A man walks past a job recruitment centre in London, on January 22, 2014. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

More jobs aren't enough - we need better jobs too

For the majority of people, fair pay, flexible working patterns and genuine work-life balance remain an illusion.

The latest batch of labour market statistics appear to offer positive news. Unemployment has fallen, the claimant count is down and the gap between earnings and prices has narrowed. But we are not out of the woods yet - far from it. Dig a bit deeper and the statistics show that the Britain’s labour market has been characterised by profound structural problems for some time, all of which have worsened as a result of the global crisis. The UK is a low-wage, low-skills, long-hours economy, with far too many insecure, poor-quality jobs. For the majority of people, fair pay, flexible working patterns and genuine work-life balance remain an illusion. 

While the profitability of UK companies and executive pay has recovered from the recession, average wages still lag behind the cost of living and are around 6 per cent below what they were in 2007. One in five employees now earn less than the Living Wage (£7.65 outside of London); youth unemployment remains stubbornly high; underemployment is a persistent problem, with 1.4m part-time workers saying that they would like to work full time but cannot find a job. Recent falls in national unemployment disguise stark regional differences, with almost half of all the net employment growth taking place in London and the South East. 

These short-term problems have compounded the difficulties that predate the recession. Wages and salaries for most people have been stagnant for nearly a decade, even while top pay has continued to rise. Despite the National Minimum Wage (and the Living Wage campaign) the numbers of people experiencing in-work poverty has increased. Recent employee surveys also show that British workers are feeling more disengaged, less secure and more pressured at work than at any time since the 1990s. The quantity of employment may have increased during the boom but the quality of employment certainly didn't. 

Work (or the lack of it) can have a big impact on health, life expectancy and the wherewithal to fully participate in society. The way in which low pay impacts on inequalities, family relationships, problem debt and social mobility have been extensively documented. What is less well known is that the quality and nature of today’s jobs present challenges for those on decent earnings too. Work can still be pretty awful even if you are paid decently and have a permanent contract. The world of work has changed dramatically since the days of typing pools and assembly lines employing thousands. The decline of skilled and unskilled male manual work, more managers and professionals, and the rise in the number of women at work; all have transformed the labour market. Many people have benefited from these changes, with more satisfying jobs and career prospects. But at the same time there has been an expansion of low-quality, low-paid, insecure employment (especially for women). We have also seen an increase in low wage self-employment as those made redundant make a virtue of necessity and try working for themselves. These trends are often said to be due to the rapid growth of small businesses which need to be free of employment regulations, yet despite the over-enthusiastic rhetoric about the importance of small firms, three in five employees continues to work for an organisation with more than 250 workers.

There has been greater employment flexibility, for both employers and employees, with a wider range of working patterns enabling people to balance work and their family responsibilities. But at the same time there has been a decline in the level of control people experience at work, the extent of their ability to participate (both individually and collectively) in decision making processes and a consequent decline in the level of trust in senior managers. For the majority working life seems to have got tougher. People report that they are working harder and are subject to more intrusive performance management systems. Even though skill levels have been rising many employees report that they rarely use all their skills in the workplace. One third of the workforce report a recent experience of unfair treatment. Barely a third of employees are committed to the success of their employer’s business.

In most workplaces, employees have no mechanism to influence (or even express views) about the critical decisions affecting working life, which probably explains why we now have the second lowest level of employee participation in the whole of the EU (only Lithuania is worse). This woeful performance in employee "engagement" has been exacerbated by the decline in trade union membership – which has nearly halved since the late 1970s (and even more so in the private sector).

Union decline, while welcomed by many employers, is at least partially responsible for the growth of income inequality. Productivity growth drives wage growth and improvements in living standards; there can be no guarantee that employees will receive their fair share if there is a dramatic difference in bargaining power between workers and their employer. Recent experience proves that all the gains have gone to those at the top of the income scale. There is also evidence to show that giving workers voice boosts productivity and trust in the workplace. A sustainable economy is an economy that guarantees a degree of workplace democracy and a fair distribution of rewards.  Rather than stand aside, should the government help extend the coverage of collective agreements and support fair-wages policies or new forms of worker voice, such as works councils?  

Some of the country’s employment problems are rooted in the structural weakness of UK PLC: our poor labour productivity record (UK output per worker is a long way behind the US and most of the EU), ever-worsening regional divides, a culture of short-termism, and weak corporate governance. Others are a symptom of labour market deregulation and the declining  bargaining power of workers and clout of shareholders. What is important, as we emerge from the depths of recession, is to understand where the world of work is heading and how we can make tomorrow’s workplace better than today’s.    

Over the coming months, I will be leading an independent inquiry for the Smith Institute into working life in Britain. We will be looking at all these issues and taking evidence from workplaces and boardrooms from across the country. We aim to challenge government, employers and unions, to show how they can work in social partnership to create more productive, more inclusive, more secure, and fairer workplaces.

We are now at a crossroads. We can continue with a race to the bottom, reducing labour costs, denying employees a voice and ignoring the rising inequality and insecurity at work. Or we can try and forge a new deal which places a premium on co-operation for excellence, fair pay and higher standards of employment where the best employers are copied by the rest.  

Ed Sweeney is the former chair of Acas and is leading the ‘Making Work Better’ Inquiry for The Smith Institute

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

How the row over Jackie Walker triggered a full-blown war in Momentum

Jon Lansman, the organisation's founder, is coming under attack. 

The battle for control within Momentum, which has been brewing for some time, has begun in earnest.

In a sign of the growing unrest within the organisation – established as the continuation of Jeremy Corbyn’s first successful leadership bid, and instrumental in delivering in his re-election -  a critical pamphlet by the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty (AWL), a Trotskyite grouping, has made its way into the pages of the Times, with the “unelected” chiefs of Momentum slated for turning the organisation into a “bland blur”.

The issue of contention: between those who see Momentum as an organisation to engage new members of the Labour party, who have been motivated by Jeremy Corbyn but are not yet Corbynites.

One trade unionist from that tendency described what they see the problem as like this: “you have people who have joined to vote for Jeremy, they’re going to meetings, but they’re voting for the Progress candidates in selections, they’re voting for Eddie Izzard [who stood as an independent but Corbynsceptic candidate] in the NEC”.  

On the other are those who see a fightback by Labour’s right and centre as inevitable, and who are trying to actively create a party within a party for what they see as an inevitable purge. One activist of that opinion wryly described Momentum as “Noah’s Ark”.

For both sides, Momentum, now financially stable thanks to its membership, which now stands at over 20,000, is a great prize. And in the firing line for those who want to turn Momentum into a parallel line is Jon Lansman, the organisation’s founder.

Lansman, who came into politics as an aide to Tony Benn, is a figure of suspicion on parts of the broad left due to his decades-long commitment to the Labour party. His major opposition within Momentum and on its ruling executive comes from the AWL.

The removal of Jackie Walker as a vice-chair of Momentum after she said that Holocaust Memorial Day belittled victims of other genocides has boosted the AWL, although the AWL's Jill Mountford, who sits on Momentum's ruling executive, voted to remove Walker as vice-chair. (Walker remains on the NEC, as she has been elected by members). But despite that, the AWL, who have been critical of the process whereby Walker lost her post, have felt the benefit across the country.

Why? Because that battle has triggered a series of serious splits, not only in Momentum’s executive but its grassroots. A raft of local groups have thrown out the local leadership, mostly veterans of Corbyn’s campaign for the leadership, for what the friend of one defeated representative described as “people who believe the Canary [a pro-Corbyn politics website that is regularly accused of indulging and promoting conspiracy theories]”.

In a further series of reverses for the Lansmanite caucus, the North West, a Momentum stronghold since the organisation was founded just under a year ago, is slipping away from old allies of Lansman and towards the “new” left. As one insider put it, the transition is from longstanding members towards people who had been kicked out in the late 1980s and early 1990s by Neil Kinnock. The constituency party of Wallasey in particular is giving senior figures in Momentum headaches just as it is their opponents on the right of the party, with one lamenting that they have “lost control” of the group.

It now means that planned changes to Momentum’s structure, which the leadership had hoped to be rubberstamped by members, now face a fraught path to passage.

Adding to the organisation’s difficulties is the expected capture of James Schneider by the leader’s office. Schneider, who appears widely on television and radio as the public face of Momentum and is well-liked by journalists, has an offer on the table to join Jeremy Corbyn’s team at Westminster as a junior to Seumas Milne.

The move, while a coup for Corbyn, is one that Momentum – and some of Corbyn’s allies in the trade union movement – are keen to resist. Taking a job in the leader’s office would reduce still further the numbers of TV-friendly loyalists who can go on the airwaves and defend the leadership. There is frustration among the leader’s office that as well as Diane Abbott and John McDonnell, who are both considered to be both polished media performers and loyalists, TV bookers turn to Ken Livingstone, who is retired and unreliable, and Paul Mason, about whom opinions are divided within Momentum. Some regard Mason as a box office performer who needs a bigger role, others as a liability.

But all are agreed that Schneider’s expected departure will weaken the media presence of Corbyn loyalists and also damage Momentum. Schneider has spent much of his time not wrangling journalists but mediating in local branches and is regarded as instrumental in the places “where Momentum is working well” in the words of one trade unionist. (Cornwall is regarded as a particular example of what the organisation should be aiming towards)

It comes at a time when Momentum’s leadership is keen to focus both on its external campaigns but the struggle for control in the Labour party. Although Corbyn has never been stronger within the party, no Corbynite candidate has yet prevailed in a by-election, with the lack of available candidates at a council level regarded as part of the problem. Councilors face mandatory reselection as a matter of course, and the hope is that a bumper crop of pro-Corbyn local politicians will go on to form the bulk of the talent pool for vacant seats in future by-elections and in marginal seats at the general election.

But at present, a draining internal battle is sapping Momentum of much of its vitality. But Lansman retains two trump cards. The first is that as well as being the founder of the organisation, he is its de facto owner: the data from Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership campaigns, without which much of the organisation could not properly run, is owned by a limited company of which he is sole director. But “rolling it up and starting again” is very much the nuclear option, that would further delay the left’s hopes of consolidating its power base in the party.

The second trump card, however, is the tribalism of many of the key players at a local level, who will resist infiltration by groups to Labour’s left just as fiercely as many on the right. As one veteran of both Corbyn’s campaigns reflected: “If those who have spent 20 years attacking our party think they have waiting allies in the left of Labour, they are woefully mistaken”. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.