A“gathering information” opportunity, was prompted by an invitation to comment on the proposed work of the project group, circulated to each RISG member and posted on the IOSH/RISG website.
Examples of labour employed via agencies to various industries (horticulture, forestry, poultry) pointed to the availability of adequate training, and some formal registration denoting competence, supplemented by on job training. Additionally welfare, accommodation, and return trips home opportunities, were identified.
There were examples of individual (large) employers who provided structured on job training, identification of English speaking team members and supervisors, and written task guidance in appropriate languages.
One particular employer agency provided a training and guidance service for its employer members. It also made suggestions on subjects which could be considered for attention by the project group.
One example identified considerable Consultant input to advising/training both management and employees, with follow up site visits, to a large employer.
A national consultancy business had produced a computer disk in several languages specifically for the horticultural industry.
An ILO contact referred to information from DWP/DEE – Employment rights leaflets in Portuguese, Polish and Lithuanian, and an agreement between TUC and the Portuguese TUC on publishing working conditions. Also a quote from an international conference made by the Head of the UN/ILO team“
The need to reach workers in host countries before they leave, as often it is much harder to help workers who may not speak English and have no accommodation arranged once they arrive”.
SAWS was also identified as a national scheme which to some extent controlled the (student) migrant labour force and in theory at least should be able to monitor training provision.
Taking the information as a whole it would seem that agency recruited staff are more likely to receive some standardised training for a particular industry. This also presumed that the workers involved were "legal" (either as UK residents, or migrants).
Employer organisations too could provide an effective service to members - but there was no indication on how effectively the information was passed on to employees.
Individual large employers were more likely to provide training, but there was little indication where they would source information, or of consistency and effectiveness across employers. There were no comments about Gangmaster situations.
There was no specific information on small businesses employing direct labour, in terms of source and subsequent training/welfare. This is probably not surprising since initial (anecdotal) information would suggest that this is the area likely to present the greatest challenge.
Perhaps a simplistic way to view the current situation in terms of what needs to be addressed can be presented by the attached diagram. This suggests factors and stages which might be followed to aid casual/temporary/migrant worker protection.
David Mattey
