Concern and Hope for the Future of the Employment Rights Bill

Some time ago, on the Ides of March, an article of mine was published on historical thresholds. In it I observed that there are interregnums which, once crossed, see us like Dorothy in Oz - standing in a different world.

Following Angela Rayner’s resignation, the Labour Party have reached a new threshold. A Cabinet and Ministerial re-shuffle, and the election of a new Deputy Leader, could each amount to more than a historical footnote.

Some hope is proffered by these changes, not least that they may well alleviate Labour’s paltry polling performance. Conversely, a fair amount of anxiety has built over an upcoming legislative threshold: passage of the government’s Employment Rights Bill.

Having cleared both the commons and lords, and with amendments now being considered, the final passage of this bill is set to be a cause for celebration for many. Giving workers the right to claim for unfair dismissal from their first day of employment, ending ‘fire and rehire’ practices, and extending the time in which employment tribunal claims may be made are all sure to be warmly received by the working people whose support Labour desperately wishes to win back.

Of particular note is the reintroduction of the School Support Staff Negotiating Body. Given that many parents, teachers and students across the country can attest to the outstanding role that support staff can play in our education system, the government’s stated aim to ‘recognise the value and professionalism of the whole school workforce by reinstating the School Support Staff Negotiating Body’ should be taken as a step in the right direction.

The recent reshuffle however, seems to have sullied proceedings with an air of unease, the BBC reporting that ‘At the Trade Union Congress (TUC) in Brighton, senior union figures have voiced their concerns that the bill would be watered down’. The bill will, of course, have had its opponents, but this concern implies that at least a semblance of a question mark now sits over the Bill.

The bill’s outright abandonment is so unlikely that I would only feel comfortable noting it as an ‘I suppose anything can happen’ potentiality. Despite this, changes or amendments to its content would still be consequential.

In reaching out to Unison, I was referred to a comment by its General Secretary, Christina McAnea, who has stated that:

“The Employment Rights Bill is the most significant piece of employment legislation in a generation and will make a real difference to the lives of millions of people. The reforms are popular, long overdue and exactly what the country needs. Anyone calling for the changes to be put on hold is not on the side of working people. Good companies, and their leaders, have absolutely nothing to fear from new rules.”

Beyond showing support for the bill McAnea’s statement indicates at least some concern about a potential effort to frustrate its passage into law. This notwithstanding that the newly assigned minister with responsibility for the bill, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State within the Department for Business and Trade Kate Dearden MP, has previously worked within the trade union Community. On one hand this could be reassuring, it being easy to imagine a former union official keen to defend employment legislation such as this. On the other hand, however, it does not take a much greater act of imagination to envision somebody with such a history being appointed to help smooth over potential changes to the bill.

Neither of these scenarios is beyond the realm of possibility, nor mutually exclusive. While we wait to see what the final passage of the bill will look like, I do think that it is worth recalling this is not the first time in our history when we have seen fit to significantly intervene in employment practices.

Alan Palmer’s Dictionary of Modern History 1789-1945 tells us that: ‘In the late eighteenth century the rapid growth in Britain of a factory system unrestricted by the state regulations led to numerous social ills – child labour, long hours, etc. – and an eventual demand for remedial legislation.’

The Factory Acts that Palmer describes in his dictionary are the types of laws that would reflect better on us if there had never been a need for them to be introduced. Limitations on working hours and the age of employment may not surprise us today, but it is important to remember that it was Acts of Parliament that helped this come to be.

Thankfully, our society has changed since the first of these Acts was passed in 1802, and the sentiment behind many of those regulations likely now seems natural to us. 

None of us can divine whether the Bill will pass in a way that its proponents or opponents will approve of. Nevertheless I hope that we can look forward to the day where we talk about a practice like ‘fire and rehire’ like the footnote in history that it deserves to be.

Image: Flickr/No 10 Downing Street (Simon Dawson)

Licence.

No image changes made.