WHEN, even against a background of dwindling unemployment, the deep-seated insecurity of millions of people over their jobs remains one of the major reasons for the lack of so-called "feel good", one wonders just what the government is playing at in seeking to make millions more feel less safe in their jobs.
But, despite its rock-bottom popularity ratings, the government is still clinging to this vote-loser proposal to scrap the unfair dismissal rights of up to 10million employees working for small firms.
For though it has backed off the idea in the wake of the political storm caused by the plan being leaked, Downing Street confirms it has not backed away completely. Why?
This, it seems, is a case of the government letting its free market ideology rule its head.
For while the notion of freeing small businesses, the seed-bed on new enterprise and new jobs, from burdens and regulations that supposedly hinder their progress and expansion, is one that may have charms for many Tories, the theory has little practical appeal to people with a sense of justice and none at all for those who would be on the receiving end of its implementation.
Many, we think, would wonder why a decent employer would regard workers' employment rights as a serious hindrance to the running of his business in any case.
And others might ask what is worthy about encouraging employers who are less than decent by, in effect, writing a cowboy's charter.
But the simple question of what is fair about a person working for a larger firm having the right to take a claim for unfair dismissal to an industrial tribunal and an employee of a smaller firm being legally debarred from doing so is one which, we think, would before long land the government and such legislation in the dock of the European Court of Human Rights.
Yet what is intriguing about this risky adventure, we think, is the possibility of it being the thin end of a wedge - with the eventual thick end being that of the unfairness of employees in different-sized firms having different rights over unfair dismissal claims being ended by all having none at all.
Far-fetched? Not if the Tory pattern of so-called market-testing in the employment field is observed.
Beginning with its assault on trade union power, it has followed up with scrapping minimum-wage protection and sought in other ways to weaken the employment rights of part-time workers, many of whom have been forced out of full-time work by their employers.
But if this, as is claimed, has helped to create new jobs, the counter-claim is that many of them are ill-paid, part-time and insecure - and actually harmful to the economy since many are, in fact, subsidised by the taxpayer through social security benefits given to the low-paid.
Yet the puzzle is that, while the government not only rails against the EU Social Chapter on employment rights, but actually seeks an unregulated pay and conditions threshold way below its standards, Labour holds fire on the minimum wage front and acts chary about giving full commitment to the Chapter.
However, if it wants the votes the government seems bent on throwing away on wages and job security, it had better stop acting as if it half believes in the cowboy tactics of the ruthless free market.
Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article