Ethnic minorities under attack from UKIP

First the DUP came after those who are LGBT.

Now UKIP come after those not born in the UK.

Next?

Nigel Farage the leader of UKIP has say he would scrap most of the race relation laws in this country. The laws that protect ethnic minority workers. These laws are in place to protect the Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) population from unscrupulous employers, and yes the minority ethnic does cover white non-British with certain provisos.

One of those provisos of course is that EU citizens have the freedom to work in any other EU member state. That applies equally to Poles wanting to work here, British people wanting to run a taverna in Greece or German wives of British MEPs wanting to work as their husband's secretary.

Nigel Farage tries to say in his defence that the nation is colour blind, and that so is his party. Yet as I point out above while the vast majority of the country may well now be colour blind there are still racists in our nation, just as there are homophobes, misogynists and people who would at the drop of a hat start to use what they feel is their superiority over a minority grouping in the workplace or provision of services.

In Northern Ireland recently we have seen the DUP launch a challenge to allow an exemption to the equality act placing Christians outside having to give equal provision of goods, facilities and services to LGB people. Now we have UKIP also wanting to take apart the equality legislation to allow racists, who sadly do exist in our nation, to prohibit non-UK nationals from employment.

A large number of non-UK born employees in this country are the spouses of UK citizens, just like Mrs Farage. Because we are an eclectic mix. It is part of what 40 years of being European has resulted in. We are no longer confined by red tape to looking for work and education to the UK, many of us take the opportunity to work or study elsewhere and many of those fall in love and marry someone of a different nationality. If that other nationality is also within the EU there is no need for that person to take up citizenship in their spouses nation as the right to reside is part of what being European allows.

I do recall the days I got the first bus from Bathgate into Edinburgh for work. There were a great number of Poles on that bus with me. They got off at Broxburn to start a 7:30 shift processing chickens. There were very few Scottish accents getting of that bus at that time to join the chicken processors. More recently Northern Ireland's DUP health minister has spoken highly of the non-UK nursing staff who attended to his wife in the unpopular overnight shifts while she was recovering from her two strokes.

We tread a dangerous slope if we think we don't need protections for any sector of our society, especially those seen as minorities. Yes the majority may be fair and transparent in their dealings but there are some who would take that opportunity to discriminate and it they that such laws were brought in to prevent harming others they view as different.

Conform or else no job for you - Osborne

"The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity. We champion the freedom, dignity and well-being of individuals, we acknowledge and respect their right to freedom of conscience and their right to develop their talents to the full.

"We recognise that the independence of individuals is safeguarded by their personal ownership of property, but that the market alone does not distribute wealth or income fairly" Two extracts from the Preamble to the Liberal Democrats Constitution

How then do we find ourself in coalition with a Chancellor who is offering to lift employment rights for new employees in return for share options?

As someone who is currently seeking work I don't want to have as a question in interview:

"If you were to be offered this job would you be willing to do without employee rights in return for some shares?"

Maybe it is because I am an economics graduate who knows that share values are only of value while there is a solvent company behind them. Or maybe it is because many of my former colleagues in The Signet Group were tied into share bonuses while the company's share price plummeted.But mostly it is because as a Liberal Democrat I do not want any individual to be trampled over in the name of business. Those rights are there to protect not only the employee but the employer.

We are looking at a large number of people who are unemployed. Every job I currently apply for is heavily over subscribed so even being called to interview is a rarity. So how would I, or someone less tuned in to their rights and how shares work going to respond if they were asked that question? They are likely to be given the job, those of us who do not want to waive our employment rights will be shunted to the end of any list when it comes to awarding the job. We would be made unemployable as there might be someone out there who is prepared to take the shares and give the employer permission to do whatever they want them to do.

If we as a party do not believe that people should be enslaved by conformity, this new option may end up leading to those that do not want to conform to Osborne's ideal being enslaved to poverty being unable to find work as they will not take the shares.

There are arguments going around in senior Lib Dem circles that this is only voluntary and nothing to worry about. How can they be so blind? Employers will make it appear voluntary but take the option that best suits them, ie those that agree to waive their rights. The pressure will be applied to return us all to Victorian working practices ie that the employer has all the rights and the employees none.

We need to stop Osborne from making this ridiculously backward step. We need to not be distracted by the voluntary language that is being used. We need to stand up for the individual, every individual and protect tehir employment rights as it is clear that the Conservative Party are not going to even hide that they don't want to.

Busy Week in Court for Devine

Earlier this week it was announced that on 11 March Livingston Jim Devine will have to appear in Westminster Magistrates Court to make his initial appearance over his alleged expenses theft. However, from the Daily Record 8-10 March he will be in Court in Edinburgh for a review of the unfair dismissal case against him from his former office manager Marion Kinley.

The initial finding over unfair dismissal found that Devine had failed to file forms correctly. There does appear to be a trend there for his week in court. Ms Kinley who was the MPs between June 2006 and October 2008 claimed she only received £60 petrol money for the two years that she drove Devine around the constituency, his expense claims show he received more from the Fees Office. Devine himself had asked for the review just as he himself referred his expenses to the police.

So Devine will go from facing allegations of harassment and bullying from his former employee one day to claims about his expenses the next. Not necessarily going to be a good week for the former psychiatric nurse. Certainly going to be a stressful and full on though.

Meanwhile the latest defence from Devine over his expenses is that he was moving money between his various accounts. He said:

"The false receipt would be if the £5,500 was going into my pocket. It was about moving money about in my accounts. In my innocence, I was told that was acceptable."

"The stationery was for paying for leaflets and moving money from one account to another. We had run out of money in the staffing account and had a lot of money in the communications account.

"We have four separate accounts – London living allowance, a staffing allowance, a communication budget and an office budget – and you can move money around these accounts.

"We were moving money from the communications budget to the staffing budget."

"I was advised by a whip that I could do this … an individual in the whip's (office] who said you could move money about like this. I was told that was acceptable. Nobody queried it."

Now a former local party treasurer running multiple accounts I have never heard the need to claim a receipt from a third party to move funds, especially as the receipt was to gain money from another third party, the fees office. All you have to do is keep a track of the transfer of money between accounts for the annual returns under PPERA 2000 requirements.

What he has just admitted to is that you had run out of money in the staffing account and therefore were using another part of Government allowance to cover the short fall. Devine therefore has paid out more in staff allowances than he is allowed too, apparently claimed falsely in a separate area in which he can claim.

He is also admitted to paying for leaflets out of his communications allowance. Now his annual report would have been covered under such an allowance but electioneering leaflets would not have been a legitimate claim under his communications allowance. If he has misspoken on what he was claiming for and it was his annual report, maybe Devine should learn to keep his mouth shut. However, if it was a slip from the facade of being doing things by the book he continues to open up whole other cans of worms with every defence he throws out into the public domain.

Hat tip to Jonathan Calder at Liberal England.

If You Want Real Change not Mimicry

"Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery"

Is a phrase we often hear but this is how Nick Clegg follows it up writing in today's Times

"So it's a compliment of sorts that the core values of the Liberal Democrats — fairness in society, real change in politics — are now being mimicked by others.

"We are, and have shown ourselves to be, very different from the other two parties. My message to Mr Brown and Mr Cameron is simple: the Liberal Democrats are up for real change. We are not up for sale.

"Mr Brown and Mr Cameron utter fine words about reform and fairness, but their policies aren't even close to what's needed."

So before you get fooled into believing what David or Gordon tells you about how similar the Lib Dems are to either the Conservatives or Labour and waste you vote seeking change where none is due and where none will come from here are four key areas of difference that the Lib Dems not only talk about but have been talking about for years because it is who we are, as outlined by Nick in the same article.

"First: fair taxes. Our plan would mean that the first £10,000 you earn would be free of income tax. This would be paid for by taxing income and capital at the same rate, phasing out special pension subsidies for highest-rate earners, switching tax from income to pollution and introducing a mansion tax on the value of homes above £2 million.

"Second: a fair start for all our children. We will cut class sizes and provide more one-to-one tuition to children by introducing a new "pupil premium" in our schools.

"Third: a fair and sustainable economy that creates jobs. We will use the money from one year's cuts in current spending to create tens of thousands of new jobs in public transport, a national programme of home insulation and new social housing. We will be honest about where savings must be made to balance the books and we will break up the banking system.

"And finally, fair, clean and local politics. We will introduce a fair voting system, ensure that MPs can be sacked by their constituents if they break the rules, return powers to local communities and stop tax avoiders from standing for Parliament, sitting in the House of Lords or donating to political parties."

Nick says we will respect the will of the people, quite right we are democrats after all. The leaders of the other parties are hearing that the people are after change, it is the post-Obama cover all. But they don't really offer it, look at the above and compare it to what Labour are doing and what the Tories are promising.

If you really want change where does it lie? For over 21 years I've known it doesn't lie with either Labour or the Conservatives and indeed for all my adult life that has proven to be the case. They are both perfect imitators but of each other not the Liberal Democrats.

If you want change vote Liberal Democrat. The decision is in your hands.

Time to Name and Shame Says Devine

Regular readers had better sit down before reading further.

Are you sitting comfortably?

I'm going to agree with Jim Devine. Not on everything you understand, but he has said today that employers who do not pay their staff the national minimum wage should be named and shamed. He goes on to tell of one 18-year-old constituent who has worked six 12-hour shifts per week as trainee hairdresser for £20 a week. At the £4.77 rate for an 18-21 year old this should have been £343.44 (if the hours stated were all payable), even if the employee had only done the 37 hour week, that most full time employees expect as the maximum, it would still have been £176.49.

So do you know of an employer in the West Lothian or Falkirk area who is failing to pay minimum wage (i.e. £3.53 per hour for 16-18-year-old, £4.77 for 18-21 and £5.73 to anyone older than that)? Please email me. I will investigate and publish any offenders on this blog.

Religion Versus Orientation Freedom

"Freedom to differ is not limited to things that
do not matter much. That would be a mere
shadow of freedom. The test of its substance
is the right to differ as to things that
touch the heart of the existing order."

Robert H. Jackson - Former US Attorney General

After a few days of the internet cafe at work blocking facebook I got on this morning to see an invite to a group calling on registrars should perform their public duty on civil partnerships or resign. As it was started by a fellow Lib Dem I noticed a fair number of my fellow Lib Dems have signed up. However, and this may come as a shock to some I'll not be following suit.

You see the news that Lillian Ladelle won her tribunal causes a dilemma in just what freedoms we enshrine. I'm seeking to safeguard a fair, free and open society which considering the pluralism of opinions and views is a difficult one. Yes the legislation that brought in same-sex civil partnerships was an essential one, however we still have to respect the views of those who hold alternative views. When the Sunday trading legislation was first brought in, those established employees with religious objections to working on the Sabbath had the option to opt out; I remember this as I opted out at that time.

Lillian had been working for some time as a registrar before civil partnerships were introduced. Initially at that time all the Islington registrars were freelance and there was flexibility within the group to swap assignments so that if they wished they could avoid carrying out same-sex partnership ceremonies. That changed in December 2007 when the local authority took direct control of the set up. She perfectly able of doing her job and doing the same amount of work as her colleagues under the previous set up the fact that she was passing these on to colleagues who would perform the ceremony shows she wasn't discriminating just didn't feel she could be a part of it.

Under the previous system there was no indication that same-sex partnerships were lewss able to be conducted by the registrars in the region and that is the fundamental right that needs to be given to those seeking to enter into one, the same access and availability of service as everyone else. But the employee's rights to their own freedom of expression, thought and religion also need to be maintained and that is where the dichotomy arises.

Just as employment law doesn't allow for discrimination on race, religion, gender, ability or sexual orientation grounds in hiring, that discrimination should not also then led to task assignment providing a service can be maintained. Similarly when Lillian first took her job the conflict with her beliefs did not exsit. The problem has arisen that this is a problem only in some of the Hebredian Islands where on occasions all the registrars have held religious views that they feel do not allow them them to preform same-sex partnerships. In those situations alternative solutions need to be sought.

While gay couples are enjoying their new found freedom there has to be care not to quash the freedoms of others, they may be different or contrary but providing they do not harm, discriminate, incite hatred they have the right to be present as well.

We tread a fine line in the need to balance freedom.

The Coffee Crunch

It is possibly a sign of the times that that monolith that seemed to want to not only have a branch on every street corner but ever corner of every street corner Starbucks is feeling the pinch. Having doubled in size since 2004 they are cutting, sorry 'reverse overgrowthing' 75 of their workforce and cutting 600 stores in the US.

500 of these stores already exist and 100 were part of a planned expansion. The number of Starbuck employees that are looking at losing their jobs is 12,000 full and part timers. Starbucks are pointing out that they are still growing although instead of 250 new stores next year now they are looking at only 200.

Many of the stores are believed to be drive-thrus as with rising oil prices make people think twice before the double luxury of driving up to a window for a premier brand coffee.

More Scottish Call Centre Jobs Culled

As someone who works in the industry I'm again saddened by the announced lose of NTL call centre jobs which the media announced today.

However, the fact that worker found out from the media not their employers and that this appears to be another cost cutting measure whith the jobs being outsourced to India make painful reading. Unlike many people who complain about certain companied outsourcing their customer service I get a backlash of people coming to me saying ah you are English. Or course that fact that I'm Irish working in Scotland seems to pass them by they're just happy for a familiar accent.

The NTL employees at Belshill and Glenrothes must now be waiting for news of how NTL will make the one third reduction in its UK workforce. Both could be har hit and this probably does not reflect the quality of the service these employees have offered.

The knock on effect could loom large over West Lothian. Having for so long been seen as the Silicon Glen of Scotland the area has fact become a centre of call centres. Call centres havfe been a fast growing area of employment in much of Scotland and West Lothian is no exception. The thing that UK based call centres offer is in built local knowledge and understandability with the customers, some of the Indian call centres while they offer a cheap alternative do not offer the depth of affinity and ability to satisfy the very demanding UK consumer. It is a sad reflection when answering a phone the other person is almost relieved that you sound like a native, because you are.