No abstract

No abstract

As migrant workers, EU-8 nationals enjoy a right to equal treatment with nationals in respect of their terms and conditions of employment. While some employers have tried to meet their legal obligations towards EU-8 nationals, others have taken advantage of these workers and have denied them their employment rights under UK law. In this paper we explore how EU-8 migrants make use of Employment Tribunals to enforce their employment rights. How many cases do they bring before Employment Tribunals, and what are they about? Are claims brought alone or with support, and if so, from whom? How are EU-8 workers treated once they are before a Tribunal and how successful are their claims? If there is evidence that EU-8 migrants are successfully bringing claims to enforce their employment rights, then fears about undercutting and exploitation of vulnerable workers are perhaps less serious than they would first appear. If they are not, then concerns about (mis)treatment are justified and prompt the further question as to how their rights could be better protected in practice, particularly given the introduction of fees for accessing Employment Tribunals.

Drawing upon empirical data collected during HMP Birmingham's privatisation in 2011, this article explores the prospects of competition increasing performance in the delivery of 'probation services' in England and Wales. The constraints and challenges that stem from the public procurement rules and their manner of implementation are highlighted, alongside the adverse impacts that competition can have upon organisational culture. Together with current evidence about the (mixed) performance of privately managed prisons, the article argues that the Government's faith in competition as a panacea solution to improve public services is misplaced and that too few lessons are being learned from commissioning mistakes.

Many EU-8 migrant workers work in low-skilled, low-paid jobs, particularly in sectors such as food processing and agriculture. Our interest lies in the experience of those migrant workers in the UK and specifically what happens when they are denied their employment rights. In earlier work, we have already shown that there was a significant underuse by EU-8 migrant workers of Employment Tribunals (ETs). So the questions for this article are three-fold. First, why do so few EU-8 migrant workers enforce their employment rights before ETs and to what extent do legal, economic, political and cultural landscapes, as they are experienced by migrant workers, constrain or enable enforcement action? Second, if migrant workers do not resort to ETs, what do they do? Do they simply move on, or do they use alternative enforcement mechanisms (such as the Gangmasters’ Licensing Authority)? How effective are these other enforcement processes and institutions in protecting the rights of migrant and similarly vulnerable domestic workers? And third, what might be done to improve the enforcement of employment rights for EU-8 migrant workers and for other vulnerable workers on the UK labour market, including non-EU migrants, especially in the light of the new labour market enforcement agency (LMEA)? We argue that the establishment of a Pay and Work Rights Ombudsman might help address some of the problems experienced by EU-8 migrant workers and other vulnerable national workers.

This article tells the story of our movement towards using participatory approaches in an action research project aiming to understand the experiences and impacts of belonging to learning communities that span prison and university walls. We draw on our experiences over the past 5 years of building learning communities involving students from higher education and criminal justice organisations and describe some of our attempts to provide creative opportunities for participation and voice within research. We highlight some of the benefits that we have seen through adopting these approaches, as well as some of the discomforts that we, and our students, have experienced. We use these examples to question for whom we think participation ‘works’, whether participation is always good, or whether it can, rather, sometimes cause harm, and the extent to which participation addresses some of the ethical concerns levelled at more traditional approaches to social science research, including matters of power, purpose, positioning and personhood. Using the work of Cantillon and Lynch as an orienting framework, in the conclusions we return to their arguments to suggest that the benefits of participatory action research might not be in alleviating these ethical concerns, but rather in establishing affective links between people occupying different roles within research, thus imbuing the process with love. This has the potential to transform all of the actors, and the research itself.

Public sector spending can be used to further social policy objectives, through social procurement. While the potential of social procurement has long been recognised, the scope for its lawful use in practice has been uncertain and contested. EU Member States have responded to these uncertainties in diff erent ways, both at the level of policy and practice. Th is paper explores some of these divergences and uncertainties through two case studies of the implementation of Directive 2014/24/EU in the UK and the Netherlands. Th rough these case studies the nature of EU law and its operation and absorption within varied national contexts is refl ected upon, as well as the prospects for social procurement following transposition of the new Directives.

Governments are increasingly turning to the market to provide public goods, works and (perhaps most controversially) services. Markets, and market values, have come to govern our lives as never before and the financial crisis appears to have done little to dampen governments' faiths in markets. The public procurement rules define some of the parameters within which governments must engage with the market but the ideology of these rules, particularly how much 'space' they afford Member States to pursue non-commercial policies in their procurement decision-making, is deeply contested. This chapter argues that there is a missing empirical dimension to these ideological discussions. It seeks to partially redress this by presenting findings from an ethnographic study of a competitive tendering exercise at a British prison, from which it is argued that a more complex ideological picture emerges than appears from doctrinal analyses of the rules.