{"title":"A Response to the Taylor Review","authors":"J. Shackleton, J. Whyte","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3853077","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Taylor Review should be commended for recognising the success of the UK’s flexible labour market and for refusing to endorse the outright bans on zero-hours contracts and app-based “gig” economy advocated by the Labour Party, trade unions, and other pressure groups. However, its recommendations for further regulation of these types of work seem likely to inhibit their growth and reduce the benefits going to both consumers and workers. The Review fails to make a convincing argument that large numbers of workers are disadvantaged by working in different ways from the traditional model and downplays the costs of forcing businesses to treat self-employed people as “dependent contractors”. Many of the Review’s proposals for promoting “Good Work” are probably harmless, often because they are mere waffle. However, they underestimate the difficulties of assessing just what employees want from work, and of changing business behaviour. The proposed requirement to publish elaborate indicators of the “quality” of work will be an additional burden on firms and the taxpayer, and promote the mistaken notion that businesses exist to serve employees rather than consumers.","PeriodicalId":292127,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Employment Contract Law (Topic)","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Employment Contract Law (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3853077","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
The Taylor Review should be commended for recognising the success of the UK’s flexible labour market and for refusing to endorse the outright bans on zero-hours contracts and app-based “gig” economy advocated by the Labour Party, trade unions, and other pressure groups. However, its recommendations for further regulation of these types of work seem likely to inhibit their growth and reduce the benefits going to both consumers and workers. The Review fails to make a convincing argument that large numbers of workers are disadvantaged by working in different ways from the traditional model and downplays the costs of forcing businesses to treat self-employed people as “dependent contractors”. Many of the Review’s proposals for promoting “Good Work” are probably harmless, often because they are mere waffle. However, they underestimate the difficulties of assessing just what employees want from work, and of changing business behaviour. The proposed requirement to publish elaborate indicators of the “quality” of work will be an additional burden on firms and the taxpayer, and promote the mistaken notion that businesses exist to serve employees rather than consumers.