, while expressing disappointment at Livv Housing’s reluctance to engage with unions and Midgley.

  • Resolution Encouragement: Both Midgley and Madders encouraged Livv Housing to engage constructively with unions to resolve the dispute and to uphold the rights of all workers, unionised or not.

Divisiveness

The disagreement in the session is primarily centered around the issue of pay discrimination between unionized and non-unionized workers in the housing sector, as exemplified by the case of Livv Housing. The level of disagreement is moderate, rated at 2 out of 5, due to the following reasons:

  1. Explicit Disagreement on Practice: Anneliese Midgley explicitly expresses disagreement with the practice of offering pay increases exclusively to non-unionized workers. She states, ‘This practice is completely contrary to the spirit of the Employment Relations Act 2004, which sought to protect workers’ collective voice and to stop inducement and similar practices.’ This indicates a clear disagreement with Livv Housing’s approach.

  2. Government’s Position: The Minister, Justin Madders, acknowledges the issue raised by Midgley and stresses the government’s commitment to enhancing workers’ rights through the Employment Rights Bill. He states, ‘We certainly do not believe that pay offers should be framed in a way that requires an individual to confirm that they are not a member of a trade union.’ This aligns with Midgley’s position and shows no disagreement against her argument but rather support for addressing the issue.

  3. Support from Other MPs: Jim Shannon supports Midgley’s stance, commending her for bringing the debate forward and sharing personal experiences that underline the importance of unions. He states, ‘The hon. Lady has outlined what the unions can do, I understand personally what they can do, and I look forward to hearing the Minister tell us what he is going to do.’ This further reinforces the consensus against the employer’s practice without adding to the disagreement.

  4. Lack of Direct Confrontation: There are no instances of direct confrontation or heated debates among the speakers. The discussion remains focused on the issue at hand without devolving into personal or political attacks. The Minister’s response is empathetic and constructive, suggesting potential legislative actions to address the concern raised.

  5. Call for Action: The disagreement is evident in the call for action by Midgley, who urges the Minister to close the loophole that allows such practices. She argues, ‘I ask the Minister to commit to looking at amending the Bill to stop employers seeking to undermine collective bargaining by offering non-union members preferential treatment in pay awards.’ The Minister’s response is positive, indicating a willingness to review and possibly amend the Bill, which mitigates the level of disagreement.

Overall, the session shows a moderate level of disagreement, focused primarily on the issue of pay discrimination and the need for legislative action. The lack of direct confrontation and the constructive responses from the government and other MPs lead to the rating of 2.