We Need an Approach to Manufacturing That Is Less ‘Arthur Daley’


Jeremy Corbyn’s election as Labour leader and Angela Eagle’s appointment as the new shadow secretary of state for Business, Innovation and Skills heralds in new political times.

Up against Sajid Javid, her opposite number in government, during the debate on its draconian Trade Union bill, Angela has already shown her mettle.

With recent figures showing industrial output diving sharply, a widening trade deficit and a nine per cent fall in the export of goods, especially in the chemicals and manufacturing sectors, she put him right on where government priorities should lie:

“I am dismayed that we have a government which believes in attacking trade unions rather than working with them in the spirit of social partnership to improve economic efficiency and productivity in our country.”

We have a government and a chancellor of the exchequer, George Osborne, who devotes too much time on political tactics and point scoring instead of coming to grips in formulating a coherent industrial and manufacturing strategy.

Our message remains that for the UK economy to prosper there has to be a rebalancing of the economy away from an over reliance on the service and finance sectors – to a strong manufacturing base.

‘Going all in’ and ‘betting the house’ on China, to coin a poker phrase, will not on its own deliver the much vaunted rebalancing of the economy, especially given the Chinese stock market’s recent volatility.

While Osborne woos the Chinese for investment his ‘march of the makers’ has been in full reverse for a number of years, there is confusion about the Apprenticeship Levy – and Mr. Javid in his proposals to improve productivity tells the world it takes UK workers five days to produce what German workers produce in four without any explanation as to why!

Germany is seen not only as a powerhouse of European manufacturing activity it is rightly held up as a global force.

What Mr. Javid doesn’t get is that German productivity is high because employers and the government respect and works with trade unions. Companies inform and consult with workers and unions. Chancellor Angela Merkel has no problems in sitting down and talking to German unions, they have a stable and quality apprenticeship and training culture alongside support for the ‘Mittelstand’ – the small and medium sized businesses in the all important supply chain.

Plus German manufacturing companies didn’t break up their skilled workforces in the bad times – they worked with unions to take the tough decisions.

In a fast moving globalised world the current trading system in the UK is complex and fragmented. Germany pulls the relevant bodies, including government, business and the unions, together. They have an export strategy that is lacking in the UK.

article-0-1A660BD900000578-232_634x553Compare all this with Cameron, Osborne, Javid and business minister Nick Boles: The board of directors of Union Bashers Inc. with no industrial strategy, running the economy on the back of a fag packet skimming the bottom line like latter day Arthur Daley’s.

As Len McCluskey, Unite’s general secretary said: “Raising the productivity of UK manufacturing and commerce is one of the big economic challenges of the next decade. One way that this can be achieved is if ministers stopped attacking trade unions as the enemy within.

“Instead of regarding the trade unions, which have more than six million members, as a stumbling block for productivity progress, they should see unions as partners in productivity.”

On the eve of the Labour conference Unite will be arguing that investment and an end to austerity economics will boost productivity. Jeremy Corbyn along with Angela Eagle’s new shadow team in Business, Innovation and Skills now need to develop a manufacturing and industrial strategy based on decent, stable work; the ability for the workforce and unions to have a say in their companies and industries, a gold standard apprenticeship system and support for SMEs.

Germany does not lead the rest of the world by bashing unions, cutting pay and developing an army of agency and zero hours contracts workers. It does it by having a high skills, high pay economy, with protection for workers.

We need to win back those workers who walked away from us in May this year. Jeremy and Angela can do that by being clear that by working together the UK will prosper and thrive. By having policies that means growth is fairly shared, that there will be decent, stable jobs and apprenticeships for their families.

That is how we will begin the process of a fight back from the general election defeat and forward to Labour wins in those elections to come next year.

This blog first appears on the HuffPost website. September 23rd.

Facebook Twitter Plusone Linkedin Pinterest Email
Posted in Labour Party, Media, Trade Unions, Trades Union Congress, Unite The Union, Workers Uniting | Leave a comment

TUC Statement On EU Referendum & Statement to PLP by Jeremy Corbyn and Hilary Benn.

imagesCongress notes that there will be a referendum on Britain’s continued membership of the European Union at some time in the next two years, possibly before the 2016 Congress.

Over the years, Congress has consistently expressed support for a European Union that delivers economic prosperity based on social justice, civil and human rights, equality for all and rights at work. However, two developments in the recent period have called the achievements of the EU into question:

i. The part played by the institutions of the EU in intensifying the crisis in Greece, in demanding the imposition of further neo-liberal measures including extensive privatisation and cuts to welfare and social provisions on that country, and in undermining the policies of its democratically elected government.

ii. The EU’s advocacy of CETA, TTIP and similar agreements designed to advance the interests of transnational capital across Europe, opening up public services to marketisation and privatisation and over-riding the policies of elected governments.

These factors reflect the increasing domination of neo-liberal ideology within the European Union and inevitably prejudice the EU’s historic high standing within the labour movement.  There is a danger that these factors can only be exacerbated by David Cameron’s renegotiation of the terms of Britain’s membership. He has made it clear that these include the possibility of a further dilution or even disappearance of EU wide social protections as they apply in Britain.

These protections have included rights for women, part-time, temporary and agency workers, rights in situations of redundancy and information and consultation, rights for working parents and a range of health and safety rights, including limitations on excessive hours and the creation of a work-life balance. The positive benefits that the EU has delivered for working people are recognised – rights which are essential in any modern economy –  and those rights should be  both promoted and strengthened. Congress strongly rejects the attempts being made by the Prime Minister to use the renegotiation process to undermine workers’ rights, to foster divisions around migration, and to promote a Europe for financial and business elites only.

Congress believes that Conservative attempts to obtain an ‘opt-out’ from EU wide protections for UK workers, seeking to water down rights – especially the Working Time Directive and the Temporary Agency Workers Directive – and to impose a moratorium on future employment rights is wrong and counter-productive. Working people, faced with the prospect of a Europe based on insecurity at work and flexibility on employers’ terms, will have little enthusiasm to vote and be even less likely if they do, to vote to stay in the European Union.

We have also consistently argued that Government attempts to restrict benefits for migrants coming from other parts of Europe would herald an attack on everyone’s in-work benefits – a view justified by reports this summer. Some employers will always try to use new entrants to the labour market – women, young workers or migrants – to drive down wages, and we believe the EU has a positive role to play in preventing this exploitation by providing a floor of EU wide fundamental rights and labour standards, including the right to collective bargaining and the protection and enforcement of national level collective agreements. Congress believes that the only effective and acceptable ways to address concerns about free movement are to provide working people with the security against exploitation and undercutting that strong unions and decent rights at work, robustly enforced, would provide; and to expand access to public services and housing, using EU funding that follows migrants so that they can adapt to population changes.

Since the Government announced its plans for the EU Referendum, the TUC has campaigned and lobbied to expose the Government’s anti-worker rights agenda; to press employers to accept the need for a high level of workers’ rights as the quid pro quo for access to the single market; and to persuade other European Governments to reject the agenda of worse rights for working people, including freedom of movement, that the Prime Minister is more or less openly advocating. We have worked closely with other trade unions across Europe in seeking to ensure that their politicians understand that no concessions will satisfy the Prime Minister’s Eurosceptic backbenchers or UKIP, and that such concessions would also undermine support for the European Union in their own countries.

The European Union is Britain’s biggest trading partner, and millions of jobs in Britain aligned to that trade and could be put at risk if the UK left the EU. But we deplore the way in which European political leaders have put narrow sectional interests and the economics of austerity ahead of solidarity with countries facing economic crises – in particular Greece, but also Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain – as well as refugees like those fleeing oppression and war on Europe’s southern borders. We reject the European Union’s support for liberalisation and deregulation, including in trade deals like CETA with Canada and TTIP with the USA, both of which the TUC opposes, measures undermining collective bargaining in Eastern and Southern Europe and judgements of European courts that undermine negotiated sector level agreements providing minimum labour protections.

The TUC will continue to advocate a positive vision of a people’s Europe and reforms that would promote investment for sustainable growth, decent work with good wages and a greater say for people at work. Investment in public infrastructure like social housing, transport, telecommunications and energy efficiency could create 11 million highly skilled and well-paid jobs across Europe. Europe needs a pay rise and an adequate floor of enforceable minimum wages to protect the most vulnerable.

In the run up to the EU Referendum, we will continue to campaign and lobby against the Government’s attempts to further water down Social Europe.  The government and industry needs to understand that neither the TUC position nor the votes of millions of trade unionists can be taken for granted. Workers will not back or support a Europe that fails to protect and enhance the position of working people, citizens and civil society or one that solely works in the narrow interests of global corporations and finance capital. We hope that the Prime Minister’s efforts to weaken workers’ rights will fail but if they do not, we are issuing a warning to the Prime Minister: you will lose our members votes to stay in the EU by worsening workers’ rights. Once the full results of the renegotiation and timetable for the referendum are known the TUC will take stock of our position. However, both the Prime Minister and CBI should note that should he succeed in further undermining British workers rights pressure to put TUC resources and support in the referendum behind a vote to leave the European Union will intensify dramatically.

1-ff74a5b8c4Statement to the PLP, 17th September by Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the Labour Party and Hilary Benn, Shadow Foreign Secretary.


Facebook Twitter Plusone Linkedin Pinterest Email
Posted in Employment Rights, European Trade Unions, International Trade Unions, Labour Party, Media, Politics, Solidarity, Trade Unions, Trades Union Congress, Unite The Union | Leave a comment

Protect The Right To Strike!

Pages from Kill the Bill Final-2Download ‘Protect The Right To Strike’ by John Hendy QC and Prof. Keith Ewing published by CTUF and IER at 

Facebook Twitter Plusone Linkedin Pinterest Email
Posted in Employment Rights, Labour Party, Media, Politics, Solidarity, Trade Unions, Trades Union Congress, Unite The Union, Workers Uniting | Leave a comment

IG Metall: Statement On Refugees

xa4yrtvm7hr7ueok3lvoThe giant German metalworkers union IG Metal have issued this statement on the refugee crisis now engulfing the EU. It is certainly well worth reading and an impressive statement of solidarity with those in dire need.

Click here to download the pdf of the statement. 

Facebook Twitter Plusone Linkedin Pinterest Email
Posted in European Trade Unions, International Trade Unions, Media, Politics, Trade Unions, Trades Union Congress, Unite The Union, Workers Uniting | Leave a comment

UK car output up – and down

Inside the JLR Engine pant.

Inside the JLR Engine pant.

By David Bailey, Professor of Industry at  Aston Business School

After its best first half year in ages, UK car and engine manufacturing took something of a hit last month, as annual summer shutdowns kicked in and as demand from emerging markets like China faltered.

A total of 793,642 cars were built in the first six months of 2015, up by 0.3 per cent on a year ago, according to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT).

This was the best first half year in seven years, since the onset of the global financial crisis.

UK automotive production volumes are up by more than 50 per cent since 2009 and further big investments are planned, with new models set to start production in the coming months.

The SMMT was right to stress that this recent success of the industry was built not only on “significant industry investment” (over £7 billion worth in the last three years) but also a “positive relationship with government, essential if the industry is to maintain its international competitiveness”.

The latter means an intelligent industrial policy – something that the new Business Secretary Sajid Javid needs to take note of.

I would also add in another factor for the industry’s success – the flexibility and hard work of workers and unions in pulling out all the stops to help make the UK a competitive place in which to assemble cars and source components (something the media all too often fails to recognise).

But, after a strong first half year, car production fell 11 per cent July, according to data published by the SMMT this week.

The auto industry trade body put a positive spin on things in putting this fall down to seasonal factory stoppages being taken earlier in the summer than last year.

That’s correct to an extent. Annual shutdowns are indeed taking place earlier than last year.

At JLR, the usual August shutdown was brought forward to late July and early August.

Nissan’s Sunderland plant (which produces one-in-three of all cars made in the UK), was also shut in late July.

On top of that, several plants are undertaking retooling to get ready to produce brand new cars, including the GM Vauxhall plant in Ellesmere Port, which will assemble the new generation Astra (won after a bidding war with other GM Europe plants).

But there’s another factor in the slowdown. Faltering demand from emerging markets like Russia and China is also now taking a toll.

Indeed, despite the recovery now under way in European car markets, last month exports were down seven per cent year-on-year.

That emerging market slowdown has a particular impact on the UK’s premium car sector (which is the second largest in the world), including JLR, Rolls-Royce, Bentley and Aston Martin.

As I noted in a recent Birmingham Post blog, JLR’s recent remarkable growth stalled in the last quarter as sales in China slipped and China became more like a ‘normal’ car market.

JLR’s revenue fell 6.6 per cent to £5 billion but it was the firm’s pre-tax profit and earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) which took the biggest hit, with profit down over 30 per cent to £638 million and EBITDA down 24 per cent to £821 million.

But, as China and Russia slow, the ongoing pick-up in the European market should help the volume producers in the UK – comprising Nissan, Toyota, Vauxhall and Honda (the latter has had a torrid time in Europe in recent years having misjudged the European market).

That may mean something of more balanced growth in the UK car industry.

Growth over the last few years has been driven mainly by JLR and Nissan. Expect the other volume producers to play a bigger role over the next few years.

That means output growth is still likely going forward over the next few years unless the strength of sterling damages the competitiveness of the industry too much.

The strength of the pound is already holding back UK exports in other areas of manufacturing, with factory output barely above recession levels.

As a result, overall manufacturing is virtually stagnant and acts as a drag on UK economic growth (so much for the march of the makers).

Recent CIPS/Markit data showed export order books shrinking for the fourth month in succession, with the rising value of sterling making UK goods more expensive in the Eurozone (which accounts for almost half the British manufactured goods sold overseas).

This is one reason why I’d prefer to see interest rate rises to come later rather than sooner and to be modest in scale.

Facebook Twitter Plusone Linkedin Pinterest Email
Posted in Labour Party, Media, Politics, Trade Unions, Trades Union Congress, Unite The Union, Workers Uniting | Leave a comment

Steelworkers Gear Up For Lock Out

Rallies and marches have been planned from 19 to 21 August at ArcelorMittal facilities in four states: West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Indiana as the United Steelworkers prepare for a major dispute in the US steel industry.

At the same time, USW members are also participating in a series of events targeting 12 plants in six states belonging to Allegheny Technologies (ATI).

In June, the Steelworkers entered into negotiations of new master agreements at both ArcelorMittal and U.S. Steel, which employ around 30,000 USW members combined. Both contracts are scheduled to expire on 1 September.

The USW reports that both ArcelorMittal and U.S. Steel persist in their proposals to drive down compensation and force union members to pay significantly more for active and retired health benefits that are unlikely to provide the coverage of the current plans.

We recognize that this is a difficult time for the steel industry,” said USW International President Leo W. Gerard, “but we also recognize that for generations, these have been good, middle-class jobs that have allowed workers to care for their families and support their communities.

“It is important that we make sure that remains true for our generation and for those who come after us,” Leo W. Gerard added.

Steelworkers at U.S. Steel have been organizing strike and lockout preparation sessions at local unions across the country.  Local union activists at each site are coming together to make plans to organizing picket lines, mobilize community support, and administer strike or lockout assistance in the event of a work stoppage.

Elsewhere, steelmaker Allegheny Technologies announced on 14 August the lockout of 2,200 Steelworkers at 12 sites around the country. The lockout is the culmination of a months-long campaign by ATI management to force workers to accept draconian and unnecessary concessions.

The United Steelworkers say ATI is spending millions of dollars on bringing outsiders to replace skilled and experienced union members even though the union has never threatened to strike or even conducted a strike authorization vote.

Facebook Twitter Plusone Linkedin Pinterest Email
Posted in Blogs, International Trade Unions, Solidarity, Trade Unions, Trades Union Congress, Unite The Union, Workers Uniting | Leave a comment

Tory Party March & Rally, October 4th

oct4demo-masthead_0Sunday 4 October –  “No to austerity, yes to workers’ rights”

On Sunday 4 October, the Conservative party will open their annual conference in Manchester. After five years of austerity, falling living standards, pay freezes and huge cuts to public services, a new parliament won’t offer a fresh start to working people and their families. The Conservatives’ new plan is an old plan – back to the future with  more of the same.

We were told that austerity measures were a necessary, short, sharp dose of medicine . But five years later, the prescription is the still same. More plans to privatise public services, like the NHS. The government telling hardworking people, like midwives, teachers and transport workers, that they must work harder and longer. Public servants’ pay frozen for 4 more years.  Threats to jobs in the public sector. Plans to sell off social housing. Cutting tax credits, disability benefits and help with the rent. Unfair targeting of young people.

Trade  unions have a proud tradition of standing up for workers, their families and the services everyone uses. So now the government is threatening the right to strike.

In  the trade union bill, they propose to make it harder for unions to take strike action to oppose their cuts. They want to make it harder for workers to speak out – allowing employers to use agency workers to break strikes and putting huge restrictions on pickets and protests. In short, they want to silence millions of union members and threaten their right to strike.

So we all need to speak out now. March in Manchester on Sunday 4 October and tell the Conservatives  that we say “No!” to austerity. And tell them that workers need a voice. That trade unions give workers a voice. And that instead of austerity, it’s a resounding “Yes!” to workers’ rights.

Facebook Twitter Plusone Linkedin Pinterest Email
Posted in Economics, Employment Rights, European Trade Unions, International Trade Unions, Labour Party, Media, Politics, Solidarity, Trade Unions, Trades Union Congress, Unite The Union, Workers Uniting | Leave a comment

What sort of industrial policy do we really need? Part One.

20policy01-600By David Bailey, Phil Tomlinson and Keith Cowling

It seems that the new BIS Secretary Sajid Javid is undertaking a ‘fundamental review’ of the government’s industrial policy as he wonders what a government committed to deep spending cuts in non-protected departments can actually do in terms of supporting business.

While the Tory election manifesto did commit the government to supporting key areas (including life sciences, the auto industry, robotics and nanotechnology) exactly what that means and what wider support will be available has not yet been set out.

As the Financial Times recently noted, there are few clues as to what the business secretary is thinking. “There has been a resounding silence,” one industrialist is quoted as stating. To be fair, Javid’s aides might say that he has been in the job for just a month and is still forming a view.

In the automotive case, for example, the new conservative government has pledged broad support for the Automotive Council (which delivers the industrial policy for the industry), but the Regional Growth Fund and national Advanced Manufacturing Supply Chain Initiative have both gone.  While other elements of the policy – such as the Automotive Investment Organisation – remain, there is a danger that as pieces of policy wither due to lack of funding the remaining policies don’t add up to form an effective strategy.

The idea of industrial policy in the UK became associated in the 1970s with “picking winners” — providing state support for industrial champions. Despite Heseltine’s protestations to intervene ‘before breakfast, lunch, tea and dinner’ industrial policy was pretty much discarded under Thatcher as being too interventionist, and also remained out of fashion under Blair’s period in office.

Things changed during the Global Financial Crisis when a view formed that the UK had become too dependent on financial services. With the arrival of Lord Mandelson, ‘industrial activism’ came back onto the agenda – as it did in other countries too.  Elements of his approach were continued by the last coalition government, for example in the form of an active policy to support the auto industry.

Yet as we saw during the recent election campaign, the debate around the UK economy has all too often been narrow, principally framed around austerity and cutting the government’s budget deficit. Other important economic issues have received much less attention, including the burgeoning trade deficit, improving our manufacturing capabilities and promoting green technologies.

The same goes for tackling growing regional inequalities and rebalancing the economy. If we are to achieve balanced and sustainable growth, we have to address these issues. They are the route to eliminating the budget deficit and reducing the nation’s debts in the longer run.

Since the global financial crisis in 2008, of course, the UK has seen the slowest recovery since the 1930s. This has been punctuated with low productivity and the rising trade deficit, which at almost 6% of GDP is the highest since modern records began. Luckily for the Tories, as The Guardian’s Larry Elliott has pointed out, the days when bad trade figures could influence the outcome of a general election (like in 1970) appear to have passed.

Yet as we saw clearly during the global financial crisis, the UK economy is unbalanced and fragile as a result. It remains over-reliant on sectors such as retail, financial services and construction, to the detriment of manufacturing. Hence there were calls after the crisis for rebalancing.

Such concerns focused on making the economy stronger and addressing concerns over competitiveness, skills, long term de-industrialisation and unemployment/under-employment. In a clear departure from the free-market model that has dominated economic policy since the late 1970s, a range of think tanks, commentators and academics began to push for this to be brought about through a more active state industrial policy.

Traditionally there has been a dichotomy in economic policy between old-style Keynesian approaches which aim to stimulate growth through fiscal measures such as government spending or tax cuts; and supply-side reformers who have tended to focus on reducing market rigidities, for example by making labour laws more flexible.

In contrast, industrial policy may not only create and sustain domestic employment (thus sustaining demand, via increased investment and consumption), but it can also raise domestic industrial capacity and capabilities (a supply-side measure) for future growth.

The recent industrial success of the BRIC countries and previously Japan, South Korea, Germany also suggest that an active state can play a positive role in facilitating economic growth. And the US never stopped ‘doing’ industrial policy even if it’s not actually called that there.

So the debate has moved beyond the old narrow view that the state should only intervene in response to specific company or even sector failures. Now it’s seen more as being about creating the environment for sectors and regional clusters to prosper, creating successful stables from which winners can emerge.

Where once the state propped up the likes of British Leyland or the coal industry, now we think more in terms of generating new knowledge and innovation, coordinating the companies involved and investing in missing links within sectors.

Within that, of course, the policy instruments available are wide-ranging. They encompass everything from support for new sectors to trade policies to foreign direct investment to intellectual property rights to the development of clusters and regions.

More on that in the next blog (See below)

David Bailey works at the Aston Business School, Phil Tomlinson at Bath University and Keith Cowling at the University of Warwick. Their new book ‘New Perspectives on Industrial Policy for a Modern Britain’ has just been published by Oxford University Press.

Facebook Twitter Plusone Linkedin Pinterest Email
Posted in Blogs, Economics, Employment Rights, Labour Party, Media, Politics, Trade Unions, Trades Union Congress, Unite The Union, Workers Uniting | Leave a comment

What sort of industrial policy do we really need? Part Two.

0,,17017363_303,00By David Bailey, Phil Tomlinson and Keith Cowling

The last coalition government’s record in relation to industrial policy has been mixed. George Osborne made promising noises in the early days about rebalancing the economy and a “march of the makers”, but unfortunately much of it looks to have been empty rhetoric. Some support was made available to rebuilding the UKs fractured supply chains and to encouraging ‘rebalancing’ but the sums on offer were small and failed to match the scale of George Osborne’s rebalancing rhetoric.

Indeed, a sustained manufacturing recovery is still not guaranteed as the run of recent GDP figures have shown. Doubts over the durability of the manufacturing recovery centre on fragility in key export markets, low levels of investment spending, concerns over the impact of high energy costs across the sector (on which the recent fall in oil prices should help), and issues of skills and access to finance down the supply chain.

The government did away with the old regional development authorities and replaced them with the local enterprise partnerships (LEPs). The intention of devolving more power to ground level was laudable, but in practice many powers were initially recentralised and LEPS anyway had insufficient funding.

Their performance has been very mixed. While LEPs in Birmingham and the Black Country have received much praise, further afield there is a question mark as to how much LEPs are really doing. In particular, they lack the regional scale to support wider development.

The coalition government was also slow to address the problems that small businesses face in raising finance, largely because the banks are now much more risk-averse. These companies are crucial to industrial supply chains, and this is an area that requires attention. The government has also made no attempt to address the UK’s lax takeover rules, which unlike in other countries do very little to protect strategically important businesses from foreign predators.

On the positive side, the last government did introduce a series of so-called Catapults. These are centres where businesses, engineers and scientists work together on late-stage research and development. The seven centres are each dedicated to different priority areas such as high-value manufacturing, transport systems and offshore renewables. They are about long-term sector development, so it is too early to judge them, but they look like the right sort of intervention.

Equally encouraging has been the work of the Automotive Council, which started under Labour and has developed into an effective body in fostering public – private cooperation and discovering knowledge in terms of challenges and opportunities.  The Council’s work has, for example, set out clear priorities for key technologies that need to be developed (such as on powertrains, lightweighting and intelligent mobility) which has both aligned government support and has underpinned business confidence and investment.

So where next under Cameron’s second administration? As noted above, at first glance, Javid’s instincts look much more free-market than his predecessor Vince Cable. His questionable initial decision to sell off a majority stake in the Green Investment Bank is an indication of this free-market stance (and will also raise questions about the government’s commitment to the low carbon economy).

But it has to be hoped that under his watch, the government looks again at the LEPs and returns to development bodies that can intervene more widely and strategically at a regional level, and do ‘smart specialisation’ through regional level industrial policies. Combined Authorities may be one way to do that.

There’s much more that the government could be doing in really trying to ‘rebalance’ the economy, for example by stimulating investment in manufacturing such as through enhanced capital allowances. And it should also do something about UK takeover rules to put the country on a level playing field with many of its main competitors, and

More broadly, there is now a strong case for UK industrial policy to be afforded an institutional status similar to both UK monetary and fiscal policies. At the very least, it should be the subject of regular strategic long-term reviews, in line with what the Wright Review suggested last year. By giving it that sort of priority, the new government would be sending out the kind of powerful message that British industry badly needs to hear.

The new Business Secretary Sajid Javid is reportedly undertaking a ‘fundamental review’ of the government’s industrial policy. The last government’s industrial policy didn’t go nearly far enough, as we note above. But where policy was reasonably well developed, as in the automotive industry, it really did make a difference. For example, interventions like the Advanced Manufacturing Supply Chain Initiative and Tooling Up Fund cost small amounts of money in the big scheme of things (£245m and £12m respectively). Cutting them will add little to getting the deficit down and could do real damage to our (rather limited) efforts to rebalance and reshore manufacturing activities and jobs.

David Bailey works at the Aston Business School, Phil Tomlinson at Bath University and Keith Cowling at the University of Warwick. Their new book ‘New Perspectives on Industrial Policy for a Modern Britain’ has just been published by Oxford University Press.

Facebook Twitter Plusone Linkedin Pinterest Email
Posted in Blogs, Economics, Employment Rights, Labour Party, Media, Politics, Trade Unions, Trades Union Congress, Unite The Union, Workers Uniting | Leave a comment

Fast Food Workers In L.A. & N.Y.C Win Pay Deals

TN_Memphis_BLM_12-300x300US Fast Food workers have won two important victories in their fight for better wages as both Los Angeles County and New York State voted to raise minimum wages says the Global union, the International Food Workers.

On July 22nd the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted to increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2020, allowing more than half the countywide workforce to earn a base income more than 60% higher than the current state-mandated $9  an hour.748c474e-9637-46a8-aa23-97e86ae1d304

The next day, the Fast Food Wage Board voted unanimously to raise minimum the wage for fast food workers to $15 an hour by 2018 in New York City and by 2021 in the rest of the state.

These are important steps for the Fight For 15 campaign for better wages and the right to join a union for US fast food workers.

Facebook Twitter Plusone Linkedin Pinterest Email
Posted in Employment Rights, International Trade Unions, Labour Party, Media, Politics, Solidarity, Trade Unions, Trades Union Congress, Unite The Union, Workers Uniting | Leave a comment