LettersOn 16 Apr 2002 in Personnel Today Comments are closed. Previous Article Next Article This week’s lettersAlert the board to directive threat I was encouraged that the EC’s draft directive on agency workers made thefront page in Personnel Today (News, 26 March). This is an issue that could have significant implications for the health ofindividual businesses and national economies right across Europe, and thereforedeserves considerable publicity. There is opposition to this draft both within the EC directorates and from anumber of member states. This provides the real possibility of changes beforethis directive is approved at EU level. There is then the usual lead-time forthe directive to be enacted in the UK through national legislation and thenroom at that stage for some flexibility in interpretation. Manpower is clear about the value we add to our clients’ businesses andtemporaries’ working lives. Agency workers rights do need to be underwritten,but making this a user company responsibility serves neither improvedcompetitiveness nor better labour market access. We are concerned that your front page seemed to suggest that HR professionalsshould be defensively realigning their flexible staffing strategies rather thanalerting their boards to the threat and mounting a determined campaign toachieve a more realistic directive. The case business must make in the strongest terms is about positiveeconomic and social progress, not a complaint about red tape and increasedcosts. I look to Personnel Today to provide a lead to achieve this goal. Keith Faulkner Director, Manpower More benefits is not unreasonable More benefits for temporary staff is not unreasonable. At the moment,temporary staff do not get bank holiday pay. With this year’s public holidays, I will suffer a 20 per cent loss of incomeduring those weeks. Unfortunately, my bills don’t fall by a similar amount. How fair is this? Colin Rodden Via e-mail Something for nothing is not on In his thought-provoking article “Can the UK break its long-hourshabit?” (Research viewpoint, 2 April), Stephen Overell includes a quotefrom Fidelity Investments that it expects “all employees to work at leastsome hours with-out pay”. It amazes me that this company (apparently only one example among a largenumber of organisations) seems to believe it has a right to expect this – onwhat grounds? I’m sure Fidelity would object if its employees decided to cut short theirhours but still expected the same pay – so why does the employer demandsomething for nothing? An employment contract should work both ways. Perhaps Fidelity Investments could enlighten me? Tim Wells Senior analyst, Nationwide Building Society Unfair criticism for general advice Les Simpson’s letter is both ill informed and inaccurate (Letters, 2 April).My advice in the Career Coach column (Careerwise, 12 March) advises theenquirer to investigate undertaking the CIPD qualification, not theprofessional assessment programme, as Simpson suggests. In response to his criticism of my advice, it is only possible to givegeneral advice to enquirers on possible options in the space available. Les Simpson finds it easy to criticise in his letter, but offers noconstructive alternatives to the advice given. Peter Sell Joint managing director, DMS Consultancy Government is hardly shrinking Where on earth does Stephen Overell get the idea that the Government isshrinking (Research viewpoint, 19 March)? Last year, we again approved a record number of regulations – 4,984 to beexact. That is a new set of regulations every 105 minutes. Government shrinking? It’s exploding. John Blundell General director, The Institute of Economic Affairs Related posts:No related photos.