New Statesman: announcing our new bloggers

Glosswitch, Martin Robbins, Bim Adewunmi, Ryan Gilbey and Kate Mossman join the "blogging powerhouse".

Five new bloggers today join the New Statesman team, writing about parenting, pop culture, film, music and science. Meet the newest additions to our "blogging powerhouse" (seriously, that's what we called it last time we had newbies). 

Glosswitch

A mother of two, and writer of the Glosswatch blog, she describes herself as a "humourless feminist in mummy blogger clothing". In her previous posts for the NS, she has dared to defend "yummy mummies" and told off Benedict Cumberbatch. She tweets @glosswitch

Go to her blog

Martin Robbins

Author of the Guardian website's Lay Scientist blog, Martin will be writing for the NS about skepticism (and scepticism), the media and sexuality. His posts might sometimes be NSFW, but will always be both entertaining and factual. He tweets @mjrobbins

Go to his blog

Bim Adewunmi

Bim blogs at Yoruba Girl Dancing and The Flick, and she will be writing a weekly column on pop culture and telly. She tweets @bimadew

Go to her blog 

Ryan Gilbey

The New Statesman magazine's film critic now has his own dedicated blog on the site (he's a StumbleUpon crowd favourite). Ryan blogs about films with authority, puns and love. 

Go to his blog

Kate Mossman

The New Statesman magazine's pop critic will be writing an extra weekly piece for the website on "pop" music (whatever that means these days). She recently wrote about the 30th anniversary of Michael Jackson's Thriller, which you can read here.

Go to her blog

Our five new writers join our existing blogging team:

David Allen Green on law Go to his blog

Laurie Penny on politics, pop culture and feminism Go to her blog

Mehdi Hasan on world affairs Go to his blog

The Vagenda on magazines and media Go to their blog

Nicky Woolf from America Go to his blog

Helen Lewis on games, satire and anything else, really Go to her blog

Nelson Jones on belief and religion Go to his blog

Steven Baxter on the media Go to his blog

Rowenna Davis on politics outside Westminster Go to her blog

Gavin Kelly on economics and evidence Go to his blog

Martha Gill on psychology and neuroscience Go to her blog

John Stoehr on US politics Go to his blog

Alex Hern on the internet (it's a series of tubes, apparently) Go to his blog

Michael Brooks on science and discovery Go to his blog

Samira Shackle from Pakistan Go to her blog

Alan White on social affairs and society Go to his blog

Juliet Jacques on culture and counter-culture Go to her blog

Alex Andreou on finance and Europe Go to his blog

Helen Lewis is deputy editor of the New Statesman. She has presented BBC Radio 4’s Week in Westminster and is a regular panellist on BBC1’s Sunday Politics.

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.