Sometimes it takes a row to reveal a truth. In the case of Adrian Beecroft’s report into labour market reform, though, the truth has been drowned out by the row.
In this case that’s a pity, because the truth is significant and important and we should welcome Beecroft with open arms for raising it (albeit accidentally).
Times columnist Camilla Cavendish wrote today that in making it easier to sack “bad” workers Beecroft’s proposals actually protect “good” workers, and indeed should be welcomed by them.
This is an evocative message, supported by Camilla with conjured images of staff refusing to work properly and then falling back on antiquated employment laws to ensure big payouts, or of “time-servers” simply drawing their salary ad infinitum, to the fury of the unemployed desperate to work.
The gaping hole in this argument is that the facility already exists to dismiss “bad” workers. Yes it takes a little time, in order to protect the innocent against injustice, but it is there.
Right now the power to decide between good and bad sits with independent adjudicators, whereas under Beecroft it sits with the employer. It’s rather like suing someone for libel and arriving in court to discover they are the judge as well as the “other side”.
In the picture Camilla paints this is fine of course, because only the feckless and work-shy suffer (and who likes them?), but we know from the thousands who win employment tribunals each year in the real world that it wouldn’t be fine for the bullied, those dismissed for reasons of personal animosity rather than performance, those who refuse to perform morally questionable acts and those fired because they’re the wrong colour, gender, age or sexuality.
This is rather the same as Beecroft’s call for probation periods, during which an employee can be dismissed with a month’s pay and no rights, to be extended to two years. His suggestion is it can take that long for employers to realise someone’s “not up to the job”.
Perhaps so, but it’s clear Beecroft hasn’t thought about the effect of such a change on those who do deliver – Camilla’s “good workers”. Two years of zero job security. Two years of having to save every penny against potential of dismissal. Two years of not being able to buy a house (even if the job has meant relocation). Two years of not having family holidays. Two years worrying about the bills around the corner. Two years of simply not knowing what next month holds, however hard you work.
Or perhaps he has. Beecroft is an intelligent man, so maybe he did consider how this would make a worker feel, with subsequent affect on performance. If he did, we must conclude that for Beecroft the worker’s fear of losing the job will deliver greater effort than contentment. No suggestion here of inspiring the workforce, leading, breeding loyalty to the brand. Just fear. Fear will do it, and presumably do it more cheaply.
Objections to the report have come from intelligent commentators on both Left and Right, not simply from recidivist “Occupy” Luddites who believe all money and trade is at the heart of all evil. The clock cannot be turned back and it is absolutely true, as Liam Fox argued persuasively a few weeks ago, that we must have labour market reform to become competitive again – particularly in the public sector – but cloaked within this premise beats the dark heart of the Beecroft report, and the elephant in the room.
“Why?”
The answer must surely be that prosperity delivered through economic success brings with it contentment and happiness; whereas poverty, delivered through economic failure, brings misery.
But in Beecroft’s vision, and we must presume he has thought about the Britain in which all of his recommendations were taken up, what would life be like?
Almost certainly more prosperous, at least as far as the numbers are concerned, but certainly not happier.
Rather we would have a workforce constantly terrified of the tap on the shoulder, petrified of spending what money it had for fear of being jobless (a disaster for the retail and service sectors), working longer hours, seeing its children less often, scared of the day when the boss decides the next guy might be better than you, seeing as you’re exhausted, and drops the envelope on your desk.
Miserable, in other words.
And that’s the rub, and the thing we should thank Adrian Beecroft for raising – what is it that business and commerce are for?
History should tell us that a world in which there is trade and prosperity is a more peaceful and safer world in which living standards are higher and the number of us who fall through the cracks is diminished.
That sits at the heart of Conservative ideology – that Conservative policies deliver liberal outcomes: prosperity, freedom, empowerment and independence.
Undeniably, looking at our living standards today compared to 100 years ago, that has been true through the latter half of the 20th Century and into this new one. The market, for all its failings, has delivered.
The danger this report highlights is that we lose sight of that and forget that we have created this world of trade and business to serve us, not for us to serve it. That is why Conservatives should reject it ideologically.
The fact that the man in the street is absolutely aware of this too is why they should reject it politically, if they know what’s good for them.
The House We Built..
24 Thursday May 2012
What a load of rubbish the truth is the employer will become police judge jury without appeal. has in the NI employees they are more frightened of the employer than they are the law, you will not post this for the same reasons it is a Bullies charter
I would add another point here. If employers are free to let workers go with only 4 weeks notice for two years, that means employees can leave with the same notice. In my industry, that could be disasterous. We usually rely on 3 – 6 month notice periods. That gives enough time to hand everything over, recruit a successor (or promote from within), and plan for keep the business stable.
Can you imagine how a business would react if one or two key people only gave 4 weeks (less holiday!) notice?
One could argue that it would keep businesses on their toes and force them to provide a good range of perks and long term incentives to encourage people to stay. I think that’s rather unlikely.
edent: I feel you are being somewhat panicky there. Employers such as you mention surely have employment contracts which specify (for example) that they require 3-6 months notice from employees.
Beecroft is more “rebalancing” in favour of those who imagine they are on top, as, in truth, Ashcroft, Murdoch, Barclay brothers etc are.
Just as every girl who shopped in Woolies might once have imagined she was a princess, every wannabe manager, or billionaire can identify with the employment rights of Beeson’s world, the badger killer, The millionaire with his tax cut.
Us and them on the cheap suits billionaires very well, who cares how insecure the little people feel, especially when some are so deluded as to applaud the insecurities of others.
What is to prevent employers perpetuating this FEAR so that their workers can never object to bad practice, No pension and low wages for fear of losing their job?
After all there are millions of unemployed out there who are desperate for work, who will do the same job for less! Presenting employers with a large pool of willing workers surely it won’t b long before we are working for barely enough to keep families feed?
This situation existed in UK before UNIONS and Tory employers did their ALL to prevent their formation?
The other point to be made is that employers should have a good clear open recruitment process. If you write a good job specification and have a proper interviewing process by trained staff you should be able to put together a shortlist from whom to select someone who will fit as well as want to work for you. The best work comes from people who feel valued by their company and consequently can commit to it. You get far more from loyalty than fear – especially if you enable staff to feel safe asking questions and making suggestions for improving operations. In my experience fearful people concentrate on ‘doing their job’, and only that: they don’t look at linking with other sectors, bridging gaps or spotting overlaps in project delivery which can lead to more efficient delivery and/or savings in time and money.
Most large organisations do have a probationary period anyway.