Chance of triple-dip falls on strong UK manufacturing

Eurozone contraction continues.

Markit economics has released PMIs for manufacturing across Europe, offering a snapshot of the state of the sector. It remains in ill-health, but the general picture is of a bottoming-out — it may still be shrinking, but the rate of decline is slowing.

(Standard explanation: PMIs, purchasing managers indices, are based on interviews with purchasing managers in various sectors. They aim to determine the level of activity in those sectors, and present them on a scale where 50 is equal to no change in activity, over 50 means increasing activity, and under 50 means decreasing activity. The indexes are not official measures of activity, but are generally extremely accurate predictors)

Spain enters its 21st straight month with a PMI under 50, but it is steadily rising; the reduction in new orders is slowest since June 2011. It's not good news — it's not even a turning point — but it's less bad news than there has been for a while.


Spanish manufacturing index

A similar story is evident in Italy; again, the manufacturing PMI hit a ten-month high [47.8 up from 46.7], but continued to imply contraction in the sector. While the fall in new orders tapered off, though, the pace of job cuts increased, though Markit reports that, anecdotally, the main reason seems to be non-replacement of voluntary leavers. That's about as good as contraction gets.


Italian manufacturing index

France is the darkest spot in the releases. The index fell to 42.9, indicating rapid contraction, and has been below 50 since the summer of 2011. New orders fell even faster — the sharpest rate since the great recession four years ago — and Markit's Jack Kennedy notes that it "suggests further steep falls in output are likely".


French manufacturing index

Conversly — and demonstrating again the split fortunes that we discussed last year — data for the UK demonstrates mild expansion. A PMI of 50.8, down from 51.2, is not ideal in what is still supposed the rapid upswing as we come out of a recession, but it does hint at continued strength in the sector. More importantly, it calms fears that we may be heading for a triple dip recession.

The rise in domestic manufacturing comes mainly from the continued strength of the consumer goods sector — and is partially offset by a contraction in investment goods. While in the short term the economy doesn't "care" which of those spending is focused on, if manufacturing of investment goods continues to shrink, as it has for the last six months barring a brief spike over the winter, then the hangover will be painful when that lack of investment bites.


UK manufacturing index

George Osborne inspects some manufacturing. More of it is happening now than before. 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.