The Solidarity union has thrown its full weight behind the campaign to raise Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) in the UK. At just £109.40 per week, SSP currently amounts to less than £3 per hour for a full-time worker. This figure falls shockingly short of the minimum wage, leaving sick workers struggling to cover basic living costs. The inadequacy of SSP has been a long-standing issue, but the cost-of-living crisis has brought its dire consequences into sharper focus.
A Global Perspective
When compared to other developed nations, the UK’s SSP is embarrassingly low. In Germany, sick workers can receive up to 70% of their salary for a duration of up to 78 weeks. France offers 50% of the worker’s salary for up to six months, with additional employer contributions often making up the difference. Meanwhile, the UK’s flat-rate SSP not only fails to account for actual earnings but is also among the lowest in the OECD. It’s a policy that punishes the sick and entrenches inequality.
Labour’s Silence is Deafening
While unions like Solidarity are leading the call for reform, the Labour Party has been disappointingly quiet. This is particularly troubling given Labour’s historic commitment to workers’ rights. The party’s leadership has yet to outline a clear policy on SSP, leaving many to wonder whether it is truly prepared to champion the needs of working people. Solidarity is urging Labour to step up and back a meaningful increase in SSP that reflects the cost of living and restores dignity to workers.
Unions United
Solidarity is not alone in this fight. The Trades Union Congress (TUC) has repeatedly called for SSP to be raised to match the real living wage. Unite the Union and GMB have also highlighted the human cost of low SSP, citing examples of workers who have been forced to choose between health and financial survival. This coalition of voices underscores the growing recognition that the UK’s sick pay system is broken and in urgent need of reform.
A Call for Action
Pat Harrington, General Secretary of the Solidarity union, has been unequivocal in his demand for change: “The current rate of SSP is not just inadequate; it’s an insult to working people. No one should have to face financial ruin because they’re too unwell to work. Solidarity is committed to campaigning for an increase that brings SSP in line with the real living wage. We call on the government and the Labour Party to address this injustice without delay.”
What’s Next?
The campaign to raise SSP is gaining momentum, but it will take sustained pressure to achieve meaningful change. Solidarity is calling on all workers to join the fight, whether by supporting union campaigns, contacting their MPs, or sharing their stories of how low SSP has affected them. Together, we can push for a system that values health and protects the vulnerable.
It’s time for the UK to catch up with the rest of the developed world and ensure that no worker is left behind when they need support the most.
Welcome to Union News your guide to what’s happening in the UK trade union and labour movement. Reports are by Pat Harrington and original music is from Tim Bragg. In this edition: First Bus Accused of Undermining Strikers’ Call for Real Living Wage, Victory for Low-Paid School Workers in John Swinney’s Constituency, Bolt Drivers Win Landmark Case Over Gig Economy Exploitation, G4S Security Workers Demand Equal Pay and Respect, and UN: Israel’s Gaza Attacks Kill Nearly 70% Civilians, Mostly Women and Children.
First Bus Accused of Undermining Strikers’ Call for Real Living Wage
Workers at First South Yorkshire are calling out their employer for hypocrisy after the company claimed to support their fight for the Real Living Wage while secretly undermining their ongoing strike. The workers, employed by contractor Bidvest Noonan at Sheffield’s Olive Grove depot, have been on strike for two months, demanding a pay increase from the current minimum wage of £11.44 per hour to £13.85 – the Real Living Wage. Unite the Union claims that instead of supporting their workers, First Bus has been using its own staff to cover duties during the strike, including moving buses in the depot, directly weakening the impact of the industrial action.
Unite General Secretary Sharon Graham accused First Bus of making false public statements about supporting the wage increase, while doing everything in its power to break the strike. “The hypocrisy of First West Yorkshire is astounding,” Graham said. “The reality is that First is actively trying to break the strike and keep workers on poverty wages.” The workers’ fight is a crucial one, not only for fair pay but for respect and dignity in the workplace, with the union vowing to continue the action until the Real Living Wage is implemented.
The dispute at First South Yorkshire highlights a wider issue within the transport and service industries, where many workers are struggling to make ends meet despite working full-time. With rising costs of living and increasing pressure on low-paid workers, the call for the Real Living Wage is louder than ever. Unite has pledged to escalate its support for these workers, warning that the strike will continue until First and Bidvest Noonan are forced to come to the negotiating table.
Victory for Low-Paid School Workers in John Swinney’s Constituency
Striking non-teaching staff in Perthshire North have secured a significant victory after pressure from Unison led to a credible new pay offer from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (Cosla). The workers, including cleaners and support staff in local schools, had been on strike for two weeks in a battle for a pay rise, rejecting an initial offer of just 3.6%. Despite resistance from the Scottish government and Cosla’s insistence that there were no more funds available, the workers won a revised offer that includes a £15 per hour minimum wage and a 5.6% raise for the lowest-paid staff.
Unison’s Collette Hunter hailed the agreement as a major success for the workers, saying that their industrial action had forced the Scottish government to come to the table and engage seriously with the issue. “We’ve secured these commitments thanks to the determination of our members and the solidarity they showed on the picket lines,” Hunter said. The new offer is a direct result of sustained pressure on Cosla and the Scottish government, who now face the task of addressing the broader funding crisis in local councils.
However, the battle isn’t over. Cosla is still grappling with a massive budget shortfall, and workers’ unions are calling for more significant action to ensure that the funding crisis doesn’t undermine the gains made by these workers. With a new round of negotiations expected in December, trade unions are urging the Scottish government to allocate more funds to local councils to prevent further cuts to essential services. The struggle for fair wages and proper funding continues.
Bolt Drivers Win Landmark Case Over Gig Economy Exploitation
In a major victory for gig economy workers, Bolt drivers have won a groundbreaking legal case that could see each of the 15,000 affected drivers receive an estimated £15,000 in backdated compensation for underpayment. The ruling, which goes further than the previous Supreme Court case against Uber, determines that Bolt drivers are not self-employed contractors but workers, entitled to minimum wage and holiday pay. Leigh Day, the firm representing the drivers, confirmed that the compensation package could reach up to £200 million across the UK.
This ruling is a significant blow to gig economy giants like Bolt, which have long relied on classifying drivers as independent contractors to avoid providing basic worker rights such as paid sick leave, holiday pay, and minimum wage. GMB’s Eamon O’Hearn celebrated the decision, calling it a major victory for workers in the gig economy, but warned that the battle is far from over. “This ruling confirms what we’ve been saying all along: gig workers deserve the same rights and protections as any other worker,” O’Hearn said.
While Bolt has expressed disappointment and indicated plans to appeal the decision, unions are calling for broader legislative changes to protect gig workers across the UK. App Drivers & Couriers Union General Secretary Zamir Dreni emphasized that the government must act to fix the gaps in current employment laws, which have allowed companies like Bolt and Uber to exploit workers for too long. The fight for fair pay and conditions in the gig economy is gaining momentum, with workers and unions pushing for systemic change to ensure that all workers are treated with the dignity and respect they deserve.
G4S Security Workers Demand Equal Pay and Respect
Security workers employed by multinational G4S to serve at government departments in central London are demanding an end to poverty wages and the same pay and conditions as their directly employed civil service counterparts. The workers, who are striking outside Whitehall for the second week, have been offered a paltry 5p pay rise by the company, a proposal which has been roundly rejected by PCS union members. The workers, who are vital to maintaining security at government buildings, argue that G4S is making massive profits while cutting essential benefits for its staff—an injustice they are determined to fight.
“We’re being asked to do the same job as civil servants, but with far less pay and fewer rights. G4S is pocketing huge profits, while we struggle to make ends meet,” one striker explained. “They outsourced our jobs to cut costs, but that’s meant fewer benefits for us. We have no guaranteed sick pay, no maternity or paternity leave, and the little we do get is far less than what our colleagues in the civil service enjoy. Meanwhile, the government continues to fund these private companies through taxpayers’ money, yet refuses to ensure that we’re paid fairly for the crucial work we do.” For these workers, the fight is not just about pay—it’s about ensuring that essential workers are not treated as disposable commodities in a privatised system that profits at their expense.
The mood on the picket line is upbeat and defiant, as strikers bring energy and unity to the streets of Whitehall. “This isn’t just about us getting a better pay deal,” said Mohammed, a striker who is participating in his first strike action. “This is about showing that we deserve the same respect as those who work directly for the government. The company has been treating us like second-class citizens for too long, and we won’t let that continue.” The strikers, a diverse group representing different cultures and backgrounds, have been using music, whistles, and chants to bring attention to their cause, demonstrating their resolve and solidarity. “The more we strike, the more we gain confidence,” Mohammed added. “At first, we didn’t know how to go about it, but now we’ve got our voices heard. Our spirits are unbreakable, and we’re here until we win what we deserve.” The growing strength of their collective action is sending a powerful message: these workers will no longer be ignored.
and finally, UN: Israel’s Gaza Attacks Kill Nearly 70% Civilians, Mostly Women and Children
A new UN report reveals that almost 70 percent of those killed in Israeli airstrikes on Gaza over the past six months were civilians, with women and children bearing the brunt of the violence. The report, released today by the UN Human Rights Office, details the disproportionate impact on Gaza’s most vulnerable populations, calling Israel’s actions a violation of international law and warning that war crimes may have been committed.
From November 2023 to April 2024, 8,119 Palestinians were killed, with 44 percent of victims being children and 26 percent women. The report highlights that many of the deaths occurred in residential buildings, where around 80 percent of the casualties were trapped in their homes when Israeli bombs struck. The UN has condemned Israel’s use of heavy weaponry in such densely populated areas, pointing to a blatant disregard for civilian life.
“The killing and injury of civilians on this scale is a direct consequence of Israel’s failure to comply with international humanitarian law,” said Volker Turk, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. “There must be accountability for these violations.”
Israel maintains that its military operations are aimed at Hamas, but has yet to provide evidence of its claims that Palestinian fighters are using civilians as human shields. Despite these assertions, the ongoing siege and airstrikes continue to devastate Gaza, with 39 Palestinians reported killed and over 120 injured in Israeli attacks today.
As the crisis deepens, international calls for justice grow louder, urging accountability for the mass civilian deaths and the continued siege of Gaza.
A Personal Opinion by Pat Harrington, General Secretary of the Solidarity Union
1,509 words, 8 minutes read time.
As we pause this Remembrance Sunday to reflect on the countless lives lost in wars past, we are reminded not only of the human cost of conflict but also of the ongoing consequences of war in our own time. It is fitting, on this solemn occasion, to ask ourselves whether we are truly learning from history or whether we are continuing down a path of destruction that disproportionately impacts the most vulnerable in society—namely, workers and ordinary people, both here in the UK and across the globe.
I am not a pacifist. I believe in the right of nations to self-defence if they are under attack, and I stand by the principle of armed neutrality for the UK, rejecting the notion that we should be dragged into every global conflict. However, we must be honest about the role the UK government plays in prolonging and escalating conflicts abroad. As conflict rages across the world, from Palestine to Russia, Lebanon to Israel, and Ukraine, we must reflect on the role of the UK—and, more specifically, the financial and military support we provide to regimes that are complicit in the death of innocent civilians.
As workers, we know peaceful lives, to care for their families, and to build communities. The people of Palestine, Ukraine, Israel, Russia, Lebanon, and countless other regions of conflict are the ones who suffer the most. They are not pawns in geopolitical games; they are human beings, caught in the crossfire of forces they often have no control over. My thoughts today are with all the victims of war, wherever they may be.
The UK’s Role: A Shameful Legacy of Arms Sales
One of the most egregious aspects of the UK’s involvement in global conflict is our government’s role in supplying arms to countries that use them to kill innocent people. Take, for example, the UK’s ongoing arms sales to Israel. These weapons are not used to protect civilians; they are used to kill, maim, and displace ordinary men, women, and children. The recent bombing of Gaza, where thousands of civilians have died, is a stark reminder of how these weapons are used. The UK government’s complicity in these actions, under the guise of supporting an ally, is both morally indefensible and utterly contrary to the values we should be upholding as a nation.
This is not an issue of geopolitics or national interest—it is an issue of human rights and the moral responsibility of our government. If we claim to be a nation that values peace, justice, and human dignity, then we must act in accordance with those values. We cannot continue to supply weapons to regimes that use them to commit atrocities against innocent people. It is time for the UK to change its course and stop being a purveyor of death and destruction.
Humanitarian Efforts: Support for All Victims of War
At the same time, we must ask ourselves what more we, as a nation, can do to alleviate the suffering of those caught in the crossfire. War victims are not just numbers in the news cycle—they are human beings who deserve our compassion and support. Britain should urgently consider expanding its role in providing humanitarian assistance to the victims of war, irrespective of their nationality, ethnicity, or political affiliation. This should include medical aid, food, shelter, and other forms of relief that are essential for those whose lives have been torn apart by violence.
We must ensure that humanitarian aid is provided on a non-partisan basis, recognising that the victims of war are not responsible for the violence inflicted upon them. It is time to rethink our foreign policy priorities and align them with the fundamental principles of humanity. The British government should take a lead in facilitating medical missions, offering healthcare to the wounded, and providing psychological support to those left traumatised by the horrors of war. It is a moral duty we can no longer ignore.
Rethinking Our Approach to Refugees and Economic Migrants
In addition to providing humanitarian assistance in conflict zones, we must rethink how we treat those fleeing war, violence, and persecution. Refugees and economic migrants are often lumped together, but they are two very different groups with distinct needs and challenges. It is important that we distinguish between the two in order to craft more effective and compassionate policies.
Refugees are people who have been forced to flee their homes due to war, persecution, or violence. They are seeking safety, and their flight is often a matter of life or death. Under international law, refugees have the right to seek asylum and should be offered protection. Their immediate needs are urgent, and they must be provided with shelter, food, medical care, and legal support to help them navigate the asylum process.
On the other hand, economic migrants are individuals who leave their home countries in search of better economic opportunities or improved living conditions. While their migration is often driven by hardship, it is not the result of life-threatening circumstances. That is not to say they do not deserve compassion or assistance, but their needs and the policy approach to their situation are different from those of refugees.
It is critical that we treat each group according to their specific circumstances, with policies tailored to their needs. Refugees should be prioritised for asylum and given immediate assistance to rebuild their lives, within the constraints of provision of services to all, while economic migrants should be managed in ways that reflect their contribution to society and our economy. This distinction is important not only for practical reasons but also for maintaining public confidence in our immigration system. A compassionate and efficient approach will ensure that Britain can offer genuine protection to those who need it, while also managing migration in a way that supports our society and economy and integrates newcomers with our culture and values.
That said, economic migration should not be demonised or politicised. Many economic migrants contribute positively to the UK’s economy, taking on jobs that are hard to fill, and enriching our culture and society. We need to develop a fair and humane immigration policy that recognises the contributions of migrants while also addressing the practical needs of both migrants and the country. We must ensure that migrants are provided with fair working conditions, access to healthcare, and opportunities to integrate into British society.
The Call for a Moral, Peace-Loving Britain
The true path to peace does not lie in the endless supply of arms or the perpetuation of conflict. It lies in the rebuilding of a moral, peace-loving Britain—one that seeks to play a constructive role in the world by supporting diplomacy, peacebuilding, and human rights. If we can change Britain to a nation that values peace over war, that prioritises human life over political or economic gain, we will be in a much stronger position to encourage the same values globally.
The fight for peace is not just a local or national issue—it is a global one. But if we can create a society here at home that rejects the notion that war is an acceptable solution, we will have a far greater chance of seeing that change ripple out across the world. The UK’s commitment to a peaceful and just world would be a beacon of hope for the many millions of people suffering in war zones around the world.
Peace is the Path to Progress
As we reflect on the sacrifices made by past generations, let us remember that those sacrifices were made for a better world, a more peaceful world. We must honour that legacy by working toward a future where war is no longer seen as an inevitable fact of life, but as a failure of diplomacy and humanity.
The reality is that war is not just costly in terms of lives lost—it is costly in terms of resources that could be better used to improve lives at home and abroad. Billions of pounds are being spent on military interventions that could be used to strengthen our NHS, improve social care, build affordable housing, and create jobs. The resources that are being squandered on war are the same resources that could be used to lift millions out of poverty, to combat the housing crisis, to tackle climate change, and to build a fairer, more just society.
As trade unionists, as workers, we know what it means to fight for a better future. We fight for dignity, for respect, and for justice. We must now fight for a peace that puts people before politics, humanity before militarism, and solidarity before division.
Let us honour the memory of those who sacrificed everything by working towards a future where peace is the foundation of our society and our foreign policy. Only then can we truly say we have learned the lessons of history and that we are building a world worth living in for future generations.
Pat Harrington General Secretary, Solidarity Union
Rachel Reeves’s recent budget, though positioned as a shift rom conservative austerity, has serious implications for working people. It falls short in key areas, sidestepping progressive taxation on the wealthy and big corporations. While the budget includes some increases in NHS and education funding, the reality is that Reeves’s measures continue to burden working-class families while letting the wealthiest escape largely untouched.
Impact on Wages and Workload
The budget’s increase in employer National Insurance contributions, theoretically aimed at raising funds, is likely to reduce real wages. Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) warns that up to three-quarters of this increase may be passed on through lower wages and higher prices, effectively becoming a hidden tax on working people. The Resolution Foundation has also raised concerns that real pay is not expected to grow significantly, meaning wages could remain stuck at 2008 levels until 2029. For many in the workforce, especially those in lower-wage jobs, this translates to a continued squeeze on living standards.
NHS workers, who are already overstretched, were warned by Keir Starmer that they should expect increased workloads. This statement highlights a persistent issue: despite additional funding, the demands on healthcare workers are set to grow without a commensurate increase in resources or support. For unions representing NHS staff, this is an urgent call to advocate for not just funding but also meaningful workforce protections against burnout.
Housing and Cost of Living Pressures
Paul Johnson also cautioned that changes to property taxes would likely drive up rents, disproportionately affecting renters who already face high housing costs. Furthermore, the continued freeze on fuel duties contrasts starkly with public transport fare increases. At a time when other European nations are making public transport more affordable to meet climate goals, Reeves’s approach forces additional costs onto working-class commuters.
Inadequate adjustments to minimum wage levels only exacerbate these pressures. The announced increase still falls short of the Living Wage Foundation’s recommendations, and many unions are demanding a minimum of £15 per hour as a fair wage in the face of rising rent, energy, and food prices. Solidarity and other unions will need to continue pressing for wage increases that genuinely meet the cost of living.
Neglect of Wealth Tax and Corporate Taxation
The budget remains notably lenient on high-income earners and corporations. While Reeves raised capital gains tax slightly, she also reassured investors that it remains the lowest in the European G7. The super-rich continue to pay a lower rate on capital gains than working-class people pay on income—a disparity that could have been addressed by aligning capital gains rates with income tax rates. This approach might have raised £16 billion annually, but Labour has opted for a modest £2.5 billion increase instead.
Unite’s Sharon Graham points out that a mere 1% wealth tax on the richest could yield £25 billion, addressing budget shortfalls without cutting vital social programs. Yet Reeves’s budget does not touch this potential source of funding, favoring a model that keeps the wealthiest shielded from meaningful taxation. For Solidarity members, this is a call to demand fair contributions from the richest to support public services and social welfare.
The budget introduced some positive small measures for working people: National Living Wage: The National Living Wage will rise by 6.7% to £12.21. For those aged 18 to 20 it will go from £8.60 to £10 an hour, a rise of more than 16% and the largest increase on record. It’s still not enough. Carer’s Allowance: There will be an increase in the weekly earnings limit to the equivalent of 16 hours at the National Living Wage, meaning a carer can now earn over £10,000 a year while earning carers’ allowance.
Austerity’s Persistence and Union Action
Despite some marginal increases in spending, Labour’s budget holds on to several Tory-era austerity policies, notably in social welfare. Cuts of £3 billion targeting disability benefits and other welfare reforms continue under the guise of “public service reform.” FBU leader Matt Wrack has rightly criticized Labour’s low corporate tax rate, calling it a symptom of a broken economic model that prioritizes profits over people’s needs.
While Labour promises to repeal the Trade Union Act 2016, removing barriers to strike action, the budget reflects a deep-seated reluctance to break with austerity and challenge the interests of the wealthiest. If Solidarity and other unions want a fairer distribution of wealth, this budget makes it clear that pressure and collective bargaining will be essential. It’s time to push for a budget that prioritizes the wellbeing of working people over corporate profits.
This analysis underscores the necessity of a strong, pro-worker response. Together, let’s continue to demand that the burden of economic adjustment falls on those who can afford it—not on workers.
Night work remains a cornerstone of the economy, but the toll it takes on workers is often underestimated. Recent TUC research led by Dr. Sian Moore and Dr. Ruth Ballardie brings to light the comprehensive impacts of night shifts on physical health, mental wellbeing, family dynamics, and social lives. For those in Solidarity Union and beyond, understanding these effects is crucial to advocating for fairer treatment and support for our members engaged in night work.
1. Health Risks Linked to Night Shifts
Physical Health: Night work disrupts circadian rhythms, leading to risks of cardiovascular disease, gastrointestinal disorders, and metabolic issues like diabetes. The disruption impacts sleep, contributing to chronic fatigue and raising health risks.
Mental Health: There’s a strong link between night work and depression, particularly for female workers. Sleep deprivation and social isolation from family and friends exacerbate mental health struggles, creating cycles that impair overall wellbeing.
2. Psychosocial and Work-Life Impacts
Work Intensification: Staff shortages and high demand during night shifts increase work pressures, often leaving night workers feeling isolated, overworked, and unsupported by management. The study shows that limited managerial support, especially during night hours, compounds stress.
Family and Social Disruption: Night work often means missing family time, school events, and social gatherings. The research highlights how night shifts lead to fragmented family lives and are linked to increased risks of divorce and strained relationships, especially in households with young children.
3. Financial and Job Security Drivers
Many workers take on night shifts primarily for the financial premium it provides. However, some are forced into night work due to limited availability of day positions or labour market conditions, which offer few alternatives. Despite the health trade-offs, financial pressures mean many have little choice but to continue.
4. Union Actions and Employer Responsibilities
Shift Premiums: While shift premiums offer some financial compensation, the inconsistency in rates across industries fails to fully account for the physical and mental toll. Union-negotiated improvements in shift flexibility, recovery periods, and health benefits are essential.
Worker Control Over Shifts: Allowing workers control over their shifts has proven to reduce negative impacts on family and social life. However, many employers are inflexible, exacerbating strain on night workers.
Workplace Safety: With risks of violence and safety hazards higher at night, it is critical that employers establish robust safety measures, particularly for lone workers. The report highlights cases where inadequate support leaves workers vulnerable.
5. Recommendations for Union Advocacy
This research underscores the need for Solidarity to push for stronger protections for night workers, including limits on shift lengths, increased recovery time, and access to occupational health services. Union reps should continue to negotiate for fair treatment, safer conditions, and flexibility that respects the unique needs of night workers.
By raising awareness and advocating for policies that address these findings, we can help to mitigate the adverse effects of night work and ensure better support for those who keep society running through the night. This research provides a foundation for action—let’s use it to drive meaningful change for our members.
In a significant move for workers’ rights, the Employment Rights Bill has successfully passed its second reading in the Commons, despite facing opposition from Tory and Reform MPs. This landmark bill, which enjoys widespread support from the electorate, including those who traditionally vote for right-wing parties, promises to usher in a new era of protections for workers.
The TUC has expressed its disappointment in the Tory and Reform parties stance, stating that their vote against the bill reveals a disregard for the welfare of working people. The bill’s provisions, which include immediate protection against unfair dismissal, entitlement to sick pay, and restrictions on zero-hours contracts and the controversial ‘fire and rehire’ practices, are seen as essential steps in safeguarding workers’ rights.
TUC general secretary Paul Nowak commented on the passage of the bill, highlighting the contrast between the bill’s intentions and the actions of the Conservatives and Reform. “At a time when so many are suffering in precarious and low-paid jobs, it’s disheartening to see these parties oppose measures that would improve the lives of millions,” he said.
Pat Harrington, General Secretary of Solidarity union commented, “Tories voting against the Bill was to be expected. The Reform MPs voting against shows that despite their spin that they are the champions of ordinary people they are not. They use Populist slogans but when you see how they vote it’s clear that they are no friends of the people.”
Labour MP Ian Lavery praised the bill as a pivotal move towards rectifying the injustices faced by the working class, a sentiment echoed by many of his colleagues. However, the debate also brought to light concerns over the bill’s silence on insourcing, with left MP John McDonnell cautioning that this omission could lead to industrial action within government departments.
The passage of the Employment Rights Bill marks a hopeful turning point for employment rights in the UK, signalling a commitment to creating a fairer and more secure working environment for all.
The new government has made headlines with its Employment Rights Bill, heralded as “the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation.” However, as the ink dries on the Bill, trade unions have voiced strong criticisms, claiming it has “more holes than Swiss cheese.” While the Bill introduces some significant reforms, unions argue it falls short in critical areas, leaving workers vulnerable to exploitation. In this “deep dive” we look at the pros and cons of the Bill and reactions to it.
Key Gains in the Bill
The Employment Rights Bill outlines several notable advancements for workers:
– Day One Rights: Key rights, including protection from unfair dismissal and access to sick pay and unpaid parental leave, will now be effective from the first day of employment.
– Sick Pay Revisions: Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) will begin on the first day of absence rather than the fourth, and those earning below the Lower Earnings Limit will also be eligible.
– Stronger Protections for Parents: Enhanced maternity protections will prevent dismissals of new mothers within six months of their return to work, and paternity rights have been expanded for fathers and eligible partners.
– Flexible Working Requests: The Bill aims to make flexible working the default, with refusals only permitted under “reasonable” circumstances.
– Ending Zero-Hours Contracts: Workers on zero-hours and low-hours contracts will have the right to move to a contract reflecting their regular hours.
– Industrial Relations Reforms: The repeal of minimum service levels and restrictions on strike actions are positive moves, alongside the establishment of a Fair Work Agency to enforce employment rights.
While these measures represent significant progress, unions are quick to highlight the gaps and limitations that still allow for employer exploitation.
What’s Missing?
Despite the promising reforms, key issues remain unaddressed:
– No Ban on Zero-Hours Contracts: The Bill does not outright ban zero-hours contracts or the practice of fire-and-rehire, which leaves workers vulnerable to job insecurity.
– Limited Flexible Working Rights Unions are concerned that the provisions for flexible working remain too easily circumvented by employers.
– Lack of Comprehensive Worker Classification The Bill postpones the creation of a single status of worker, which would ensure that all workers receive full employment rights.
– No Right to Disconnect The absence of a ‘right to switch off’ means employees may still face pressure to engage outside of working hours.
– Delayed Implementation: Many of the Bill’s provisions won’t take effect until 2026, raising concerns about the timeliness of these crucial reforms.
Union Reactions
Trade union leaders have not held back in their critiques. Unite’s General Secretary, Sharon Graham, characterized the Bill as a significant step forward but cautioned that it “still ties itself up in knots trying to avoid what was promised.” She pointed out that failure to ban fire-and-rehire practices and zero-hours contracts will allow employers to exploit the loopholes that remain.
Daniel Kebede, General Secretary of the National Education Union, lamented the limited grounds for refusing flexible working requests, warning that this could lead to increased disputes in workplaces.
Christina McAnea General Secretary of Unison, welcomed provisions for care workers but emphasized the need for immediate action to ensure fair pay for all workers in the sector.
Paul Nowak, TUC General Secretary, called for swift implementation of the reforms, urging that the focus should be on making work pay for all.
Mick Lynch, RMT General Secretary, noted the positive steps toward repealing anti-union laws, while Mick Whelan of Aslef labelled the Bill as a vital first step in advancing workers’ rights.
Adding to this chorus, Pat Harrington of the Solidarity Union echoed the sentiments of Lynch and Whelan, asserting that while the Bill has its shortcomings, it is part of a broader process that will gradually improve the position of working people. Harrington emphasized the importance of continued engagement with the Labour government to push for a progressive agenda, suggesting that union efforts could help steer future reforms toward greater worker protections.
Conclusion
While the Employment Rights Bill does introduce some long-awaited reforms, trade unions remain deeply concerned about its many gaps. As Sharon Graham succinctly put it, the Bill leaves “more holes than Swiss cheese” in protections for workers. The coming months will be crucial as unions continue to advocate for stronger rights and push for the necessary changes to ensure that all workers can truly benefit from the promised reforms. The challenge now lies in holding the government accountable to its commitments and ensuring that the legislation translates into real, tangible benefits for all workers.
The anticipated reform of workers’ rights in the UK has become a source of growing frustration and scepticism. As Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner prepares for discussions with business and union leaders this Tuesday, the urgency of these conversations feels overshadowed by the government’s history of delays. With a draft of the Employment Act set to be released soon, one can’t help but question whether this will lead to meaningful action or yet another setback. The timeline for implementing these crucial reforms is alarmingly protracted. Officials have indicated that some key measures may take over a year to come into effect, with others potentially stretching even longer. This lack of urgency raises concerns about the government’s commitment to workers’ rights, especially since the bill is designed to allow ministers to address policy gaps at a later date—adding unnecessary complexity to an already sluggish process.
The legislative journey itself is time-consuming, requiring an estimated three months to pass through Parliament, followed by a 12-week consultation period and additional time for secondary legislation. This could push the actual implementation of new rights into a timeframe of 18 months or more—an unacceptable delay for workers awaiting essential protections like the right to day-one protection against unfair dismissal, a ban on zero-hour contracts, and measures against fire-and-rehire tactics.
While some provisions, such as the right to work flexibly and the extension of statutory sick pay, may be expedited, many crucial reforms remain vague or excluded altogether. For example, the right to bereavement leave and protections for pregnant workers are mentioned but not fully fleshed out, while significant issues—like a review of the parental leave system and the introduction of collective bargaining in the care sector—are conspicuously absent from the current legislation and are unlikely to materialize before 2027.One of the most discussed reforms, the right to ‘switch off’ from work, has been relegated to a future code of conduct rather than being included in the immediate legislation. This reflects a troubling reluctance to fully confront the complexities of modern work-life balance and suggests a prioritization of business interests over genuine worker protections.
As the government grapples with these delays, the implications are profound. The ongoing dialogue with businesses and unions, while necessary, risks feeling increasingly hollow if it does not lead to timely and effective reforms. The significance of these measures cannot be overstated; they directly impact the lives of workers across the nation
.In conclusion, the road to reform is fraught with obstacles and delays, and the Labour government’s commitment to delivering on promises made remains in question. Workers deserve a legislative framework that genuinely addresses their needs in the modern economy, and the hope is that the government will rise to the occasion before further inaction renders these discussions meaningless. The coming months will be critical in determining whether the anticipated changes will translate into real, impactful legislation for workers in the UK.
The Labour government has reaffirmed its dedication to ensuring workers’ well-being. It is committing to introduce the “right to disconnect,” a key initiative aimed at promoting a healthy work-life balance. This right is designed to tackle the growing concerns over the blurred lines between personal and professional life. These concerns have particularly arisen after the surge in home working during the pandemic. The government is determined to prevent homes from becoming round-the-clock offices. It emphasizes the importance of protecting workers from the pressures of constant availability.
Labour first proposed the right to disconnect in their 2021 Green Paper A New Deal for Working People. This right would allow workers to refuse to engage in work-related communication outside of their standard working hours. This would extend to evenings, weekends, and even during periods of annual leave. This ensures that employees have protected time to rest, recharge, and enjoy their personal lives. They no longer have the looming expectation of responding to work emails or calls.
Labour’s recent document Plan to Make Work Pay: Delivering a New Deal for Working People was published in May 2023. It outlines a broad framework for how this right might be implemented. Nonetheless, there are still questions about how this will translate into law. The upcoming Draft Employment Rights Bill, expected to be presented to Parliament by October 2024, could offer more concrete details.
Labour’s proposal takes inspiration from successful models in countries like Ireland and Belgium. The right to disconnect has already been enacted in various forms in these countries. In Ireland, for example, the Code of Practice on the right to disconnect was introduced in 2021. It protects workers from being penalized for refusing to work outside normal hours. It also encourages employers to develop a formal policy respecting this right. While this Code isn’t legally binding, breaches can be used as evidence in employment claims. This offers some degree of accountability for non-compliant employers.
Belgium, on the other hand, has gone further by introducing legally binding right-to-disconnect legislation. In 2022, this law was first applied to civil servants. It was later expanded to cover private sector employees in companies with 20 or more workers. The law prohibits employers from contacting workers outside of normal working hours, barring exceptional circumstances. It holds employers accountable for violations. It may potentially impose sanctions for breaches of collective bargaining agreements (CBAs).
Labour’s plan is unlikely to completely revolutionize the UK’s work culture overnight. However, it is a critical step toward empowering workers. The right to disconnect would create space for employees to reclaim their time. It would allow them to focus on personal well-being. It would also combat the increasing culture of burnout. It also challenges the current norms of overwork and underappreciation, ensuring workers aren’t merely resources to be tapped 24/7.
Workers’ advocates emphasize the importance of this right. They see it as a crucial tool for balancing the power dynamic between employees and employers. It pushes back against exploitative practices that expect workers to be constantly available. It emphasizes that work should not dominate their lives. Implementing this right will help safeguard mental and physical health, productivity, and job satisfaction.
Nonetheless, to truly help workers, Labour must make sure that the right to disconnect is enshrined in law. There must be clear enforcement mechanisms. Without meaningful penalties for non-compliance, employers may treat this right as optional, potentially undermining its impact. To be effective, any policy must ensure that workers can exercise this right without fear of retaliation. Unions should be involved in negotiating and implementing workplace policies. These policies must match the needs of workers across different sectors.
Ultimately, while employers may feel inclined to hold off on developing right-to-disconnect policies. They may wait until the specifics of the Draft Employment Rights Bill are clarified. Proactive steps toward protecting workers’ downtime could set a precedent for healthier, more sustainable working conditions across the country.
The journey towards the enactment of the Employment (Allocation of Tips) Act 2023 has shown the power of collective action. This journey has demonstrated collective action’s power. The journey also highlights the importance of solidarity. It also shows the unwavering commitment of unions to the cause of workers’ rights. As we herald the upcoming implementation of the Act on 1 October 2024, we must acknowledge this pivotal role. Unite, Solidarity, and other unions have championed these transformative changes.
The Unite union, known for its staunch advocacy for workers’ welfare, campaigned for fair tipping practices. Our efforts, in concert with Solidarity and other unions, have been the driving force behind the introduction of the Act. The Act promises to bring about a significant positive impact. It will positively affect over 2 million workers within the UK’s hospitality, leisure, and services industries.
The collaborative campaign spearheaded by these unions has been a beacon of hope for many. It shines a light on the often-overlooked issue of tip allocation. The unions’ persistent lobbying and public awareness initiatives have laid the groundwork for a future. In this future, workers can confidently claim their rightful earnings. They can do so without fear of unjust deductions or opaque distribution systems.
The Act’s provisions include a ban on deductions from tips. They also include a duty for employers to allocate tips fairly. Additionally, they establish workers’ rights to access tipping records and receive tips as agency workers. These provisions are a direct result of the unions’ dedication to fairness and transparency. The Solidarity union and its allies have advocated for these measures. They have also provided valuable insights that have shaped the Act’s framework.
As we move closer to the Act’s enforcement date, it is essential to recognize this victory. It is not solely the result of legislative processes. It is also the outcome of the solidarity and unity displayed by unions across the UK.
The Employment (Allocation of Tips) Act 2023 stands as a landmark achievement in the realm of labour rights. Its success is a clear indication of what can be accomplished when workers unite under the banner of solidarity. It celebrates the collective spirit that binds unions together. Unions are united in their pursuit of a fairer and more equitable workplace for all.
A full range of new measures will be introduced under the Act, including:
a new duty on employers to ensure that all qualifying tips are allocated fairly between workers;
a prohibition on deductions from tips and service charges collected;
a requirement for relevant employers to have a written policy on how they deal with tips;
a new right for workers to request a copy of their tipping records; and
a new right for agency workers to receive tips.
Solidarity union will be monitoring compliance at all locations where our members may be affected. If you believer that your employer is not complying after October 1, 2024 please contact us for advice.
