Brendan Barber

Brendan Barber was formally inaugurated as general secretary of the Trades Union Congress (TUC) in May 2003, succeeding the departing John Monks. Since joining the TUC in 1975, Barber worked in various departments before landing the top job in leadership election last year, allowing him to oversee 69 member unions that represent almost 6.7 million workers.

Over the last year, the TUC has clashed with small business groups over several issues, including the minimum wage, temporary worker rights and the contribution of small firms to the UK economy.

Here, Barber talks exclusively to Startups.co.uk about these issues and how union relations with small businesses can move forward.

Union involvement with big business is well known, but what role can you play in small firms, especially micro businesses that employ just three or four people?

Even micro businesses can get some benefit from looking at relevant national agreements and asking whether they are providing a benchmark and do they make sense – perhaps in terms of pay but also problems which arise in any business, such as disciplinary issues and so on.

Even in the smallest business there can be aspects of the sort of agreements you see get more attention from the larger companies at a national level which may be relevant and helpful.

Wouldn’t union involvement mean a strain on small firms caused by union reps taking time off for union activities?

I don’t think it’s harmful, I think sometimes these things can get out of proportion. In a very small business, of course, the concentration is on keeping the show on the road and making sure the business is able to function properly.

But I wouldn’t have thought there would be a major issue with very small businesses in terms of someone taking lots of time off. The more elaborate trade union activity normally takes place in larger companies, so it shouldn’t be a problem.

You have clashed with business groups on several issues, not least over proposals to give temporary workers the same rights as permanent staff. The CBI claim that this would reduce flexibility and job opportunities, as well as increase red tape. How do you respond to that?

Well, I don’t want to reduce flexibility and I think it makes sense sometimes for employers to use people on a temporary basis or through an employment agency. The issue is whether people used in that way are treated in an entirely different basis from the normal workforce.

Our basic argument is that you shouldn’t discriminate against people just because they come through an agency - if there’s an established rate for the job, they should get that rate of pay. So, the proposed directive in Europe is saying that they should be getting equal treatment, not that they shouldn’t be used at all.

I don’t want to make it a lot of hassle – I think it’s a straightforward process – you pay them the rate for the job and give them the conditions that you would if you taking them on permanently. That seems to me a pretty straightforward idea that people could adapt to quite quickly.

Another bone of contention is your repeated calls for the minimum wage to be raised. What level do you feel it should be at?

Well, I think £5.30ish an hour was the evidence that we used for the Low Pay Commission (a body that reviewed the minimum wage level last year). Even that, a lot of people would say that was rather unambitious, particularly for people who work in London, where the cost of living is so much higher.

I don’t want to just make up a figure on the spot today, we do think about it very carefully and we will be looking at it again when they (the Low Pay Commission) are given the job of conducting a review, and we’ll have to see what makes sense at the time.

Is it realistic that small firms can meet such rises though?

With the economy not doing so well, wouldn’t a minimum wage rise put firms off from employing more people?

I don’t think that small firms would want to be seen as oceans of poor employment practice. People who run small businesses would like to be seen to be running firms of high repute, rather than saying ‘we can get away with second class treatment of the people who work for us.’

People have adapted the minimum wage well, it hasn’t cost jobs, and I would like to see it progressively raised so that it covers more people in the economy. We are a very divided society with huge gaps between the rich and poor, and the minimum wage is one measure that can help redress that.

Many small business groups were upset over a TUC report ‘Small firms - myths and realities’ which questioned the importance of SMEs to the UK economy. Do you stand by that report?

I think there was some misunderstanding about that, we weren’t saying anything that was meant to be hostile to the small business community.

Why question their importance though, what was the point? It appeared like you were stirring up divisions.

No, what we were trying to do was create a debate as to where the government should best put its resources. In terms of job creation and developing our economic capacity, micro businesses are important but the firms that have the greatest potential to grow are actually in the medium size.

Smaller businesses obviously have a quite high failure rate, and the number that go on to become medium to larger businesses is a relatively small proportion. So if you’re going to ask as to where we should put our resources to try to sustain our manufacturing sector, for example, I think the evidence shows that you are more likely to get a better return from the medium sized businesses rather than the micro businesses. That’s all we were saying.

I mean, there’s a huge amount of public money that goes into providing support for businesses, are we getting the best return from it with such so much focused just at the smaller end?

Is it simply a case of you being frustrated because you cannot control small firms, as the British Chamber of Commerce has claimed?

No, that’s a ridiculous thing to say. It’s not that at all.

Another TUC report, ‘Unravelling the Red Tape Myths’, challenged complaints over the amount of red tape suffered by small firms. Do you feel that the burden is exaggerated?

I do think it's exaggerated, yes.

But the Institute of Directors claim that UK firms pay out £6 billion a year in red tape. That’s a lot of money.

Well, the IoD produce some colourful figures, as do the CBI from time to time! When you unpick some of the figures that were used, most of the amount was the cost of the minimum wage, not the bureaucracy associated with it. It was simply the extra costs of the firms that needed to make a change to come into compliance.

Another big element of the cost was a fairly rough and ready calculation of about the entitlement of paid holidays, which came about because of the Working Time Directive.

Having said all of that, I do recognise that for a micro business there are different challenges than for a large company. Larger firms have personnel departments and so on, and it’s easier for them to keep up to date with changes in employment legislation and regulations.

There is more to be done in terms of information for small firms. The government could and should so more, and I think organisations like ACAS in the employment field can do also more in providing information in changes in law.