{"text":[[{"start":5.4,"text":"How nice to hear that the chancellor of the exchequer wants to cut the cost of doing business. John Healey said he was aware firms were under “a lot of pressure”, pointing to employment law, regulation, tax, input costs and supply chains — a brave list, given that the first four were significantly worsened by the last government he served. We can hope that Wednesday’s Budget helps enterprise. But we know for certain that on Friday, under the Employment Rights Act, trade unions will get intrusive new powers to enter every company with 21 or more members of staff, every single week. I don’t want to sound churlish, but won’t that raise the cost of doing business?"}],[{"start":45.12,"text":"Some ministers I meet don’t even defend the raft of employment law changes Labour has made. They just shrug, as if it were obvious that placating unions is their own cost of doing business. The unions are not all-powerful: Unite has not achieved its desired wealth tax, and GMB has failed to convince the government to drop net zero plans, despite their general secretary Gary Smith dubbing the energy department “the department for P45s”. But both ministers and unions have been eager to alter the relationship between employers, workers and the state."}],[{"start":77.2,"text":"Some of the new protections for workers under the Employment Rights Act have merit: zero-hours and “fire and rehire” contracts can be exploitative. But the government has gone full tilt at employers to a reckless degree. Day-one rights, national insurance rises and a higher minimum wage have already damped hiring. It is now removing the cap on unfair dismissal claims and reducing the qualifying period, which, by its own analysis, will generate thousands of new tribunal claims. Far from seeing new employment rights as a substitute for unions, it has also lowered the threshold for unions to gain workplace recognition and made it easier to go on strike. Workplace access regulations are just the latest part of this package."}],[{"start":118.46,"text":"Many companies will now be faced with collective pay bargaining for the first time. Every organisation with 21 or more people must give trade unions weekly access to their staff, both in person and digitally. Employers will not be allowed to monitor what is said, and must pay staff for any time required. If not, the Soviet-sounding Central Arbitration Committee, a statutory body, can impose fines, starting at £75,000 and rising to a startling £500,000."}],[{"start":148.76,"text":"For businesses with pre-existing union relationships, this represents disruption and distraction, but it will be handled by HR. Smaller companies with no HR department, no in-house lawyer and no industrial relations experience will find themselves navigating a 41-page Code of Conduct that is worryingly vague, especially when it comes to how often unions can email staff and what could be done about privacy or misleading information. It won’t be surprising if some businesses choose not to expand beyond 21 workers to avoid the hassle. Others are already making agreements with unions in advance of next week."}],[{"start":183.96,"text":"The government says calm down; that access must not unreasonably interfere with a company’s operations, and that it has “carefully considered the views expressed during consultation”. That’s strange, since over 90 per cent of respondents said the model should not be weekly access, with only two working days’ notice. Officials haven’t carried out an impact assessment because they don’t expect the changes to impose significant costs. But the Homecare Association, a membership body for social care providers, estimates the costs for the sector (which isn’t subject to the 21-person cap) could be as much as £1bn a year. It warns that government funds could be diverted from care provision into paid attendance at union meetings. I will add that to my lengthening tally of government own goals."}],[{"start":226.88,"text":"Of course, unions can do good. Unison has campaigned valiantly for care workers to be paid for travel time. GMB is rightly pressing to train more welders and mechanical fitters in the UK. And if AI comes for all our jobs, we may welcome representation. Unions can encourage closer co-operation between employers and staff. But the over-reach is depressing. There is a vindictive flavour to it, just as there was with the family farm tax and the anti-landlord legislation. There’s the same insidious insistence that the impact will be minimal, and the same lack of care over detail."}],[{"start":261.9,"text":"Who benefits? The only clear winners from this particular policy are the unions. Every member they recruit pays a fee which boosts their coffers and, in the case of affiliated unions, those of the Labour Party. While the party also takes money from wealthy individuals, Unite remains Labour’s biggest single donor."}],[{"start":278.24,"text":"It all feels so narrow. Unions tend to be interested in their members, not the unemployed, or customers, or how the country as a whole will earn its living in a fractured world. The Trades Union Congress used to lobby to leave the EU. The GMB wants gas boilers, not heat pumps. Some union leaders are now urging the chancellor to postpone defence spending in the Budget. Spending on “foreign wars”, according to Andrea Egan of Unison, “only generates insecurity” — even as Russia tries to sabotage our infrastructure."}],[{"start":307.4,"text":"I wish Healey every success in boosting the confidence of the entrepreneurs, investors and job creators on whom our prosperity rests. This weekend, the clocks will be going back, but only by an hour. In terms of labour relations we seem to be going back by — I hate to say it — 50 years."}],[{"start":324.52,"text":""}]],"url":"https://audio.ftcn.net.cn/album/a_1792823332_9562.mp3"}