ANDREW GRIFFITH: The 4 job-killing measures in PM’s (Un)employment Rights Act that will take us back to the 70s
This is an opinion article by Andrew Griffith, in which he criticises the UK Government's Employment Rights Act, arguing that specific measures within it will harm businesses and cost jobs. He frames the legislation as a return to the industrial relations climate of the 1970s, suggesting it represents a significant setback for the UK labour market and economic competitiveness.
The provided text consists only of the article's headline and surrounding Daily Mail website navigation and unrelated story links, without including the substantive body content detailing the four specific measures referenced in the title. As such, the particular provisions of the Employment Rights Act being criticised, and the specific reasoning behind the "job-killing" and 1970s comparisons, are not available in the supplied text.
- Opinion piece attacks Labour's Employment Rights Act as harmful to jobs
- Author likens the legislation to 1970s-era business conditions
- Article body detailing the four specific measures was not provided
New here? Start with this
No trade union in the 1970s, the UK went through a period of frequent strikes and tense relations between employers, workers and government, which many blame for economic instability at the time. The reference to "the 70s" in this article is meant to evoke that period as a warning about where new workplace laws might lead.
The Employment Rights Act is a piece of UK legislation brought in under the current Government, aimed at strengthening protections and rights for employees, such as around job security, working conditions and how they can be treated by employers. Supporters see it as redressing a balance that has favoured employers in recent decades, while critics, including some businesses and politicians, argue it could make hiring more costly or risky and slow economic growth.
Andrew Griffith is a Conservative politician who has held senior roles in government, including at the Treasury, and has since worked on business and economic policy from opposition. This article is his opinion piece, written to challenge the Government's approach and set out where he believes the new law will cause harm, rather than a neutral news report on the Act itself.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of the Employment Rights Act argue that measures such as protection from unfair dismissal from day one, restrictions on zero-hours contracts and fire-and-rehire practices, and improved statutory sick pay correct a long-standing imbalance of power that leaves many workers, particularly in low-paid and insecure sectors, vulnerable to exploitation. They contend that greater job security and predictable hours tend to improve staff retention, productivity and wellbeing, and note that similar warnings of job losses accompanied earlier reforms such as the minimum wage, which did not ultimately materialise. For advocates, the changes represent a considered rebalancing of a labour market they believe has tilted too far towards employer flexibility since deregulation in the 1980s.
The case against
Critics, including business groups and figures such as Andrew Griffith, argue that extending stronger employment protections raises the cost and risk of hiring, particularly for small and medium-sized firms already contending with high employment costs, potentially discouraging recruitment, investment and growth. They fear that reduced flexibility in contracts and dismissal processes could push employers towards more cautious staffing decisions, echoing the rigid industrial relations climate of the 1970s that some associate with lower competitiveness and higher unemployment. For these critics, the reforms risk harming the very workers they intend to protect by making businesses more hesitant to create new jobs in the first place.
Americas Business Economy Elections Horror Markets Politics UK World