As the lockdown bites, concern around staving off the coronavirus spread has been distorted to pressure being placed on the manufacturing and construction sectors around the issue of closure. High horses have been mounted and are in full charge mode.
Health and safety must be a priority. While this is non-negotiable, what is equally true is that we do not live in a world of black and whites. Nuances in this most delicate of balancing acts are complex and challenging. When politicians pontificate about business closure with such abandon, jobs are put at risk.
What might be essential is debatable. In some cases, it is obvious. However, what of the manufacturer of engine parts? Lorries fitted with these parts perform essential logistical roles. Is this any less essential?
Inaccurate information from our political institutions has been regrettable. UK Government guidance could not be clearer, stating that “with the exception of certain non-essential shops and public venues” no other businesses are being asked to close. The only caveat is that employees should work from home where possible. Employers must also follow social distancing guidance.
NI Executive guidance was replicated in recently released NI Regulations. Focus is clearly on the service industry, as demonstrated by guidance addressing “what retail services and other venues may remain open”. One would rightly question the relevance to manufacturing or construction.
There is an evident schism between our political leaders. The regulations change little. We are promised answers in the recently constituted forum. All the while our leaders sing from very different hymn sheets.
It is unconscionable to threaten to “call out” businesses who are acting lawfully, particularly when those who are adding to the confusion, are in positions of power and perfectly placed to do something about it.
Further guidance on the Job Retention Scheme was welcome. But questions still remain, not least as regards when payments will be made. The service is expected to be operational by the end of April. This may be optimistic. Waters are muddied by concerns around the government bridging loan and whether it applies to manufacturing. Businesses may not have cash flow to pay their employees’ wages in the meantime.
There is further uncertainty around whether the reference to “severely affected” in the Job Retention Scheme guidance will be used to exclude those sectors who were not the subject of closure guidelines. Other businesses have contractual obligations that they cannot simply turn off.
What will happen when the crisis abates, and support is withdrawn? How will businesses survive the inevitable post coronavirus lull?
These issues go to the heart of a business’s viability. It is too easy to tar employers with the “only interested in profit” brush. Businesses are fighting for their very survival. Yet, we see those in positions of leadership embracing a dreadfully simplistic, and frankly lazy, approach to the issue of closure.
Supporting business and valuing employee safety are not mutually exclusive concepts. However, we must view these issues through the prism of realism and with honest political leadership. We will need a strong economy to pay the post-Coronavirus debt.
If businesses’ hands are unreasonably forced, their very survival is jeopardised. A humanitarian disaster will be followed by an economic crisis.
What words of consolation will our politicians have to constituents who can’t pay their mortgage? Perhaps our leaders should contemplate that grim reality before again approaching these issues with the type of overly simplistic rhetoric that we have seen so far.
:: Paul Lenehan (paul@lenehanlegal.com) is in-house legal adviser at Lenehan Legal
