IER Director, James Harrison, marks 10 years with the Institute.

This month marks a significant milestone for the Institute of Employment Rights’ Director, James Harrison, who reaches his tenth year with the Institute.

Since joining the IER in 2015 as National Coordinator, James has assisted in its continued collaborative development—rising to Assistant Director in 2021 before being appointed Director in 2024.

Throughout the past year as Director, James has overseen the Institute’s response to the landmark Employment Rights Bill, including the launch of the IER podcast series.

We sat down with James for a special Q&A to mark his 10-year anniversary with the Institute. From reflections on a decade of change to insights on the future of workers’ rights, James shares his thoughts on the challenges, achievements, and mission of the IER. Here are 10 questions to commemorate 10 years of solidarity, leadership and commitment:

1. What were your first experiences of the world of work?

After university, I worked a series of low-paid, poor-condition jobs. One of the worst was at a well-known high-street bank, where a questionable algorithm micromanaged productivity, keeping staff in the “just about productive” category to pressure and control them. Questioning it—or even just speaking to the union—could result in being targeted through the capability process. It created a toxic culture of fear, with many colleagues left traumatised by the experience. I left in 2007, deeply disillusioned, after witnessing the harm it caused.

I joined the Home Office, where the culture was markedly different—better conditions, respectful treatment, and strong PCS union representation. Though I’d always been a union member, this was the first time I truly appreciated the power of trade unionism in protecting dignity at work. It was a positive environment—until 2010, when a change in government brought cuts and intensified workloads. PCS resisted those changes tenaciously.

A friend of mine, a union rep, was unfairly dismissed for carrying out his duties. Outraged, I stepped up as a rep myself. I first served as an environmental rep, then took individual cases and was part of collective bargaining. Later, I moved to the passport office, where I became branch secretary, where I really cut my teeth as a trade unionist.

2. What motivated you to join the Institute in 2015?

As a rep in the passport office, I deepened my legal knowledge to better support our members, though I increasingly saw the limits of employment law—particularly in cases like probationary dismissals. It became clear to me that the law itself needed strengthening to better support workers. I discovered the Institute of Employment Rights (IER) and subscribed to stay informed. I was impressed by their work and remember being especially inspired by a 2014 event at the Adelphi hotel in Liverpool, where John Hendy, Keith Ewing, and Carolyn Jones articulated the realities of working life with clarity and authority. When I saw a vacancy the following year, I applied—and the rest is history.

3. What lessons did you learn from your time as a rep involved in high-profile campaigns in the north-west, and how has this influenced your vision for the IER?

First and foremost, I learned that organising—genuinely recruiting and engaging members—is everything. This isn’t just a buzzword. Our branch put in the hard work with weekly floor walks, reaching 96% union membership of the workforce. That strong foundation was key to winning campaigns like a £2,000 annual pay rise for the lowest-paid staff, and bringing hundreds of jobs to the region. Organising is the bedrock of collective power, whether in negotiations or disputes. Talking with workers, showing you care, and proving you’re determined to fight for them makes all the difference.

Secondly, I learned the real power of solidarity. Supporting other unions on their picket lines—and having them support ours—was very moving to me. Those relationships built mutual support networks, and I owe much of what I achieved to the kindness and wisdom of more experienced trade unionists. The power of non-sectarian broad alliances working towards common goals is really at the heart of what we should be striving for as a union movement.

Thirdly, I realised that bad employers can act like smiling assassins—saying one thing in partnership while doing the opposite behind the scenes. When industrial action is threatened, some employers deploy underhand tactics. Responding swiftly to counter misinformation is essential and can turn their tactics against them.

Lastly, I learned that even with passion, burnout is real. We can’t shoulder everything alone. Trade unionism is collective by nature, and so is our well-being. Sharing the load and supporting each other is not only strategic—it’s essential. Our movement is about struggle, yes, but also about care, sustainability, and looking after each other along the way.

I guess all this influenced my vision at IER because we have to have good ideas, with people’s wellbeing at the heart of them. We have to work hard together, be tenacious, and be patient in order to win the arguments about improving workers’ rights in the long-term.

4. What are you most proud of from your tenure at the Institute?

I’m proud of loads of things, but the one that really sticks out is the IER’s 2016 Manifesto for Labour Law. It laid the groundwork for what became the Employment Rights Bill (ERB). While I was mainly in a coordinating role and much of the heavy lifting was done by former Director Carolyn Jones, it was an exciting and vibrant time. We genuinely had a feeling that the ideas could transform workers’ rights. It was a collective effort by IER staff and experts, and whether or not the ERB functions exactly as intended when it gets royal assent, the principles in the manifesto are solid—rooted in both historical and international precedent. The Manifesto also gained international attention, with translations sparking global interest and discussion. It opened up real conversations about how the law could be reshaped for the better. I’m convinced that without it, the Employment Rights Bill wouldn’t exist as we know it today.

If I had to pick a second proud moment, it would be our podcasts on the ERB. It made complex legal ideas more accessible, and I really enjoyed giving it form.

5. Who has influenced your thinking from within the labour movement?

Honestly, loads of people, all from different walks of life. From my early trade union mentors, to table thumping general secretaries, to balanced and measured lawyers and academics. The IER is the interface of all these expert facets into one, and there is value in each of those facets. Exponentially so when combined.

6. When you joined the Institute in 2015, what did you hope to achieve, and how has this evolved since then?

My original motivation came from personal experience—I wanted to prevent other workers from going through the same exploitation, fear, and authoritarianism that my friends and I faced early in our working lives, by doing what I could to assist us informing the debate on changing the law. That drive is still very much alive. But now that I’ve settled down and become a parent, the focus has shifted. I’m increasingly thinking about the future world of work—what it will look like for my children, and how we can shape it to be fairer, more humane, and more empowering for their generation and the ones that follow.

7. The past decade has been tumultuous for workers, with pivotal moments including Brexit, Covid-19 and the cost-of-living crisis. What are your reflections on this time, and how it has affected the labour movement and the influence the IER has on policy.

Brexit was a complex issue with serious real-world consequences. Unfortunately, the debate was poisoned by reactionary rhetoric on both sides and further inflamed by the polarising nature of social media. At IER, we focused on providing balanced, expert analysis and trusted people to draw their own conclusions.

Covid-19 was another intense period. Personally, it was challenging—we had two young children at home, one needing homeschooling, so my partner (now wife) and I had to juggle work and parenting. I really valued the flexibility and support from Cad and the IER team. Professionally, we moved quickly to address urgent issues like workplace safety, remote working conditions, and furlough. We hosted popular online events to share expert insights and examine whether our enforcement systems, weakened by years of cuts and politicisation, were still fit for purpose. One key post-Covid insight was that people began to truly value their personal time—many didn’t want to return to the pre-pandemic “live to work” culture.

The cost-of-living crisis isn’t new—it’s an escalation of long-standing issues. Since austerity began in 2010, workers’ real wages have stagnated. The recent crisis simply made the economic squeeze too fast to ignore, exposing myths used to justify wage suppression. It’s made IER ideas around sector-wide bargaining and a more equitable economy more relevant than ever. Unlike the wealthy, who stash their money offshore, workers spend their wages and drive demand—so if we want a thriving economy, they’re the ones who should be paid more.

8. What direction would you like to see the IER go in the next 5-10 years?

I want to keep expanding our network of expert contributors, ensuring we cover a wide range of issues with diverse perspectives—crucial for good analysis and decision-making. While staying true to what IER has done well for years. We also need to evolve with the labour movement’s needs. A key part of that is producing practical resources for trade unionists. One recent example is our project with the Alex Ferry Foundation, showcasing how unions in manufacturing have successfully negotiated reduced working hours without loss of pay. That model has broader relevance and could help many workers in other sectors enjoy more time with their families.

IER developed the blueprint for what became the Employment Rights Bill, and I’d like to see that work properly completed so we can build on it and look ahead. We’ll continue informing the debate on what comes next.

Emerging issues like AI, platform work, and algorithmic management will be a growing focus. The need for regulation is urgent—we can’t allow opaque systems to make decisions that neither employers nor workers fully understand, especially when many are already breaching UK labour law.

Unforeseen challenges will arise, as they always do. IER’s role is to offer grounded, thoughtful responses in times of rapid change.

9. What have been the defining moments/changes in employment rights and trade union freedom in the UK over the past decade?

Prioritising market outcomes over people’s wellbeing has created an imbalance that’s ultimately unsustainable. If we want a fairer future for workers, we need to rethink this approach and focus more on long-term social and economic sustainability. To achieve that, trade unions must have an effective voice at work and a role in setting the industrial and economic agenda. That can only be achieved by ensuring trade unions are at the negotiating table at both sectoral and local levels. That’s important because the number of people covered by a collective agreement has drastically reduced over the last few decades. Having effective trade unions at work helps protect and enforce employment rights.

10. In your view what would be three of the most effective changes to labour rights in the present day?

Employment contracts should be permanent by default, with opt-outs for those who genuinely prefer flexible or zero-hour work. To prevent exploitation, this must go hand-in-hand with universal worker status, closing loopholes that allow employers to misuse self-employment to avoid their responsibilities as an employer.

Ensuring the right to strike meets international standards is essential. Without a real ability to stop working—free from overly complex anti-union laws—workers can’t fairly negotiate with employers, who often have far more resources. The right to strike helps balance this power. As our experts put it, without the right to strike, collective bargaining becomes little more than collective begging. Meeting international standards on this shouldn’t be controversial.