Cable fires a warning shot at the bankers (and Osborne)

Business Secretary attacks the banks as "disingenuous in the extreme" for attempting to delay reform

Vince Cable built his reputation in opposition as the hammer of the bankers, so it's no surprise that he's taken exception to their recent behaviour. In an interview in this morning's Times (£), the Business Secretary criticises the "special pleading" of those banks attempting to use the eurozone crisis to delay structural reform. He declares: "It is disingenuous in the extreme to use the current context to argue against reform. Banks are in a way trying to create a panic around something which they know has got to happen".

While the likes of Angela Knight, the chief executive of the British Bankers' Association, argue that reform should be postponed until the economy has recovered, Cable takes a diametrically opposed position: recovery is impossible without reform. As he argues: "The fact that we continue three years after the 2008 crisis to still have anxieties about big financial institutions is all the more reason for grappling with this issue."

In other words, banks' retail and investment arms must be split, or at least ring-fenced, in order to ensure that institutions are no longer "too big to fail". As Mervyn King recently noted in an interview with the Daily Telegraph, it is the knowledge that the state will bail them out "on the downside" that allows banks to pay their staff such extravagant bonuses.

The context for Cable's intervention is the imminent publication (12 September) of the final Vickers report into banking. The Business Secretary is willing to accept the imposition of a ring-fence between banks' retail and investment divisions (the solution proposed by Vickers' interim report and endorsed by George Osborne in his Mansion House speech) but only on the condition that it can be "as effective as a full separation". But while the banks accept that some kind of structural reform is inevitable, they are prepared to do everything in their power to delay it. The fear among Lib Dems is that Osborne is prepared to appease them. As the FT reported earlier this month, the Chancellor is considering a plan to endorse ring-fencing but give banks until 2019 to implement the changes.

Should Osborne agree to an eight-year delay, he will find himself on a collision course with Cable. The Business Secretary accepts that any changes would require legislation and would not take place immediately. But it's safe to say that 2019 is not the date he has in mind. As Lord Oakeshott, Cable's representative on earth, told the Independent: "The banks are like car-makers who say they cannot afford proper brakes. There is no possible excuse for delay. Every day that goes by with no action on the Vickers report puts the British economy at more risk."

Cable's fear is that the banks view the postponement of reform as a prelude to its abandonment. But should the status quo survive, a repeat of the crash is not just possible but inevitable. The stakes could not be higher. For the sake of the economy, Cable must prevail.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

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.