header-logo header-logo

11 August 2017 / Stephen Levinson
Issue: 7758 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

The Taylor Review: good work or could do better?

01_levinson

Stephen Levinson puts the Taylor Review recommendations under the spotlight & finds them wanting

  • Suggesting new policies is relatively easy. Implementing them is not.

The Taylor Review was commissioned by the Prime Minister in October 2016 to examine how employment practices need to change in order to keep pace with modern business models. The report was published on 11 July. The team of people appointed was chaired by a former policy adviser to Tony Blair (Mr Taylor) and consisted of an employment lawyer from a City practice, a successful entrepreneur (and former investor in Deliveroo) and an ex-policeman who is the current chief executive of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority. The Review team contained plenty of experience of the world of work from a policy, managerial and regulatory perspective but lacked any trade union or other obvious ‘worker’ oriented presence. So though it has been described frequently as ‘independent’ it was not as balanced a group to examine the labour market as many would have expected.

The principal conclusion

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll