AWR… a SWOT analysis

It seems that as a nation we’re no longer shocked by ‘challenging’ language. Well here’s one word that frequently sends many managers into a flat spin: ’compliance’. It’s a word you hear a lot in logistics. So I thought we’d be absolutely clear what it means...

After ‘exhaustive research’ (i.e. 30 seconds on the internet) I found a variety of definitions, though most seem to agree it’s “…the action or fact of complying with a wish, command or regulation.” However, I was particularly taken by one website that defined it as: “…the quality of yielding to pressure without disruption” which sounds exactly what the average logistics manager does every day. 

Unless you’ve been hiding under a rock (which let’s face it is a fairly good idea these days) you’ll have doubtless heard of the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 (‘AWR’), which finally came into force on 1 October.  Cue the more savvy LJS blog readers to puff out their chests and declare: “Duh, we know about it…” Are you one of those? 

If not can I gently remind you that under the new regs agency workers employed for 12 or more weeks in the same role (whether full- or part-time) have essentially acquired the same pay and employment rights as directly employed staff.  And you hardly need me to remind you that one of the biggest employers of agency workers is the transport and logistics sector – whether for driving trucks, operating forklifts or working in warehouses.

So what’s been your response to AWR ‘compliance’?  If you answered: “We’ve stopped using agency workers” that might do it.  Assuming you can get the same amount of work done by whoever’s left. Only how many agency workers have you been using?  Does your HR department know?  

Given that agency workers are frequently hired on a last-minute, mad-panic, ad hoc basis (when the priority is to stop the wheels falling off) you may be in for a nasty shock when you look at your records and discover just how reliant you are (or were) on them.  Meanwhile, you might already have started to fill that ‘gap’ with a higher proportion of directly employed staff.

One of the previous grumbles about agency staff is that they didn’t have the ‘loyalty’ of directly employed personnel – though frankly I think that’s a bit of an urban myth.  I’ve encountered some excellent agency workers who are just as much ‘embedded’ in the company as their directly employed counterparts.

Moreover, it’s not unknown for good agency workers to be hired full-time.  So isn’t the AWR as much an opportunity as a threat?  Loyalty is something employers earn – it’s not automatically given just because you provide someone with a pay cheque every week or month. 

Those companies who embrace the AWR wholeheartedly, expanding their direct-labour force along the way, might just gain from a new workforce that’s no longer divided into ‘them’ and ‘us’.  What was that about yielding to pressure without disruption…?