Alex Hern shows Liz Truss the piece of data she seems to be ignoring in her attempts to become more like Germany.
Liz Truss has become the latest Conservative MP to argue that the best way to deal with the unemployment crisis is to make it easier to sack people.
Writing in the Times today, Truss argues (£) that:
The Government should learn from Germany’s relentless efforts to enable companies to take on new workers.
First on the list, and simplest to achieve, is matching Germany in exempting companies with fewer than ten employees from dismissal regulation. Also in the short term, shared parental leave should be implemented with direct flat payment to parents and maximum working flexibility.
Work should begin on the creation of a new flexi-job contract, tax-exempt and regulation free, to enable younger, older and returning employees to get work.
If Truss does want to copy Germany, she should probably bear in mind that they have far, far more employment protections than the UK:
Ian Murray MP, Labour’s shadow minister for employment relations, told Left Foot Forward:
“The Tory-led government is completely out of touch if it thinks the best way to get growth is to make it easier to sack people.
“Even the Business Secretary has himself admitted that the UK has a ‘reasonably good balance’ between employer and employee rights.
“We should be making it easier to hire, not fire, people. “
As Richard Exell wrote when the chancellor suggested the same thing:
At a time when people are more depressed about the economic future than for a long time it is unlikely taking away their rights at work is going to make them happier. Young people, in particular, will be hardest hit – they are, after all, much more likely to have been employed for less than two years.
Vulnerable workers, especially those without a union to support them, will be most likely to be intimidated into not taking a case to tribunal, even when it’s a good one.
And all this for really dubious economic benefits. When the Labour government brought that threshold down to one year there was no noticeable impact on employment, and there’s precious little sign of employers demanding this.
See also:
• Raab’s attacks on workers’ rights are – surprise – based on no evidence – Sarah Veale, November 16th 2011
• Gideon’s grotesque attempt to blame workers’ rights for unemployment – Richard Exell, October 3rd 2011
• Government and CBI speak out against domestic workers’ rights – Sam Gurney, June 16th 2011
• Cable should work with unions, not bully them, for the good of the economy – Mik Sabiers, June 8th 2011
• Employment tribunal reforms will further erode workers’ rights – Ruwan Subasinghe, February 7th 2011
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
15 Responses to “If Liz Truss wants to be more like Germany, she should boost workers’ rights”
Philip Leicester
Germany works better because it crowd-sources – in business, in local, regioal and national government. This comes about because it is more democratic witth workers representation on works councils and PR in all elections. Contrast our lot, not even inviting major stakeholders to a meeting on the NHS at number 10.
Duncan Higgitt
If Liz Truss wants to be more like Germany, she should boost workers’ rights: http://t.co/cAVhsvQR
Patrick
I wanted to take on an employee, a young person, and train them, but Labour’s employment legislation deterred me.
If an employee is not performing adequately, it’s very difficult to fire them. They can go to an industrial tribunal, with a vexatious claim, with no merit, and keep me tied up in legalities for months, sometime years. There have been cases of small businesses being bankrupted by these cases, or fearing the costs so much that they end up having to settle out of court, just to save the business.
So I decided not to employee anyone. And I’m not alone in that decision. This is a classic case of well-meaning Socialist intervention backfiring and ending up with completely the opposite outcome to what was intended. Socialism destroys jobs; it’s the enemy of small business and wealth creation.
Let’s take another example, in leisure. I belong to a chess club. A young person wanted to join. But in order for him to come along and play a few games of chess, we would be required to appoint a ‘nominated child welfare officer’ under undergo CRB checks. The result? No-one wanted to do this. So we can’t have any junior members.
That’s the effect of Socialism in the real world. It’s tries to micro manage lives and organizations with more and more laws because it’s convinced that it has a superior moral agenda, but the implementation is flawed and the motives misguided.
Newsbot9
So you’ll only employ someone if they have no rights. Great, I hear America’s a lovely place to live.
Mark Howard
RT @leftfootfwd: If Liz Truss wants to be more like Germany, she should boost workers' rights http://t.co/t9nYQ8o5