As I indicated in my previous blog, the alliance government seems intent on removing legislation that regulates the employment relationship. Economists call this EPL or employment protection legislation. In that instance I dealt with the extension of the qualifying period in order to obtain the right not to be unfairly dismissed. However there seem to be broader strategies in play.
Firstly mention was made in the Queens annual speech of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill (ERR) which will deal with, amongst other things Tribunal Reforms. The Queen said ' Legislation
will be introduced to reduce burdens on business by repealing
unnecessary legislation and to limit state inspection of businesses' . Although the details are vague at this time, the Bill aims to reform the Tribunal system to promote the efficient resolution of disputes. Mention has been made of compulsory conciliation by ACAS. I will comment on this when details become available but I am all in favor of effective dispute resolution provided that the quality of the dispute resolution process does not get sacrificed on the alter of expediency.
Secondly, a report by entrepreneur Adrian Beecroft on employment law reforms was leaked yesterday. The government is said to be considering various of the proposals outlined in the report. The proposals include the introduction of no fault dismissals. Beecroft proposes that employees be allowed to dismiss for any reason provided that the employee is given the same payments that any employee is entitled to upon redundancy. There are many other proposals that are made in the report. Beecroft's raison d'etre is that EPL retards growth and increases unemployment because businesses are less efficient when they are regulated in this way.
My view is that we should not sacrifice employment protection unless there are good reasons for doing so. While Beecroft and his ilk argue that there are good economic reasons, my research shows that there is no definitive evidence or studies that unequivocally demonstrate that the removal of EPL does have a positive effect on macro economic indicators. I do not see that Beecroft's arguments have any merit. The argument regarding the lifting or imposing of EPL's is essentially an ethical one. The Consequentialist arguments of the type that Beecroft proposes are problematic. Would the argument be as attractive if one were proposing to remove protection against discrimination on the basis that it would stimulate growth and reduce unemployment? I believe that the concept of human dignity should form the cornerstone of or define the parameters of the debate. Work or employment as I have discovered by personal experience is fundamentally linked one's dignity. It may be that rights based arguments or Kantian categorical imperative type of arguments may lead to the same conclusion, namely that it would be better to remove or dilute EPL's (which I doubt) but the debate needs properly fleshed out in a rational manner free from political vagaries and half baked economic polemics .
