Praguetory

08 November 2006

07 November 2006

Last Chance For Labour To Meet Obligations To Student Worker

TODAY THE FOLLOWING LETTER HAS BEEN SENT AND E-MAILED TO HAZEL BLEARS AND HER ASSISTANT EMMET REGAN. PLEASE READ AND COMMENT.

----------------------------------

Office of Hazel Blears MP
Chair of the Labour Party and Minister without Portfolio
70 Whitehall
LONDON
SW1A 2NS

7 November 2006

Re: Mr Danny Dewsbury Employment - URGENT

Dear Ms Blears,

We are writing to you in respect of your engagement of Mr Danny Dewsbury as a film producer and cameraman in the weeks leading up to your Autumn 2006 Party Conference. As Danny had an interest in working in the media, he responded to your advertisement for this role, and it is reported that he liaised with your special assistant, Mr Emmet Regan. It is also reported that Danny incurred various expenses on his six days of site work with you, including £395 of travel expenses. We understand that even after a letter was sent to you by a lawyer, £145 of these expenses still have not been reimbursed to Danny by you. We urge you to settle this liability as soon as possible.

The remainder of this letter concerns the nature of the relationship between The Labour Party and Danny, which we assert constitutes an employer/employee relationship, and places on you various obligations that you must discharge.

The Nature Of The Relationship: Employment Not Voluntary Work

Based on information we have received, Danny might have expected to be shadowing an experienced film crew to pick up new skills. Instead, it appears that the role assigned to him was to act as a professional film producer, cameraman and editor gathering and editing footage which was used at your Party Conference. We understand that five of the seven films he made were in fact used.

Having read the 1998 National Minimum Wages Act introduced by your government and considered guidance from HM Revenue and Customs, it appears to us that Danny’s relationship with you constituted employment, not voluntary work. Specifically:

1. Volunteers should be free to nominate the hours that they work. In contrast, Party workers gave Danny a schedule of work, and he was expected to present himself at a variety of locations at allotted times.
2. Volunteers should not be under the direction of the employer. In contrast, Danny has made it clear that he was working under the direction of Emmett Regan, your special assistant.
3. Volunteers should not perform work that is normally performed by paid employees. In contrast, Danny’s work was not similar to any of the examples of voluntary work listed on your official website (such as delivering literature) . His was a professional role dependent on his personal skills. This type of role would normally be performed by a paid employee or contractor.

The Applicability Of The National Minimum Wage

We have already made the case that Danny should be considered to have been an employee; therefore, the National Minimum Wage should apply. Although Danny may have signed as a volunteer, this is irrelevant, according to Paul Sellers, the TUC's national minimum wage adviser, “…it is not possible to sign away the employer's duty to pay workers the minimum wage.” In addition, Chapter 28 of the National Minimum Wages Act 1998 presumes that an individual qualifies for protection unless otherwise proven:

“28. - (1) Where in any civil proceedings any question arises as to whether an individual qualifies or qualified at any time for the national minimum wage, it shall be presumed that the individual qualifies or, as the case may be, qualified at that time for the national minimum wage unless the contrary is established.”

As such, we have been persuaded that Danny qualifies for the National Minimum Wage, which at the time of the filming for workers aged 22 and over was £5.05 per hour. Danny worked 76 hours comprising six days of filming and three days of editing. As such we believe that Danny is entitled to a minimum of £385 from The Labour Party.

Engaging A Professional Cameraman/Film Producer

Of course the market rate for employing a professional cameraman or film producer far exceeds the minimum wage, as it reflects their personal skills, experience and training.

BECTU is an independent union for those working in broadcasting, film, theatre, entertainment, leisure, interactive media and allied areas who are primarily based in the United Kingdom. We have enclosed their recommended rate card for crew used on commercial productions (see Appendix 1). This obviously excludes equipment costs which may be up to £500 a day according to Simply Communicate, a website supporting internal communication professionals .

Honouring An Ethical Obligation

Considering the facts of the case and Danny’s situation as a highly indebted student, we consider that the Labour Party has at a minimum an ethical obligation to Danny to pay him a “fair wage for a fair day’s work”. We would like you to acknowledge this obligation and pay Danny for his work forthwith. Should you decline to undertake to remunerate Danny for his work by Monday 13th November, the signatories to this letter will pay Danny £385 to cover National Minimum Wage obligations. As of Tuesday 7th November, our signatories include unaffiliated UK voters and supporters of both the Liberal Democrat Party and the Conservative Party. Please feel free to visit www.praguetory.blogspot.com/2006/11/labour-party-rogue-employer.html and http://www.pledgebank.com/itisonlyfair for more information.

We look forward to your response by Monday 13th November.

Yours sincerely

Duncan Borrowman, Sam Coates, Croydonian, Dizzy, Alex Foster, Grace Goodlad, Guthrum, King Lear, Tom Paine, Praguetory, Rigger Mortice, Ellee Seymour,

06 November 2006

[+/-]

Go Go Go - Labour, you have until Monday to respond

[+/-]

Reality Re Income Inequality

Back to discussion of real political issues

Introduction – UK plc and Poverty

Poverty is a bad thing, but I perceive poverty in absolute not relative terms.

To me, taking people out of poverty doesn’t necessarily mean reducing the percentage of the population who live on less than some arbitrary percentage of the average. The traditional Left-wing view and current received wisdom suggests that unequal outcomes are caused by injustices in the society, such as variable educational standards, -isms and lack of work opportunities in certain areas. Labour’s solutions have been as follows –

1. Bolstering the welfare state to the extent that many working at or just above the National Minimum Wage are financially better off not working at all
2. Focused public spending/assistance in all areas of government massively tilted towards poorer or regeneration areas
3. Positive discrimination in public sector recruitment and beyond

Yet inequality between the richest and poorest has increased further under Labour’s tenure. Also, related to point one above, for all the talk of labour shortages, there are estimated to be 8 million economically inactive British adults of working age which is an unintended, but predictable consequence of these "anti-poverty" policies. It is time policy-makers faced a few home truths re trends in income. Firstly societal injustices are not the main driver for divergent outcomes.

What Really Affects Incomes In The Modern World

Look at any developed country and its economic development has involved an evolution from agriculture to industry to services. Chronologically, the economic value of IQ becomes ever more important. I fear that attempts to level economic outcomes such as those undertaken by Labour are destined to fail in this modern world because of the real and increasing economic premium attached to labour being able to handle concepts, manipulate ideas and master IT.
Not only is IQ becoming more crucial to economic success but observable phenomena such as assortative mating for IQ (that Western partners’ IQs are shown to be positively correlated) are likely to lead to an increasing spread of IQs within populations. Furthermore, placing an artificial cap on the economic success of high performers, whether through high taxes or discrimination is likely to reduce intellectual capacity within a society as a whole as these individuals are usually internationally mobile. I bet there are a disproportionate number of highly intelligent people in Monaco, Dubai and other countries where economic success is applauded and encouraged.

So What Next?

I don’t think GDP is the be-all and end-all, but it is difficult to sell the message that relative inequalities will inevitably rise. Unless my logic can be faulted, let’s work with the reality that relative inequality will continue to increase and attempts to prevent this trend are futile and damaging. From that position it is important to re-educate people on what to expect from the state to do for you (not as much). I would like to see a government place absolute poverty at the heart of social policy. No person should not have a roof over their head, lack the means to put food on the table or be unable to access basic healthcare, but that’s all folks.

Political leadership is required in this area. Unfortunately, I can’t think of any modern-day politicians who have the balls to articulate the above. Can you?

03 November 2006

[+/-]

Next Steps On The Danny Dewsbury Scandal

[+/-]

Labour Party - Rogue Employer

As previously blogged by Croydonian here and Iain Dale here, the Labour Party offered a work experience placement to an aspiring film-maker to assist with a film of the Cabinet for their party conference. 22 year-old Danny Dewsbury , (who has £13k of student debt) was keen to get this opportunity to add to his cv and was promised expenses. Not only have the Labour party only paid £250 of the £395 of expenses that Danny incurred (after receiving a letter from a lawyer), but the nature of the role that he took, was very much more than a work experience or shadowing role.

Danny was the sole film-maker, cameraman and editor on this party project. He was expected to and did supply his own camera equipment and was directed to turn up at different locations throughout the country to film different members of the Cabinet. Danny, who is not a Labour member was engaged to provide a professional service to the Labour party. This was real work. Take a look at this video and decide for yourself.

According to this Grauniad article, government guidance suggests that the HMRC would consider Danny's arrangement with the Labour Party to be employment, and as such the Labour Party are bound by minimum wage legislation. For further reading here is a link to the National Minimum Wages Act 1998. Chapter 28 of this act is interesting as it states that, if challenged, the burden of proof re status does lie on the "employer".

"28. - (1) Where in any civil proceedings any question arises as to whether an individual qualifies or qualified at any time for the national minimum wage, it shall be presumed that the individual qualifies or, as the case may be, qualified at that time for the national minimum wage unless the contrary is established."

Clearly, Labour are contractually obliged to refund his expenses, but myself and certain other Conservative activists have considered the situation and have decided that we are prepared to meet the Labour Party's ethical obligation and to renumerate Danny for his six days site work and three days of editing. The national minimum wage for workers aged 22 and over is £5.05 per hour. I’m estimating that Danny worked 76 hours in over these nine days (Danny let me know if it was more) and so we will be raising a sum of £385. Please let me know if you would like to make a contribution and/or support this gesture against this rogue employer. I will bankroll the difference between what others manage to raise and what Danny is entitled to.

If the Labour Party continue to defend their position on this I for one will be persuaded that they are not just financially bankrupt but morally bankrupt, too.

Note Re Internships

I must draw a distinction between volunteers seeking an unpaid internship with a political party or an MP and Danny’s project. Whilst the legal position is also grey re interns, it is a commonplace arrangement where both parties go into the arrangement with full information. In Danny’s case, I am afraid the circumstances described suggest he was deliberately duped by his temporary employer.