So just how much did you want England to beat Argentina? Countrywide people
were striking all sorts of Faustian pacts in return for that all-important
result, and it worked.
So, what would you be prepared to give away for our boys to progress in the
World Cup – a week’s wages, your job, maybe even your granny? (Aged relatives
should get a reprieve in the 2006 competition with more assured England
performances if the Football Association’s HR team can continue to support its
successful development of football. See page 8)
This level of horse-trading is set to re-emerge later this summer, with more
sinister implications. HR needs to watch out for the impending review of the
Employee Relations Act (1999), which could herald sweeping, union-driven
changes to employment law. (See page 1).
Labour has committed itself to improving public services – it wants to be
judged on the standard of the NHS, police, local government, etc, at the next
election. Its solution – to increase private sector management over the
delivery of public services – is not exactly popular with the unions. But with
the Government adamant that this is the way forward, employment experts are
starting to question how many horses their intransigence is worth to the
unions.
The answer could be a lot. There is growing concern that the TUC’s 90-page
wishlist for the review of the Employees Relations Act, which includes staff
employment rights from day one, could constitute the equine trade-off.
The review is being launched this summer and will involve a white paper and
consultation period before rapid implementation of any changes. It joins a raft
of consultations due on information and consultation, the employment bill and
extension of employee rights to workers.
But HR shouldn’t be put off. We must get involved and contribute, otherwise
employers could be facing more business-damaging red tape.
By Mike Broad
