A dangerous dance is being choreographed between big business, Boris Johnson’s government and the millionaire media.
Capitalists desperate to revive their production and sales for profit are relentlessly lobbying the government, who lend them a kindly ear.
Johnson plays on people’s frustrations, poverty and fears by pledging an ‘unlockdown’ plan from Monday 11th May.
The media goes into paroxysms of celebration for VE Day with headlines such as “Hurrah! Lockdown Freedom Beckons” (Daily Mail); “Four Steps to Freedom from Monday” (Daily Express).
Inciting a Stampede Back to Profit-making
All this is designed to stampede workers in non-essential sectors back to work in a fashion that could endanger a malignant new surge in the pandemic and the slaughter of many more on top of the 30,000 already officially dead through COVID-19.
In the rush to revive profiteering on behalf of the class they represent, Johnson's government drafted guidelines on a return to work which only gave the trade unions 12 hours to comment.
And no wonder they were reluctant to consult when you look at the contents!
The documents speak of ‘asking employers to consider’ measures such as social distancing between workers and hand-washing that should ‘happen where possible’.
Not one hint of anything being legally binding, of being statutory requirements on employers.
Ending Safety Precautions in Work
In shocking contradiction of the two-metre rule we've all become so familiar with, the proposed conditions for a return to work even suggest that where it is not possible to keep workers 2m apart “Perhaps”, to quote Ben Wallace, Defence Secretary, “you could be closer than two metres but not for long”.
They speak of reduced hot-desking, not its elimination.
There are no guarantees of protection for older or vulnerable or pregnant workers. In fact, it gets worse: the documents state that where working from home is not possible for these groups, “they should be put in the safest possible roles inside the workplace.”
They speak of a limit to the numbers in a vehicle - but put no figure on how many is a safe limit.
 |
| A building site canteen during C-19: workers bullied into work |
PPE Not Even Mentioned!
In a shocking display of callous indifference towards the lives of working people, at the very time when the failure to provide PPE has helped Britain to become the worst country in Europe for deaths, the government documents do not even mention PPE. They merely state details will follow.
Indeed, government documents speak of guidance “to ensure staff can be made to feel sufficiently reassured safe working practises without the provision of PPE.”
Several other issues immediately arise.
What steps will they put in place to make travel to work on public transport safer? None so far.
We shouldn't hold our breath on that one, because even prior to these leaked documents the combined rail-workers’ unions were at loggerheads with transport employers hell-bent on dragging workers back to greatly increased transport services on 18 May. That for, example, was the intention of London Underground bosses, one of the worst potential breeding grounds from mass infection.
Likewise, Johnson's government says nothing about what will happen to workers who are parents with childcare problems, or who are carers for people being shielded from the disease. Will they be allowed to remain on furlough under the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme? Or will they be dragged back to work, to create bigger dividends for the giant shareholders, regardless of the impact on life and family?
Worse Than Current Safety Laws
The TUC rightly responded by condemning the lack of consultation with unions and in a letter to the government stated:
“If the guidelines are not significantly strengthened, safe working will not be guaranteed and unions would have no hesitation in saying so publicly and to our members”.
The TUC also point out these guidelines are weaker than existing Health and Safety legislation.
For instance, they make no reference to an obligation on employers to produce and publish a Risk Assessment, with input from union Health and Safety reps.
The essence of the government approach is to let the employers decide what is safe on issues such as social distancing, cleaning regimes and use of PPE.
Nothing is binding on employers; they are merely ‘asked to consider’ and to ‘look at what is possible’.
That is a charter for hair-raising neglect towards workers’ health and very lives, in the rush to restart the likes of building sites, manufacturing and non-food retail; with the aim of dragging thousands of customers desperate to shop after the lockdown into environments which could trigger a new peak of infection and death.
Why should working people trust a government or employers who have demonstrably failed to even produce hand gels on a timely basis in the earlier phase of the pandemic?
And who have patently failed to provide proper, appropriate PPE to workers thrown into the jaws of disease and potential death in care homes, hospitals and other frontline, emergency services?
 |
| Rail-workers' unions battling bosses' premature revival of train services |
Unions Won Concessions
It took union lobbying, relentless pressure by shop stewards, and in many cases strike action by workers, to enforce even minimal hygiene measures on many of the same employers who now want to reopen for business as usual.
Likewise it was the pressure of the trade union movement which helped to win the furlough system with 80% wages paid from the public purse, and in numerous cases enforced the reinstatement of workers who had been prematurely and callously made redundant by those employers.
Trade union demands, and sometimes collective strike action, were required to achieve the closure of non-essential workplaces.
But throughout the so-called lockdown, the government has been deliberately ambiguous on what is essential and non-essential. For example, after plenty of lobbying by big businesses involved in such sectors, they announced that online delivery operations in non-food retail was not only acceptable but to be encouraged. In turn, the same employers hid behind the excuse, the weasel words, “we are following government guidelines” to bring workers into warehouses and delivery fleets despite the risks that inevitably puts those workers and their households at.
 |
| Tories split on speed of ending lockdown - divided on profiteering tactics |
Tory Blackmail
In recent weeks the government has deployed the weaponry of the mass media to blackmail workers currently on furlough, and to try to incite other workers against them, with tales of Armageddon at the cost of the Job Retention Scheme.
In fact, with 6.3 million workers on that scheme at a cost of £8billion so far, that's barely a drop in the bucket compared with the £330billion pledged in big business bailouts, in the form of government bank-loan guarantees and other schemes.
A classic case of bailing out the billionaires, but not the workers who made their £billions.
Whilst the Tory Cabinet appear split on the speed of ending the lockdown, Chancellor Rishi Sunak has led the battle-cry for scaling down or even scrapping the Job Retention Scheme. They're considering options such as reducing it from 80% to 60% or even 50% of wages, or applying it to just part of a worker’s weekly hours.
Dancing with Death
No worker wants to remain stuck at home indefinitely, particularly when it means pay cuts of 10%, 20% or - if these plans transpire - potentially 50%.
But at a time when the daily death toll is still heart-breaking, and when employers in care homes, hospitals and bus services are amongst those who cannot organise the protection of workers from the deadly virus, this carefully choreographed incitement to reopening of the economy is not only premature, but a dance with Death.
The unions, including the TUC and STUC, need to assist every union rep and every member in resisting a premature return to work to unsafe workplaces.
Workers’ health and lives comes before the profit needs of big business - who in any case are being given state handouts to subsidise their profits.
Nobody should be obliged to return to work until a thorough Risk Assessment has been conducted and published, with the full involvement of union Health and Safety experts – prior to it opening, not afterwards.
 |
| Risk Assessments Before Any Re-opening - for workers' control of safety |
Fighting for Safety Measures
Basic measures should include deep cleans of workplaces; stringent plans and regulations about increased cleaning routines; strict adherence to social distancing between workers; shields; face masks and visors; proper hygiene, cleaning and washing facilities.
They should all be legally binding rather than an optional extra, to be ‘considered where possible’ by employers.
Transport unions should be fully involved in comprehensive plans to make public transport safe.
Workers in vulnerable health categories or with childcare needs or care duties should be offered the continued protection of the Job Retention Scheme – on full pay, not 80%, 60% or 50%.
Test, Trace, Isolate - First
In its broader context safety at work also requires mass testing, contact tracing, and proper isolation.
But how can we have any confidence that it's safe to return to non-essential work when the Tory government’s targeted 100,000 tests a day was achieved for one day on the basis of a fraud - counting tests sent to people but never returned - only to be followed by four successive days drastically below that figure (69,000 on 6 May)?
Nor has the Scottish Government demonstrated that mass testing is in operation. In fact their 3,500 daily target only equates to one-third of the Tories’ 100,000, per capita. Thankfully, at least as we write this, they seem more susceptible than the boorish Boris to demands from the unions for retention of the lockdown until it’s safe to ease it.
Workers’ Control of Safety
This whole grotesque attempt to put the health of big business balance-sheets ahead of the health or even lives of workers highlights the urgent need to strengthen trade unions, and demand workers’ control over health and safety in the workplace, through elected union shop stewards and health and safety reps.
In the short term, if workplaces are not demonstrably safe in the eyes of the appropriate unions, national unions need to give a lead to the membership and refuse to return to work until they are safe.
On paper, the 1996 Employment Rights Act (Regulations 44 & 100) gives workers the right to refuse to work in an unsafe environment, without victimisation or loss of pay.
That statutory right cannot be implemented by isolated individual workers - but should be applied with determination through the collective organisation of the trade union movement.
Put workers' lives first and last. Put people before profit. No return to work until it’s safe.
