Why I’m striking today (Guest post from a public servant)

A couple of weeks ago, I was talking to a friend who said, “I’m going on strike on 10 July.”

I was so surprised (this person is a former Tory party member and about as un-militant as you can get) that I asked for a guest blog post.

Here it is, without any further comment from me. At least, for now.


Why I am joining the public sector strike today

I am a public servant. Like the majority of my colleagues, I take this service very seriously although you may find this hard to believe if you have been reading the Daily Mail and listening to the government over the past few years. Up until now I have always voted against strike action. I believe in consultation and negotiation as preferred ways to bring about change. It is because the government will not engage with the unions and instead its ministers prefer to run down the public sector (in both senses), that I will be on strike today for the first time in my life.

Run down is a good way to describe how many of my colleagues in schools, hospitals and other vital services are feeling.  As the cost of living increases and cuts to staffing and services are made, they bear the brunt of public dissatisfaction and contempt from Conservative ministers. Apart from the lowest paid (who are really low-paid) they are suffering a pay freeze which began four years ago and, if we are to believe what we read, will go on until 2018.

The Office for National statistics and Incomes Data services disagree over how much pay in the private and public sectors has risen or not risen as was recently pointed out in the Guardian. Duncan Brown of the CIPD says his evidence shows that the public over-estimates pay levels in the public sector. To add insult to injury, the government requires its servants to spend more public money if a cheaper options might look ostentatious. Did you know that civil servants are not allowed to take the cheapest train fare if that happens to be first class but must choose a more expensive, standard class fare? (No, I don’t understand train ticket pricing either but that’s for another day!)

This is all fascinating stuff but in my experience parties with different agendas could talk statistics until the end of time without reaching agreement and it is not the difference between sectors – real or perceived – which spurs me to take action tomorrow. Rather it is the absolute contempt with which the public sector is treated in the press and in statements from ministers and their accompanying attempts to pit private sector against public sector.  Just think of the language used about civil servants, who come in for especially derogatory treatment ‘faceless bureaucrats’ ‘relentless regulators’ ‘enemies of enterprise’ – except when suddenly you need a whole lot more of them to manage immigration and make sure people have their passports when the cuts you have made backfire. Or when anything goes wrong and there is an immediate call to ‘set up an enquiry’ needing – you’ve got it – more public servants!

It is disingenuous at best and malicious at worst to whip up antagonism towards public sector workers when the truth is that everyone has suffered and will continue to suffer as austerity bites again, as it surely will after the next election. I don’t think that people want run-down, cut price public services operated by run-down, badly paid public servants. I do believe that David Cameron and co have an ideological agenda. They will not hesitate to manipulate statistics and language, not to bring about changes to public services (there is no argument that lots of things do need to change) but to replace them altogether with private providers. The danger is that they will put profits before people and will have no truck with those who can’t afford to pay. That’s why I’m going to be supporting my union today.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Immigration and the jobs miracle

Conservative MPs are demanding a cap on immigration from EU countries as part of whatever renegotiation of membership the government manages after the next election. David Cameron is making the sort of noises that will appease his backbenchers though I wonder if he really believes what he’s saying.

The Financial Times reckons he’s gotten himself into a right muddle:

The prime minister has repeatedly declared that the UK is in a global economic race and must boost its competitiveness if it is to emerge victorious from this contest. At the same time, Mr Cameron has pledged to reduce net migration: the difference between the numbers entering and leaving the UK. He would like to see it return “to the levels of 1990s – tens of thousands a year, not hundreds of thousands”.

A year before the general election, the flaw in this approach is evident. The prime minister wants Britain to be open for business but also be closed to immigrants. This is a difficult stance for any leader operating in a global economy – let alone one in a country facing skill shortages who advocates the need for competitiveness at all costs.

A few weeks ago, when the employment statistics came out, a succession of Conservative MPs stood up at Prime Minister’s Questions and, repeating a rote-learned figure, boasted about the number of jobs created since they came into office.

Trouble is, though, of the 1.6 million increase in employment since the first quarter of 2010, more than half of it has come from workers born outside the UK. (See table EMP06 here.)

Now it’s true that the rise in employment among non UK born workers goes back much further than the last four years. As Michael O’Connor said a few weeks ago, much of the net increase in employment over the last decade has come from foreign-born workers.


Employment among the UK born seems to have peaked sometime around the middle of 2005 and has only recently started to recover. Another of those trends we associate with the recession but which actually started well before it.

Look into the figures a bit more closely though, as Michael has done, and an even more interesting picture emerges.

Close to half  the increase in employment since David Cameron took office has come from people who have arrived during the Coalition era. When it comes to full-time employee jobs, the figure is even higher. Those who have come to the UK since 2010 account for around 75 percent of the rise.


Many of the migrants who are fuelling the job growth are very recent arrivals.

Now, of course, some will say all this proves we need a cap on immigration and that migrants are coming in and taking jobs that would otherwise be done by British people. It’s difficult to say what might have happened if we had allowed fewer migrants into the country but the research suggests that, even where immigration does have an impact on the employment of the existing population, it is usually small and temporary. As the economy recovered, some new jobs would have been created if immigration had been lower but it’s unlikely that the increase would have been as high. Without migration, especially from the EU, many of these jobs would probably not have been created in the first place.

All of which suggests that the rising number of immigrants in the workforce is simply another indicator of the changing character of our economy. Closing the door might, as the FT suggests, choke off the flow of talent just when we need it. That said, these figures are a bit surprising (well they are to me anyway) so I’d be interested to hear from anyone who can explain why recent jobs growth has been so migration dependent.

Next week, when the July employment figures are released, loyal government backbenchers will probably stand up again in the commons and repeat the number of jobs created since 2010. We may well see some of the same MPs demanding restrictions on immigration a few weeks later. Bragging about the increase in jobs but saying you want to lock out a lot of the people working in them is hardly fair though. Much of the Coalition’s employment increase has come, and continues to come, from foreigners who have moved here to work. If there really is a British jobs miracle, it’s a migrants’ jobs miracle too.


Couple of things to add.

Michael has also looked at where the post-2010 arrivals have come from.


Jonathan Portes points out that the migrants’ share of jobs has kept pace with their share of the working population for the past few decades.


It’s also worth remembering that there are lots of British people working elsewhere in the EU too. The traffic isn’t just one way. As Bill said in the comments thread, globalisation is not a la carte. You can’t pick the bits you like and reject all the rest.

Update 2: I had no idea when I posted this that the Migration Advisory Committee was just about to publish a report on migration and skills. Will comment once I’ve had time to read it.

Posted in Uncategorized | 8 Comments

Hollowing out the tax base

Reaction to the ONS announcement that 52 percent of households receive more in benefits than they pay in tax was predictable, though not quite as hysterical as it has been in previous years. Screen Shot 2014-07-01 at 08.25.16 This piece in the Daily Mail was quite balanced. A quote from Douglas Carswell, in an otherwise pretty measured Telegraph article, made me smile.

We have not lived within our means for a generation. The ever-expanding redistributive state is pressure down ever more heavily on a diminishing productive base. The financial crisis ought to have alerted the political elite that this model is just not sustainable. We have not made the fundamental changes to the architecture of the state that needs to be made.

So if an MP in the largest governing party isn’t a member of the political elite, who the hell is?

It was left to the Daily Express to wail about the “welfare bonanza” and quote Conservative MP Andrew Rosindell:

Previous governments focussed too much on handing out benefits. This government has been, and is right, to reduce the size of Britain’s welfare bill.

Really? When did it do that then?

As ever, though, once you dig into the figures, the picture becomes a little more complex. First off, the benefits referred to includes the value of benefits in kind such as subsidised education, transport and, of course, the NHS. All of us are beneficiaries of public services. The ONS reckons that the wealthiest 20 percent get more from the NHS than the poorest.


We can see the combined effects of these benefits in kind, together with cash transfers and taxation, on this ONS chart.

Screen Shot 2014-07-01 at 08.34.20

Much of the benefit poorer households get, then, is in the form of the benefits from public services we all enjoy, not of direct cash handouts. If you want to describe the whole lot as ‘welfare’ then we’re all on welfare.

The 52 percent figure also includes retired households. Once you take out retired people, the number of households receiving more in benefits than they pay in tax is around 38 percent.

Household benefits v tax

Source: ONS reference tables

That said, even the figure for non-retired households is a lot higher than it was in the 1970s. You would expect the percentage to go up during recessions, which it did, but there has also been a significant rise over the last three decades or so and a steady increase since 2000. This is consistent with what we know about the labour market. The number of working poor started to rise before the recession as did the number of self-employed people. Sometime around the middle of the decade, earnings began to fall, massively so for the self-employed.

Despite 3 percent growth over the last year, tax receipts have been disappointing. Wages are still stagnant and the increased amount of cash in the economy suggests that some of the self-employed are not declaring all their revenue.

The benefit dependency that government politicians talk about is increasingly an in-work benefit dependency. People may be coming off Job Seekers’ Allowance but they are going onto tax credits. Many of these workers also pay less tax now because thresholds have been raised. Taking the low paid out of tax and subsidising their pay is done for the best of reasons but it isn’t helping to increase the tax take or reduce the benefits bill. The result, as Frances said, is that the fiscal deficit is falling at a glacial pace.

This is all rather worrying, says the FT’s Chris Giles:

Tax revenues have consistently fallen short of expectations in this recovery – unlike public spending, which has been close to the chancellor’s targets set in the June 2010 ‘emergency’ Budget. For the 2013/14 financial year, this year’s Budget estimated public sector net revenues of £607.7bn, more than 8% (or £54bn) lower than the £661.9bn expected back in 2010.

Of course, most of this shortfall was caused by the economic weakness of 2011/12. Economic stagnation is a necessary, but not sufficient, explanation.

In 2010, the Office for Budget Responsibility expected the tax system to be able to collect 38.7% of national income in tax revenues. In fact, this year’s Budget documents show revenues accounting for only 37%. It means that 1.7% of gross domestic product – almost £30bn a year – has gone missing. That is a lot of money.

The trends are no better, even in the most recent year of rapid economic recovery. Taking real growth and inflation into account, the size of the economy grew 4.7% in 2013/14, but revenues rose only 3.5%. Normally, revenues grow faster than nominal GDP.

Weakness in revenue growth matters because if it continues, the shortfall will eventually be recovered through painful tax rate increases or further public spending cuts, meaning the grind of ever-harsher austerity will continue for longer.

The growing economy was supposed to have increased the tax take and reduced the welfare bill by a lot more. The longer it takes to do either, the more the government has to borrow.

Then there’s this:

If you talk to Treasury officials about the missing tax revenues, you get one of two responses. In public, there are many explanations for weak revenue: more low-paid jobs have been created that are not so tax-rich because the government has increased the income tax personal allowance; housing transactions remain weak, leading to shortfalls in stamp duties; oil revenues have taken a hammering from the slump in North Sea production; and financial companies are still offsetting past losses against current profits, hampering the growth of corporate tax revenues.

In private, there is greater concern that the structure of the economy and the UK tax system no longer easily generate tax revenues.

The IFS said something similar in its Green Budget:

One way in which the current recovery has been different from previous recoveries is that in recent years there has been remarkably strong growth in employment given the relatively weak growth in the UK economy. This mix of relatively strong employment growth and weaker average earnings growth has implications for growth in tax revenues – particularly from income tax and NICs. The main determinant of growth in these revenues is the growth in total employment income in the UK economy, which is the product of employment and average earnings growth. However, because of the progressivity of these taxes – in particular of income tax – growth in average earnings creates a larger boost to tax receipts than equivalent growth in employment. This means that the distribution of total employment income, as well as its headline growth, matters for tax receipts.

So, in other words, a 1% increase in employment income that comes from a boost to average earnings would be expected to increase income tax and NICs receipts by about £1 billion more than a 1% increase in employment income that comes solely from an increase in employment.

Just increasing employment doesn’t help much. Average earnings growth is what boosts the tax take. Furthermore:

The increase in revenues over the next five years is forecast to come largely from income tax and capital taxes. The UK is increasingly reliant on a few very-high- income individuals for the former – for example, the top 1% of contributors (around 300,000 individuals) contributed 27.5% of income tax in 2011–12 – while capital tax receipts are particularly hard to forecast and are also disproportionately paid by a relatively small number of individuals.

HMRC data released in September 2013 estimated that the share of income tax contributions made by the top 1% of contributors (ranked by contribution size) would rise to 27.5% by 2011–12, compared with 21.3% in 1999–2000 and 11% in 1979.11 To put it another way, the income tax paid by 300,000 or so very high-income individuals accounts for 7.5% of all tax revenue. These individuals will of course also pay large amounts of VAT and, in all likelihood, pay a large fraction of total capital taxes.

Increases in average earnings boost the tax take but what we are seeing instead is rising incomes at the top and rising employment at the bottom. The hollowing out of the tax base reflects what is happening in the labour market.

Given that forecasts for increasing wages increases and falling benefit spend are also glacially slow, it’s difficult to forsee much improvement over the next few years.

Fig 3 - median earnings_jpg_400x265_upscale_q85

Source: Resolution Foundation

Screen Shot 2014-01-06 at 17.25.38

Source: Parliamentary briefing

On top of all this, the proportion of retired people is likely to increase too, putting additional pressure on the tax and benefits system. 

As the UK comes out of recession, it’s starting to look as though there are some structural weaknesses in our economy. We will probably see ‘More than half UK households receive more in benefits than they pay in tax’ headlines for some time yet. To blame all this on a welfare bonanza or the ever-expanding state is to miss the point though. It’s much more serious than that.

Posted in Uncategorized | 11 Comments

Public spending mitigates inequality – at least, for now

The ONS published a report on the effects of taxes and benefits on household income last week. It showed a recent slight increase in inequality, as measured by the Gini coefficient, though nowhere near the sort of steep rise we saw in the 1980s and still not quite where it was in the early 2000s.

Screen Shot 2014-06-27 at 14.51.59

It also indicated that, after a drop during the recession, the incomes of those at the top have started rising again while those of the bottom 80 percent have continued to fall.

Screen Shot 2014-06-27 at 14.58.14

It is probable, given what we know about the income shares of the top 1 percent and the ‘just belows’ that the rise in top quintile incomes shown here is largely due to increases at the very top. HMRC projections show the share of the next 9 percent continuing to fall for the next couple of years.


Chart via Michael O’Connor.

The data on taxation suggest that the tax system isn’t as progressive as we sometimes think. As you might expect, for the most part, people pay a lower percentage of their income in tax the further down the scale they are, until the bottom 20 percent, who pay the most.

The Guardian has put this data on a chart.

Screen Shot 2014-06-27 at 15.06.37

When it comes to redistribution, though, it’s not just taxation that matters, it’s what you do with the money afterwards. What makes our system progressive is the redistribution through welfare and public services. In this report, ONS uses the term ‘benefits’ in its widest sense to include not just cash payments bout also benefits in kind, like the NHS, education and subsidised transport.

Taking all this into account, the system does a reasonable job of mitigating the disparities in income.

Screen Shot 2014-06-27 at 15.16.54

As I was trying to catch up with the latest developments in the Piketty row, I came across the Chartbook of Economic Inequality, which has been developed by Tony Atkinson and Salvatore Morelli.

Atkinson and Morelli both work with Piketty on the World Top Incomes Database and I found their site quoted by Chris Giles in a piece following up on his criticisms of Piketty. They have come up with the simple but brilliant idea of putting different measures of inequality on the same chart.

Here is the chart for the UK. (Click on it to make it bigger.)


This shows the household income Gini coefficient rising in the 1980s then levelling off in the 1990s. At the same time, though, the income share of the top 1 percent and top 0.1 percent rose steadily, albeit with a rude interruption during the recession. Both are now roughly where they were at the end of the Second World War.

A gap has also opened up between the 90th percentile and median earnings but, after a sharp rise in the 1980s, the number of households below 60 percent of the median fell during the 1990s and 2000s.

Despite the lines on the chart moving in different directions, these figures are not necessarily telling contradictory stories. As both sets of charts show, our tax, benefits and public spending system has softened the effects of the rise in the top 1 percent income share by redistributing income to the poor.

However, as we know, public service spending is to be cut severely and the next government, whatever its colour, will probably attempt to slash the social security budget too. This will reduce the redistributive effects of the system at a time when a gap is opening up in income levels.

You have probably read about the arguments over Thomas Piketty’s data. Those interested in picking over the stats will already have read everything they can find on this. For those with a passing interest and/or not very much time, there is a summary of the row here.

It’s important to remember, though, that the arguments over Piketty’s book are not about his data on income. They are about his figures for accumulated wealth and how much the top 1 percent’s share is rising. Here, for a number of reasons, the data don’t give a clear picture. 

Whatever the inequalities in wealth up to now, though, the direction of income inequality is pretty clear. Given the increasing share of income gained by those at the top, it would be astonishing if, over the next few decades, an equally sharp division in accumulated wealth didn’t open up. Add in slow economic growth and the dismantling of the welfare and public spending transfers that have mitigated the effects of inequality so far and Piketty’s prediction of a rising wealth gap looks likely, even if, perhaps, it doesn’t happen quite as quickly as he says.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

In praise of … covering your back

I have read three very good pieces on the phone hacking trail. This one from Nick Davies, explains the power dynamics. James Doleman, who sat through the whole thing, explains why Andy Coulson was found guilty and why Rebekah Brooks wasn’t.

Put simply, Brooks said she didn’t know about the phone hacking or payments to officials and no-one could prove otherwise. There was, however, plenty of evidence against Coulson, so he was convicted.

All three articles give a flavour of how both Brooks and Coulson conducted themselves in the corporate world and their very different styles of management.

Here’s Nick Davies:

[Brooks] had remained oblivious to the whole saga, she said, even when she returned to the office the following week, never reading the story which the paper had published quoting the voicemail verbatim, never knowing that managing editor Stuart Kuttner was still hectoring Surrey police to confirm the tale. Kuttner, also on trial, was himself found not guilty of conspiring to hack phones.

Coulson always had more to deal with. While evidence of his three years as Brooks’s deputy was hard to find, there was a wealth of phone records, emails, voicemail recordings and Mulcaire notes about the hacking that happened when he was in charge, from January 2003 to January 2007. And Coulson had got himself dangerously close to the action.

At the News of the World, Coulson showed little enthusiasm for politics, according to former Downing Street officials, one of whom remembers him being invited for breakfast with Gordon Brown and showing so little interest in policy that the two men ended up talking about newspaper circulations. Brooks, however, was a different story.

Far more than Coulson, she played the game of power, exploiting her extraordinary social skills to build an unrivalled network of connections.

James Doleman on Brooks:

Brooks’ role, she told the jury, was to oversee the whole process; not to “police” the experienced journalists and news editors who worked under her.

Not inquiring may be questionable but it was not a crime.

And on Coulson:

Journalists and lawyers have been speculating for weeks about what the outcome of the phone-hacking trial would be, and of the dozens I have spoken to, not one thought Andy Coulson would be found anything but guilty. The former head of communications for Number 10 had a fine legal team, reluctantly paid for by News International after he sued them at the High Court, but it was not enough; the evidence of his involvement in hacking was too much and too strong.

Early on in the case a veteran journalist described Andy Coulson to me as a “good soldier”, and nothing I have seen in this marathon trial has ever led me to disagree with that assessment.

I’ve known a lot of good soldiers. And the trouble with good soldiers is that they tend to get shot.

The irony of the British tabloid press focusing on “one rogue editor” as being responsible for all phone-hacking will not be lost on Andy Coulson.

[T]here are worrying signs that the former News of the World editor will become the scapegoat for a Fleet Street culture that relied on the routine invasion of privacy not just to generate stories, but also to gain political influence.

As I’ve said before, there is no such thing as a rogue operator. Whether or not senior managers know about the detail, they are the ones who set the tone for the organisation. Employees rarely deviate far from this. If they do, they don’t last long. OK, some may be a little over-enthusiastic and cross a line but it’s usually within a framework of what is generally regarded as acceptable. The rogue trader fallacy is an attempt to individualise what is almost always a systemic problem. If managers set aggressive targets and tell people to do whatever it takes, they usually have some idea of what ‘whatever it takes’ means, even if they don’t (or choose not to) know exactly who is doing what.

The good corporate soldier can get taken in by all this. Hands on, leading from the front and keen to do a good job, they can lose their sense of perspective. It’s very easy, after a bit of pressure and the odd nudge, to find yourself putting your name to something which ends up screwing you. At which point, your empowering bosses are nowhere to be seen.

I know it’s unfashionable but covering your arse is really important in any organisation, even more so when managers claim to be delegating and empowering. Most of us will never be encouraged to do anything illegal but we often find ourselves pressured into bending the rules or doing stuff which isn’t quite right. Massage the figures, change a few lines in a report, cut the odd corner on health & safety, leave a few things out when you make your statement for the employment tribunal. I’m sure you have your own anecdotes.

Whenever you are cajoled or encouraged to do anything even a bit dodgy, it’s essential to make sure someone further up the hierarchy knows about it. For example, if you are asked to ‘just change the figures on the chart to make them look a bit better, then send it to the CEO’, send a note to your boss, telling him you did as he asked but that you don’t think the figures would stand up to detailed scrutiny. You never know, your chart might end up in the annual report! If someone picks it apart and finds it’s wrong, if it’s only got your name on it, it’s your problem. (And yes, that is a real example.)

I have no idea what really happened at News International and we will probably never find out. I would be very surprised, though, if phone hacking was a feature of Andy Coulson’s newsroom and no other. People don’t just decide to do this sort of thing. The culture grows up slowly, over time. This week, Coulson is being condemned by almost everybody but I can’t help feeling a bit sorry for the guy. Is he really a rogue who would stop at nothing or just a soldier who went a bit too far and didn’t think to cover his rear?

Update: Two articles from Donna Boehme on a similar theme.

The ‘Rogue Employee’ and Dogs That Eat Homework includes this wonderful sample press release:

“We regret that the actions of a single rogue employee, Mr. BadGuy, were contrary to the values of this company. Our long ­established principles of integrity, honesty, truth, motherhood, and apple pie have been offended by the scandalous acts of Mr. BadGuy. We condemn the actions of Mr. BadGuy. Mr. BadGuy has left the building.”

The Rogue Employee Strikes Again is also a good read:

Since Barings, a long parade of well- known companies have jumped on the Rogue Employee bandwagon in times of trouble. These include: Wal-Mart, Barclays, SAC Capital, UBS, Societe Generale,6 JP Morgan, Pfizer, NewsCorp and GlaxoSmithKline.

The Rogue Employee defense is convenient because it instantly identifies a culprit, or culprits, and absolves “management” of any wrongdoing.

She also links to this excellent paper from Susan S Silbey at MIT, Rotten Apples or a Rotting Barrel:

Microsoft Word – Silbey, Ethics Education Comments.2

Professional and corporate misconduct derives, at least in part, from features of the organizations and social settings in which they take place. Those situations and settings provide both the opportunities and incentives for misconduct. The barrels have particular shapes and not all barrels produce the same kind or amount of rot.

A rotten barrel yields rotten apples. They don’t just go bad by themselves.


Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments

Zero hours contracts: How far can (and should) the law go?

Not everyone is happy with the government’s proposed legislation on zero hours contracts. The TUC said it doesn’t go far enough, UNISON called for much tougher measures and John Philpott dismissed it as kitten toothed.

Of the recommendations in Norman Pickavance’s report, published in May, the only one the government plans to bring into law is the ban on exclusivity clauses. These are clauses which prevent employees from working for another firm, even though the employer does not guarantee to provide them with work. Workers therefore can’t even cover their risk of low hours by taking on a series of contracts with different employers.

This is the most obviously unfair abuse of zero hours contracts. There will be little opposition to outlawing it. That said, even in the harsh world of zero hours employment, such clauses only affect a minority of workers. According to the CIPD, around 10 percent are prevented from working for other employers with a further 15 percent facings some restrictions, though the data is somewhat hazy. (See Page 23 here.)

Furthermore, not everyone is convinced that the ban is workable. Here’s employment lawyer Elizabeth George:

Banning exclusivity clauses will result in precisely NO benefit at all to the overwhelming majority of zero-hours workers.

Yes it is ludicrous for an employer to think it can demand exclusivity from someone when it is offering no guaranteed work in return, but exclusivity clauses (which are not particularly widespread amongst the million plus zero hours contracts out there) are not the real issue here.

The crux of the matter is why are employers choosing to use contracts that provide their staff with no security and the bare minimum of employment rights in situations when work is clearly available and demand not the least bit unpredictable? The answer is – because they can.

And this means that, even if there is no longer an exclusivity clause, employees who works for someone else can simply have their hours stopped. There is no guarantee of work so, if you piss off your employer, you don’t get any more.

Darren Newman agrees:

What this means (I suppose) is that an employer will not be able to sue a zero-hours worker who has – out of some selfish determination to earn a living – gone off and done some work for somebody else. I’m sure I won’t be the first to point out that they won’t need to. The clause might be legally unenforceable, but that will hardly matter if a worker can be denied any further work as a result of breaching it and there is nothing in the Bill, so far, which creates a right for a worker not to suffer a detriment for breaching an exclusivity clause.

In reality this provision will be inserted into employment law with little practical effect. It will gather some headlines but do next to nothing to improve the lives of those who are trapped in precarious and low-paid employment.

The trouble is, these objections apply to many of the other recommendations in the Pickavance Report too. 

1. Ensure that workers on zero-hours contracts are not obliged to be available over and above their contracted hours

Fine, you’re not obliged to be available but if we call and you’re not free, it’s the last call you’ll get.

4. Give zero-hours workers a right to compensation when shifts are cancelled at short notice

Sorry, your shift has been cancelled. What? You’re taking us to a tribunal for compensation? OK, here’s an hour’s pay. Yeah, I know you’re entitled to 2 hours but is it really worth going to court for the extra? Oh, and don’t expect a call next week.

The only recommendation with any force is Number 3, which recommends that zero hours contracts automatically become permanent after 12 months. (Also recommended in the Resolution Foundation’s report.) Even this doesn’t help those in their first year, though, and might well lead to contract termination after 11 months becoming the norm.

That phrase “because they can” is important. It sums up the imbalance of power in the relationship. Zero hours contracts grew out of a weak labour market where employers hold the power over those desperate for work. The contracts themselves are one-sided because the employer has a pool of labour. People need the hours more than the employer needs any one individual. Because the contracts don’t guarantee work, the employer doesn’t even need to discipline or sack a worker, he can just stop calling them.

As I said last time I looked at zero hours contracts, they reflect an economic power imbalance and, short of banning them completely, I’m not sure how far the law can go to mitigate the effects of their abuse. Banning them seems draconian when, by a number of measures, most people on them are satisfied with the arrangement. According to the CIPD, only 27 percent are dissatisfied and a UKCES study found that only a third were on zero hours contracts because they could not find a job with regular hours. (As an aside, these figures are broadly similar to the numbers of people who say they are dissatisfied with self-employment.)

Even if zero hours contracts were banned, the casual labour market might simply shift to other forms; yet more self-employment, for example. To stop employers abusing their workers requires some form of Big Power pushing in the opposite direction. That used to be what the trade unions did. We now assume the state will take that role but, without the sort of far-reaching powers that few politicians would be prepared to grant, legislation is unlikely to achieve much.

The government’s ban on exclusivity clauses might scare a few employers away from some of the worst abuses but the exploitation associated with zero hours contracts will continue. Employment relations are determined, largely, by social and economic factors with the law simply providing the scaffolding. Set against low growth, low investment, low pay and underemployment, there is only so much the law can do.

Posted in Uncategorized | 8 Comments

Stop bashing the young and try giving them work experience

Everybody knows that young people lack the basic skills needed in the workplace. It’s not just a problem with skills. They have bad attitudes too. These reports appear every few months, gleefully covered by the newspapers and providing soundbites for grandstanding MPs. It’s no wonder, then that youth unemployment is so high. Surely, no employer in their right mind would want to recruit such people.

I have long been sceptical about all this, though, because I first heard it when I was one of the people being complained about. Employers have been banging on about the poor skills and bad attitudes of young people since the 1980s, at least.

Yesterday’s report from the UK Commission for Education and Skills (UKCES) provides some useful background to the debate. It found that, while the UK’s unemployment rate is below average when compared with other EU countries, relative to our adult unemployment rate, it is high.

Screen Shot 2014-06-24 at 13.42.12

In other words, countries like Greece and Spain have high youth unemployment rates because they have high unemployment rates generally. The UK doesn’t have that excuse. Furthermore, compared to our wider labour market, our youth unemployment rate has been getting worse for some time.

Screen Shot 2014-06-24 at 13.46.13

So, although the UK’s youth unemployment rate is around the EU average, it’s much worse than it ought to be, given our overall employment level.

Doesn’t this just prove that our young people are even more useless than those elsewhere in Europe?

Some of the employers surveyed by UKCES probably think so. This bit of the report made me laugh:

Just under a quarter of those taking on 16 year olds from school say that their recruits lack work experience.”

Screen Shot 2014-06-24 at 10.39.05

Well, yes, they are 16. What the hell do you expect?

More importantly, though, most of the 90,000 employers didn’t say any of this. The majority thought that even their 16-year-old recruits were well prepared for the world of work.

Screen Shot 2014-06-24 at 11.35.08

This figure rises with education level or, perhaps, simply with age. It could be that 21-year olds are just more adept and confident than 16-year olds, whatever they have done in the intervening years. I was gobby, awkward and, frankly, a bit of an idiot at 16. Slightly less so by 21. I’m not sure how much my Huniversity Heducation had to do with the improvement though.

When it comes to skills, international surveys have shown our young people to be well down the league table.

Screen Shot 2014-06-24 at 12.01.38

The rankings are not quite as bad for the general adult population. But here is the interesting bit. There is not much variation in scores by age across the UK population as a whole. On numeracy, for example, in England and Northern Ireland, there is no difference at all.

Screen Shot 2014-06-24 at 12.37.23

In literacy, too, there is little variation between the generations. This chart, from the OECD Skills Outlook,  compares England and Northern Ireland to South Korea.

Screen Shot 2014-06-24 at 12.38.52

The low-level of basic skills, then, is not a problem with our young people. It’s a feature of our general population. Other countries score more highly and push our young people down the league table because they have made greater improvements over the generations, not because our youngsters are stupider than their elders!

As the OECD says (my emphasis):

[P]rogress has been highly uneven across countries. In England/Northern Ireland (UK) and the United States, improvements between younger and older generations are barely apparent. Young people in these countries are entering a much more demanding labour market, yet they are not much better prepared than those who are retiring. England/ Northern Ireland (UK) is among the three highest-performing countries in literacy when comparing 55-65 year-olds; but England/Northern Ireland (UK) is among the bottom three countries when comparing literacy proficiency among 16-24 year-olds. In numeracy, the United States performs around the average when comparing the proficiency of 55-65 year-olds, but is lowest in numeracy among all participating countries when comparing proficiency among 16-24 year-olds. This is not necessarily because performance has declined in England/Northern Ireland (UK) or the United States, but because it has risen so much faster in so many other countries across successive generations.

Academic skills are not everything though. UKCES found that skills like problem solving, communication and conflict management are just as important and that these are better developed in the workplace than in the classroom. The report’s main finding was that Britain’s students need more work experience.

In essence, this report contains one simple message: genuine experience of the workplace is vital for young people. As a result, small jobs make a big difference to young people’s chances of securing work, starting careers and progressing within them.

Those countries offering more work experience to their youngsters tend to find fewer of them without jobs in their early 20s. Britain is around average here but, given our high ratio of youth unemployment and the OECD’s comments about skill levels, we need to give our youngsters all the help they can get.

Screen Shot 2014-06-24 at 13.20.28

Combining education and work experience is partly about the design of courses in further and higher education but there is also an onus on employers to work with colleges in providing employment that, as UKCES says, is not just making the tea. All too often, the problem of youngsters with poor skills is thrown back on schools. This report suggests that employers need to do more too.

In short, if we want young people who have working world and life experience we have to give them working world and life experience. Who’d have thought it?

Posted in Uncategorized | 11 Comments