Separating the Wheatley from the chaff

Martin Wheatley is to head the FCA.

On Wednesday Martin Wheatley, who will head up the FCA (the new incarnation of the FSA), made a stirring speech championing the consumer.  At last there appears to be someone with the guts to challenge the "weeds" that have propagated at the FSA.  The biblical reference "to separate the wheat from the chaff" from Matthew 3, means to separate things of value from things of no value; and the serial failings of the FSA has proven they have no value when it comes to consumer protection.

But let us not rejoice just yet, for while Mr Wheatley's speech is excellent news, the FCA will be judged on its actions, not just its words. We have now seen years of procrastination and dithering from various regulators, including the IMA and the FSA and we urgently need statutory guidelines to ensure full transparency that will lead to vastly improved investor and saver outcomes.

Whilst his comments suggest he intends to show strong leadership and tackle hidden charges and fund fund fees at the FCA, Martin Wheatley is not going to have an easy job and is going to be heavily interventionist if he is to succeed. The industry is only just beginning to step reluctantly in the direction of giving greater transparency.  There are very mixed messages still circulating in the industry, causing yet more confusion for savers and investors. The most recent example being the IMA’s Annual Asset Management Report, issued this month, which stated that “investment clients are paying fund fees of a fraction over 0.3 per cent across the board”. This completely ludicrous claim puts efforts to regain consumer trust in financial products and the financial services sector back several years.

In my view, strong, clear leadership, a single industry standard on transparency of fees and charging, and a standardised method of reporting all costs and fees via one single total cost of investing number are essential steps to ensure consumers know the full price they will pay for investment products prior to purchase. 

However we also need to address other anti-consumer practices (which we have been highlighted by the True and Fair Campaign) including the failure to give full disclosure to consumers on where their money is invested; closet index tracking by active funds; fund mislabelling and mis-classification and conflicts of interest in stock lending.

There is much to do to improve the shockingly low standards of investor and saver protection in the UK.  Change is long overdue and must come soon, otherwise we risk further alienating savers and investors and damaging the financial services industry, and the UK economy. Martin Wheatley’s comments are extremely welcomed but we urge stakeholders to keep a watchful eye out for early action from the FCA to honour this pledge to give genuine transparency.

Gina Miller is the founding partner of SCM Private LLP and spearhead of the True and Fair Campaign. www.trueandfaircampaign.com

 

Martin Wheatley. Photograph: Getty Images

Gina Miller is the founding partner of SCM Direct and spearhead of the True and Fair Campaign. www.trueandfaircampaign.com

Getty
Show Hide image

There's nothing Luddite about banning zero-hours contracts

The TUC general secretary responds to the Taylor Review. 

Unions have been criticised over the past week for our lukewarm response to the Taylor Review. According to the report’s author we were wrong to expect “quick fixes”, when “gradual change” is the order of the day. “Why aren’t you celebrating the new ‘flexibility’ the gig economy has unleashed?” others have complained.

Our response to these arguments is clear. Unions are not Luddites, and we recognise that the world of work is changing. But to understand these changes, we need to recognise that we’ve seen shifts in the balance of power in the workplace that go well beyond the replacement of a paper schedule with an app.

Years of attacks on trade unions have reduced workers’ bargaining power. This is key to understanding today’s world of work. Economic theory says that the near full employment rates should enable workers to ask for higher pay – but we’re still in the middle of the longest pay squeeze for 150 years.

And while fears of mass unemployment didn’t materialise after the economic crisis, we saw working people increasingly forced to accept jobs with less security, be it zero-hours contracts, agency work, or low-paid self-employment.

The key test for us is not whether new laws respond to new technology. It’s whether they harness it to make the world of work better, and give working people the confidence they need to negotiate better rights.

Don’t get me wrong. Matthew Taylor’s review is not without merit. We support his call for the abolishment of the Swedish Derogation – a loophole that has allowed employers to get away with paying agency workers less, even when they are doing the same job as their permanent colleagues.

Guaranteeing all workers the right to sick pay would make a real difference, as would asking employers to pay a higher rate for non-contracted hours. Payment for when shifts are cancelled at the last minute, as is now increasingly the case in the United States, was a key ask in our submission to the review.

But where the report falls short is not taking power seriously. 

The proposed new "dependent contractor status" carries real risks of downgrading people’s ability to receive a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. Here new technology isn’t creating new risks – it’s exacerbating old ones that we have fought to eradicate.

It’s no surprise that we are nervous about the return of "piece rates" or payment for tasks completed, rather than hours worked. Our experience of these has been in sectors like contract cleaning and hotels, where they’re used to set unreasonable targets, and drive down pay. Forgive us for being sceptical about Uber’s record of following the letter of the law.

Taylor’s proposals on zero-hours contracts also miss the point. Those on zero hours contracts – working in low paid sectors like hospitality, caring, and retail - are dependent on their boss for the hours they need to pay their bills. A "right to request" guaranteed hours from an exploitative boss is no right at all for many workers. Those in insecure jobs are in constant fear of having their hours cut if they speak up at work. Will the "right to request" really change this?

Tilting the balance of power back towards workers is what the trade union movement exists for. But it’s also vital to delivering the better productivity and growth Britain so sorely needs.

There is plenty of evidence from across the UK and the wider world that workplaces with good terms and conditions, pay and worker voice are more productive. That’s why the OECD (hardly a left-wing mouth piece) has called for a new debate about how collective bargaining can deliver more equality, more inclusion and better jobs all round.

We know as a union movement that we have to up our game. And part of that thinking must include how trade unions can take advantage of new technologies to organise workers.

We are ready for this challenge. Our role isn’t to stop changes in technology. It’s to make sure technology is used to make working people’s lives better, and to make sure any gains are fairly shared.

Frances O'Grady is the General Secretary of the TUC.