G7shambles continues

G7 <strike>attempts</strike> <strike>desperately scrambles</strike> utterly fails to find unity.

Yesterday's G7-shambles was only the beginning.

First, there was the statement co-signed, apparently, by all G7 nations, which appeared to support Japan's efforts to depress the Yen. Accordingly, the Yen fell slightly against the dollar.

Then, headlines on Bloomberg — attributed to "G7 OFFICAL" — suggested that that interpretation was exactly backwards. The statement was supposed to be a condemnation of Japan's alleged currency manipulation. And when that happened, the Yen soared:

Then a third official — British, this time, because it was us who put together the joint statement and the Bank of England which published it — said that no, it wasn't meant to be interpreted as "about an individual country or currency", and could we all just stop fretting please? Needless to say, that didn't go down brilliantly either.

The whole thing led to one of the most telling updates to a news headline I've ever seen, as the FT's "G7 attempts to defuse currency tensions" became "G7 fails to defuse currency tensions".

The whole move was an attempt to take a lead as the G7 governments arrive in Moscow for the G20 meeting this weekend, as Mark Carney, the next governor of the Bank of England, explained to the Canadian House of Commons yesterday:

We signed a statement, the minister of finance and I, ... which reaffirmed the commitment of the G7 to ensure that monetary policy is focused on domestic objectives, not on targeting exchange rates. And we hold the members of the G7 to that long-standing position. It is extremely important.

It's important that we as a G7 go in united and forcefully to the G20 to enlarge that commitment as quickly as possible amongst the major emerging economies in the G20, some of whom entirely ascribe to flexible exchange rates and are supportive, others who have a lot of work to do.

That seems less and less likely to be the case now. The goal for the G7 has receded from presenting a united face in order to convince developing economies of the benefits of free exchange rates, to just trying to get its own house in order.

*facepalm*. Photograph: Getty Images

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Getty
Show Hide image

How tribunal fees silenced low-paid workers: “it was more than I earned in a month”

The government was forced to scrap them after losing a Supreme Court case.

How much of a barrier were employment tribunal fees to low-paid workers? Ask Elaine Janes. “Bringing up six children, I didn’t have £20 spare. Every penny was spent on my children – £250 to me would have been a lot of money. My priorities would have been keeping a roof over my head.”

That fee – £250 – is what the government has been charging a woman who wants to challenge their employer, as Janes did, to pay them the same as men of a similar skills category. As for the £950 to pay for the actual hearing? “That’s probably more than I earned a month.”

Janes did go to a tribunal, but only because she was supported by Unison, her trade union. She has won her claim, although the final compensation is still being worked out. But it’s not just about the money. “It’s about justice, really,” she says. “I think everybody should be paid equally. I don’t see why a man who is doing the equivalent job to what I was doing should earn two to three times more than I was.” She believes that by setting a fee of £950, the government “wouldn’t have even begun to understand” how much it disempowered low-paid workers.

She has a point. The Taylor Review on working practices noted the sharp decline in tribunal cases after fees were introduced in 2013, and that the claimant could pay £1,200 upfront in fees, only to have their case dismissed on a technical point of their employment status. “We believe that this is unfair,” the report said. It added: "There can be no doubt that the introduction of fees has resulted in a significant reduction in the number of cases brought."

Now, the government has been forced to concede. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Unison’s argument that the government acted unlawfully in introducing the fees. The judges said fees were set so high, they had “a deterrent effect upon discrimination claims” and put off more genuine cases than the flimsy claims the government was trying to deter.

Shortly after the judgement, the Ministry of Justice said it would stop charging employment tribunal fees immediately and refund those who had paid. This bill could amount to £27m, according to Unison estimates. 

As for Janes, she hopes low-paid workers will feel more confident to challenge unfair work practices. “For people in the future it is good news,” she says. “It gives everybody the chance to make that claim.” 

Julia Rampen is the digital news editor of the New Statesman (previously editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog). She has also been deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines.