Labour & Employment Rights 1997-2024. Is it the same old song?
Labour’s Employment Bill has now been published. In some cases it won’t be until the autumn of 2026 before some measures become law. Even so there are welcome changes, things the Tories would never do. At the same time it has been described as more full of holes tnan Swiss cheese on things like zero hours contracts and day one employment rights.
Starmer has rebuked Transport Secretary Lou Haigh for saying that she boycotts notorious fire and rehirer P&O. Starmer seems to think they have changed their approach or perhaps when he says it will be a pro-business, pro-worker Government it’s the former that takes precedence.
We have been here before and some of the key players remain influential. The 1997 Labour Government headed by Blair promised to address the years of Tory anti-union laws by reinstating what it claimed would be a level playing field at work. The bigger issue was the introduction of a National Minimum Wage. This was opposed by many business interests on the basis that it could not be afforded, would not work and so on. However it was implemented and remains in force, albeit many would argue it should be higher.
The second was a Parliamentary Act on Employment Relations. Its notable that this did not become law until July 1999. It was not seen as a priority and there was a fair bit of time spent listening to business about it. It did not repeal any Tory anti-union law(as the new Act will in part) but instead gave legal force to trade union recognition and representation. It was a step forward from the Thatcher years but a very modest one. Arguably the 2024 Bill goes somewhat further, again welcome while keeping in mind that the proof of the pudding is in the eating..
Cabinet Papers available at the National Archives give an indication to what went on in 1997.
In the autumn of 1997 there is a file note of what is described as a ‘long and fractious discussion’ between Tony Blair and John Prescott on Fairness at Work. Prescott said that changes had been bought as a package by the TUC and if changes were planned this would need to be agreed by the Cabinet. Blair responded that the changes were practical ones because of what he claimed were genuine problems in how they would work. Blair wanted to allow a right of appeal to the measure, eventually implemented, which would mean that if 50% of workers voted for union recognition it would be automatically given. Prescott again argued that he did not think what the TUC had put forward was up for negotiation.
Employment rights were not part of Prescott’s Ministerial brief and the matter does not appear again until we find a file note from Peter Mandelson on 9th March 1998. It says ‘Union Recognition. Moving in the direction of the CBI. Ideal response for the TUC to be grumpy but not refuse to co-operate’.
Both Blair and Mandelson are of course still around and still influential. They have form on union rights so before Starmer’s changes are trumpeted it will be prudent to keep a close eye on what they are up to.
We can see the issue with Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves. She has no experience in private sector industry at all but told the Times (25th April 2024) that the next Labour Government will be even more pro-business than Blair. When it comes to reforms to employment law she is listening to the concerns of business and there is no rush.
Additionally she claims that the people who understand what it takes to unlock business investment are of course business leaders. One might think that those who actually do the work know something about this, trade unionists who fund the Labour Party. It also sounds very 1997, but it need not be. It depends what campaigning pressure can be brought to the matter.
Leave a Reply