Tax the Banks, Not the Workers: Why Britain Needs a Fairer Share of Banking Profits

There is something deeply wrong with an economy in which millions of people work hard, pay their taxes and still struggle to afford the basic necessities of life, while the banks report enormous profits and award record bonuses.

The contrast has become particularly stark as Britain approaches another difficult winter. Households are worrying about heating bills, mortgage repayments, rent increases and the weekly cost of shopping. Meanwhile, some of the country’s largest financial institutions are enjoying profits measured in billions.

The question is whether the Government should intervene to ensure that some of this extraordinary wealth is used to ease the pressure on ordinary working families.

Solidarity believes there is a powerful case for doing so. Banks provide essential services and should be able to operate profitably. They must also recognise that their prosperity depends upon the wider economy and the people who work within it. When exceptional profits arise partly from economic circumstances that have made life harder for those same people, a greater contribution to the public finances is reasonable.

A banking boom amid a household squeeze

The figures are extraordinary.

According to Trades Union Congress analysis published this year, Britain’s four biggest banks — Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds and NatWest — made around £29 billion in profits during the first half of 2026 alone.

Much of the improvement in bank profitability has been associated with higher interest rates. When borrowing becomes more expensive, banks can benefit from the difference between what they charge borrowers and what they pay savers.

Of course, the relationship is not entirely straightforward. Banks face higher funding costs, competition for deposits and the possibility that borrowers will default. Nevertheless, the interest-rate environment has provided substantial opportunities for increased earnings.

The same circumstances have been rather less welcome for many bank customers.

Families coming to the end of fixed-rate mortgage agreements have faced painful increases in monthly repayments. Small businesses have found borrowing more expensive. Tenants have experienced pressure from landlords seeking to recover higher financing costs.

For someone on a modest wage, an additional £100 or £200 a month in housing costs can mean the difference between managing comfortably and running up debt.

Yet the rewards at the top of the financial industry continue to grow.

In July, the TUC highlighted projections suggesting that bonuses across the finance and insurance sector could reach £25 billion during 2026. Its analysis also showed that average weekly bonuses in the sector had reached £431 during the first quarter.

There is nothing objectionable about rewarding productive work. Bank employees, like other workers, deserve fair pay for their contribution. But these figures concern an industry whose fortunes have been boosted by circumstances that have simultaneously squeezed millions of its customers.

It is reasonable to ask whether the distribution of those gains serves the wider national interest.

The workers who cannot make ends meet

The banking figures become even more troubling when placed alongside research published by Citizens Advice on 14 October.

The charity estimates that 5.6 million workers in Britain are trapped in insecure or precarious employment. These include people working on temporary contracts, zero-hours arrangements and other forms of poorly paid or unpredictable work.

Around a third of workers aged between 18 and 24 fall into this category. Disabled workers are also disproportionately affected.

The consequences are serious.

Citizens Advice found that, over the previous year, more than half of households containing insecure workers had resorted to measures such as borrowing money, selling possessions, using foodbanks or applying for emergency financial assistance.

Consider what that means.

These are not necessarily people who are unemployed or unwilling to work. Many are doing physically demanding, socially useful jobs. They clean offices, serve customers, transport passengers and help keep businesses functioning.

Their problem is that the rewards and security offered by employment are increasingly inadequate.

Tom MacInnes, director of policy at Citizens Advice, has warned that insecure workers cannot reliably predict how much they will receive each month. The charity has called for stronger employment protections and targeted financial assistance for the lowest earners.

Solidarity has consistently argued that work should provide dignity, security and a reasonable standard of living.

A person who fulfils their responsibilities at work should not have to rely upon a foodbank to feed their family.

Nor should employees who regularly work substantial hours be left wondering whether they will receive enough shifts next week to cover their bills.

The Government’s promised reforms of zero-hours contracts and insecure employment must therefore deliver meaningful change. But improvements in employment rights need to be accompanied by policies that tackle the wider cost of living.

That brings us back to the banks.

What would a windfall tax actually mean?

A windfall tax is an additional levy applied to profits considered unusually large because of exceptional circumstances rather than simply the normal growth of a business.

Britain has already applied this principle to the energy industry.

When oil and gas companies experienced extraordinary profits following dramatic movements in international energy prices, the Government introduced an additional tax on those gains.

The justification was straightforward. Companies benefiting unusually heavily from an economic crisis could reasonably be expected to make an additional contribution to addressing its consequences.

There is a strong argument for applying similar reasoning to banking.

Banks already pay corporation tax, and larger banking companies are subject to an additional surcharge on qualifying profits.

That surcharge currently stands at 3 per cent on profits above £100 million, having been reduced from 8 per cent in April 2023.

The reduction was introduced alongside an increase in the main rate of corporation tax, so it would be misleading to describe the change in isolation as a simple five-percentage-point reduction in banks’ total tax burden. Nevertheless, the TUC argues that the lower surcharge has substantially reduced the revenue that would otherwise have been collected during a period of exceptional bank profitability.

Its latest analysis estimates that restoring the surcharge to 8 per cent would raise approximately £9 billion over four years.

Increasing it to 16 per cent could raise around £24 billion over the same period, while a 35 per cent surcharge could generate an estimated £60 billion.

These are forecasts rather than guaranteed receipts. The amounts collected would depend upon future profits, investment decisions and the response of financial institutions to changes in taxation.

Even allowing for uncertainty, the sums involved are significant.

On 12 October, Labour MP Richard Burgon tabled a parliamentary motion calling for a windfall tax on bank profits. The motion cites analysis suggesting that such a tax could raise up to £15 billion annually, with the proceeds directed towards cost-of-living support and public services.

Bringing down household energy bills

One of the most practical proposals is to introduce a social energy tariff.

This would provide reduced energy costs for eligible households, particularly those on low and middle incomes who are struggling to cope with rising bills.

The TUC estimates that such a scheme could save qualifying households up to £559 annually, depending on its design and the level of support provided.

That would make a substantial difference to a family already struggling with mortgage payments, rent and food costs.

The need is particularly pressing as winter approaches.

Research published by Uswitch in October suggested that around 1.7 million households were planning not to turn on their heating this winter because of concerns about affordability.

Its survey also found that people using prepayment meters were especially worried about being cold.

For vulnerable households, inadequate heating is not simply an inconvenience. It can have consequences for health, wellbeing and the ability to maintain a decent home environment.

An appropriately targeted social tariff could provide direct and understandable relief.

There would need to be proper safeguards. Eligibility must be clear, support should reach those who need it, and the system should avoid penalising households just above an arbitrary income threshold.

But the basic idea deserves serious consideration.

Rather than expecting the lowest-paid workers to absorb every increase in essential household costs, the Government could use additional revenue from exceptional banking profits to provide some protection.

Would higher taxes damage Britain’s banking industry?

Opponents of increased bank taxation argue that Britain must remain internationally competitive.

This argument should not be dismissed.

Financial services are an important part of the British economy. They employ large numbers of people, support businesses, generate exports and contribute substantial tax revenues.

London remains a major international financial centre, while financial services employment also supports communities in Edinburgh, Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester and elsewhere.

Solidarity wants Britain to maintain and develop these strengths.

We have no interest in policies that would encourage financial institutions to relocate operations overseas, reduce investment or threaten the jobs of ordinary bank workers.

There is, however, a distinction between reasonable concern about competitiveness and the suggestion that substantial banking profits should be protected from any additional taxation.

The financial sector depends upon Britain having a functioning economy, a skilled workforce, reliable infrastructure and a stable legal and regulatory framework.

All these things require public investment.

There is also a legitimate question about how additional profits are used.

Money distributed in dividends and executive bonuses is not automatically money that would otherwise have funded new lending, improved services or investment in Britain.

Equally, taxation cannot be increased indefinitely without consequences. Poorly designed measures could affect investment, lending decisions and the attractiveness of operating in the United Kingdom.

The answer is careful policy design, not an automatic rejection of higher taxation.

A properly constructed windfall tax should concentrate on exceptional profits, protect ordinary employees and take account of the industry’s long-term contribution to the British economy.

The banks have obligations to their own workers

There is another aspect to this debate that deserves greater attention.

Banking is not an industry consisting entirely of highly paid traders and executives.

Many employees work in branches, call centres, administration, compliance, customer service and technical support. They are ordinary working people with the same concerns about bills, job security and family finances as workers in other sectors.

These employees have contributed to the success of the banks and deserve a fair share of the rewards.

At the same time that major institutions report substantial profits, the industry continues to change through branch closures, automation, restructuring and reductions in staffing.

Those changes can place considerable pressure upon employees who remain.

Bank workers should not be treated as expendable simply because technology has made some operations cheaper or more efficient.

Solidarity believes that profitable employers have particular responsibilities to maintain fair wages, provide decent working conditions, consult properly over restructuring and invest in their employees.

If banks can afford substantial distributions to shareholders and senior executives, they should also be able to demonstrate that their ordinary employees are being treated fairly.

Tax policy and employment policy are separate matters, but both concern the same underlying question: how the benefits of economic success are shared.

Where Solidarity stands

Solidarity is an independent trade union. We are not affiliated to any political party, and our assessment of economic policy is guided by what we believe will benefit working people.

We do not believe that profitability is something to be condemned. Successful British businesses create employment, generate wealth and contribute to national prosperity.

But a successful economy must work for the people who sustain it.

It cannot be considered healthy when millions of workers struggle with insecure employment, when households cannot afford adequate heating and when essential public services are under financial pressure.

Nor should the Government assume that ordinary workers must always bear the greatest burden when additional revenue is required.

Higher taxes on banking profits will not, by themselves, solve Britain’s economic difficulties.

We also need stronger employment rights, better vocational training, investment in productive industries, secure jobs and a serious effort to improve the country’s long-term economic performance.

Britain needs businesses that invest, innovate and create skilled employment. It needs an effective financial sector that supports those businesses rather than simply extracting the maximum short-term return.

A carefully designed windfall tax could form part of that wider approach.

It would recognise that extraordinary gains arising from unusual economic circumstances carry responsibilities.

It would also demonstrate that the burden of dealing with economic pressures need not fall disproportionately upon those least able to afford it.

A question of fairness

The debate over taxing bank profits is sometimes presented as a choice between supporting business and supporting workers.

That is a false choice.

Banks need a prosperous society in which people can afford to save, borrow, invest and buy homes. Businesses need customers with money to spend. Workers need secure employment and sufficient income to participate fully in the economy.

These interests are connected.

An economy in which wages are inadequate, household debt is rising and millions of people are financially insecure is not a sound foundation for sustained prosperity.

The coming Budget offers an opportunity to recognise that connection.

The Government should examine the case for an additional levy on exceptional banking profits, with the proceeds used to provide meaningful assistance with essential household costs and strengthen the services upon which working people depend.

It should do so while protecting Britain’s competitiveness and the jobs of employees throughout the financial sector.

The public deserves more than reassurances that economic growth will eventually improve living standards.

Working people need to see tangible benefits.

When the banks are making billions while some of their customers cannot afford to heat their homes, asking those banks to contribute more is not an attack upon enterprise.

It is a reasonable demand for a fairer distribution of the rewards of prosperity.

By Maria Camara

Five Days to Appeal: How a Flawed HR Convention Became a Barrier to Workplace Justice — And Why ACAS Must Act

There are many small injustices in the modern workplace — the quiet, procedural ones that rarely make headlines but shape the daily reality of workers facing disciplinary action. Among the most persistent is the widespread employer practice of giving workers just five working days to appeal a disciplinary outcome. It appears in policy after policy, as if it were a fixed rule of employment law. It is not. It has no statutory basis and no foundation in case law. Yet it is treated as gospel.

This arbitrary deadline has become so normalised that many workers assume it must be legally mandated. In truth, it is nothing more than a managerial convenience that has hardened into convention — a convention that routinely undermines fairness, equality, and access to justice.

At our most recent AGM, Solidarity members recognised this problem and passed a motion committing the union to campaign against the five‑day norm. It is a commitment rooted in both principle and lived experience, and it deserves to be taken seriously.

A Deadline Without a Law

The first and most important fact is this: no UK law requires a five‑day appeal window.
The Employment Rights Act is silent on appeal deadlines.
The Equality Act is silent on appeal deadlines.
ACAS — whose Code of Practice tribunals take into account — does not mandate five days.

ACAS guidance simply states that employees should appeal “as soon as possible or within the time period set out in the employer’s procedure.” That is all. The oft‑quoted “five working days” appears only in non‑binding examples, not in the Code itself. It is not a standard. It is not a requirement. It is not even a recommendation.

ACAS also says nothing about disciplinary minutes — nothing about when they must be provided, nothing about whether the appeal clock should start only after they are received. This omission is striking, because in practice many workers receive the outcome letter before they receive the minutes. They are expected to appeal a decision without access to the record of what was said. No fair‑minded person could consider that reasonable.

Where Five Days Really Came From

If the five‑day rule is not law, where did it come from?
The answer is depressingly simple: HR templates.

For decades, large HR consultancies have produced standardised disciplinary procedures for employers. These templates — designed primarily for managerial convenience — often included a five‑day appeal window. Over time, this figure became embedded in employer‑side “best practice” documents and was repeated so often that it acquired an aura of legitimacy.

But repetition is not justification.
A convention is not a principle.
And managerial convenience is not fairness.

Why Five Days Is Not Enough

A disciplinary outcome can be life‑changing. It may affect a worker’s job, income, reputation, mental health, and future employability. Yet employers routinely expect workers to:

absorb the decision
request and review the minutes
gather evidence
seek union representation
obtain medical or occupational health information
prepare written grounds of appeal

…all within five working days.

This is unrealistic for anyone — and impossible for many.

Workers who are stressed, anxious, or traumatised by the process are disadvantaged.
Workers with caring responsibilities are disadvantaged.
Workers without immediate access to a rep are disadvantaged.
And disabled and neurodivergent workers — who may need more time to process information, gather medical evidence, or communicate effectively — are systematically disadvantaged.

Under the Equality Act 2010, a rigid five‑day deadline is a Provision, Criterion or Practice (PCP). If it places disabled workers at a substantial disadvantage, employers must make reasonable adjustments. Yet most disciplinary policies say nothing about adjustments and instead sometimes rely on vague “management discretion.” , if they mention anything at all. Discretion is not compliance. Adjustments are not optional.

A deadline that cannot flex is a deadline that discriminates. This should be stated clearly in any employer disciplinary policy.

Appeals Are a Safeguard, Not a Sprint

The right to appeal is not an administrative nicety. It is a fundamental safeguard against flawed investigations, procedural errors, bias, and disproportionate sanctions. A right that cannot be exercised meaningfully is not a right at all.

Many unionised workplaces already use 14 days as standard — and nothing collapses. Employers continue to function. Processes continue. Justice is better served. The only thing that changes is that workers get a fair chance to defend themselves.

What ACAS Should Do: Time for the Guidance to Catch Up With Reality

If the five‑day appeal window has become entrenched across UK workplaces, it is partly because ACAS — unintentionally — has allowed ambiguity to flourish. While ACAS does not mandate five days, and does not prohibit longer deadlines, its guidance contains two structural weaknesses that employers routinely exploit:

It offers “five working days” without proper context or caveat.
It says nothing about disciplinary minutes and how that affects when the appeal clock should start.

This silence has consequences. Employers treat the example as a ceiling, not a floor. They treat the absence of rules about minutes as permission to delay them. And they seldom reference Equality Act compliance or its affect on time limits.

Solidarity believes ACAS should now take responsibility for closing these gaps.

1. ACAS should require that the appeal period begins only once the worker has received both the minutes and outcome.

Natural justice demands that workers see the record of what was said. ACAS should state that:

minutes must be provided promptly
the appeal window begins only after the worker receives them and the outcome
delays in providing minutes automatically extend the deadline

3. ACAS should incorporate Equality Act duties directly into its disciplinary guidance.

ACAS should state that:

fixed deadlines are a PCP
employers must consider reasonable adjustments
adjustments are a legal duty, not a matter of discretion
policies must explicitly reference this duty

4. ACAS should recommend a default appeal window of at least 14 calendar days.

This is already standard in many unionised workplaces and poses no operational difficulty.

5. ACAS should update its guidelines to reflect modern, evidence‑based practice.

The five‑day figure comes from outdated HR templates, not fairness. It should be replaced with a timeframe grounded in accessibility, equality, and justice.

ACAS guidance shapes employer behaviour. When the guidance is vague, outdated, or silent on key issues, workers suffer. Solidarity’s position is simple:

ACAS should not merely reflect common practice — it should lead it.
And it should lead it in the direction of fairness, accessibility, and equality.

Solidarity’s Mandate for Change

At our AGM, members passed a motion recognising:

that the five‑day deadline has no legal basis
that it originates from employer‑centric templates
that it disproportionately harms disabled, unwell, and unsupported workers
that meaningful access to justice requires adequate time

The AGM resolved that Solidarity will:

adopt 14 calendar days as our bargaining position
produce guidance for reps on challenging short deadlines
campaign publicly and privately for employers to abandon the five‑day norm
support members who miss deadlines by arguing for extensions on equality and fairness grounds
review disciplinary policies across recognised workplaces and target those with unreasonable appeal windows

This is not symbolic. It is a practical commitment to improving procedural fairness for every worker we represent.

A Call to Employers: Fairness Is Not an Administrative Burden

Employers often defend the five‑day rule by claiming they need “certainty” or “efficiency.” But fairness is not the enemy of efficiency. Rushed appeals create more disputes, more grievances, and more legal risk. If an employer can take weeks or months to schedule a disciplinary hearing, they can wait 14 days for an appeal.

A fair process protects everyone — including the employer.

A Call to Workers: You Deserve Time, Dignity, and Justice

If you are facing a disciplinary outcome, you deserve:

time to understand the decision
time to seek advice
time to gather evidence
time to prepare a proper appeal

You deserve a process that recognises you as a human being, not a box to be ticked.

Solidarity will continue to fight for that — in negotiations, in campaigns, and in every workplace where our members are subjected to unreasonable deadlines.

Five days is not enough.
It never was.
And together, we can change it.

By Pat Harrington

Motherhood and the Wage Gap: A Union Call to Action

New national data make one thing plain: the income shock women face after having a child is not an accident, it is the predictable result of policy decisions that leave new parents without a liveable income. Five years after childbirth many mothers are still earning substantially less than they did before pregnancy; those forced to rely on statutory maternity pay receive support that keeps them below the National Living Wage and pushes whole households toward debt and early returns to work.

Average post-birth earnings drop: Mothers earn markedly less in the years following childbirth, a disparity that persists and compounds over time.
Statutory maternity pay is inadequate: The structure of statutory support—high initial coverage for a short period followed by a low flat rate unless employers top up—leaves a huge gap between income and basic living costs.
Practical shortfall for families: Many families face an annual shortfall measured in thousands of pounds, driving debt, squeezing day-to-day budgets and forcing premature returns to paid work.

What the numbers tell us

These facts point to a clear moral and political choice: we underinvest in parenting and accept the long-term penalisation of mothers.

How this harms workers, families and union power

Economic insecurity becomes structural. Low statutory pay and rare employer top-ups convert a temporary life event into a long-term earnings penalty, reducing lifetime pay and pension entitlements.
Career progression stalls. Part-time work, disrupted hours and reduced access to senior roles follow childbirth for too many parents, entrenching gendered job segregation and weakening collective bargaining power.
Inequality is concentrated among the weakest. Workers without enhanced contracts—often in lower-paid, female-dominated sectors—experience the largest shortfalls and least flexibility, deepening class as well as gender inequality.

This is avoidable. The current distribution of risk reflects policy and employer priorities, not inevitability.

What unions must demand now

Uplift statutory parental pay to a living standard. Statutory rates must at minimum match a living wage so leave does not become a poverty trap.
Mandatory employer transparency on parental pay. Public reporting will expose who provides meaningful support and create pressure for improvement.
Stronger return-to-work protections and enforcement. Guaranteed hours, protected career progression and clear flexible-working pathways on return prevent motherhood from becoming a career sentence.
Collective bargaining for enhanced parental packages. Where legislation lags, union agreements must secure paid leave top-ups, phased returns and protection of pensions and progression.

Practical campaigning lines for unions

Campaign message: Parenting is work; pay it properly.
Target sectors: Retail, hospitality, care and administration—sectors where enhanced pay is rare and the penalty bites hardest.
Tactical asks: include transparency clauses in bargaining, legal-review triggers for parental-pay buyouts, and guaranteed return-to-work clauses in member contracts.
Mobilisation: centre campaigning on member stories combined with clear economic figures to build bargaining leverage and public sympathy.

Closing call to action

The motherhood penalty is not inevitable. Unions have the tools to make it contestable: collective bargaining, public campaigns and the power to hold employers and government to account. All unions should place improved statutory pay, employer transparency and enforceable return-to-work protections at the centre of our bargaining agenda this year. Every mother denied a decent income today is a worker from whom we must extract justice tomorrow.

By Maria Camara

Fixing the De Minimis Loophole: A Call for Fair Trade and Worker Protection

Solidarity Union welcomes the government’s review of the customs treatment of low-value imports—and urges bold, structural reform to protect UK jobs, retailers, and consumers.

The Problem: A Loophole Undermining UK Workers and Businesses

Under current UK rules, overseas sellers can ship goods valued at £135 or less directly to UK consumers without paying customs duties. This exemption—known as the de minimis threshold—was designed for convenience in a different era. Today, it functions as a subsidy for regulatory arbitrage, particularly for large platforms optimised to exploit it.

As Solidarity General Secretary Patrick Harrington wrote in our submission to HM Treasury:

“Our members see the day-to-day impacts of parcel-based arbitrage: cancelled production runs, shrinking shop margins, precarious courier work, and intensified cost pressures on households.”

UK manufacturers and retailers face compliance costs, VAT systems, and duties on inputs—while overseas sellers bypass these entirely. The result? A distorted market where British firms are forced to cut wages, standards, or investment just to stay afloat.

Sectoral Damage: From Garment Makers to Gig Couriers

The de minimis regime is not just a technical issue—it’s a frontline concern for workers across multiple sectors:

Textiles and apparel: UK garment makers lose orders to ultra-cheap imports, leading to collapsed margins and the erosion of skilled jobs.
Household goods and toys: SMEs producing small-format goods are undercut by duty-free micro-drops, often priced 10–20% below sustainable levels.
Independent retailers: Compressed price ceilings force leaner inventories, reduced service hours, and staff cuts.
Logistics and delivery: A torrent of ultra-low-margin parcels fuels casualised, gig-style delivery with unpredictable hours and pay.
Border enforcement: Fragmented parcel flows hinder risk-based checks, making it harder to intercept unsafe, counterfeit, or forced-labour-linked goods.

The Government’s Review: A Welcome First Step

On 23 April 2025, Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced a formal review of the de minimis regime, acknowledging that:

“We must stand up for free and open trade… but fairness needs to be injected into the global economic system.”

Retail leaders echoed this sentiment. Theo Paphitis called the move “a much-needed injection of confidence,” while Currys CEO Alex Baldock warned:

“Low-value shipments delivered from abroad straight to UK consumers avoid import duty, often evade VAT, and can fail to meet safety standards.”

Solidarity agrees: the loophole must be closed, and enforcement modernised.

Solidarity’s Proposals for Reform

We urge HM Treasury and HMRC to adopt the following five-point plan:

1. Remove the Customs-Duty De Minimis for Direct-to-Consumer Parcels

Abolish the exemption for parcels under £135 shipped directly from overseas sellers.
Ensure trade remedies (anti-dumping, countervailing duties) apply regardless of consignment value.

2. Make Marketplaces the Importer of Record

Require platforms to calculate and collect duty and VAT at checkout.
Assign liability for data accuracy and compliance to the platform—not the micro-seller.

3. Mandate Advance Electronic Data for All Parcels

Require HS codes, seller IDs, platform VAT/EORI, and recipient details pre-arrival.
Use automated risk scoring to target safety, counterfeit, and forced-labour checks.

4. Introduce Anti-Avoidance Rules

Aggregate same-day shipments to prevent artificial value-splitting.
Exclude high-risk categories (e.g. trade remedies, sanctions, unsafe goods) from simplified regimes.

5. Phase Implementation with SME and Border Support

Provide 6–12 months for platforms to deploy duty calculators and data pipelines.
Offer sandbox tools and guidance for UK SMEs.
Invest in border tech to keep compliant traffic flowing smoothly.

A Fairer Future for UK Trade

This is not a general tariff rise—it’s a targeted fix to restore fairness. As our submission notes:

“When everyone faces the same rules, price differences reflect efficiency and innovation—not regulatory arbitrage.”

With proper reform, we can:

Stabilise manufacturing orders and retail margins.
Reduce unsafe and counterfeit imports.
Sustain quality jobs in logistics and production.
Restore integrity to public revenue collection.

The UK can fix this loophole without clogging borders—by removing the de minimis exemption, assigning clear responsibility to platforms, and using modern data to keep trade flowing.

Let’s make trade fair again—for workers, for businesses, and for the communities they serve.

Extreme Heat at Work: Understanding Your Rights

294 words, 2 minutes read time.

As the mercury climbs past 30°C this weekend—peaking at 32°C in some regions—Solidarity joins the PCS union and TUC in sounding the alarm: extreme heat isn’t just uncomfortable, it’s dangerous. Yet UK law remains silent on an upper workplace temperature limit, leaving too many workers sweltering without sufficient legal protection.

What the Law Says (and Doesn’t):
– No statutory maximum temperature for workplaces exists.
– The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 oblige employers to maintain a “reasonable” temperature.
– “Reasonable” must factor in the type of work, worker vulnerabilities, and environmental conditions.
– Crucially: heat is a recognised workplace hazard. Employers must risk-assess it and act.

Risk Reality:
From sunstroke to skin cancer, exposure to high temperatures—especially outdoors—can be life-altering. Indoors, dehydration, heat exhaustion, and even fainting aren’t rare in overheated buildings. Shockingly, while minimum temperature guidance exists, maximum thresholds do not.

Solidarity Demands:
The TUC’s push for legal reform is urgent and overdue. We stand behind proposals for:
– A legal maximum indoor temperature of 30°C (27°C for strenuous jobs),
– A duty for employers to actively reduce temperatures above 24°C,
– Mandatory provision of sunscreen, hydration, and cooling measures.

Practical Steps for Employers:
Here’s how to act now—not after the next heatwave:
– Supply cold water and allow frequent breaks.
– Permit flexible hours or remote working.
– Relax dress codes—ditch the ties.
– Provide shaded rest zones for outdoor teams.
– Invest in fans, ventilation, and long-term climate resilience.
– Listen to union reps and workers. We know our workplaces best.

Heat, Rights, and Resilience
Work should never compromise health—and rising temperatures demand rising standards. That means legislation that safeguards workers, responsive employers who listen, and union-driven workplace inspections.

Organise. Demand temperature justice. And, remember contact us if you need a cooler workplace.

By Pat Harrington

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.”

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

Support UK-Made Goods This Christmas

133 words, 1 minute read time.

Solidarity union is proud to partner with the Facebook group Great UK Great UK products you can buy for a powerful campaign to support UK-made goods this Christmas. Together, we’ve created a video to inspire you to choose British products and show how small decisions can make a big difference.

Every time you buy British, you’re helping protect jobs in your community and reduce the environmental impact of long-distance shipping. From handmade crafts to locally grown food, there’s something extraordinary about supporting our homegrown talent.

People might talk down the UK, but we believe in the power of solidarity and positivity. Together, we can build a great nation by supporting each other and taking pride in what we create. Let’s show the world what the UK can do!

Watch the video now!

By Maria Camara

Solidarity Union Fights for Fair Sick Pay in the UK

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.

By Maria Camara

A Union Triumph for Fair Tipping Practices

490 words, 3 minutes read time.

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.

By Maria Camara