Social inclusion: what is it?

Leadbeater is seen as an innovator; and a promoter of a new dimension of capitalism. He predicts a transformed landscape: a new “networked” capitalism in which the state plays a part but cannot pick winners. However, it is questionable that in the wake of the crash of economic rationalism it makes sense to use such a label at all. Is there any value at all in continuing that adversarial discourse? There is a search for new approaches but redefining capitalism or going even back to social democracy may not be the answer.

Nonetheless employee share ownership, employee voice and social enterprise for the delivery of public services, are all areas where government intervention and assistance can do much to encourage social inclusion. Such an extension of existing philosophy could have great advantages in terms of job retention, productivity, employee commitment and the relatively inexpensive delivery of not-for-profit public services. The current Senate Inquiry into employee share ownership should include consideration of the social inclusion agenda. That inquiry follows the publication of Minister Chris Bowen's extensive consultation paper on employee share ownership.

In the UK, new and highly successful dimensions of public service have also emerged in recent years. Employees in these new, not-for-profit, mainly service organisations have a large ownership stake AND a paid job! As social enterprises they are removed from the usual constraints of traditional public services as well as from the uncertainties which afflict many voluntary organisations. It is not just "having a job" that provides the social inclusion.

Furthermore, introducing broad-based employee share ownership plans also enhances the engagement of employees in a traditional private sector enterprise. This has proved to be particularly effective, when combined with the introduction of "employee voice". Such plans spread the ownership of business organisations thus potentially introducing a new socially inclusive culture. Again, this is much more than just having a job. It is the "more" that provides all the advantages of co-ownership and voice. They can also enhance the democratic ethos beyond periodic elections and the ballot box.

Contrary to some critics' views the downside risk involved in employee ownership can be excluded by clear legislation and properly designed schemes. As to the use of employee voice, it is increasingly obvious that European countries have been showing the way for the past 30 to 40 years. A culture change is needed in Australia. In a sense industrial relations has to be fast-forwarded. The "Rights to Work" campaign aimed to recover lost ground since 1996. The Fair Work legislation has partially achieved that but when it comes to real reforms social inclusion in workplace relations should be top of the agenda. This is one reason why the recent adverse Budget 2009 proposals in relation to employee share plans would have been a huge step backwards instead of forwards. The Senate Inquiry seems timely indeed.