Taylor Review into the gig economy is like the Government that commissioned it: Big on talk

Business groups have been generally positive about it, unions and employment lawyers less so. That speaks volumes

Deliveroo riders protest their lot at its HQ: Will Matthew Taylor's review prevent future demonstrations? (PA)

I warned yesterday that Theresa May’s Government would be unlikely to stand for it if Matthew Taylor’s review into the “Gig Economy” proposed radical reforms to make Britain fairer.

Turns out that she didn’t have much to worry about on that score. The review contains lots of pretty words, but the likes of Uber, Deliveroo and the rest will probably be breathing a sigh of relief in the wake of its publication.

A cursory look at the reactions to it will tell you all you need to know. Business groups, which usually scream blue murder when faced with the prospect of new regulations or laws that might protect their workers, were actually rather pleased with the result. They urged caution and consultation before any action, and they’ll get that too.

Unions and employment lawyers were markedly less impressed. “This is not a game changer,” TUC general secretary Frances O’Grady opined. No it is not. We might expect to see some modest changes to the status quo, at best.

There is a result for the taxpayer in there – the review wants gig economy firms to pay national insurance on their workers. I’d imagine that will get swiftly adopted given the Treasury’s need for revenue.

It also says there should, as was widely trailed, be a new employment status of dependent contractor for those relying on gigs with big firms. Those firms should be told to prove their “dependents” can earn 1.2 times the minimum wage. The report holds out the possibility of other employment benefits for them too.

Workers also might in future be able to approach tribunals for an assessment of their employment status rather than having to fight long (and expensive) cases.

But the thing is, those cases that have been brought, such as one Uber is appealing, have been proving that lots of gig economy workers should not be given the status of “dependent contractor”. They should be treated as what they are: employees. With all that comes with that.

Meanwhile, zero hours contracts remain, but the Low Pay Commission is set to be asked to consider a higher rate for hours that are non guaranteed in an attempt to encourage firms to offer them. If zero hours staff regularly end up working over their “standard hours”, they should get paid more for the extras, it opines

That’s a decent enough idea, which partly addresses some of the flaws in zero hours arrangements. But, as Citizens Advice archly pointed out via Twitter, workplace rights like this are only as good as the facilities available to enforce them.

It also notes that since fees for approaching employment tribunals were introduced the number of claims has fallen by 69 per cent, and the number of discrimination claims by 80 per cent.

Of course. Because if you’ve been unfairly fired, you’ll inevitably be short of cash, if you even had available to you the amounts required (£1,200 or more) while you were in work.

The report rightly criticises this, and says fees should be lower.

But will the Government move on that? Therein lies the problem.

As ever with reports like this, the recommendations will get chipped away at during the process of legislating for them.

So if the May Government finds time for this, we’ll likely end up with something less than even the modest measures that have been proposed.

It’s worth pointing out that not all gig firms are bad firms. Not all zero hours employers are bad employers. Some work to ensure that flexibility works for both sides. Some managers behave like human beings. Some make efforts to ensure their “staff” are paid not just the minimum wage but the real living wage, set by the Living Wage Foundation. They benefit from that through getting better quality work and holding on to their people.

The problem is that there are too many bad ones out there that don’t do any of this, and it’s hard to see what is contained in this review greatly improving their behaviour. It substitutes tinkering for the radical reform that is needed, and bad gig firms have already proved to be devastatingly effective at utilising loopholes.

It’s not that there aren’t good things within the report. But at its core, the Taylor Review encapsulates everything that this Government is about: It talks a good game but it fails to follow through on the pitch.