The Tories are still lying about "a million" new private sector jobs

The party still won't admit that Cameron is including 196,000 posts reclassified from the public sector.

Earlier this week, I explained why David Cameron is misleading voters when he claims that "one million" private sector jobs have been created since the coalition took office (as he did in his conference speech and at this week's PMQs). Cameron's figure deceptively includes 196,000 further education and sixth form college posts reclassified from the public sector in March; the real figure is a less impressive 874,000 (1,070,000 minus 196,000). As the Office for National Statistics stated in its most recent release:

These educational bodies employed 196,000 people in March 2012 and the reclassification therefore results in a large fall in public sector employment and a corresponding large increase in private sector employment between March and June 2012.

When Conservative MP Claire Perry nevertheless trotted out the stat on last night's Question Time, I called her out on it. In response, the Tory Treasury team tweeted:

Yet the only way that the Tories can achieve a figure of a million, whilst excluding the reclassified posts, is by measuring the rise in private sector employment since quarter one of 2010. In other words, by using pre-election data from April and May 2010 (resulting in a figure of 1,377,000). This would be allowable if Cameron referred to "private sector job creation since March 2010" (noting, perhaps, how Alistair Darling's fiscal stimulus aided job creation), but he doesn't. In his speech to the Conservative conference, he said:

Since this government took office, over one million new jobs have been created in the private sector.

Despite the Tories' protestations, it's clear that Cameron is misleadingly including the 196,000 posts transferred from the public sector. For one thing, if he isn't, why doesn't he use the figure of 1,377,000?

After promising a new era of accuracy and transparency in statistics, the Tories have lamentably failed to deliver.

David Cameron at the Conservative conference in Birmingham earlier this month. Photograph: Getty Images.

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.