NaBloPoMo Day 26 - When does unfair become fair?

On a day when British Prime Minister, David Cameron, should have is attention firmly squared upon the Eurozone crisis, a leaked report by Conservative donor, Adrian Beecroft, suggests that the government should repeal legislation that protects workers against unfair dismissal. The report, commissioned by David Cameron, suggests that employment law is holding back economic growth and that in order to encourage business, the laws should be scrapped. In the report, Beecroft says:

"Many regulations conceived in an era of full employment are designed to make employment more attractive to potential employees, That was addressing yesterday's problem. In today's era of a lack of jobs those regulations simply exacerbate the national problem of high unemployment." (Huffingtonpost.co.uk)

I fail to see how keeping someone in a job (whether they are lazy or otherwise) contributes to a problem of high unemployment.

Unemployment law in the UK is very detailed and sometimes complex, but if it is, that is because it has been honed to achieve the best balance between the employer and the employee. Having said that, the dismissal process is relatively straightforward, particularly for unproductive workers. How difficult is it to understand and implement a policy that is as simple as verbal warning, writing warning, final writing warning, out?

In my experience, all too often, unproductive workers are the result of the mismanagement of the employer. I have witnessed first hand an employee that literally sat with his feet up on the desk and got away with it over and over because the manager failed to follow the correct procedure for dismissal. Why did this happen? It wasn't because the law was ineffective, it was because the manager didn't want to deal with the problem and, when threatened by the employee (with an employment tribunal), didn't understand the process and the law enough to be confident to proceed.

While the employee must take responsibility for their own actions (or inaction),  the employer must take responsibility for addressing those problems. Individuals must be given a fair opportunity to reverse the negative behavior and improve their performance. Existing laws ensure that all employees receive due process when being dismissed and that they have a right of appeal. Even with laws as they are now, anyone can be sacked for any reason; it's just a matter of cost!

I have also witnessed first hand someone being summarily dismissed because the manager wanted to replace them with a friend, so it's not as if unfair dismissal doesn't still happen, even with the laws in place.


If there was ever any doubt that the Tories have changed for the better, this report removes it in one fell swoop. They are the party of the rich and the party of business and they have once again demonstrated how, despite a young, fresh image, and a selection of moderate policies, the party is the same old wolf wearing the same old sheep-skin rug and hoping no-one will notice. But we have noticed.

I understand the motivation and I even understand the principles on which Conservative policies are founded - small government, less tax etc. But the problem with small government (ie. repealing laws and removing government and civil justice responsibility) is that it is always the guy at the bottom of the ladder that suffers. After all, shit falls downwards.

Beecroft goes on to say in the report that:


"The downside of the proposal is that some people would be dismissed simply because their employer did not like them," and adds "While this is sad I believe it is a price worth paying for all the benefits that would result from change." (Huffingtonpost.co.uk)


The unjust sacking of even one hard-working individual is a price that I am simply unwilling to pay. Mainly because that person could, one-day, be me. We need more job security in a recession, not less and I'm pretty sure if Beecroft or David Cameron had normal jobs, this idea would never have been thought of, never mind actually making it to consideration. .

A Fee Too Far?

Students protest in London (BBC News)

I feel fortunate that I am not an MP today, and even more fortunate that, way-back-when actually governing seemed like a distant pipe-dream, I didn't sign any sort of pledge to abolish tuition fees. I'm sure it seemed like a good idea at the time but some Liberal Democrats are learning the hard way that photo opportunities (like the tutition fee pledge) sometimes come back to haunt you. Today, our nation's Liberal Democrat parliamentary representatives will face one of the most politically challenging decisions of their careers when they face a vote on proposed changes to higher education funding.

Under the new scheme, the cap on tuition fees would be increased to £9,000 per year (up from around £3,200). This is to offset changes under the deficit reduction plan that will see cuts of at least 40% to university funding. Essentially, the weight of responsibility for university funding will be shifted from the taxpayer to the graduate. While this might seem frightening (particularly when you consider a typical degree will take three years, incurring up to £27,000 of debt for the graduate before they have even taken a job), plans have been put in place to try and alleviate the burden. First and foremost, under the proposed scheme, students will not have to pay anything up front, thereby maintaining the accessibility of university education. Secondly, no graduate will pay a penny until they are earning £21,000 per annum (with this threshold increasing annually according to the rate of inflation). Once graduates do start paying back their fees, they will pay only 9% per month. While this might seem alot, it ensures that higher earners will pay more back, and will pay more quickly than those on lower incomes. Finally, the debt will be written off after 30 years so no-one will be lumbered with the burden indefinitely.

Happily, having never made any election promise pertaining to tutition fees, I feel secure in stating for posterity that I am in favour of the new proposals and that, if I were an MP today, I would vote accordingly. While I baulk at the thought of students accumulating debt to the tune of almost thirty grand, I acknowledge that present circumstances prohibit even the status quo, never mind abolishing fees altogether. Present circumstances include the fact that we are in coalition and must compromise with our Conservative colleagues, allowing them to meet some of their election pledges at the same time as meeting some of our own. We have, and will continue to achieve some of our manifesto policies, but abolishing tuition fees was never going to be possible in a coalition, either with the Conservatives or with Labour. Furthermore, the previous government has left the country with a much greater deficit than even the most pessimistic estimates predicted. As a result, cuts have had to be deeper and more immediate than we believed was the case during the election period. (Welcome to the world of Labour lies.) Either way, the simple truth at the end of the day is that there are more important spending priorities, including health and schools, than ensuring a free university education for anyone that wants it. I would, of course, prefer not to increase tuition fees at all and would love to be in a position to guarantee free higher education to all but, facing budget cuts, universities have to be allowed to charge students higher fees. If they are not allowed to do so, it will not be a reduced uptake for students from poorer backgrounds that we face, or a generation of students in a debt crisis; it will be a generation of students fighting for a greatly reduced number of university places and this benefits no-one.

In addition, there is the greater debate of whether it is right for the taxpayer to fully fund higher education. I have found very few people that believe the taxpayer should shoulder the burden alone, but most of the people I have discussed it with are cautious about increasing fees to the proposed £9k. It seems therefore that the problem is not the fees themselves but the number. £9,000 is still a lot of money to most people, especially multiplied three times. Generally, however, I have found a lot of support for the new proposals, especially when people come to understand that those who earn less will pay less. Most people seem convinced that higher education should not be pervue of the taxpayer.

This debate fundamentally differs in England than in Scotland where there is a cultural tradition of free education. I know my Dad is very much against tuition fees, but I haven't discussed with enough Scots to get a reasonable grasp of public feeling north of the border.

Either way, the choice in government today is simple: increase the cap on tuition fees and ensure funding security for universities, or maintain the status quo on tuition fees and doom thousands of youngsters to a future where there is no university place for them at all. There is no question of whether we should abolish tuition fees or not, because it is not achievable in coalition. Faced with these choices, I believe the proposals are progressive and I therefore support them. I believe that students will be better off in the long-run and that the policy has greatly benefitted from the influence of the Liberal Democrats in government. Without this influence, the cap would probably have been lifted altogether and I doubt that any of the measures to ensure accessibility for students from poorer backgrounds would have been part of the policy.

Of course, if I were an MP today, I may well have got there by signing a pledge or campaigning on the principle of abolishing tuition fees, in which case my views are quite different. For those who have made promises, particularly by signing pledges, the situation is very much more complex. It is clear that some MPs will feel bound to vote against the proposals, regardless of any merits. I personally feel that an MP's duty is first, to their constituents and second to the government as a whole. MP's are there to represent the people that elected them so if a candidate stated that they would oppose any increase in tuition fees, in simple terms, they risk betraying their electorate if they vote in favour of the proposals. There is a question about whether this individual policy was crucial in each individual campaign and how many constituents realistically support the abolition of tuition fees, as politics is anything but simple, so it will therefore be a matter of conscience for some Liberal Democrat MPs and I leave it to them to determine how best to represent their constituency. However, I would personally discourage abstention as 'the cowards way out'.

My final concern is how the Liberal Democrat party will be perceived after this crucial vote. In coalition with the Conservatives, I always feared that we would come off worse. It is harder for our credibility to survive compromise with the defense "it would've been worse without us" than it is for the Conservatives, who will convince right wing supporters that their more moderate policies are all our doing. I would like to think that four years down the line people will be better off and recognise our influence in bringing that prosperity. It is particularly difficult to think positively in a firestorm of negative media coverage and also difficult to think positively when the future of the nation is hurling missiles and injuring police in violent protests. How representative of voter feeling these protests are remains to be seen. After all, Labour promised not to introduce tuition fees and did, and pledged not to increase them and did, and they survived in government for over a decade. I think as long as we can maintain our identity as Liberal Democrats and ride out media interest without being seen to be weak, we will get-by.