THERESA MAY has illustrated her willingness to follow orders from big business by climbing down so swiftly over the issue of putting workers on corporate boards.

As recently as July, while campaigning to replace David Cameron as Tory leader, May declared that “we’re going to have not just consumers represented on company boards but employees as well.”

“Oh no you’re not,” the guardians of corporate excess whispered in her ear and, lo and behold, the Prime Minister dutifully told last week’s CBI conference in London that she had changed her mind.

“I can categorically tell you that this is not about mandating works councils or the direct appointment of workers or trade union representatives on boards,” she grovelled.

Business Secretary Greg Clark explained that, while the government rejected compulsion, there were “different ways of doing this.”

In other words, if any companies fancy the idea, fair enough. If they prefer to retain the status quo, it’s, literally, business as usual.

Having workers on company boards — even mandated trade union representatives — is not a panacea to put right corporate excesses, but it could improve shop-floor awareness of company plans. A lone worker director will not, however, be able to end the scandal of an ever-widening gap between the rewards enjoyed by the boardroom and those at the sharp end who create value through their labour power.

Needless to say, the government proposals outlined yesterday in a green paper will have precious little effect on this gap.

FTSE 100 companies’ chief executives rake in around £4 million a year, which is 140 times the salary of the average worker, having increased from 45 times in 1998 to 89-fold in 2010.

The gulf grows wider every year and top bosses are unembarrassed by public awareness of the disparity. If anything, they revel in it. They and their apologists justify their obscene rewards on being able to drive up share prices and shareholder dividends as though companies’ market success depended overwhelmingly on the activities of miracle-working CEOs.

Publication of pay ratios will not persuade management to reduce the level of inequality. Nor will empowering shareholders to order binding limits to boardroom rewards have a noticeable effect other than in a handful of companies.

The results of company annual general meetings are generally stitched up well in advance by institutional shareholders and the meeting chairman authorised to cast votes on those unable or unwilling to attend in person. As long as share prices and dividends are buoyant, CEOs have little fear of a shareholder revolt.

What May and Clark are engaged in is a publicity campaign to appear to be doing something in response to growing public anger over the grotesque plunder of BHS or disregard for minimum wage legislation at Sports Direct by arrogant and apparently untouchable owners.

Shadow business secretary Clive Lewis is right to suggest that, even if the May-Clark proposals had been set in legislation, they would have been unlikely to prevent such abuses of corporate power.

Deregulation has become such a dominant factor in recent decades that big business feels free to make the rules up as it goes along. It may well be the case, as some leading trade unionists believe, that putting workers on company boards can help build “a stronger and fairer economy.”

But the strongest guarantee of workers’ rights and more equitable wealth distribution is trade union organisation and more comprehensive collective bargaining.