Regulation vs deregulation in work and health
Two government consultations are underway interrogating how to improve uptake for occupational health services across the economy. Rising rates of economic inactivity due to ill health continue to increase pressure on the labour market and public services.
Would more regulation around employment conditions and occupational health services be a solution?
There are pros and cons of regulation. The range of employment relationships existing in the labour market do offer some advantages to all stakeholders. A government consultation on zero hours contracts in 2013 highlighted that workers and employers can both benefit from the flexibility they provide. Issues tend to arise when there is an imbalance of flexibility between worker and employer, such as exclusivity clauses which prevent an individual from working for another employer even when no work is guaranteed. The use of exclusivity clauses in zero hours contracts was banned following the consultation in 2013.
Some of the most innovative products and services of the last decade have found opportunity in lower regulation employment environments. Examples include Uber which transformed the transport industry by dynamically matching supply and demand. Uber is a particularly interesting example as a Supreme Court judgment in 2021 defined Uber drivers as workers rather than independent contractors, meaning they have more employment rights than Uber had written into their contracts. This distinction was based on the circumstances (and degree of control) in the relationship between Uber and the drivers. The judgment on Uber demonstrates that the spectrum of employment relationships can be hard to define, and the circumstances of the relationship between employee and employer are relevant in this definition and may differ from the contractual terms defining working status.
Insecure employment definitely has its downsides for the individual working when it comes to periods of ill health, from poor certainty over earnings to not being eligible for statutory sick pay. These issues often interface with the social determinants of health and evidence shows that certain groups such as women, people belonging to non-white ethnic groups and younger people are disproportionately represented in some forms of insecure employment. The impact of insecure employment on an individual could be as significant as not being able to plan for expenses, how their employment income impacts their income through welfare benefits on a month-to-month basis, and not being able to apply for a mortgage or credit card if they are unable to evidence regular income.
When regulations around working conditions are implemented well, they should deliver benefits on both sides of the employment relationship. This should certainly be possible when it comes to regulation around work and health as so much evidence exists on how incentives for employee and employer align. But a one-size fits all approach is unlikely to be appropriate across the economy. Regulation must not stifle innovation, or make it challenging to employ people at all. Employers engaging in the full range of employment relationships must be encouraged to see the advantages of work and health support to their organisation, and how it can provide a competitive advantage to their business. Exploring ways to incentivise engagement is a great place to start. To achieve this, stakeholder feedback from the whole range of employers is essential in the ongoing consultations.