Dear editor,
On 7 January, you published a Monthly Column by Cllr Abu Sultan, leader of Bedford Borough Labour Group, which sought to defend the government’s new employment-protection legislation. I am sorry to say he is misguided.
Read: Monthly column: A step forward for working people in Bedford Borough
This Bill joins the lengthening list of Labour’s well-intentioned but foolish ideas.
I have no party allegiance – all I want is what works best for most people – and I want any government of this country to succeed, as failure hits us all. But, to put it mildly, Labour has not begun well.
Already, they have cracked down on the rich, resulting in thousands of millionaires leaving the country. Should we be sad to see the back of them?
Not at all; if we are consumed by class hatred. Yes, most certainly, if we recognise that most of them got rich by setting up businesses that grew to employ huge numbers of people and paid a lot of tax.
As expats, it seems unlikely they will make their next job-creating investment in the UK, so we all lose.
Hatchet job
They have cracked down on landlords, people who, in many cases, had invested in property instead of a pension. Tighter regulation demands more investment that many landlords can’t afford.
More rights for tenants mean that the property-owner can be at the mercy of an irresponsible tenant, making the game no longer worth the candle.
Consequently, many are selling up, reducing the pool of rental property and pushing market rents even higher. That doesn’t help renters at all.
And now we have the Employment Rights Bill. If it comes into law – as surely it must, given the government’s large majority of MPs who cannot or dare not think for themselves – it is set to do a similar hatchet job on the jobs market.
What evidence is there for this gloom?
Even if you dismiss the views of organisations that represent business as partisan and self-serving (which may well be the case in part) there is the simple fact that small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs) are already loth to take on staff, fearing the risk of the existing law being used unreasonably against them.
As things stand at present, even with a two-year probationary period, a mischievous new employee can take an employer for quite a ride.
It goes like this. Employer Ed is working off his feet and so takes on an extra staff member, Simon.
Simon interviewed well, but turns out to have a problem with getting out of bed, especially on Mondays and when Luton is playing away.
Ed’s work is on sites in different parts of the county: he depends on staff being at the appointed pick-up points on time so that they all arrive on site in the van at 8 am for a prompt start.
Starting late does not impress customers and means jobs take longer than he had quoted for, extra time he cannot charge for, and that completions are late.
That in turn means that the next job starts late, too. And Simon’s colleagues are unhappy too. Reluctantly, Ed has to let Simon go.
Frivolous claims
Simon’s mates in the pub tell him to make a claim on some trumped-up charge of discrimination, demanding reinstatement or compensation of a couple of months’ pay.
He does so, and Ed is duly served with papers requiring him to explain his actions. Unlike the big firm next door, he doesn’t have a department to deal with staff matters, so he phones his solicitor for advice.
That call and drafting a response to the claim add up to well over £100.
It is clear to everyone concerned that Simon’s claim is frivolous, but proving it will involve Ed in spending time on paperwork (not his strong suit) and probably taking a day off to attend the Tribunal, costing him hundreds of pounds in lost income and a day’s work.
Moreover, if he doesn’t send back the paperwork within 28 days, Simon automatically wins. Furious but powerless, Ed settles Simon’s completely unjustified claim. Simon banks a nice cheque, and Ed vows never to take on a youngster again.
Everyone in business knows real-life stories like this. And that’s under the present regime, where the Eds of this world can test out new employees for a couple of years before they’re entitled to full rights.
Loss of jobs
So, to grant employment protection from day one – with no trial period whatsoever – as the Bill proposes – makes employers even more careful. Instead of expanding, many will just turn work away.
That’s a loss of jobs, a loss of taxes and a loss of business for suppliers – hardly a bonanza for anyone, except the Simons.
Yet Cllr Sultan hails it as a triumph. I would urge him and others possessed by similar delusions to consider soberly the likely effects of their good intentions.
They should use their reason to deal with facts rather than head-in-the-cloud dogma. If they did, they would change course radically.
Otherwise, they will continue to do even more well-meaning but stupid things. And we, the public, will continue to pay the price.
Name and address withheld.
Letters published do not reflect the
views of the Bedford Independent.
If you would like to respond to
any issues raised, please email
letters@bedfordindependent.co.uk
