Emily Andrews

The authors are at pains to point out that there isn’t a direct read-across from their research to the impact of AI. It could well be totally different. And Germany’s…Germany.

But it’s still a useful reminder of the agency of employers to choose how they manage the impacts of these changes.

These orgs aren’t operating according to market forces: they are choosing to spread the productivity benefits of robiticisation through their whole workforce (including the bits that aren’t directly contributing to them) and “contain” potential wage disparity increases.

Robotisation and Workforce Dynamics: Analysing Employment and Wage Effects within Manufacturing Establishments - Michael Otto, Martin Abraham, 2025 This article explores the effects of increasing robot adoption on workforce composition, wages and wage inequality in the manufacturing sector. Using longitudin...

I’ve looking for some (robust) balance to doomish threads on the impact of AI.

This German study finds robots are not taking jobs away from theoretically vulnerable workers in highly-robiticised firms - nor are they driving wage inequality in those orgs.

journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10....

Skipping into work this morning on day 3 of the new job, ready for another day of expanding my labour market policy and research brain to the rest of the life course.

Thanks to the @learnworkuk.bsky.social team for a lovely welcome!

Malnutrition with use of GLP-1 agonists is an underestimated real world harm Wraparound care for patients taking GLP-1 agonists must include assessment of nutritional status to identify the risk of malnutrition, writes Ellen Fallows Food insecurity is increasing, particularl...

Malnutrition with use of GLP-1 agonists is an underestimated real world harm

www.bmj.com/content/390/...

Surprise!!!

Things you won't get breathless headlines in the newspapers about
(Or see in the lovely leaflets the rep left at reception)

1. New data shows employers investing 36% less in training per employee than in 2005 in real terms. This is both a cause and consequence of low economic growth & policy instability. It comes alongside a £1bn (20%) real terms cut in Government investment in adult skills in England compared to 2010.

If we don’t get those kinds of reccs from the final Mayfield review in September, I would be inclined to blame cautious DWP ministers rather than the review team. I have🤞for some boldness.

Looking forward to digging into such issues with @learnworkuk.bsky.social colleagues after I start next week!

Even if it can’t happen in this Parliament, the Mayfield review has an opportunity to lay the groundwork.

There is lots we don’t know about the best way to design and implement such an incentive - so it’s ripe for “test and learn” in the medium-term.

As this excellent report from @louisemurphy.bsky.social & @benbgeiger.bsky.social (& as I said on the platform @learnworkuk.bsky.social convention a few weeks ago):

employer incentives have to be part of the picture, if we want to get them to rapidly shift their behaviour.

bsky.app/profile/loui...

3. Be willing to exceed your remit (and go into areas HMT considers of limits)

⚖️This is the one I am most ready to be disappointed on.

My sense is that this review’s recommendations are only going to point in directions HMT is comfortable with, ie. fiscally neutral ones. That would be a ❌.

2. Get political buy-in

Cross-party consensus is perhaps less crucial to the Mayfield review than employer buy-in.

On that, I think it gets a ✅.

Sir Charlie is a credible figure, and has been engaging far and wide.

1. Look in depth at the evidence

A cautious ✅.

The interim report was produced quickly, but it had lots to build on eg. work of Labour Marker Advisory Board, and every think tank under the sun who’s published a report on health & work lately.

The team are clearly knowledgeable and thoughtful.

My former IfG colleagues have written this excellent blog on lessons from the Turner Commission for the new Pensions Commission.

Let’s apply their top tips to another current “review”: the Mayfield Review into getting employers more active on health and work. How does that measure up? 🧵

In this month’s edition of “what on earth is going on in the labour market at the moment?”…

Is there anyone from the What Works universe there?

Most WWCs are pursuing test and learn/co-design-prototype-iterate in some way. But still lots of scope to knit together “what works” & “test and learn” approaches (and their proponents) more deliberately & enthusiastically.

*reading this @samfr.bsky.social post, nodding* Public sector procurement rules are ridiculously obstructive

*reading this FT article on Reform DOGE’s data access woes* I love rules

on.ft.com/4eRsE1p

To counter-act the mass wincing, can we share some papers that we think avoid these pitfalls?

Eg. this @centreforcities.bsky.social paper does, because it makes the choices clear, and shows why some should be plumped for over others

www.centreforcities.org/publication/...

Connect to Work Top Tips - Learning and Work Institute

NEW: Commissioned by @local.gov.uk, L&W has produced‬ top tips to support local government to develop a high quality Connect to Work service.

These top tips cover the benefits of Connect to Work, how it can be best used, and how it can be aligned to other council and external work.

Cc @gavinfreeguard.bsky.social

Looked at through this lens, 'over-intellectualisation' is not the key villain.

It's actually a lack of curiosity, and a lack of dedicated and explicit study of what it means to manage.

In praise of plumbing Why British politics' lack of interest in how things work explains why many things don't

Geoff Mulgan rails against the lack of political and press interest in "how" to get stuff done in Govt.

There are Gov-specific issues here, but it also mirrors the lack of interest and investment in leadership and management skills across our economy.

geoffmulgan.substack.com/p/in-praise-...

Pyrrhic victory on UK welfare shows need for systemic reform, analysts say Think-tanks argue sensitive policy change should not be driven by need to meet fiscal rules

"The costs and hardship for people will come out somewhere unless you deal with the underlying issues."

Great to see L&W chief exec @stephenevans.bsky.social quoted in this @financialtimes.com article on the need for systemic reform of the welfare system. 📰

To all who think capitalism can drive progressive change, it won’t – and here’s the shocking proof | Polly Toynbee Asset manager Aberdeen’s surprise cut to funding research into inequality has left those that used its grants for good work reeling, says Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee

This is appalling. Both in substance & how it was done. @financialfairness.bsky.social is a crucial part of funding infrastructure for vital work on living standards & inequality. Gutting it with no notice & not even reassurances for grantees is really terrible. www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...

Coleen’s key message to employers:

“We may be in our 60s, but we’re not over the hill”

Noreen’s message (paraphrased):

“We need to do more to support people in their 50s and 60s”

Couldn’t be more on message if I’d scripted it myself!

#EmpSkills25

“She made me feel like a person”.

Amazing testimony from a Work and Health participant and work coach duo.

But the big barrier Coleen is facing? Ageism.

If you want to know more about how we’re trying to change employer attitudes to 50+ workers, I will be discussing at the 3pm panel. #EmpSkills25

Stimulating start to #EmpSkills25 talking about skills development and talent pipelines into advanced manufacturing and engineering.

💡Lots of energy in sector if Gvt can convene
💡Skills gaps, skills shortages and people gaps are different things
💡If you want a safe job, become a welder

Here's the dream: Labour climb down off the PIP changes, which is what I think they should do.

But when they do so, they make explicit where the money is going to come from.

But I am not a Politics person. I am aware of the naivety of my questions! What's the path to a politics of trade-offs?

And what did the Labour leadership think?

Did they assume everyone knew what they were signing up to going in? Did they hope that the PLP would ultimately understand the position they were in, and the trade-offs they were choosing to make? Did they hope they would find an alternative in the end?

I wonder what was going on in the minds of incoming Labour MPs on this issue.

Did they just not really clock it? Did they clock it, but sort of hope there would be a less destructive way of making these cuts? Did they think, in the end, an additional source of ££ would be identified?

These welfare cuts were baked into the previous Government's plans, and so they were baked into Labour's plans.

'We' (policy-watchers?) knew big welfare cuts were coming.

But it wasn't made explicit to voters (apparently not even to incoming MPs?).