It has become somewhat rare for the trade unions and organised representatives of business to reach a point of deep disagreement. In part that is due to the changing nature of collective negotiations. The setting up of the MCESD also helped. Grievances are aired there before positions become entrenched.

All parties should get involved to come up with the best protection against precarious employment. Taking rigid stances or pooh-poohing the issue does not help

That is all to the good. Labour and employers have opposing roles but in reality what they talk about is how to share the same cake. Modern engagements tend to concentrate on raising productivity, which is the only way enterprises can continue to compete and exist. That achieved, there can be sensible negotiations about how to share out the increment to the company.

It does not seem to be the case that there are hogs on the road, which is why industrial peace is the norm in the private sector. In contrast industrial tension often prevails in the public sector, for the simple reason that no competition exists in the sector and the public is the pawn in the game with nothing to do but sit back and suffer.

Even there one should not exaggerate. Most times after a bit of sabre rattling the relevant union and Government representatives do sit down and thrash out an agreement. What seems to be lacking in that area is a commitment to start negotiations early enough on agreements sought by either side.

Just now the relative harmony between trade unions and employers’ representatives in the private sector is broken over the issue of precarious employment. The unions feel very strongly that the ugly phenomenon exists to such an extent that the Government should legislate against it.

The employers’ side does not agree. It went as far as saying that it was all a storm in a teacup. Only a few employers indulge in precarious employment. The two sides are so far apart in their reading of the situation that they cannot even agree on a definition of precarious employment.

The employers’ side says it is already covered by the various bits of relevant legislation and no new legislation is required.

The Government does not agree. It has made precarious employment legislation a priority issue.

So it should be. Even if a single worker is precariously employed there is cause enough for effective action. Let alone that there are dozens of examples of precarious employment.

The employers’ side is right in saying that it is not as widespread as it is made out to be. But it is too much a part of the new employment fabric to ignore.

Too many workers are paid black wages below the minimum wage. Too many work excessive hours without compensation. Too many work overtime at less than enhanced rates. And there have been too many workers made to turn self employed, so that their employer avoids national insurance contributions, annual leave and other restrictions.

The issue is not one about the minimum wage or poverty. It is about justice. With a growing immigrant population it has taken a new meaning. Immigrants are often employed on a casual basis at rates and conditions below the norm.

It is not easy to capture all this in a definition. But the issue is not definitions. It is reality. However defined, whichever one of the shortcomings listed above precarious employment exists, it needs to be tackled. All parties should get involved to come up with the best protection against precarious employment. Taking rigid stances or pooh-poohing the issue away does not help.

The Government’s decision to insert protection against precarious employment in public contracts is apposite. More than about time that this was done. All it takes is one or two strict examples made out of those who abuse to make others fall into line.

I hope the difference between unions and employers about the issue does not grow. Instead, the two sides should converge to come up with the best solution.

On their part the unions should also go further afield and see how they can organise more workers collectively to ensure union protection if and when necessary. Legislation is fine, conditions in public contracts are fine too, intervention by employers’ associations to show that they do not condone illegal or illicit behaviour are all well and good.

Yet we seem to be moving away from the idea that workers help themselves most when they unite in trade unions. What is left of the trade union movement in the UK is giving fresh proof of that, and will probably give more in the looming battle with the Labour Party over there.