Why ministers must never upset their drivers
The government is wading into dangerous territory with a potential punch-up with that most crucial of government employees - ministerial drivers, the men and women who know where many of the political bodies are buried.
Last Friday, Unite, the union which represents more than 60 drivers - the majority - formally received proposals to cut the hours of drivers in order to comply with the EU Working Time Directive.
The plan is that the pool of drivers would be greatly enlarged, so that each minister would have two drivers per day, not one.
The result would be a lot less overtime for each existing driver, and so a lot less pay. One union estimate has it that the average driver could lose about Β£12,000. On the other hand, the plans would mean dozens of extra jobs. So it's very tricky politically, especially for a government that doesn't really believe in the Working Time Directive.
Unite's drivers will meet next Wednesday to consider their response to the proposals, at the start of a period of negotiations. The government hopes to introduce the new regime on 12 October.
My advice to ministers would be to tread very carefully indeed. The stories drivers could tell about their passengers could prove even more damaging than recent revelations about their expenses.
Off-guard comments, political plotting, and secret mistresses - the ministerial drivers have a reputation for knowing it all.
I'm Michael Crick, and I'm Newsnight's political editor. My guiding rule is that in any story there's usually something the politicians would prefer the world not to know. My job is to find that out. Follow me on
Comment number 1.
At 17th Jun 2009, Gareth wrote:Much ado over nothing?
If they want the overtime they can do what almost everyone else can - opt out from the working time directive in writing.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 17th Jun 2009, Tom W wrote:Drivers shoudl not be able to be able to opt out of the working time directive, because they are operating potenitally dangerous equipment, and have a duty of care towards their passengers.
Mind you, if we follow that logic, then junior doctors woould no longer be forced to do 20 hour shifts...
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 18th Jun 2009, york1900 wrote:The only two things that have given me real satisfaction are EU Working Time Directive and the Minimum Wage
Which meant I could cut my work week from 100 hours a week to pay bills to 48 hours and afford holidays in Malta and Spain twice a year
HGV and other drivers have there hours restricted by law so why not ministerial drivers
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 18th Jun 2009, JunkkMale wrote:I'd say that Ministers, and those that consort with them, might still be better advised not to upset a rather larger, and more critical collection of folk: the electorate.
Looking at the latest revelations, that doesn't seem too likely.
It's no wonder these guys are so keen to avoid paying tax to the state; they have first hand knowledge of how such money is squandered... hourly.
I'd be keen to know what this latest new job creation scheme was going to save... or cost the taxpayer.
Though it does pass through one's mind as to the calibre of Dom Jolyesque train-traveling, mobile-spouting, laptop-leaving numpties we entrust the competent governance of this country to who would ignore the compromises to self and national security of blabbing in the back seat in front of relatively junior civil servants, no matter how well cleared.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 18th Jun 2009, JunkkMale wrote:I have kind of come to accept that this is now staying up for the duration on the home page:
This is Talk About Newsnight - a collection of blogs from the team behind Newsnight. During the MEP and council polls, in line with political parties and other UK broadcasters, the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ will not be reporting the election campaign or offering discussion about the campaign.
It may lead to things getting a bit crowded, but maybe disclaimers on all else that won't happen on occasion, past present and future, should be added too?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 18th Jun 2009, JunkkMale wrote:Sorry to single out but one of many, but having seen the much-vaunted HoC FOI blacked-out 'releases', I suggest they are about as much use as, and hence can simply be shredded and used as just so much kitty litter.
Mind you, whilst the WUVis get excited on the inability to detect 'flipping', which is indeed as serious (if 'nuffink wrong') as it gets, as one just flashed by I am getting to grips with just how clean these guys homes must be for all we have been taken to their cleaners for.
How 'clean' they are as public servants... is another matter.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 18th Jun 2009, barriesingleton wrote:A VERY TELLING REFUSAL TO TELL ALL
Monty Python rules again. What sort of wally actually releases the redacted info TO BE COMPARED DISASTROUSLY with the full dossier? (Note my choice of word.) Oh yes - of course - it's James Gordon Brown: world acclaimed leader. Well the world can have him. How in heaven do they keep a straight face when James (I saved the world) Gordon (I'm close to Barack) Brown strides up to the Euro-group? Tony's info got shredded - it happens all the time. With those finger nails you would think he could have EATEN the file.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)