Gig economy
Opinion
Wishy-washy and full of fluff – the Taylor review offers little
By Jason Moyer-Lee
Workers will see few benefits, thanks to the review’s lack of substance and outright errors. And one of the proposals is potentially disastrous
• Jason Moyer-Lee is general secretary of the IWGB union
Tuesday 18 July 2017 12.27 BST
Last modified on Tuesday 18 July 2017 16.48 BST
Last week the Taylor review of modern employment practices released its findings to great fanfare. Intended to address, among other things, the widespread deprivation of employment rights in the gig economy, the review’s recommendations fell far short of expectations.
At the Independent Workers’ Union of Great Britain we have long argued that the fundamental problem is the lack of enforcement of existing law, and so we call for three main policies: rigorous government enforcement of employment law, with punitive fines to deter unlawful behaviour; the abolition of employment tribunal fees, which have caused a near 70% decline in cases; and access to employment rights currently enjoyed only by “employees” for all “workers”. Needless to say, our 64-page response to the Taylor review was not supportive of its outcomes.
For a start, we had a problem with the panel. There were four members, one was an employment solicitor from a corporate law firm which advises employers on industrial relations, and, according to the Financial Times, another was a former Deliveroo investor who didn’t sell his stake in the company until four months after the review began. This wasn’t offset by any trade union or worker representation, and Matthew Taylor refused to meet with us one-to-one to discuss our proposals.
There are a few good ideas among the fluff – extending sick pay and the right to statements of employment particulars
Additionally, we feel that the review had an inaccurate understanding of the law as it currently stands. From the suggestion that “workers” are not a category of self-employed, to the suggestion that employers are normally required to make national insurance contributions on behalf of workers and not just employees, the report is replete with legal errors.
When one looks at the actual recommendations, it is full of vacuous fluff and light on substantive proposals. Indeed, some of the recommendations are so wishy-washy, it would be entirely feasible for government to “implement” them without any discernible impact on the workers they are designed to help, and certainly without any concrete improvement in workers’ lives – for example the recommendation that government departments “explore ways of supporting and incentivising local authorities, particularly city regions and combined authorities, to develop integrated approaches to improving health and wellbeing at work”. Given that Theresa May seems intent on using the review to claim the pro-worker mantle for the Tories, providing her with a number of policies she could implement with little cost to government, little burden on employers, and no tangible impact on workers would help the Tory narrative and do nothing to serve the supposed aim of the report.
It is important to note, however, that some of these proposals could also be feasibly implemented in a way that does have a positive impact. There just isn’t enough substance or detail to really venture much of an opinion either way.
And there are plenty of recommendations that won’t make much of an impact at all. Eliminating tribunal fees for employment status hearings, but keeping the fees for workers who want to assert any of the rights associated with their newly declared status, will achieve little. And while the proposal to reverse the burden of proof in employment status claims may sound great to a lay audience, it would make little difference in practical terms. Similarly, the call for more detail on employment categories to be included in primary legislation is not worth the paper it’s written on – it’s not as if the reason employers misclassify their workers is that they are unaware of the relevant law. A problem not caused by confusion will not be solved by clarity. And the one that tops the list: giving zero-hours workers a “right” to request a permanent contract but no remedy if the employer says no.
‘Gig workers’ already have rights – all we have to do is enforce them
Jason Moyer-Lee
Read more
There are a few good ideas buried in the fluff – extending statutory sick pay and the right to statements of employment particulars to “workers”. And there are other ideas that have potential but are so inexcusably devoid of detail that assessing their likely impact is a near impossibility, such as extending government enforcement to cover holidays and implementing a higher minimum wage for non-guaranteed hours.
But there are some truly horrendous ideas as well, the worst one being introducing piece rate legislation for the entire gig economy, which would allow employers not to have to ensure every individual working for them earns the minimum wage so long as they could demonstrate that the average worker, working averagely hard, would earn 120% of the minimum wage. This would be a dream come true for the likes of Uber, and a massive step backwards, as the current state of the law is that Uber drivers are entitled to the minimum wage for the time they work. And thus the ultimate irony: the review, which took over 10 months to deliver a damp squib, largely devoid of useful substance, has the audacity to comment on an Uber driver’s productivity.
There is no substance on how enforcement might be effective in practice, and proposals to increase rights for workers and reduce tribunal fees are extremely timid. Couriers, food delivery workers and private hire drivers must continue the fight for their rights, as this review has woefully under-delivered.
Topics
Gig economy
Opinion
Zero-hours contracts
Employment law
Employment tribunals
Work & careers
comment
Share on LinkedIn
Share on Pinterest
Share on Google+
comments (151)
Sign in or create your Guardian account to join the discussion.
1 2
lonelysoul72
1h ago
0 1
New labour anti left wing anti worker bollocks
Reply Share
Facebook
Twitter
Report
Dan2017
2h ago
0 1
They won't challenge it while immigration remains so high, what is the point in having a neoliberal approach to migration but then wanting things like Zero Hour Contracts regulated, having things like minimum wages etc.
Reply Share
Facebook
Twitter
Report
Pinnington Dan2017
47m ago
0 1
There is some truth in what you say. However, it makes no difference who you vote for or what you do. By 2030 the UK population will exceed 70 million people and will exceed 75 million by 2040. This will be fuelled by a combination of immigration, births and an ageing population.
Nothing short of a completely unforeseen cataclysm or massive change in global demographics is going to alter that. Your politicians already know this is what's happening.
Moreover, by 2040 the ratio of retired to working people will be around 35/100 at these projections.
If anything seriously disrupts population replacement the ratio will easily exceed 4/10 which, in our current industrial and technological situation, is unsustainable.
Maybe it's time to get our politicians to deal with reality instead of fantasy.
Reply Share
Facebook
Twitter
Report
most viewed
The Guardian
home
UK
world
sport
football
opinion selected
culture
business
lifestyle
fashion
environment
tech
travel
all
Opinion
› Gig economy
become a supporter
make a contribution
securedrop
solve technical issue
advertise with us
work for us
contact us
complaints & corrections
terms & conditions
privacy policy
cookie policy
digital newspaper archive
all topics
all contributors
Facebook
Twitter
© 2017 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment