Workers’ Memorial Day: Remembering Lives Lost at Work

Monday 28 April 2025 is Workers’ Memorial Day. It’s the day we remember all those killed, injured, or made ill because of their jobs. We’re asking everyone to wear something red that day. A red ribbon. A red t-shirt. Even a red badge. Whatever works. It’s a small gesture, but it makes a clear point: no one should die just for going to work.

The truth behind the headlines

Workplace deaths aren’t “tragic accidents.” They’re the result of bad decisions. Unsafe buildings. Poor training. Overwork. Stress. Some employers cut corners. Some push people too hard. And some just don’t care. And while they save money, people get hurt. Or worse.

Hundreds of workers in the UK died at work last year. Thousands more became ill or injured. The real number is probably even higher. Stress, anxiety, and depression are now major health risks. Some workers have taken their own lives because of what’s happening at work. This isn’t just sad. It’s a scandal.

Safe work is a basic right

Health and safety isn’t about ticking boxes. It’s about staying alive. It’s about making sure people don’t fall off scaffolding. Don’t collapse from heat and pressure. Don’t break their backs lifting things. Don’t end up burned out or traumatised. And yet we keep hearing the same things: “We haven’t had time to do the checks.” “It’s only a small risk.” “It’ll be fine.” That’s what they always say — until someone ends up in hospital. Or in a body bag.

What we’re calling for

We want action. Not talk. Not sympathy. Real change. That means: The right to say “no” to unsafe work — without losing your job. Better protection for people who speak out. Bosses held to account when workers get hurt. Mental health treated as seriously as physical injuries.Stronger inspections and real penalties for unsafe practices.None of this happens by itself. Workers make it happen. Union reps make it happen. Standing together makes it happen.

Remember and resist

On 28 April, we remember those who didn’t make it home.

We remember the cleaner with no PPE. The delivery driver forced to keep going in a storm. The care worker left alone on a night shift. And we don’t just remember them — we organise. We speak up. We refuse to accept it. So this Workers’ Memorial Day, wear red. Talk to your mates. Raise the issue at work. If it’s not safe, say so. Because the best way to honour the dead — is to protect the living.

By Maria Camara

UK Supreme Court’s 2025 Ruling: ‘Woman’ Defined by Biological Sex – Context, Implications, and Reactions

In April 2025, the UK Supreme Court delivered a historic judgment confirming that under the Equality Act 2010, the term “woman” refers to a biological female – in other words, one’s sex assigned at birth.[1] This unanimous ruling by five justices resolved a long-running legal dispute and clarified the law’s intent regarding sex-based rights.

Legal Background

The Equality Act 2010 is the UK’s comprehensive anti-discrimination law, establishing sex as a protected characteristic alongside others like race, religion, sexual orientation, and gender reassignment. Notably, the Act’s glossary defines “woman” as “a female of any age” and “man” as “a male of any age.”[2] The Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA), passed in response to a 2002 European Court of Human Rights ruling, allows transgender people to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) legally recognizing their acquired gender. A GRC holder is to be treated as their affirmed gender “for all purposes” of law (with a few exceptions).[3] For nearly two decades, the working understanding in the UK was that a trans woman with a GRC would generally be regarded as legally female (a “woman”) in most contexts.

The Supreme Court’s decision in 2025 upended this assumption by drawing a distinction between gender identity and the protected category of sex in the Equality Act. As Deputy Court President Lord Patrick Hodge put it, the EA “deals with biological sex at birth, and not with a person’s acquired gender, regardless of whether they held a gender recognition certificate.”[4]

The For Women Scotland Case

The case was brought by feminist advocacy group For Women Scotland (FWS). In 2018, the Scottish Parliament passed the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act, aiming for 50/50 representation of men and women on public sector boards. The Scottish government’s accompanying guidance stated that for these purposes, a “woman” included trans women with a GRC, treating them as legally female.[5] FWS – supported financially by author J.K. Rowling – challenged this guidance, arguing that the Scottish government had overstepped its devolved powers by effectively redefining “woman” beyond the meaning intended in the UK-wide Equality Act.

After losing in the Scottish courts in 2022, FWS was granted permission to appeal to the Supreme Court, which heard the case in November 2024.

Supreme Court’s Decision and Reasoning

On April 16, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in FWS’s favor.[6] The central question was whether a transgender woman with a GRC counts as a woman under the Equality Act 2010. The court’s answer was a clear “no.”

In an 88-page judgment, the justices held that the ordinary, “plain and unambiguous” meaning of woman in the Equality Act “corresponds with… biological characteristics,” i.e. someone born female.[7] They emphasized that sex in the statute means biological sex, and this had always been Parliament’s intent. Any broader interpretation (e.g. including those who changed legal gender) would, in their view, render parts of the Act “incoherent and unworkable.”

Lord Hodge noted that interpreting sex as “certificated gender” would produce “heterogeneous groupings” and clash with specific provisions on pregnancy, maternity, and sex-specific protections that logically refer only to biological sex.

Workplace and Employment Implications

The Supreme Court’s ruling carries significant implications for workplaces, employers, and trade unions, especially regarding policies on sex and gender. By legally cementing that “women” means only biological females in the Equality Act, the judgment potentially affects everything from hiring practices and diversity policies to provision of single-sex facilities at work.[8]

Single-Sex Spaces and Facilities

Employers that provide sex-specific spaces – such as women’s toilets, changing rooms, or shower facilities – may feel more confident in restricting these to biologically female employees. Previously, many organizations adopted gender identity-inclusive approaches as a matter of good practice or legal caution. While the law already permitted exclusion of trans people from single-sex spaces if it was a “proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”, the Supreme Court has “cleared up [that] legal ambiguity,” confirming that such spaces can be lawfully reserved for natal women.[9]

Practically, this may make it easier for employers to exclude trans women from, say, a women’s locker room or female dormitory at a work site, on the basis that they are not legally women. Employers should still tread carefully: any exclusion must be justifiable to avoid unlawful gender reassignment discrimination.[10]

Recruitment and Job Roles

Employers sometimes use genuine occupational requirements to hire only women for certain roles – for example, a counselor for female rape survivors. Under the clarified definition, only biological females count as women for such roles. A trans woman applicant, even with a GRC, could now be lawfully treated as ineligible for a “women-only” position, based solely on her sex at birth.[11]

Equal Opportunities and Diversity Policies

Many employers have adopted expansive equality policies that go beyond the letter of the law. While these commitments aren’t directly affected by the court ruling, the legal baseline has shifted. Employers must be mindful that affirmative action or quotas for women (e.g., in governance or board appointments) cannot automatically include trans women unless this is explicitly stated as a policy choice.[12]

Workplace Dress Codes and HR Practices

The ruling may also affect workplace inclusion. HR professionals have observed that ensuring a welcoming environment for trans employees might become more challenging. One employment law partner noted that “because of the ruling, ensuring workplaces are welcoming places for trans people will be an ‘uphill battle’.”[13] Trans employees could feel alienated if workplace policies start distinguishing “legal women” versus “trans women.”

Trade Unions and Worker Representation

Trade unions – with responsibilities to advocate for equality and represent all members – must navigate this ruling sensitively. A union like Solidarity, for instance, may find the decision validates long-held concerns of some members about preserving sex-based protections. However, they must still robustly support trans members, who are protected under the Equality Act’s gender reassignment provision. No union can lawfully deny representation based on a member’s transgender status.[14]

Unions may also play a crucial role in ensuring that employers implement the ruling fairly – avoiding blanket bans or policies that create hostile environments for trans workers. Updated guidance for shop stewards and equality reps may be necessary to handle sensitive disputes with clarity and fairness.

Consequences for the Trans and Cisgender Communities

The Supreme Court’s decision has profound implications for both transgender people and cisgender women, particularly in their access to services, spaces, and opportunities previously understood to be protected under the broader interpretation of the term “woman.”

Reactions from Trans Communities and Advocacy Groups

LGBTQ+ organizations including Stonewall and TransActual UK have expressed concern that this ruling may reinforce discriminatory behaviour and deepen social exclusion. They argue that although protections under the gender reassignment characteristic remain in place, the ruling effectively creates a legal distinction that reduces the scope of rights and recognitions trans people may have previously assumed.[15]

Jane Fae, director of TransActual, warned the ruling could have a symbolic impact that makes trans people feel “as if they have been told they do not exist.” While not creating new offences, the judgment may be misinterpreted by service providers or individuals, potentially increasing the risk of exclusion and misapplication of the law.[16]

Access to Single-Sex Spaces and Public Services

Trans women may now face greater exclusion from rape crisis centres, domestic violence refuges, hospital wards, and changing rooms, even when they hold a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC). The ruling confirms that these services can legally define access by biological sex, provided the exclusion is proportionate and justified.[17]

NHS guidance from 2019, which stated that trans patients should be accommodated according to their gender presentation, is expected to be revised to align with the ruling. Baroness Falkner of the EHRC has indicated that the NHS and similar service providers will need to “start to implement the new legal reasoning and produce their exceptions forthwith.”[18]

Public Boards and Civic Participation

Trans women will no longer qualify as women for the purposes of measures aimed at achieving gender balance on public sector boards, such as those legislated for by the Scottish Government. This has immediate implications for civic representation and may set a precedent for similar assessments across the UK.

Responses from Cisgender Women

Some gender-critical feminists and advocacy groups such as For Women Scotland and the LGB Alliance celebrated the ruling, calling it a “victory for women’s rights” and a confirmation that women-only spaces and services should be protected as such.[19] They argue this offers legal support to cisgender women who have raised concerns about privacy, safety, and dignity in shared spaces.

However, many cisgender women and feminists who support transgender inclusion have responded with dismay, noting that trans women have used these spaces safely for years. Critics worry the ruling may embolden harassment and vigilance by the public in gender-policing spaces like toilets and changing areas.

Legal Ambiguity for Trans Men and Non-Binary People

Interestingly, the ruling also means that trans men – individuals assigned female at birth – are still considered women under the Equality Act, unless future legislation states otherwise. This has potential implications for inclusion in women-only spaces and in measures designed to promote female representation or opportunity. For non-binary individuals, who do not identify strictly as male or female, the ruling provides no clear guidance, leaving them in a legal grey area.

Social and Psychological Impacts

Though the court emphasized that trans individuals are still protected under the Equality Act, the symbolic message of the ruling is profound. Many in the trans community feel relegated or erased, while some cisgender women feel that their rights are being newly upheld. The challenge for service providers, employers, and advocacy groups is to ensure that in asserting sex-based rights, society does not inadvertently foster exclusion, hostility, or harm.

Comparative International Legal Context

The UK Supreme Court’s ruling has placed the country at one end of a spectrum of international approaches to legal definitions of sex and gender. While some democracies are codifying sex as based on biology, others are expanding legal frameworks to affirm gender identity regardless of sex assigned at birth.

United States

In the United States, the legal approach is more fragmented. The landmark Supreme Court case Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) ruled that firing someone for being transgender constitutes discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits sex-based discrimination.[20] However, definitions vary by state. Several U.S. states have passed legislation explicitly defining sex as immutable and based on birth anatomy, similar to the UK’s new interpretation. Conversely, the federal government under the Biden administration has broadly interpreted sex-based protections to include gender identity.

Canada

Canada has enshrined gender identity and expression as protected categories under the Canadian Human Rights Act and provincial human rights codes. Since 2017, federal law explicitly prohibits discrimination based on gender identity, and most provinces allow for gender marker changes on identification documents without surgical requirements.[21] Legal sex is defined by self-identification in most contexts, and transgender individuals are fully recognized in the gender they live in.

European Union

Across the EU, many countries have moved toward gender self-identification. For instance, Ireland, Denmark, and Spain allow individuals to change legal gender based on self-declaration without medical certification. Spain’s 2023 “Ley Trans” legislation allows individuals over 16 to change their legal sex based on self-identification, aligning with progressive EU standards.[22]

However, not all European countries are aligned. Poland and Hungary have taken restrictive stances, with Hungary banning legal gender changes altogether in 2020. In general, though, EU human rights case law, including decisions by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), has supported trans rights, particularly through privacy and non-discrimination provisions.

Australia and New Zealand

In Australia, federal and state laws vary, but generally include gender identity as a protected attribute. Court rulings have recognized trans individuals in their affirmed gender, and several states allow self-identification for legal gender change. New Zealand introduced self-ID for gender on birth certificates in 2023, marking a significant shift toward gender autonomy.[23]

Sports and Global Bodies

Internationally, governing bodies like World Athletics and World Rugby have introduced policies restricting trans women’s participation in female competitions, citing fairness and safety. The UK ruling may reinforce similar domestic policies, although interpretations continue to evolve.

Summary

Compared to its peers, the UK now occupies a more restrictive position on the legal definition of sex. While many liberal democracies are moving toward gender-inclusive frameworks, the UK has clarified a biological interpretation of sex for equality law purposes. This divergence may have implications for future international human rights reviews or legal conflicts involving cross-border rights recognition.

Big Business Wants to Block Your Rights at Work – We Can’t Let Them

In an open letter, organisations such as the Confederation of British Industry and British Chambers of Commerce voiced their concerns. Others joined them in warning that the legislation would hurt growth. They also cautioned it would encourage conflict. Their concerns? That providing workers with proper rights, like fair notice, is problematic. Offering guaranteed hours can be challenging. Protecting workers from unfair dismissal might somehow damage the economy.

Let’s not be fooled.

The Employment Rights Bill includes modest but much-needed reforms. It would clamp down on exploitative zero-hours contracts. It would extend sick pay to all. It would scrap the draconian Minimum Service Levels Act, which restricts workers’ ability to take lawful strike action. And it would make sure employees can’t be dismissed unfairly from the moment they start a job.

These aren’t radical demands. They’re basic standards in any society that values dignity and decency in the workplace.

Yet big business leaders claim these measures are too costly or burdensome. That offering stable hours to people who work regular shifts is ‘unnecessary admin’. That allowing staff to challenge unfair treatment will put employers off hiring. The same tired arguments were wheeled out decades ago when the minimum wage was introduced. They were wrong then, and they’re no more convincing now.

The truth is, good employers already treat their staff fairly. They value loyalty, stability, and wellbeing. It’s not fairness that threatens economic performance – it’s insecurity, low morale, and poor conditions. Reforms like these don’t stifle growth; they make it more sustainable.

Let’s also remember: these proposed changes are popular. Surveys show that managers and workers alike support stronger protections. They recognise that rights at work aren’t just about fairness – they’re essential for productivity, health, and trust.

The Bill itself is already a scaled-back version of what was promised in Labour’s original New Deal for Working People. Unfortunately, it falls short. That plan included meaningful sector-wide bargaining, proper enforcement, and an end to fire-and-rehire tactics. It aligned the UK with international labour standards. That’s the real vision we should be aiming for.

Further dilution of the current proposals would serve only one purpose. It would keep the door open for rogue employers to exploit vulnerable workers. To keep wages low, rights weak, and unions sidelined.

We need to stop pretending that the voices of corporate lobbyists are neutral or balanced. They represent those with the most to lose from fairer treatment of the people who keep this country running. These include the cleaners, carers, drivers, hospitality staff, engineers, and countless others.

Solidarity stands firmly behind the Employment Rights Bill. We call on the government to strengthen it, not strip it back. And we urge Parliament to stand with working people – not those clinging to a broken status quo.

Working people have waited long enough. Now is the time to deliver.

Solidarity stands with Birmingham’s striking bin workers

575 words, 3 minutes read time.

Solidarity is proud to stand with the Birmingham refuse workers, who are taking all-out strike action against disgraceful pay cuts and job threats. These are not minor changes — some of these key workers stand to lose as much as £8,000 a year. That’s nearly a quarter of their wages. And for what? To balance the books after years of mismanagement, while those at the top carry on unaffected.

Now we’re hearing calls from Angela Rayner, the Deputy Prime Minister and Local Government Secretary, for workers to accept what she calls an “improved” offer. Speaking during a photo-op with local volunteers tidying rubbish left by the strike, she said:

“The people of Birmingham are our first priority — this dispute is causing misery and disruption to residents and the backlog must be dealt with quickly to address public health risks.

There is now a better offer on the table and I would urge Unite to suspend the action and accept the improved deal so we achieve fairness for both workers and residents of this city.”

But where is the fairness in asking workers to take a 25% hit to their pay? What’s “improved” about a deal that still leaves people struggling to pay their bills?

Sharon Graham, Unite’s general secretary, rightly challenged the hypocrisy:

“Whilst it is helpful that the government finally realised after weeks that they have a role in this dispute, the constant attacks and briefings against these low-paid bin workers is frankly a disgrace.

This dispute is not about greed, or increased pay. This dispute is about workers losing up to £8,000 of their pay — which for some is almost a quarter.

A notable point was made by one of our members, which Unite believes sums up where we are with this council and could be with others: ‘The council are saying that we should share the pain but not one councillor, including the leader, has been asked to give up a quarter of their pay.

We thought when Labour came in they would stop what was happening — we were wrong’.”

Instead of sitting down with the union and finding a just solution, the council and its allies have chosen confrontation. Strike-breakers have been brought in — untrained, non-union, and without the safety knowledge required for such work. This is a deeply irresponsible move that puts both the public and the scabs themselves at risk.

To make matters worse, the police have been deployed to monitor and intimidate lawful pickets. Why is public money being spent sending officers to watch workers standing up for their rights, rather than dealing with real threats to public safety? It’s a transparent attempt to suppress solidarity and send a message: “don’t step out of line.”

This isn’t just a Birmingham issue. It’s about the wider principle: do we allow public sector workers to be treated as disposable? Or do we fight back?

Bin workers were there during the pandemic. They worked through lockdown, often with little protection, to keep our communities clean. They didn’t ask for praise — they asked for fair pay. And this is how they’re repaid?

Solidarity condemns the use of strike-breakers and police pressure to undermine legitimate action. We stand firmly with the striking workers. Their fight is our fight — for dignity, fairness and respect at work.

If there’s any “pain to be shared,” it should start at the top. Until councillors take a 25% pay cut themselves, they’ve no business telling others to accept one.

By Maria Camara

Solidarity with British Industry: Why Buying British Is More Vital Than Ever by Pat Harrington

All political groups and unions must unite in a ‘Buy British campaign says Pat Harrington

1,235 words, 7 minutes read time.

The call to “Buy British” has never been a matter of nostalgia or jingoism. For trade unions like Solidarity and the wider Labour movement, it’s a practical, progressive tool to protect jobs, revive our manufacturing base, and build a more self-reliant, future-ready economy. Amid the upheavals of global supply chains, mounting geopolitical tensions, and the rise of protectionist policies from international powers like the United States, the case for using our collective spending power to support British industry has never been stronger.

Solidarity union has proudly led the charge, running several public campaigns urging consumers to choose British-made goods wherever possible. These campaigns are rooted in a simple yet powerful belief: when we buy British, we invest in British jobs, communities, and skills. It’s not just about waving the flag—it’s about economic justice, sustainability, and national resilience.

Historically, the Labour Party and trade unions have often championed “Buy British” initiatives during times of industrial crisis. In the 1970s and 1980s, as traditional industries faced collapse, union campaigns highlighted the importance of keeping jobs in Britain. The Transport & General Workers’ Union, for example, actively promoted British-made vehicles and products to protect domestic manufacturing. Labour governments of the past also embraced this approach. Harold Wilson praised grassroots initiatives such as the “I’m Backing Britain” campaign in the late 1960s, and the Labour manifesto of 1983 proposed import controls and prioritising British-made goods in public procurement. While these efforts were sometimes controversial, they were rooted in a shared commitment to national industrial renewal.

In more recent years, trade union federations like the TUC have published position papers advocating for a coherent industrial strategy. These documents emphasise the need for investment in high-value manufacturing, green energy, and infrastructure—areas where government procurement can and should favour domestic suppliers. Solidarity fully supports these calls and continues to argue that only with a long-term industrial plan can Britain secure its economic independence.

That said, not all political leaders have shown the same resolve. Some voices within the Labour Party have expressed hesitation. For instance, Chancellor Rachel Reeves recently stated that she would not back a consumer-focused “Buy British” campaign, arguing that such efforts risk encouraging economic nationalism. While Solidarity recognises the dangers of xenophobia or trade isolationism, we firmly disagree with this conclusion. We believe the British public should be encouraged and empowered to support local production—not out of hostility to others, but out of loyalty to the communities in which they live and work.

It is important to state clearly: Solidarity does not base its policy on a shallow anti-Americanism or target U.S. imports specifically. Our position is motivated by a sincere desire to see an independent and prosperous United Kingdom—capable of making and trading high-quality goods, resilient in the face of global shocks, and free to pursue its own economic strategy. Buying British, in our view, is not about closing ourselves off from the world; it’s about building a strong, confident nation that can compete globally from a position of strength.

This aspiration is only possible because of the freedoms we now possess outside the European Union. Many of the measures we advocate—strategic procurement, public investment in domestic industry, and local content rules—would have been difficult, if not impossible, under EU single market and state aid rules. Whatever one’s position on Brexit, it is clear that the UK is now uniquely positioned to chart its own industrial future. That opportunity must not be wasted.

We’ve seen firsthand how offshoring and deindustrialisation have hollowed out communities. Entire generations have been robbed of the skilled, secure work that once defined working-class life in Britain. Yet, instead of despair, we see opportunity: the chance to rebuild. Rebuilding the UK’s manufacturing base is not a backward-looking project. On the contrary, it’s the only credible path to long-term prosperity, especially in a world where supply lines can snap overnight and foreign governments act unilaterally to prioritise their own industries.

Take the example of the U.S. tariffs under the Trump administration—first on steel and aluminium, then on aircraft, and now the new blanket 10% tariffs and targeted car tariffs. These are not just abstract trade disputes; they’re direct threats to British workers. When tariffs shut out our exports, our factories suffer, our jobs disappear, and our communities pay the price. The only responsible response is to fight back—not with hollow slogans, but with investment, procurement, and a serious industrial strategy.

That’s why Solidarity supports the Labour Party’s calls for strategic procurement to favour UK suppliers. Labour’s proposals to rebuild manufacturing capacity, invest in green industry, and embed “Buy British” principles in public contracts are not just welcome—they are essential. The promise to make, buy, and sell more in Britain isn’t protectionism—it’s common sense. It’s about using the enormous power of public spending—over £270 billion a year—to secure good jobs, shorten supply chains, and reduce reliance on volatile global markets.

Technology sovereignty is also at stake. The UK cannot afford to be dependent on others for semiconductors, energy components, or the tools of the future economy. If we want to lead in clean energy, digital infrastructure, or medical innovation, we need to make sure we can build the necessary parts here at home. Buying British isn’t just about steel and cars—it’s about making sure the next generation of industry is made in Britain, by British workers, under decent conditions.

Solidarity’s message is clear: every purchase is a political act. When we buy a car made in Sunderland, a steel beam forged in Port Talbot, or a jacket sewn in Leicester, we’re casting a vote for good jobs, fair pay, and national self-respect. That’s why we continue to campaign not only for better trade policy, but for better choices at the till.

We urge the government—and all political parties—to take up this cause without hesitation. We must match rhetoric with resources, and slogans with strategy. Britain needs a serious industrial policy, clear local content rules in procurement, and investment in the industries of the future. The Labour Party and trade unions are right to demand these things. Solidarity is proud to stand alongside them.

Buying British is not a luxury—it is a necessity. Let’s make it a national priority.

Footnotes

Trump administration imposed 25% tariffs on steel and 10% on aluminium in 2018, affecting UK exports.
UK exports of cars to the US exceed £8 billion annually; Trump threatened a 25% tariff on autos in 2019 and 2025.
Labour’s 2024 industrial strategy includes proposals for strategic procurement and rebuilding domestic supply chains.
Solidarity union campaigns have included local business spotlights, workplace posters, and social media campaigns to encourage consumers to buy British.
The TUC has long advocated for the revival of UK manufacturing and coordinated responses to trade shocks.
Labour and unions called for “Save Our Steel” procurement policies during the 2015-2016 crisis and after Trump-era tariffs.
The UK’s public procurement budget is approximately £270 billion per year, presenting a major opportunity to boost domestic industry.
Technology sovereignty has been cited by think tanks and unions as a key pillar of future industrial resilience.
The 1983 Labour manifesto proposed import controls and prioritisation of British-made goods.
Rachel Reeves, April 2025: “If every country decided to only buy things produced at home, that’s not a good way forward.”

Victory for Workers: Fire and Rehire Practices Defeated

Teachers demonstrate against fire and rehire

419 words, 2 minutes read time.

The exploitative practice of fire and rehire, long criticised for undermining workers’ rights and bargaining power, is set to become a relic of the past. With Clause 26 of the Employment Rights Bill introducing Section 104I to the Employment Rights Act 1996, employees will finally have the protection they deserve. This landmark change ensures that refusing an unfair contractual change is no longer a gamble—it’s an automatic right.

A Long-Awaited Shield for Workers

Under the new law, it is now automatically unfair for an employer to dismiss an employee simply because they refuse to accept changes to their contractual terms. For years, workers have faced the devastating choice between losing their jobs or accepting inferior terms. Now, such dismissals will no longer hang over employees like a sword of Damocles. From commission cuts to enforced rota changes, workers can stand their ground without fear of being pushed out of their jobs.

One Exception, But a High Bar

The only exception to this protection is if a business is genuinely facing collapse—a defence requiring extensive and documented evidence of financial distress. Even then, employers must prove they consulted workers, explored every alternative, and treated employees fairly under existing dismissal principles. This rigorous safeguard ensures the exception cannot be exploited to erode workers’ rights.

Empowering Collective Action

For trade unions, this legal breakthrough is a cause for celebration and renewed activism. The fire-and-rehire tactic has often been used to bypass collective bargaining and impose terms without proper negotiation. The new legislation reinforces the importance of unions as a voice for workers, making consultation and negotiation essential for any contractual changes. The balance of power is shifting, creating opportunities for workers to demand fair treatment and respectful dialogue from their employers.

Strengthening Solidarity

This change not only protects individual workers but also fosters collective strength. Employers can no longer wield dismissal as a threat to break union solidarity or undermine collective agreements. Workers, with the backing of their unions, can negotiate from a position of greater confidence, knowing the law is on their side.

A Turning Point for Workers’ Rights

Clause 26 represents a historic victory in the fight for fair employment practices. It signals an end to the abuse of fire and rehire and a step towards a workplace culture that values fairness, respect, and shared prosperity. This legislation doesn’t just protect workers—it uplifts them. It’s a reminder that when workers and unions stand together, change is not only possible but inevitable.

By Maria Camara

Why Shopping Local This Easter is a Win for Us All

546 words, 3 minutes read time.

Our General Secretary, Pat Harrington, argues the case for shopping local this Easter

As the Easter weekend approaches, families across the UK are getting ready to gather, feast, and celebrate. But while we’re planning roast dinners, egg hunts, and sweet treats, we also have an opportunity—an opportunity to make choices that directly strengthen our communities, protect our environment, and support decent jobs.

This Easter, Solidarity Union urges everyone to shop local. Here’s why it matters—and why it’s one of the simplest, most powerful ways to make a difference.

1. Supporting Jobs in Your Community

When you spend money with local butchers, bakers, grocers, and makers, you’re not lining the pockets of offshore corporations—you’re supporting real people. People with names, families, and bills to pay. People who are far more likely to be on fairer contracts, employed on proper wages, and invested in their communities.

Every pound spent locally has a multiplier effect: it keeps money circulating in the local economy, supports apprenticeships, and helps small businesses stay afloat. That’s job security for thousands of workers, especially in a time of rising living costs.

2. Fighting Back Against Exploitation

Big retailers may boast convenience, but they’re also some of the worst offenders when it comes to zero-hours contracts, wage suppression, and union-busting tactics. Local businesses, especially those that recognise unions like ours, are more likely to treat their staff fairly.

By choosing to shop locally, you’re rejecting a system that puts profit above people—and instead choosing one that values dignity, decency, and fairness at work.

3. Better for the Planet

Local food and goods don’t travel thousands of miles to get to your Easter table. They don’t require the same energy-intensive supply chains or endless packaging waste. That means fewer emissions, less plastic, and a smaller environmental footprint.

Choosing local this Easter helps build a more sustainable economy—one rooted in shorter supply chains and real accountability.

4. Better Quality, More Transparency

Ask a local baker where their flour comes from. Ask your neighbourhood butcher about their lamb. You’ll likely get an answer. Try that with a supermarket stockist and you’ll get a blank stare.

When you shop local, you’re closer to the source. That means fresher ingredients, better quality goods, and more transparency about where things come from. You’re not just buying food—you’re buying trust.

5. Keeping Our High Streets Alive

Every time a local shop closes, we lose more than a storefront—we lose community. Local businesses provide meeting points, character, and a sense of place. They’re part of the social glue that binds us.

This Easter, every hot cross bun or bunch of daffodils bought from a local trader helps keep our high streets vibrant and alive.

A Message from Solidarity Union

At Solidarity Union, we fight every day for workers’ rights, better conditions, and a fairer economy. But we can’t do it alone. The choices each of us makes, especially during busy holiday periods, can have ripple effects far beyond our baskets.

So this Easter, we’re asking you to make a conscious choice.
Buy from your local baker. Choose your community grocer. Support a nearby farm shop.
Because every time you shop local, you’re building a stronger, fairer UK—from the ground up.

Solidarity in action starts here.

By Maria Camara