Even if it is the actions of a small minority, the looting, racist rhetoric and violence displayed recently is likely to underpin the political discourse for some time. Indeed, we have already seen the role of social media companies in policing online hate speech move up the Westminster agenda.
Another area where I expect to see increased political attention is on employee rights and protections – and on who is liable when they are harassed. Last week, Worker Info Exchange, a not-for-profit that campaigns for workers’ rights, criticised Deliveroo and Uber Eats for not offering employees enough support during the riots, citing that riders were being targeted for “no reason other than the colour of their skin”.
This can only expedite debate around how employees, particularly frontline retail workers, are protected from abuse. For example, we should expect increased support for the government’s new policing bill, which includes making violence against a retail worker a standalone offence.
But Labour already has other big plans for employment rights. Its ‘plan to make work pay’, launched just before the election, is arguably the biggest overhaul of employment and union rights in several generations. Within it are proposals to improve employee rights and make employers more responsible for abuse faced by their workers.
It will be hard for anyone to argue against laws that give more protection to retail workers in the aftermath off the riots. Indeed, the previous Conservative government had also committed to the standalone offence for violence against retail workers, and the recent outbreaks of violence may trigger more cross-party consensus for parts of Labour’s employment agenda.
This could have a profound impact on the concept of liability. The question of who is liable when an employee faces abuse is complicated – as the Deliveroo example shows. Who is responsible for protecting people – the police or their employer – is almost never clear-cut.
For incidents that happen to workers while on shift, Labour has plans to simplify that debate by putting the onus on employers. As signalled in its plan, referred to in the King’s Speech, Labour will require employers to create and maintain workplaces and work conditions free from harassment, including by third parties. In theory, that could make a supermarket liable when a store colleague is mistreated by a member of the public.
The BRC’s most recent crime survey reported over 850 incidences a day of retail workers being abused by members of the public while at work. That’s a lot of potential lawsuits.
There is limited detail on how this might work, or indeed what steps will be required by employers to ensure they comply with this duty. It might be a new compliance-based framework, akin to Martyn’s Law, that businesses must adhere to. It might open up a new legal avenue through which employees can seek compensation from their employer for third-party harassment. Or it could be both.
Whatever form the legislation takes, it is likely to require proactive and comprehensive efforts on behalf of employers to protect staff from abuse – something thath is becoming an increasingly prevalent and foreseeable risk.
One-off training or symbolic measures are unlikely to suffice. Supermarkets and other retailers need to be thinking about comprehensive risk assessments, which are agile to changing circumstances, as well as security measures, the layout of retail premises, warnings to third parties, new policies and protocols for dealing with harassment cases, and comprehensive and ongoing training and support for employees.
With a parliamentary majority of over 150 seats, it is essentially inevitable that Labour’s plans for employment rights reform will happen. The riots can only serve to expedite them, and remind retailers that a shift in liability and responsibility is coming. They must prepare.
No comments yet