British bosses not paying the minimum wage this Christmas

In this video from Canada, ‘Make Poverty History raises the Minimum wage issue ahead of the October 10 Ontario Provincial election’.

From British daily News Line:

Monday, 24 December 2007 ‘SHOP A SCROOGE BOSS THIS XMAS’ – urges TUC

THE TUC has urged workers to ‘Shop a Scrooge’ this Christmas.

It’s message is dial the National Minimum Wage helpline – 0845 6000 678, and help to put a stop to unscrupulous bosses not paying the minimum wage this Christmas.

TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber said: ‘There should be no hiding place for bosses who are deliberately cheating their workers out of the minimum wage.’

The TUC insists that at least 145,000 workers who are eligible for the minimum wage are currently being underpaid.

4 thoughts on “British bosses not paying the minimum wage this Christmas

  1. Labor Board Restricts Union Use of E-Mail
    Posted by: “bigraccoon”
    Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:09 am (PST)

    from The New York Times

    Labor Board Restricts Union Use of E-Mail


    The National Labor Relations Board [in the USA] has ruled that employers have the right to prohibit workers from using the company’s e-mail system to send out union-related messages, a decision that could hamper communications between labor unions and their membership.

    In a 3-to-2 ruling released on Friday, the board held that it was legal for employers to prohibit union-related e-mail so long as employers had a policy barring employees from sending e-mail for “non-job-related solicitations” for outside organizations.

    The ruling is a significant setback to the nation’s labor unions, which argued that e-mail systems have become a modern-day gathering place where employees should be able to communicate freely with co-workers to discuss work-related matters of mutual concern.

    The ruling involved The Register-Guard, a newspaper in Eugene, Ore., and e-mail messages sent in 2000 by Suzi Prozanski, a newspaper employee who was president of the Newspaper Guild¹s unit there. She sent three e-mail messages about marching in a town parade and urging employees to wear green to show support for the union in contract negotiations.

    During the years that this case was pending, many companies were uncertain whether they could bar union-related e-mail. But the labor board’s decision gives companies nationwide the green light to prohibit union-related e-mail as part of an overall nonsolicitation policy.

    “An employer has a ‘basic property right’ to regulate and restrict employee use of company property,” the board¹s majority wrote. “The respondent’s communications system, including its e-mail system, is the respondent¹s property.”

    Labor leaders attacked the decision, calling it part of board rulings that have favored employers and undercut workers.

    “Anyone with e-mail knows that this is how employees communicate with each other in today’s workplace,” said Jonathan Hiatt, general counsel for the A.F.L.-C.I.O. “Outrageously in allowing employers to ban such communications for union purposes, the Bush labor board has again struck at the heart of what the nation’s labor laws were intended to protect ‹ the right of employees to discuss working conditions and other matters of mutual concern.”

    The ruling comes as the nation’s labor unions continue to struggle to reverse their membership declines. They represent just 12 percent of the nation¹s work force, down from 35 percent in the 1950s.

    The two board members who dissented asserted that the employees’ interest in communicating with other employees about union activity and other collective concerns should, with regard to the e-mail system, outweigh the employer’s property interest.

    They wrote, “The majority erroneously treats the employer’s asserted ‘property interest’ in e-mail (a questionable interest here, in any event) as paramount, and fails to give due consideration to employee rights and the appropriate balancing of the parties’ legitimate interests.”

    The majority’s decision was dated last Sunday, the day the board’s chairman, Robert J. Battista, stepped down because his term expired. President Bush has not renominated Mr. Battista, with many Democrats threatening not to reconfirm him because he has been part of so many anti-union rulings.

    The board overturned several decisions it had made in ruling that an employer does not illegally discriminate against pro-union speech if it lets employees use e-mail for personal communications but bars them from using e-mail for solicitations for outside organizations.

    Adopting the reasoning of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, involving two cases concerning the use of employer bulletin boards, the labor board distinguished between personal non-work-related postings like for-sale notices and wedding announcements, on the one hand, and group or organizational postings like union materials on the other.

    In many past cases, the labor board ruled that employers engaged in illegal anti-union discrimination if they barred workers from engaging in union-related speech on bulletin boards or telephones when they allowed workers to communicate on bulletin boards or telephones about other matters.

    In its new ruling, the board¹s majority wrote that employers can allow workers to use e-mail for personal communications while barring them from organizational-related communications. The majority redefined the meaning of discrimination and wrote that the Seventh Circuit¹s approach “better reflects the principle that discrimination means the unequal treatment of equals.”

    Adopting another new policy, the board appeared to allow employers to bar e-mail for certain organizational activities, like promoting a union or Avon products, but not organizational activities related to charities.

    The dissenters said the majority’s decision, in allowing employers to bar solicitation with regard to some activities and not others, “would allow employees to solicit on behalf of virtually anything except a union.”


  2. Imagine trying to survive on the federal minimum wage of $7.25. Unfortunately, 1.6 million Americans are doing just that.

    Tea Party Republicans adamantly oppose raising the minimum wage. In fact, they’d like to eliminate it altogether and let the “free market” drive wages down to the very bottom. That’s why we must tell them NO!

    House Majority PAC is working hard to defeat Tea Party Republicans and they’d like to keep in touch with you. But if you would not like to receive future emails from House Majority PAC, please click here to unsubscribe.

    Thanks for all you do!

    Bob Fertik


    Dear Activist,

    Did you know that in 2012, 1.6 million Americans made a minimum wage of $7.25 an hour? At 40 hours a week, that’s only $15,000 for the entire year – hardly enough to make ends meet! So raising the minimum wage should be pretty bipartisan, right? Well, not if you’re the Tea Party. Nope, they refuse.

    It shouldn’t come as any surprise given that the Koch Brothers, who want to ELIMINATE the minimum wage, are helping bankroll Tea Party campaigns. But that’s where we come in. Can you help us reach our Saturday goal of getting 25,000 Americans to stand up and demand that Congress raise the minimum wage?

    Click here to add your name and demand that Congress RAISE the national minimum wage!

    Far too many Americans earning the minimum wage are forced to decide between feeding their families and keeping the lights on. What a choice! If Americans work full-time, they shouldn’t be living in poverty. Funny thing is that the Tea Party doesn’t see things that way. That’s why we’ve got to stand up and make sure the Tea Party GOP gets the message – RAISE THE MINIMUM WAGE.

    Add your name.

    Thanks for standing up,

    Stop the Tea Party

    Paid for by House Majority PAC. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.

    Contributions or gifts to House Majority PAC are not tax deductible.


  3. Pingback: Britain’s anti-refugee pro-tax dodging new Prime Minister Theresa May | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  4. Pingback: Which British Conservative will succeed Theresa May? | Dear Kitty. Some blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.