‘Post-truth’ has been declared the 2016 International Word of the Year by Oxford Dictionaries. It is defined as being an adjective ‘relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief’. The two events of the current year that are said to be part of the post-truth world are the referendum result that the UK should leave the European Union and the election of Donald Trump as President of the US.

As the editor of ELA Briefing it would not be politic to express opinions about the wisdom of these decisions, but given that both are inextricably linked to post-truth rationalisation it seems to me that there is some merit in an examination through the prism of the employment law world. By that phrase, I am not referring to the ‘metropolitan intellectual liberal elite’ that is supposed to make up the community of employment lawyers – us – but the degree to which the development of employment law has aided the claimed polarisation and disillusionment that goes with post-truth.

Brexit and Trump, the narrative goes, are products of increased globalisation that has led to the rise of the ‘gig’ economy; immigration that is too high for pressed communities and public services; and the well-paid ‘getting away with it’. Superficially there may be some attraction to such an argument. The UK is one of the least-regulated labour markets according to the OECD, providing relatively low protection against individual and collective dismissals, for example.

Little regard has been paid to the rise of zero-hours contracts, consultancy and self-employment, with little in the way of protection being provided for people working this way. Rights have been stripped back (the qualifying period for unfair dismissal extended and compensation reduced) and high employment tribunal fees have been introduced while funding for the courts and tribunals has been cut, making enforcement of what rights are left expensive and slow.

Meanwhile, ‘the judges’ extend equality laws that offer protection to the detriment of ‘British jobs for British workers’ (whoever they are). That is all before one gets on to the Human Rights Act …

There may be grains of truth within all these arguments, but many slip through the hands easily and can be shown to be exaggerated claims or entirely without foundation. Equality laws protect everyone and flexibility in the labour market can promote employment, better communities and higher profits, which can be taxed fairly and used for the benefit of the wider public.

One strong feature of both the Brexit and Trump campaigns that shines through, however, is the need for good quality, verifiable information and consistency of argument and action. It was surprising to hear commentators blithely say that claims made were just ‘campaigning’ and should not be relied upon or taken seriously. If governments promise to ‘protect and enhance’ employment rights, then we should understand and debate what that means and how it will be done.

If tribunal fees are introduced with the defence that it is not about reducing the number of claims, then when reviews are done into the effect of such a policy, the review and the evidence should be published and discussed. Presented with the opportunity to do so over a year after completion the Government still refuses to publish them, now committing only to publish the conclusions ‘in due course’. That corrodes public trust and fuels complaints of being in a post-truth world.

Alex Lock, DAC  Beachcroft  LLP