I see that the legislation
enabling the employee/shareholder contract has been defeated in the House of
Lords. The proposal
involved employees waiving some employment rights in return for shares in the business
they work for.
As these rights included unfair dismissal rights, statutory
redundancy pay, the right to request flexible working and training, and the
time limit for giving notice of a firm date of return from maternity or
adoption leave, I can’t help but be pleased that it has been defeated. It will go back to the House of Commons,
where I hope it will be quickly forgotten because the Government has bigger
fish to fry.
Workers might well be confused. While one part of the Government is reducing
the period of collective consultation by half, asking employees to sell their
right to redundancy pay, and increasing the fee for bringing employment
tribunals, the other is banging on about engagement, and the vital need for
employees to bring enthusiasm to do more than is in the job description.
Despite it all, I am a supporter of engagement –
indeed, much of it is such common sense it would be hard not to be. Who wouldn’t want a workplace where people
were challenged, supported, respected and developed. Although
the right to ask for training would have been one of things given up, had the
employee/shareholder contract become law….
No, what I’m suspicious of is the motive. Engagement emerged out of the depths of
recession, suggesting that employers could and should arrange the working
relationship so that more was done for and with less. Unions at the time of the first Engagement
report, notwithstanding the potential well-being benefits for employees, were
wary.
And the other thing I’m suspicious of is the almost
Nazi-like commitment to engagement as a concept. This blog doesn’t have masses of followers, but
I’m prepared to be screamed down by enthusiasts waving “evidence” at me and
asking how very dare I. The quality of
the evidence is really not very good (and believe me, I have looked HARD at it)
but is being touted like the answer to all organisational prayers.
And indeed, engagement MIGHT just be that.
But not if the motive is wrong. Employees aren’t daft. They can work out soon enough if the benefits
of engagement are shared , or why engagement programmes are being
implemented. Employee well-being used to
be the raison d’etre of engagement. Now
it’s profit, productivity.
And, given the workplace environment at the moment –
weak and divided unions who CAN’T call management to account in the way they
ought to be able to; the weakest employee legislation in Europe; and employees
being offered bright new shiny contracts for 30 pieces of silver and important
employment rights – I’m not convinced of the current mode of “engagement” being
a good thing for employees.
I think the motive is suspect. And should - at least for now - be questioned.
http://kcdcoaching.moonfruit.com/#/momentum-blog/4573395166
