One of the City Link subcontractors mentioned in your report (26 December) had been working for the company through an agency for the past three years. It’s unclear when reports mention “nearly 3,000 staff” whether these are employees or agency staff. If politicians really wonder why the productivity of UK workers is so poor, why crucial skills are in such short supply, and why income tax revenues are unexpectedly low, they should look at the practice of long-term employment of subcontractors through agencies. Workers have the overhead of agencies taking a minimum of 15% of their wages. They pay far lower tax than employees, but the employer is paying no sick pay, no benefits and provides no training. Agencies are taking the money that used to go to the exchequer, workers have their benefits eroded and employers find it cheaper to bring in workers from abroad than to train up local staff.
When the BBC talks about becoming more competitive by putting work out to tender, it is simply looking to replace trained staff by using companies that hire contractors for a particular role. No one will provide the training that has been the hallmark of the BBC. The same thing is happening in the NHS, and in schools and care homes up and down the country. Every second-rate humanities graduate is going into “recruitment” and the finances are normally concealed from both employers and employees. Labour and the unions should unite to fight the erosion of working conditions through agency working, to incentivise companies to employ and train staff directly, and to ensure an agency’s terms and conditions are clearly visible to all concerned.
David Vail
London
• I object to you using the euphemism “letting staff go” when the proper term is sacked. “Letting people go” implies workers want to leave and the company are reluctant to see them depart. The Guardian should not use this language.
Philip Clayton
London
