Having a job, or being in some way gainfully employed (I use that in its non-technical sense) is seen as being fundamentally important to an individual’s sense of self-worth and identity. It is also seen as being part and parcel of that person’s contribution to society, be it in the economic sense of producing goods or services and also in terms of their contribution towards taxes that fund our public services. It is for these reasons that employment law is given such a focus by political parties, pressure groups and both sides of industry.

Politicians explain how their policies will increase productivity, promote growth, reduce insecurity and promote greater happiness for people in the workplace. Judges and even employment lawyers speak with great concern about opening the floodgates or the policy ramifications of decisions that are made.

The question is, does any of it actually matter? The answer, it seems, may be that employment regulation makes little difference to these issues and, where it does, that difference may be counter-intuitive.

The CIPD has put its name to a report produced by the Work Foundation, part of Lancaster University, called ‘Employment Regulation and the Labour Market’. It draws on a wide range of information and evidence, from the OECD to the CBI, to BIS and Adrian Beecroft (yes, remember him?) to try and understand what effect employment regulation has in the workplace. First off, according to the OECD’s employment protection index the UK provides one of the least protective labour markets in the developed world. Only the US and Canada score lower. Italy, France and Germany are very much at the other end of the index. A similar picture emerges in looking at protection in relation to temporary workers and collective dismissals (although the UK is closer to its European counterparts on this measure, presumably because such protection largely stems from European Directives). No-one would be surprised at these findings.

What does surprise, however, are the findings in relation to the wellbeing of workers. One might think that those countries that scored highly on individual employment protection would also show workers had less fear of losing their jobs than in countries with far less protection. That was not supported by the evidence, which found that the share of people who reported fear of losing their job within the next six months was similar in the UK, Germany, France and Italy.

In terms of being able to find another job, UK workers, along with those from Nordic countries, were relatively more optimistic when compared with other European countries. Germany, for example, was well into the bottom half of the table. The UK also scored highly on having ‘good working conditions’ (6th out of 30); ‘good career prospects’ (3rd out of 30); and higher satisfaction on working hours and work/life balance than France, Germany and Italy, with a higher proportion of full-time employees being offered flexible working and then taking it up.

Cue government minister stepping in and claiming credit for having created this deregulated, flexible labour market that produces such positive outcomes (although UK productivity is some of the worst in the group of economies reviewed). That would be the wrong conclusion to reach, according to the report. Its view is that employment protection and regulation can correct abuses and address some macro issues in the economy. In terms of feeling positive and optimistic, valued and valuable, it is workplace practice that matters much more than employment regulation. What is suggested is that government, employers, trade unions and so on should concentrate on and foster good practice, possibly through the creation of a Workplace Commission, rather than pushing for more or less regulation.

Do reports like this matter? We shall see next month, when we focus on proposals from the main political parties ahead of the General Election.

Alex Lock, DAC Beachcroft LLP