In the third article of a new series, Quentin Colborn, an independent HR consultant looks at the looming General Election and examines why it is that all the red-tape is turning businesses off hiring workers.
Well, it looks as if the election is now upon us and the various claims and counterclaims will soon be coming thick and fast from the parties. One priority, among many, that is being espoused is the need to cut bureaucracy and red-tape. But what would be the impact on HR if this ever happened? Indeed is there too much red-tape?
Rules involving the employment of people have existed for a surprisingly long time. In 1726 the Better Regulation of the Woollen Manufacture Act declared that all disputes and demands relating to work and wages between manufacturers and weavers or other persons employed should be heard and determined by two or more justices of the peace, and that any person aggrieved by their decision should appeal to the next General Quarter session. So who said tribunals were new!
While employment laws may not be as regulated as some parts of Europe, I wonder whether these obligations have gone too far.
Do the current battery of rules and regulations act as a disincentive to recruit staff and do they really add to worker protection? Certainly I hear suggestions that within some businesses, managers will not recruit women in case they go off on maternity leave, while we know this is neither right legally or morally we all know that these things do go on sometimes.
My view is that we have now got to a situation where adherence to process may take precedence over adherence to fairness. This surely can’t be right. In my work I meet many smaller business owners who are highly concerned about ensuring they follow all the requirements of legislation and are genuinely worried in case they make a genuine mistake and end up at an Employment Tribunal as a consequence.
There are virtually no areas of employment law now where size of operation automatically means a different level of compliance, but is this right? Certainly on one hand there is a strong argument that whatever the size of the business, the employee should receive the same level of protection.
On the other hand though I genuinely believe that with less regulation there may be more employment opportunities. I had a conversation at the weekend with a friend who runs a small, specialist garage and he was adamant that he did not want to recruit anyone because of the legislation surrounding employment – even my best attempts at persuading him otherwise, failed.
Don’t think though that I am advocating a completely free market when it comes to employment issues – there are many cases of dreadful treatment of employees. In the course of my work I support a number of businesses who want to improve how they handle people matters within the working environment, I don’t normally act as an advocate for individuals but sometimes people come to me asking if I can help them.
One recent case involved an employee with 14 years service who was physically assaulted by his boss as a result of an argument over a girlfriend. While also a police matter, it was a clear case of constructive dismissal and in situations like that, regardless of the size of the business; the book needs to be thrown at the employer.
But what about the penalties? A basic award is based on a salary of £280 per week (£14,560 pa) – surely that is far too low in today’s economy. Why have a weekly pay cap at all?
What I would like to see is an easing of employment regulation – especially in the area of process but make the compensation really count in the bad cases. Get rid of any maximum weekly wage and empower tribunals to make unlimited awards, as is already the case in discrimination claims. That way we will protect the rights of individuals while making the process of employment less burdensome.
Colborn’s Corner: series articles
