Either we’re at war or all in it together – not both
January 16th, 2012 by Katherine Trebeck Posted in Corporate Social Responsibility, Fairness, Labour rights, Unemployment, Wellbeing
Our Prime Minister has kicked off 2012 by announcing a pledge to half the amount of red-tape and calling health and safety laws a ‘monster’. This is part of a promise he made last year to wage ‘war’ on the enemies of enterprise. Hardly appropriate language, in that he is implicitly equating bureaucrats with other targets of government ‘wars’ – terrorists and drug dealers.
The reason why this language jars so badly is that there seems to be an assumption that what’s good for business is automatically good for us all; that we just need to work for the best interest of businesses, elevate their interests above all other concerns and all will be fine. It is that easy, apparently.
But this assumption is trickle-down economics at its laziest and least effective.
Cameron’s declaration of a ‘war on the enemies of enterprise’ also assumes that impositions on business (such as health and safety laws) are inherently a bad thing and accordingly that businesses should be as unencumbered by social concerns as possible (that is, as much as the people will tolerate).
Sadly, and dangerously, in reality this risks undermining rules and regulations that keep our businesses humane. Laws that ensure acceptable levels of minimum pay, safe working conditions and prevent exploitation. As Ha-Joon Chang reminds us, child labour is outlawed because as a society we see it as abhorrent. Yet our continued tolerance of poverty-wages – to the extent that we essentially subsidise them through the in-work tax credit system – suggests we’re still all too intimidated by businesses.
Of course we need jobs, and of course we need enterprises to deliver the goods and services that meet our needs.
But surely we as a society (and perhaps even our political leaders…?) are sophisticated enough to understand that we need to be a bit more nuanced in calling for growth, business, jobs. We need good jobs, jobs that mean a movement out of poverty, jobs that allow employees to balance their caring responsibilities and community engagement, jobs that deliver progression and skills.
And we need good quality enterprises doing good quality activities that match our vision of what sort of society and economy we want to be and that deliver social and environmental sustainability. And of course, enterprises that pay their taxes.
So we need to be less precious about businesses, and just a wee bit more demanding about what sort of activities they undertake and the way they carry out their activities (for example, through community benefit clauses in procurement, through how we reward and invest and through the social and regulatory structures in which we allow them to operate).
Let us never, ever forget that the economy should be the servant of the people, not the other way around.
4 Responses to “Either we’re at war or all in it together – not both”
By Stuart Mutch on Jan 16, 2012
Could not have said it better myself
By Doris Eikhof on Jan 19, 2012
Agree completely – but let’s also not forget that many business people would actually agree as well. Yes, there are some ruthless figures out there, but a substantive share are anything but foul-hearted exploiters of human capital. THAT’s why Cameron’s choice of words is so dangerous: it creates and perpetuates a climate in which it is difficult for business people to speak up for serving both business and people without sounding like they are turning on their own profession (same is true for Sir Alan’s rhetoric in the apprentice, BTW).
When are we and, crucially, today’s business students, finally going to hear from those business people who actually do serve the people, daily and out of conviction, without any real concern about the “red tape” that is apparently so dangerous and with an appreciation of “the rules and regulations that keep business humane” that is so deep rooted they don’t bother spelling it out? These people do exist and I dearly wish Cameron’s spin doctors weren’t so effective at shutting them up!
By Geoff Fagan on Jan 20, 2012
My father in law was in a cage crash before the pits were brought into public ownership in the late forties. He was one of only two that got out alive: neither got compensation and both suffered shattered Femurs. We must not go back to those days of profit before the safety of people.
By Joana Martinho on Jan 25, 2012
Stuart – thank you! And do keep reading our blog…
Doris, thank you very much for your comment. We agree completely and we think (hope!) that those that own businesses and actually care have opportunities to engage with their communities (and to become an example to other businesses). If you’re interested in Oxfam’s ideas on the relationship between employers and employees, have a look at our recent discussion paper, “When Work Won’t Pay”, where we discuss the Living Wage, labour rights, and pay ratios, among other things. You can also have a look at the outputs of our Whose Economy seminars, which gathered policy makers, businesses and citizens to discuss how to change the Scottish economy to make it benefit everyone, rather than only certain sectors. You can find the papers produced here.
Geoff, thank you for reading your blog. We’re sorry to hear about your father in law’s injury, and we share your concern – in hard economic times (such as today’s recession) it might become harder to protect workers’ rights but hopefully this time there won’t be a regression. Oxfam believes everyone has the right to decent work – if you’re interested in knowing more about Oxfam’s ideas on it, please have a look at our “When Work Won’t Pay” discussion paper (link above).