Welcome to Union News, your weekly round-up of the stories that matter to working people, from Solidarity Trade Union.
It’s Saturday, the 17th of October 2026.
This week, we’re looking at threatened job losses at Greggs, NHS workers fighting for fair pay in Leeds, a long-running equal pay dispute in Sunderland, and fresh industrial action in Britain’s universities.
We’ll also be examining disputes in local government and transport, changes to employment law, and concerns about cuts to fire cover in the West Midlands.
There’s plenty to get through. And, as usual, we’ll be looking beyond the headlines to ask what these developments actually mean for the people doing the work.
Let’s begin with a story that illustrates just how insecure employment can become, even in a business that’s a familiar fixture of Britain’s high streets.
GREGGS: HUNDREDS OF JOBS UNDER THREAT
Greggs is a name recognised across the country.
For many people, it’s somewhere to grab a sandwich, a coffee or a sausage roll on the way to work.
But behind the shop counters and the familiar branding is a workforce that depends on the company for its livelihood.
And that workforce is facing considerable uncertainty.
Reports indicate that up to 854 jobs are under threat as the bakery chain considers changes to its operations.
For the workers concerned, these aren’t simply figures on a corporate spreadsheet.
They’re mortgages, rents, household bills and family responsibilities.
They’re people who have built their working lives around an employer and now find themselves wondering whether they’ll still have a job.
Whenever redundancies are proposed, employers tend to reach for the same language.
Restructuring. Efficiency. Modernisation. Changing operational requirements.
Sometimes businesses genuinely do need to adapt. Nobody seriously disputes that.
But those words can also conceal the human consequences of decisions made far away from the workplace.
The real questions are whether redundancies are genuinely necessary, whether alternatives have been properly examined, and whether employees are being given a meaningful opportunity to influence the outcome.
Consultation should never be a box-ticking exercise.
It must involve examining the business case, exploring alternatives, considering redeployment and challenging assumptions about the need for job losses.
Workers should not simply be informed that a decision has been taken and then invited to discuss how it will be implemented.
And where jobs are threatened, trade union representation becomes particularly important.
A union can examine the employer’s proposals, demand relevant information, challenge selection criteria and ensure that individual workers understand their rights.
The Greggs situation is another reminder that a familiar and successful brand does not automatically guarantee security for the people whose labour sustains it.
LEEDS NHS WORKERS FIGHT FOR FAIR PAY
Our next story takes us to Leeds, where NHS workers have been taking industrial action over their pay grading.
This is a dispute about something that should be straightforward.
If you’re doing a job that carries greater responsibility, or routinely carrying out duties associated with a higher grade, you should be paid accordingly.
Yet across the NHS, workers can find themselves taking on responsibilities that aren’t properly reflected in their pay bands.
Sometimes these arrangements develop gradually.
A department becomes short-staffed. Duties are redistributed. Employees are asked to take on additional tasks.
What begins as a temporary arrangement becomes part of the normal working day.
But the pay doesn’t necessarily follow.
And that’s where resentment understandably grows.
The workers involved in the Leeds dispute are challenging the way their roles and responsibilities have been assessed.
It’s important to recognise that this isn’t simply a question of wanting more money.
It’s about fairness, consistency and properly recognising the contribution employees make.
The NHS depends on enormous numbers of staff whose work rarely attracts the attention given to doctors and nurses.
Administrative workers, support staff, technical employees and others perform essential functions without which the health service simply couldn’t operate.
Their contribution deserves recognition.
And that recognition must be reflected in terms and conditions, not just warm words from management.
There is also a wider issue here.
Public services increasingly depend on workers being flexible, taking on extra responsibilities and filling gaps created by staff shortages.
But flexibility cannot be a one-way arrangement.
If employers want employees to take on additional responsibilities, they must be prepared to recognise those responsibilities properly.
Industrial action is never undertaken lightly, particularly in healthcare.
Workers lose pay, face pressure and know that their actions will attract public attention.
But when negotiations fail to resolve long-standing concerns, collective action may become the only effective means of securing change.
SUNDERLAND AND THE LONG FIGHT FOR EQUAL PAY
Now to Sunderland, where the continuing struggle over equal pay provides another reminder of how difficult it can be to turn a legal right into a practical reality.
Equal pay legislation has existed in Britain for decades.
Yet disputes continue to arise over whether jobs traditionally performed by women are valued as highly as comparable work more commonly undertaken by men.
This has been a particularly significant issue in local government.
Workers in jobs such as cleaning, catering and care have historically challenged pay arrangements that they believe undervalued their contribution.
And these aren’t easy cases.
They can involve complex comparisons between jobs, disagreements about grading structures, historical bonus arrangements and lengthy legal proceedings.
For the workers concerned, the process can stretch over years.
That’s a considerable burden.
It’s worth remembering what equal pay is actually about.
It’s not about demanding special treatment.
It’s about ensuring that work of equal value receives equal treatment.
Employers sometimes argue that different jobs cannot easily be compared.
Of course, different roles involve different skills, responsibilities and working conditions.
But that is precisely why proper job evaluation and transparent pay systems are so important.
The principle is that jobs should be assessed fairly, rather than according to historical assumptions about the value of men’s and women’s work.
The Sunderland dispute also raises questions about how public bodies respond when workers challenge established practices.
Councils have financial pressures. That’s undeniable.
But financial difficulty cannot, by itself, justify unlawful discrimination.
Nor should workers be expected to abandon legitimate claims simply because resolving them would prove expensive.
Equal pay is not merely a historical achievement to be celebrated.
It’s a principle that still has to be defended.
GOLDSMITHS: UNIVERSITY WORKERS RESIST CUTS
There are also continuing concerns in higher education, where staff at Goldsmiths, University of London, have been resisting cuts and restructuring.
Universities have been under considerable financial pressure.
We’ve seen institutions across the country announce redundancies, course closures and reductions in academic and support services.
Management frequently presents these measures as unavoidable responses to financial circumstances.
But staff and students are entitled to question the choices being made.
What alternatives have been explored?
How have spending priorities been determined?
And what happens to the quality of education when experienced lecturers, researchers and support workers disappear?
Goldsmiths has a distinctive reputation, particularly in the arts, humanities and social sciences.
Those subjects matter.
Universities shouldn’t be judged solely by their ability to produce an immediate financial return.
They’re also places where people develop critical thinking, explore ideas, challenge established assumptions and contribute to cultural life.
When courses are cut and departments dismantled, something can be lost that isn’t easily restored.
Staff facing redundancy are understandably concerned about their livelihoods.
But there is also a wider argument about the future of higher education.
Increasingly, universities are encouraged to operate according to commercial priorities.
Students become customers. Courses become products. Departments are assessed according to financial performance.
That approach risks losing sight of education as a public good.
Trade union opposition to university cuts therefore represents more than a defence of individual jobs.
It raises important questions about what universities are for and who should determine their priorities.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT: PRESSURE ON FRONTLINE SERVICES
The pressure on public services is also being felt in local government.
Disputes involving council workers in places including Great Yarmouth and Lewisham demonstrate the difficulties facing employees as authorities try to manage financial constraints.
Across Britain, councils are expected to deliver essential services while dealing with continuing pressure on their budgets.
And when the figures don’t add up, it’s often workers who are asked to absorb the consequences.
That might mean reduced staffing, changes to working arrangements, disputed pay settlements or increased workloads.
But council services aren’t abstract financial commitments.
They’re things people depend upon every day.
Waste collection, environmental services, housing support, social care, maintenance and a host of other functions keep communities running.
The workers delivering those services are often taken for granted.
Until, of course, the service stops.
It’s then that people suddenly recognise how much they rely on those doing the work.
There is a broader political question here.
If local government is expected to provide essential services, it needs the resources to do so properly.
Passing financial pressures down to employees is not a sustainable solution.
Nor is expecting ever-smaller workforces to maintain the same standards indefinitely.
Trade unions have an important role in challenging those assumptions and making sure that the workforce has a voice when decisions are taken.
NOTTINGHAM TRAM WORKERS AND THE TRANSPORT DISPUTE
Turning to transport, industrial relations involving Nottingham tram workers have also been in the news.
Public transport workers occupy an interesting position.
Their work is essential to the everyday functioning of towns and cities.
They get people to jobs, schools, hospitals and appointments.
Yet disputes over pay, conditions and working arrangements can quickly become contentious because industrial action has an immediate impact on passengers.
It’s entirely understandable that disruption causes frustration.
Nobody enjoys being stranded or having their journey interrupted.
But it’s worth considering why workers decide to strike in the first place.
Industrial action involves sacrifice.
Employees may lose wages, face criticism and find themselves under significant pressure.
It is not generally the easy option.
The underlying issues are often about maintaining a reasonable standard of living, securing predictable working patterns or resisting changes that workers believe would make their jobs less sustainable.
And the wider public has an interest in those conditions too.
A transport system that relies on exhausted, poorly rewarded or demoralised employees is hardly a recipe for a reliable service.
Good public transport requires investment in both infrastructure and the people operating it.
Passengers and workers don’t necessarily have opposing interests.
Quite often, they have a shared interest in services that are properly funded, adequately staffed and run responsibly.
EMPLOYMENT LAW: MORE TIME TO BRING CLAIMS
Now let’s turn to employment law, and developments that could have a significant impact on workers seeking justice.
One of the most important changes under discussion is the extension of time limits for bringing employment tribunal claims.
For many employment claims, the traditional deadline has been just three months, subject to the relevant rules and Acas early conciliation provisions.
That’s an extraordinarily short period.
Imagine being dismissed from your job.
You’re suddenly dealing with the loss of income, uncertainty about your future, perhaps an appeal against the decision, and the practical need to find alternative employment.
At the same time, you’re expected to understand employment law, obtain advice and begin legal proceedings within a very limited period.
It’s hardly surprising that some people miss the deadline.
And the consequences can be severe.
A potentially strong claim may never be heard because it was submitted too late.
Extending the standard tribunal time limit to six months would therefore represent an important improvement in access to justice.
It would give workers more opportunity to obtain advice, gather evidence and consider their options.
But longer deadlines won’t solve every problem.
Employment tribunals must also be adequately resourced.
There’s little point making it easier for someone to submit a claim if they then face an excessively long wait for a hearing.
Justice delayed can impose its own costs.
Witnesses move on. Memories fade. Financial difficulties increase.
And employers with greater resources may be in a stronger position to withstand prolonged litigation.
For trade union representatives, the practical lesson remains important.
Never assume that a proposed reform has already taken effect.
The correct deadline depends on the type of claim and the legislation in force at the relevant time.
Workers should continue seeking advice promptly, even where longer time limits are expected.
TRADE UNION RIGHTS AND THE CHANGING LEGAL FRAMEWORK
There are also wider changes taking shape in employment and trade union law.
The Government has presented its employment reforms as an attempt to improve security, strengthen rights and address unfair treatment in the workplace.
Some of the proposals are undoubtedly welcome.
But, as always, the detail matters.
A right written into legislation is only as effective as the ability of workers to enforce it.
We have to ask whether employees will genuinely be able to challenge unfair practices without risking retaliation.
Whether trade unions will have meaningful opportunities to organise and represent their members.
And whether enforcement arrangements will be strong enough to discourage employers from ignoring their obligations.
There’s also an important distinction between individual rights and collective bargaining.
Individual legal protections matter enormously.
They establish minimum standards and provide remedies when those standards are breached.
But workers are often better placed to improve their circumstances when they can negotiate collectively.
A union can address problems before they become tribunal cases.
It can challenge unsafe working practices, negotiate better conditions and ensure that management decisions are properly scrutinised.
Legislation can establish a floor beneath which employment standards should not fall.
Collective organisation can help workers build something better on top of it.
That’s why employment law reform should never be considered in isolation from trade union rights.
The two are closely connected.
WEST MIDLANDS: CONCERNS OVER FIRE COVER
Our final major story concerns the West Midlands, where proposals affecting fire cover have raised concerns about the future of emergency services.
Firefighters perform one of the most demanding and dangerous jobs in public service.
When most people are trying to escape a burning building, firefighters are the people heading towards it.
Their work requires extensive training, professional judgement, physical courage and teamwork.
But effective emergency response depends on more than the skill and dedication of individual firefighters.
It requires sufficient staffing, properly maintained equipment and resources positioned where they can respond quickly.
When proposals are made to reduce or reorganise fire cover, the public deserves a clear explanation of the consequences.
What will happen to response times?
Will some areas face longer waits for assistance?
How will additional pressure on remaining crews be managed?
And have firefighters and their representatives been properly consulted?
These are not unreasonable questions.
They go to the heart of public safety.
Of course, emergency services must regularly review how they operate.
Communities change. Patterns of risk change. Technology and working methods develop.
Nobody is arguing that services should remain unchanged simply for the sake of tradition.
But decisions must be based on a credible assessment of risk, not simply the need to make financial savings.
There is also the question of firefighter safety.
Smaller or overstretched crews may face greater difficulties responding effectively to dangerous incidents.
So when firefighters and their unions raise concerns about proposed changes, those concerns deserve serious consideration.
They’re based on the experience of people who understand what happens when an emergency call comes in.
The public has a direct interest in ensuring that their warnings are heard.
THE WEEK IN PERSPECTIVE
Looking back over this week’s stories, there is a common thread running through them.
At Greggs, workers face uncertainty about the future of their jobs.
In Leeds, NHS employees are demanding that their responsibilities be properly recognised.
In Sunderland, the struggle for equal pay continues.
At Goldsmiths, university staff are fighting to defend jobs and the educational services they provide.
Council workers and transport employees are challenging decisions affecting their livelihoods and working conditions.
And firefighters are raising questions about changes that could have serious implications for public safety.
These disputes take place in very different workplaces.
A bakery business. A hospital. A university. A council. A tram network. A fire service.
But they raise remarkably similar questions.
Who makes the decisions?
Who bears the consequences?
And how much influence do working people have over matters that directly affect their lives?
Employers and public authorities have responsibilities.
They must manage resources, plan for the future and make difficult decisions.
But workers are not simply another cost to be adjusted when circumstances become challenging.
They bring knowledge, experience and commitment to their workplaces.
They deserve to be treated with fairness and respect.
And they deserve a meaningful voice.
That’s where trade unions come in.
Collective organisation does not guarantee that every dispute will end in victory.
Anyone who has spent time representing workers knows that.
Sometimes negotiations produce compromises.
Sometimes campaigns take years.
And sometimes, despite everyone’s best efforts, the outcome falls short of what workers hoped to achieve.
But the alternative — leaving individuals to face powerful employers entirely on their own — is rarely a better one.
A union gives workers the opportunity to act together.
To share information.
To challenge unfairness.
To support colleagues facing difficult circumstances.
And, where necessary, to take collective action.
The strength of a trade union doesn’t come from its offices, its officials or its publicity.
It comes from its members.
From people willing to stand alongside one another and insist that fairness at work is worth defending.
That’s something we should never lose sight of.
And it’s why the stories we’ve covered this week matter.
They’re not simply industrial relations stories or employment law developments.
They’re stories about the balance of power in everyday working life.
Whether you’re working in healthcare, retail, education, transport, local government or the private sector, the underlying principles remain the same.
Fair pay.
Safe conditions.
Job security.
Respect.
And the right to be heard.
That brings us to the end of this week’s Union News.
Thank you for listening.
And remember, whatever challenges you face at work, there is strength in standing together.
Together we are strong.
Until next time, take care, and stay united.
Script by Maria Camara
