The trouble with triangulation… September 18, 2012
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Economy.trackback
Here’s a particularly mad example of how triangulation and splitting the difference can still lead to right of centre outcomes in political policy making. There’s been a lot of rhetoric about the Beecroft Report on employment law in the UK, in which the idea of ‘no-fault dismissal’ was put forward. Given that the UK has already what is acknowledged to be one of the most ‘flexible’ labour markets already some would have wondered what possible use this would have. But no, the idea that labour protections were providing a ‘disincentive’ for companies to take on staff was raised to something of a trope.
Anyhow, this from the Guardian, business secretary Vince Cable while ‘resisting pressure’ to go for the no-fault dismissal line has:
The business secretary will instead back a voluntary scheme in which employers and staff can sign settlement agreements that would allow an employee to leave a company with a good reference providing they waived their right to pursue unfair dismissal proceedings at a tribunal. The agreements will come into force next summer.
And…
The maximum £72,000 compensation cap for unfair dismissal is to be slashed as part of a package of measures designed to remove disincentives from employers to take on new staff. The new cap may be set at the employee’s annual salary, or another lower figure.
But what sort of a disincentive is this compensation cap that businesses tremble in fear at its implementation?
[£72k is] the current maximum – though awarded in only 1% or 2% of cases a ye
ar
And note this:
Cable’s aides were anxious not to sound triumphalist in rejecting the central plank of the Beecroft report, stressing that 80% of his recommendations had been adopted or were now subject to consultation. Tory ministers and the Institute of Directors were also content with the outcome.
No doubt. The terrain is softened up for the next onslaught – perhaps, though one hopes not if polls are to be believed, a successor single party Tory government. A solution for a problem that does not exist.
I see also that the Tories now want to create special fastlane ‘rich-only’ queues at the immigration checkpoints that they’re ordinarily so fond of.
In my capacity as the Canute of comment in NI, here is my take on Beechroft in Agenda NI
http://www.agendani.com/trades-union-profile-dont-blame-red-tape
also here: http://www.agendani.com/policy-based-evidence-making
Employment Law is devolved in NI, and the first stage of a consultation has passed. For anoraks, here is the trade unions’ response to the ‘pre-consultation’ which contains some useful arguments and, for the sake of novelty, facts.
http://www.ictuni.org/publications/nicictu-response-to-del-employment-law-20-july-2012/
In summary:
“The Department for Employment and Learning is presently engaged in a consultation on employment law, a devolved matter for Northern Ireland. DEL’s ‘discussion paper’ summarises the debate in GB and asks if the changes being introduced there should apply here. They summarise the common arguments made by the Tories and their funders (such as Adrian Beecroft) and ask for any evidence that (a) we want it here in Northern Ireland and (b) that slashing employment protection will result in more efficient firms and increased employment.
“The thing is, there is no such evidence. The DEL paper is full of caveats such as “it is not possible to directly quantify the likely impact on business confidence and in turn on hiring behaviour”, or “there is a lack of robust evidence, other than anecdotally”, or, “the Department is unaware of any concrete evidence either for or against the proposal.”
“Instead, the proponents of these changes point to rigged polls of tiny numbers of bosses, such as those concocted by the CBI and IoD with this agenda in mind. On BBC’s Newsnight, an exasperated Jeremy Paxman scornfully dismissed a Tory MP’s case thus: “Those are opinions. That is not the same thing as evidence.” But opinion is good enough for some; repeated surveys are showing that regular viewers of Murdoch’s Fox News know less about current affairs than people who watch no news at all.
“Not that such shaky foundations prevented the Tory press turning the prejudices of an old asset-stripper like Adrian Beecroft into the pillars of job creation. The real question is how, and in whose interests?…”
…and…
“Among those who prefer evidence to prejudice is John Van Reenen, Director of the Centre for Economic Performance (CEP), and professor of economics at the London School of Economics. “Beecroft appears to have ignored the wealth of research into the economic effects of employment laws. This evidence goes against his view that relaxing employment laws will generate large economic improvements in the UK,” he said.
“The most depressing thing about the report and the rancorous public debate around it is the total lack of any evidence on the likely impact of the proposals. Beecroft claimed that GDP would increase by 5 per cent through employment law reforms – a huge increase which would restore UK output from its current position of under 4 per cent below 2008 output, back to pre-crisis levels. Unfortunately, this 5 per cent appears to be plucked from thin air, as if by witchcraft. There is no evidence presented at all in the Beecroft report to gauge such benefits.”
“Nor is there evidence that Vince Cable is a ‘socialist’ because he dared to dissent from Beecroft on one issue. What is concerning is that most Lib Dems think that most of what Beecroft claims is right and proper. Back in the old days of Fleet Street, there used to be a common warning among journalists who thought that left-ish newspapers were better employers than Tory rags: “Never trust a liberal, son. They’ll sack you on Christmas Eve.” (Perfectly solid advice, based upon my own freelance experience)…”