When “Following the Process” Isn’t Enough: Lessons from Taylor v Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd

Image featuring a statue of Justice holding scales, with bold text stating 'NEWS FROM THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS' and information about the Solidarity trade union.

There are tribunal cases that feel like technical disputes about procedure.
And then there are cases like Taylor v Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd — cases that expose the gap between what an organisation thinks it is doing and what an employee is actually experiencing.

A disabled employee.
A supermarket chain.
An absence policy.

And a reminder that the law cares far less about tidy paperwork than it does about lived reality.

The Employee Behind the Case

Mr Taylor worked for Sainsbury’s and lived with ankylosing spondylitis, a long‑term inflammatory condition that can cause severe pain, stiffness and fatigue. It is a condition that fluctuates, and like many disabilities, it doesn’t map neatly onto rigid attendance expectations.

He raised concerns about:

how his absence management was handled
how working hours were allocated
how reasonable adjustments were considered, implemented, and reviewed

On paper, everything looked reassuringly compliant.

✔ Occupational health referrals
✔ Adjustments discussed
✔ Policies in place

But tribunals don’t judge organisations on the neatness of their documentation.
They judge them on what actually happened.

And that’s where this case becomes instructive.

Where Things Began to Fray

1. Absence Triggers Applied Without Flexibility

Sainsbury’s had a standard absence policy with trigger points.
Nothing unusual there.

But Mr Taylor’s condition meant he was more likely to hit those triggers — not because of misconduct, but because of disability‑related flare‑ups.

The tribunal examined not the existence of the policy, but the rigidity with which it was applied.
A trigger point that is neutral on its face can become discriminatory in practice if managers fail to adjust it for someone whose disability makes absence more likely.

This is where many employers stumble:
they treat “consistency” as fairness, when the law requires individualisation.

2. Adjustments Discussed… But Not Embedded

The organisation did discuss adjustments.
But discussion is not the same as implementation.
And implementation is not the same as ongoing review.

The tribunal looked closely at:

whether adjustments were actually put in place
whether they were maintained
whether managers understood them
whether they were revisited when circumstances changed

A reasonable adjustment is not a one‑off event.
It is a living commitment.

3. Working Hours Expectations That Didn’t Reflect Reality

Mr Taylor’s condition affected his stamina and mobility.
Yet expectations around shift patterns and duties did not always reflect the limitations identified by occupational health.

This is a common organisational blind spot:
the gap between what HR agrees, what OH recommends, and what frontline managers actually do on the shop floor.

The tribunal paid attention to that gap.

The Legal Test Employers Forget

One of the most common refrains in tribunal litigation is:

“We followed the process.”

But that is not the legal test.

The tribunal asks two questions:

Did the employee face a disadvantage because of their disability?
Did the employer take reasonable steps to remove or reduce that disadvantage?

Policies are written for the average employee.
Disability law requires employers to think beyond the average.

And that is where Sainsbury’s fell short.

Why This Case Matters

This case is not about bad faith.
It’s about rigidity — the quiet, procedural kind that creeps in when managers are under pressure, when policies are treated as scripts, and when “consistency” becomes a shield against Here’s a version that keeps the spine of the original but reframes it through that Patrick‑style, morally attentive lens — weighing the lessons for both sides of the employment relationship, and foregrounding judgement as a shared, legally consequential practice.

The biggest HR risks rarely come from having the wrong policy.
They come from applying the right policy as if people were identical units on a spreadsheet.

Absence triggers.
Bonus schemes.
Working‑hours expectations.
Return‑to‑work interviews.
Performance metrics.

On paper, these are neutral tools.
In practice, they can quietly — and sometimes catastrophically — disadvantage disabled employees when managers apply them without curiosity, flexibility or context.

From the employee’s side, the lesson is stark:
you can be doing everything “right” and still find yourself penalised by systems designed for an imaginary average worker.
Knowing your rights, flagging barriers early, and documenting the adjustments you need isn’t self‑advocacy as a favour to HR — it’s self‑protection in a landscape where the burden of explanation too often falls on the person already carrying the weight.

From the employer’s side, the message is even clearer:
the organisations that avoid tribunals aren’t the ones with the thickest policy binders.
They’re the ones with leaders who understand when the rules require:

judgement
nuance
humanity
and the courage to deviate from the script

Because good HR has never been about paperwork.
It’s about the quality of decision‑making in the moments where the policy doesn’t quite fit the person in front of you.

And cases like Taylor v Sainsbury’s underline something many leaders still treat as optional:
judgement is not a soft skill.
It is a legal requirement — one that protects employees from harm and employers from the consequences of their own rigidity.

In other words: the law expects humanity.
And so should we.

By Pat Harrington

International Women’s Day 2026: Give To Gain — Building a Future Where Women’s Work Is Valued and Women’s Safety Is Non‑Negotiable

International Women’s Day has always carried a tension between celebration and struggle. In 2026, that tension feels sharper than ever. Across Britain, women are holding together the public realm—teaching, caring, cleaning, coordinating, healing—while navigating a labour market that still treats their safety, time, and expertise as expendable.

This year’s global theme, “Give To Gain,” is a reminder that progress is not a zero‑sum game. When women win, workplaces become safer, fairer, and more humane for everyone. When women’s rights are protected, entire communities gain stability. And when women organise, the whole labour movement becomes stronger.

For Solidarity, “Give To Gain” is not a slogan. It is a description of how collective power works.

🌿 The Work Women Give — and the Barriers They Face

Women’s labour is the backbone of Britain’s essential services, yet the conditions surrounding that labour remain structurally unequal. Women continue to face:

Persistent pay gaps, especially in feminised sectors where low wages are treated as an inevitability rather than a political choice.
Precarious contracts that punish pregnancy, caring responsibilities, and disability.
Workplace harassment and institutional minimisation, where reporting systems are opaque, slow, or actively hostile.
Cuts to public services that shift unpaid care back onto women, particularly working‑class women, migrant women, and women of colour.

These are not isolated problems. They are the architecture of inequality. And they are maintained by employers who rely on women’s willingness to “give” without demanding anything in return.

🔧 Union Power: Where Giving Becomes Collective Gain

The labour movement has always understood that solidarity is reciprocal. When workers stand together, each person’s contribution strengthens the whole. This is the heart of “Give To Gain”—the idea that collective investment produces collective liberation.

Across Solidarity branches, women have shown what this looks like in practice:

Cleaners organising for secure contracts, transforming unstable jobs into dignified, predictable work.
Care workers demanding safe staffing levels, protecting themselves and the people they support.
University staff challenging toxic cultures, refusing to let prestige mask institutional harm.
Migrant women workers unionising, asserting their right to visibility, safety, and fair treatment.

These victories were not gifted by employers. They were won through meetings, strike ballots, WhatsApp groups, and the quiet courage of refusing to accept the unacceptable.

When women give their time, their insight, and their solidarity to the union, the entire movement gains strength.

🔥 2026’s Challenge: Turning Solidarity Into Structural Change

This year, Solidarity is calling on all members—women and allies alike—to treat “Give To Gain” as a mandate for action.

1. Give your voice — gain safer workplaces

Support survivor‑centred reporting systems that remove the burden from individuals and place responsibility squarely on employers.

2. Give your backing — gain fair pay

Stand with women‑led campaigns for sectoral collective bargaining in care, retail, and hospitality.

3. Give your pressure — gain public services that work

Fight for properly funded childcare, social care, and health services. Cuts always land hardest on women.

4. Give your solidarity — gain a movement that includes everyone

Ensure migrant women, disabled women, and women of colour are not just present but leading.

This is the political heart of “Give To Gain”: when we invest in women’s rights, we build a labour movement capable of transforming the conditions of work for all.

🌱 A Movement Rooted in History, Growing Toward Justice

International Women’s Day began in the labour movement—born from garment workers striking for safety, dignity, and the right to be heard. It was never meant to be apolitical. It was never meant to be polite.

Solidarity stands firmly in that lineage. We honour it not with nostalgia, but with organising.

✊ To Every Woman in Solidarity

You give more than most people will ever see.
You hold workplaces together.
You carry the emotional weight of systems that should support you but too often fail.

This year, we say clearly:

You should not have to give endlessly without gaining safety, respect, and fair treatment in return.

International Women’s Day 2026 is a reminder that liberation is collective work—and that unions remain one of the few places where that work can be won.

Solidarity means all of us, or none of us..

By Pat Harrington

Whistleblowing at Work: What This Month’s Cases Tell Us About Power, Protection and the Limits of the Law

From post‑employment retaliation to managers hiding behind “innocent” decision‑makers, this month’s whistleblowing judgments reveal a legal landscape still struggling to keep pace with the realities workers face. These cases show how employers manoeuvre, how tribunals interpret the law, and why collective strength remains the surest protection for anyone who speaks up.

Introduction

Whistleblowing law in Britain has always been a patchwork: some protections strong in theory, others riddled with loopholes, and all of it dependent on tribunals willing to look beneath the surface of an employer’s story. The latest run of cases shows just how contested this terrain remains. Workers continue to face retaliation long after their employment ends; managers can escape liability by hiding behind “innocent” decision‑makers; and the courts themselves are split on how far whistleblowing detriment law should stretch.

Below is a worker‑centred breakdown of the key cases — what happened, what the courts decided, and what it means for anyone who raises concerns in the workplace.

Case Summaries

1. Post‑employment retaliation still counts: Day v Lewisham & Greenwich NHS Trust

This case confirms something workers have long known: retaliation doesn’t stop just because your employment does. Dr Day argued that statements the Trust made after settling an earlier whistleblowing case amounted to detriment. The tribunal initially said post‑employment acts weren’t covered — but the Employment Appeal Tribunal disagreed.

The EAT held that post‑employment detriments can fall within s.47B ERA when they’re closely tied to the employment relationship. As the document puts it, the statements were made “in the context of earlier tribunal proceedings about disclosures made during Dr Day’s employment” .

However, the Trust ultimately escaped liability because the tribunal found the statements weren’t materially influenced by his disclosures, but by “media scrutiny” and a desire to defend itself.

Worker takeaway:
Protection doesn’t end when the job does — but employers will still argue their motives were “something else.”

2. Persisting after an investigation can undermine protection: Argence‑Lafon v Ark Syndicate Management

Here, the worker raised concerns about a potentially fraudulent claim. After a full investigation found no fraud, he continued to accuse the company of wrongdoing. The tribunal held that his later statements were no longer protected because it was no longer “reasonable” for him to hold that belief.

He was dismissed for refusing a PIP and for continuing to allege fraud. The EAT agreed the dismissal wasn’t automatically unfair for whistleblowing — it was his behaviour, not the disclosures, that drove the decision.

But the tribunal had failed to consider whether the dismissal was unfair on ordinary grounds, especially the role of the appeal process. That part was sent back.

Worker takeaway:
Employers often weaponise “reasonableness” to shut down continued concerns. And once a PIP enters the picture, the narrative shifts fast.

3. The limits of Jhuti: decision‑makers vs manipulators in Henderson v GCRM

This case tackles a recurring problem: what happens when the person who fires you doesn’t know about your protected disclosures, but the manager feeding them information does?

The tribunal originally found the decision‑maker (R3) liable for detriment by dismissal, imputing the whistleblowing‑related motive of R2 (the line manager). The EAT said this was wrong. The Jhuti principle — looking behind the decision‑maker’s stated reason — applies to automatic unfair dismissal, not to detriment claims.

Applying Jhuti here would create “potentially unlimited liability on an innocent party” .

The s103A dismissal claim was sent back for reconsideration, but the detriment findings were overturned.

Worker takeaway:
Managers who manipulate processes may escape detriment liability unless the dismissal claim itself succeeds. The law still struggles to capture behind‑the‑scenes retaliation.

4. Dismissal can be a detriment: Rice v Wicked Vision & Barton Turns v Treadwell

These joined appeals deal with a long‑running legal contradiction: can a worker bring a detriment claim based on the dismissal itself?

The Court of Appeal said yes — not because it agreed with the earlier Osipov decision, but because it was bound by it. As the summary puts it, “It is plainly unsatisfactory that the construction of this legislation has now produced conflicting decisions at three levels of court” .

Both workers were allowed to proceed with detriment claims based on dismissal by co‑workers, with employers potentially liable via vicarious liability.

Worker takeaway:
The law is messy, contradictory and ripe for reform — but for now, workers can pursue detriment claims even where the detriment is dismissal.

5. Secondment isn’t employment: Bank of Africa v Hassani

This case is a reminder that employers will use technicalities to avoid responsibility. The worker was employed by BCME but seconded to the Bank of Africa. The tribunal wrongly found her employment had transferred, making the Bank liable for dismissal and detriment.

The EAT overturned this. The secondment agreement was clear: she remained employed by BCME. That meant:

The Bank couldn’t be liable for unfair dismissal.
Detriment claims needed proper analysis under s.43K ERA (extended definition of worker), which the tribunal hadn’t done.
The tribunal also wrongly treated all respondents as jointly responsible — a “composite approach” the law doesn’t allow.

Worker takeaway:
Seconded workers fall into a legal grey zone. Employers exploit that ambiguity, and tribunals often get it wrong.

Conclusion

Across these cases, a pattern emerges: whistleblowing law remains a battleground where employers test the limits, tribunals disagree, and workers are left navigating a system that often feels designed to trip them up. Whether it’s post‑employment retaliation, managerial manipulation, or technical arguments about employment status, the message is clear — legal protection is only ever part of the story.

Solidarity, collective action and union support remain the real safeguards for workers who speak up. The law may shift, but our responsibility to defend each other does not.

By Pat Harrington

Reform UK signals plans to roll back key employment rights and worker protection

Solidarity is a non‑party‑political trade union. We are not affiliated to any political party and we don’t maintain a political fund. Our responsibility is to keep members informed when political proposals—by any party—could affect your rights, your security, or your working conditions.

Overview

Recent public statements from Reform UK’s leadership outline a programme of sweeping deregulation. These proposals include repealing new employment rights, removing protections for renters, and reversing measures designed to strengthen job security.

Union leaders across sectors have raised concerns that these plans would significantly weaken workers’ rights and shift power further towards employers.

What Reform UK says it intends to remove

Based on their own statements, Reform UK is proposing to:

Scrap new employment‑rights rules
Remove new protections for renters
Repeal regulations designed to improve job security
Roll back environmental and industrial regulations they describe as “daft” or burdensome

Their argument is that these rules “kill jobs” and “hinder growth,” and that removing them would reduce inflation and lower bills.

Rights and protections at risk

Union leaders have warned that the following rights could be lost if these proposals were implemented:

1. Ban on fire‑and‑rehire practices

New laws preventing employers from dismissing staff and rehiring them on worse terms could be scrapped.

2. Protections against exploitative zero‑hour contracts

Rules designed to curb the most abusive forms of insecure work may be removed.

3. Stronger unfair‑dismissal protections

Recent improvements that extend protection from unfair dismissal could be rolled back.

4. Parental leave and sick‑pay rights

Opposition parties and unions warn that hard‑won rights in these areas may be weakened or removed.

5. Local government pension security

Reform UK has said it would block new entrants to local government pension schemes and consolidate them into a sovereign wealth fund—raising concerns about long‑term retirement security.

6. Housing protections for renters

Rolling back new rental protections would affect millions of working people who rely on secure, safe housing.

Why this matters for members

If enacted, these proposals could affect:

Your job security
Your protection from unfair dismissal
Your rights around sick pay and parental leave
Your ability to avoid exploitative contracts
Your pension prospects
Your housing stability

These are not abstract issues—they shape the daily lives of working people.

Solidarity’s position

Solidarity does not support or oppose political parties.
Our duty is to:

Inform members about political proposals that may affect their rights
Defend and advance workplace protections
Ensure members understand the implications of changes being proposed

We will continue to monitor developments and provide clear, factual updates.

By Maria Camara

EAT Ruling: Legal Responsibilities After Employee Transfers

This is about power and fairness at work. When staff transfer under TUPE, employers can’t shrug off pay gaps that fall along racial lines. The recent EAT decision in Mr Alpha Anne & Others v Great Ormond Street Hospital makes that plain: once the employer becomes you, you own the problem — and you must justify any unequal treatment quickly or face liability.

What happened in plain terms

Who: Cleaners at Great Ormond Street Hospital who transferred from a contractor (OCS) to the Trust under TUPE.
What: They were paid the London Living Wage under OCS, while comparable directly employed NHS staff were on higher Agenda for Change (AfC) rates. Most transferred staff were from BAME backgrounds; most directly employed comparators were white.
Claim: The transferred workers said the Trust’s failure to put them on AfC pay amounted to indirect race discrimination.
Outcome: The EAT split the claim. Pre‑transfer complaints failed; post‑transfer complaints succeeded.

Why the pre‑transfer claims failed

Before the transfer the workers were employed by OCS. The EAT followed established law that a client cannot normally be sued for pay set by an independent contractor, even if the client has influence. The Trust had not actively prevented OCS from paying more, so it was not responsible for pay decisions made while OCS was the employer. Bottom line: responsibility follows the employment contract — not the service relationship.

Why the post‑transfer claims succeeded

The moment the Trust became the employer, the legal picture changed. From the transfer date the Trust was responsible for the transferred workers’ terms and conditions. The EAT found the continued pay gap after transfer did amount to indirect discrimination because:

The pay disparity disproportionately affected workers from a protected racial group; and
The Trust failed to show that delaying equalisation was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

The court said the Trust should have moved to equal pay on or shortly after the transfer. A delay needed a strong, justifiable reason — which the Trust did not provide.

TUPE, harmonisation and variation clauses

TUPE normally prevents employers from imposing changes to terms and conditions simply to harmonise pay. But there’s an important exception: valid contractual variation clauses. If a transferring contract contains a lawful clause allowing reasonable changes, those changes can be implemented after transfer without breaching TUPE. In this case, the Claimants’ contracts included such a clause, so harmonisation to AfC rates was legally possible.

Practical rule: check the transferring contracts. If they permit reasonable variations, harmonisation may be lawful — but it still must not produce or perpetuate unlawful discrimination.

Practical implications for employers and unions

This decision forces employers to act proactively when staff transfer in under TUPE. The practical steps are straightforward but urgent:

Audit pay and terms: Compare the terms of incoming staff with existing employees in the same roles.
Check demographics: Identify whether any pay or terms disparity disproportionately affects a protected group.
Assess justification: If disparities exist, decide whether delaying or refusing harmonisation can be justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Be ready to prove it.
Review contracts: Look for valid variation clauses in transferring contracts that might lawfully permit harmonisation.
Document decisions: Keep clear records of the analysis and the reasons for any delay or differential treatment.
Get advice early: Where disparities are identified during due diligence, seek legal and equality advice before the transfer completes.

Employers often lack reliable demographic data. That’s a practical barrier — but it’s not an excuse. If you can’t show the disparity isn’t discriminatory, the law will treat unexplained disparities as suspect.

What this means for organising and collective action

This ruling hands a clear tool to workers and unions: transfers are a moment to press for equality. When a contractor’s workforce moves in-house, that’s the time to demand parity — not months later. Unions should:

Push for full transparency in pre‑transfer due diligence.
Use the transfer window to press for immediate harmonisation where pay gaps track protected characteristics.
Hold employers to account for any delay and demand written, proportionate justifications.
Support members to gather evidence of disparate impact and to raise claims where employers fail to act.

Conclusion and clear next steps

If you’re an employer: don’t wait. Audit, document, justify, and where necessary equalise — quickly. The cost of delay is legal exposure and damaged trust.

If you’re a worker or union organiser: treat TUPE transfers as a frontline for equality. Demand parity at the point of transfer. If employers stall, organise — assemblies, petitions, and legal challenge are all tools to force action.

This case is a reminder: when workers move, responsibility moves with them. Employers who ignore that responsibility will be held to account. Workers who organise around it can win real, immediate change.

By Patrick Harrington

Unfair dismissal – A quiet bombshell

Last week the government quietly dropped a (little) bombshell, by adding an ‘Unfair Dismissal Factsheet’ to this page on the Employment Rights Act 2025.

The government’s quiet publication of a new Unfair Dismissal Factsheet marks a significant shift in the UK’s employment landscape, signalling the most substantial expansion of dismissal protections in decades. The update, added without fanfare to the Employment Rights Act 2025 factsheet collection, confirms that from 1 January 2027, the qualifying period for ordinary unfair dismissal will fall from two years to six months, and the long‑standing cap on compensatory awards will be abolished.

The changes amount to a fundamental recalibration of power in the workplace. Reducing the qualifying period to six months brings millions more workers within the scope of unfair dismissal protection far earlier in their employment. The removal of the compensation cap—currently the lower of £118,223 or 52 weeks’ pay—means tribunals will be able to award losses in full, a shift that will be particularly consequential for higher‑earning employees and for employers accustomed to predictable financial exposure. This is not a minor technical tweak; it reshapes the risk profile of every dismissal decision.

What is striking is the government’s insistence that no further consultation will take place. Ministers describe the measures as the product of “constructive, government‑convened conversations” between unions and business groups, but the quiet publication of the factsheet—rather than a ministerial announcement—suggests an awareness of the political sensitivity. Employers now face a compressed window to overhaul probation policies, performance management processes, and dismissal procedures before the 2027 commencement date.

For workers, the reforms promise earlier security, stronger bargaining power, and a meaningful check on one‑sided flexibility. For employers, they represent a decisive end to the era in which the two‑year qualifying period acted as a buffer against litigation risk. The factsheet may have been published quietly, but its implications are anything but: this is a structural shift in UK employment law, and organisations that fail to prepare now will feel the consequences later.

By Maria Camara

Win Time Back: Why the Four‑Day Week Is a Pro‑Worker, Pro‑Productivity Reform

The FT Weekend (31 January 2026) had a fascinating feature on the rise of the unofficial four-day week. The article documented how hybrid working has enabled many employees to quietly trim or reallocate Friday hours—creating an informal four‑day week visible in leisure and consumer patterns—and warns that without collective bargaining this grassroots shift will remain unequal, precarious and vulnerable to employer pushback.

As informal Friday absences spread, the task for unions is to convert piecemeal, individual time‑reclaims into collective, negotiated rights: a 32‑hour week with no loss of pay, workload redesign and protections for shift and frontline workers.

The argument for a four‑day week is no longer speculative.

The UK’s 2022 four‑day week pilot reframed a debate that had long felt theoretical into something practical and persuasive. Sixty‑one organisations and roughly 2,900 employees tested a 100:80:100 model — full pay for 80 percent of the time, with an expectation of maintaining 100 percent productivity — and the headline results were striking: 71% of employees reported lower burnout, 39% reported less stress, sick days fell by 65%, and staff leaving dropped by 57%, while average reported revenue did not decline (+1.4% for firms reporting financials). For many participants the experiment didn’t feel like a gamble so much as a correction: when employers treated the change as a redesign project rather than a simple scheduling tweak, people slept better, felt healthier, and turned up more able to do the job.

Those headline numbers are only half the story. Follow‑up academic analyses and multi‑site studies point to the mechanisms behind the gains: better sleep, improved physical health, and stronger perceived work ability, all of which help sustain productivity. Crucially, the benefits are conditional. Where pay was maintained, managers were given time and tools to redesign workflows, and organisations measured outcomes, productivity held steady or nudged up and wellbeing improved. Where employers merely squeezed five days into four, intensity rose and the gains evaporated. The practical lesson is clear: a shorter week can deliver healthier, more engaged people and resilient performance, but only if implemented with intention, measurement, and a willingness to rethink how work gets done.

For employers thinking about a trial, the evidence suggests a pragmatic blueprint: run a time‑bounded pilot (six months is sensible), keep pay unchanged, invest in workload redesign and manager coaching, and track baseline and follow‑up metrics on sickness, turnover, productivity, revenue, and employee wellbeing. Expect equity and service‑delivery questions to require bespoke solutions for shift and customer‑facing roles. When those trade‑offs are handled up front, the four‑day week looks less like a novelty and more like a durable organisational design choice that improves retention, reduces absence, and preserves — often improves — business performance.

The shift from five days to four is not a magic bullet; it is a management challenge that rewards planning. Implemented as a redesign rather than a compression, it becomes a lever for better health, stronger engagement, and sustainable productivity.

Advantages for workers are straightforward. A shorter week gives time for family and unpaid care, reduces chronic stress, and improves sleep and recovery. It widens access to leisure, education and civic life, which matters in towns where local services and community ties are vital. Crucially, when won through collective bargaining, a four‑day week protects workers from individual risk: no one is disciplined or penalised for taking back time.

Advantages for employers are practical and measurable. Organisations that redesign work to fit a shorter week often cut meeting bloat, clarify priorities and shift to output‑based assessment. The result is higher employee engagement, lower turnover and reduced recruitment costs. For public services and local councils, better‑rested staff mean fewer sick days and more consistent service delivery. Employers also gain reputational advantage in tight labour markets.

That said, the reform is not automatic. Without union negotiation, the “unofficial” four‑day week becomes a two‑tier system: those in flexible, white‑collar roles benefit while shift, care and retail workers are left behind. Work intensification is a real risk if hours are simply compressed without redesign. That is why unions must insist on workload clauses, independent evaluation of pilots, and bespoke arrangements for shift and frontline roles.

How unions should frame the demand: make the core ask 32 hours for 40 hours’ pay, secured through collective agreements that mandate pilot evaluation, public reporting and protections for part‑time and precarious staff. Use employer evidence of retention and reduced absence to counter short‑term cost objections, and insist that productivity gains come from smarter work design, not unpaid overtime.

The four‑day week is a lever for broader labour renewal: it strengthens bargaining power, modernises job design, and returns time to communities. For workers and unions across the UK, the choice is clear — organise the quiet revolt into a collective victory so that time, like pay and safety, becomes a right, not a privilege.

By Patrick Harrington

Unemployment Rising, Youth Hit Hardest

The headline numbers tell only part of the story. Youth unemployment has surged to 13.7 per cent, even as economic inactivity among 16–24‑year‑olds has fallen. In other words: more young people are trying to enter the labour market, but the door is closing in their faces. London, often treated as the bellwether for national trends, now sits at 7.2 per cent unemployment, a warning light that should be impossible for ministers to ignore.

Ben Harrison of the Work Foundation put it plainly: “More people chasing fewer jobs.” That is the lived reality across the country. Vacancy levels remain weak, employer confidence is fragile, and the long‑term unemployed — especially those at the start of their careers — are being pushed to the margins. The ONS reports that 3.86 million unemployed or economically inactive people now want work, a rise of 385,000 in a year. That is not a labour market functioning normally; it is a labour market failing.

And yet the government continues to insist that its employment strategy is working.

The truth is that the UK is drifting without a coherent plan. Ministers came to power promising to raise employment to 80 per cent. Eighteen months later, they face a workforce where nearly four million people want a job but cannot find one, and where wage growth is slowing sharply. Private‑sector pay is now rising at its weakest rate in five years, while public‑sector pay remains artificially elevated only because of delayed settlements from last year.

The TUC is right to call this what it is: an affordability crisis. Households cannot spend, firms cannot invest, and young workers are being funnelled into insecure, low‑paid, zero‑hours roles that trap them in a cycle of instability. The government’s new Jobs Guarantee scheme could help — but only if it is funded properly, scaled rapidly, and paired with secure, unionised jobs that allow young people to build a future rather than scramble for survival.

Meanwhile, at the Department for Work and Pensions, 50,000 PCS members are being balloted over low pay. The irony is stark: the very staff tasked with supporting jobseekers are themselves being pushed into poverty by government policy. As PCS general secretary Fran Heathcote warns, ministers cannot tackle unemployment while driving down the pay of the workforce responsible for administering the system.

Solidarity’s General Secretary Pat Harrington captured the wider truth: “A labour market built on insecurity will always fail the young first. If the government wants higher employment, it must start by valuing workers — not treating them as disposable.”

This is not a labour market in recovery. It is a labour market in stasis — and without decisive intervention, the regional inequalities now visible in London will spread. The government must act: invest, create secure jobs, rebuild public services, and restore confidence. Anything less is a dereliction of duty.

By Maria Camara

AI, COVID and the Fight for Dignity at Work: Why a New Social Contract Is No Longer Optional

By Maria Camara

The pandemic shattered old assumptions about work. Artificial intelligence is now rewriting the rules entirely. Together, they’ve exposed a broken system — and opened the door to a fairer, more human future. For unions, the challenge is clear: defend workers’ rights in a world where the workplace is everywhere, and the pressure to give more for less has never been greater.

The Workplace Has Entered a New Era

The workplace has never been more fluid, more questioned, or more rapidly transformed than it is today. COVID cracked the old system open, and artificial intelligence is now reshaping what spills out. Together, these forces have pushed society into a new era — one where workers are renegotiating the value of their time, their labour, and their humanity.
This isn’t a small shift. It’s a cultural reset.

For unions like Solidarity, this moment isn’t just a challenge. It’s an opportunity to redefine what fairness looks like in the 21st century.

The Workplace Is No Longer a Place — It’s a Choice

Before the pandemic, work was defined by physical presence. Productivity was measured by visibility. The office was the centre of gravity.

Today, the workplace is a negotiation.

A “workplace” can be:

a kitchen table
a coworking space
a phone on the train
a hybrid schedule
a gig platform
a digital ecosystem powered by AI

Workers have discovered autonomy — and they’re not giving it back. Employers can no longer rely on presenteeism or outdated assumptions about loyalty. Flexibility is no longer a perk. It’s a baseline expectation.

COVID Didn’t Break the System — It Revealed It

The pandemic exposed truths that had been ignored for years:

wages weren’t keeping up with living costs
housing was already unaffordable
burnout was widespread
job security was fragile

When millions were forced home, they discovered something employers never expected: life outside of work is valuable.

People realised they had been organising their lives around work, rather than organising work around their lives. That revelation has permanently changed the social contract.

Younger Workers Aren’t Lazy — They’re Realists

Under-30 workers are often criticised for lacking “work ethic”. But the reality is brutally simple: the maths doesn’t work anymore.

When rent rises faster than wages, when savings are impossible, when pensions feel like fiction, working harder doesn’t lead to independence. It leads to exhaustion.

This generation isn’t rejecting work.
They’re rejecting exploitation.

They’re demanding what previous generations were promised but never fully received: stability, dignity, and a future worth planning for.

Enter AI: The Second Earthquake

If COVID was the first shock, AI is the aftershock that keeps reshaping the landscape.

AI is:

automating repetitive tasks
replacing certain roles
creating new types of jobs
changing the skills that matter
increasing productivity
reducing the need for human labour

The old promise — work hard and you’ll succeed — collapses even further when machines can work harder, faster, and cheaper than humans.

For unions, this is a critical moment. AI can empower workers — or it can be used to undermine them. The difference depends on who controls it.

AI Exposes the Flaws in the Old Work Philosophy

The traditional slogan said: work hard and you’ll succeed.
But in a world where AI can write reports, analyse data, generate designs, automate workflows, and replace entire departments, hard work alone is no longer enough.

The new reality is:
work smart, adapt fast, and protect your time.

Workers are no longer competing with each other. They’re competing with algorithms — and that changes everything.

Workers Are Reclaiming Their Time

AI has unintentionally strengthened a movement that COVID began: the movement toward valuing personal time.

When people see AI doing tasks that once consumed hours of their day, they naturally ask:
Why should I work 50 hours a week?
Why should exhaustion be a badge of honour?
Why should productivity require sacrifice?

AI proves that productivity doesn’t require human exhaustion.
It reveals how much of the old system was built on inefficiency, overwork, and outdated expectations.

Companies Are Losing Their Old Power

Before COVID and AI, companies relied on:

scarcity of jobs
worker fear
lack of alternatives
social pressure to work hard

Now:

remote work expanded options
AI increased efficiency
workers realised their time has value

The old system depended on people being too tired or too scared to question it.
That spell is broken.

Workers are no longer grateful just to have a job. They expect a job that respects them.

A New Social Contract Is Emerging

The future of work is being rewritten in real time. The new expectations include:

flexibility
autonomy
purpose
mental health
smart work
human creativity
fair pay
transparency
dignity

AI will continue to reshape industries, but it also highlights what humans do best: empathy, judgment, imagination, innovation, and relationship‑building.

These are the qualities no machine can replace — and the qualities unions must champion.

What This Means for Unions

For Solidarity and the wider labour movement, this moment demands boldness.

Workers need:

protections against algorithmic management
fair distribution of AI‑driven productivity gains
rights to disconnect
transparent pay structures
secure contracts
collective bargaining that includes digital and remote workplaces
training and upskilling that isn’t paid for out of workers’ pockets

The new social contract must be negotiated — not assumed.

The Bottom Line

COVID forced society to pause.
AI is forcing society to evolve.

Together, they’ve dismantled the old workplace and replaced it with something more flexible, more human, and more uncertain — but also full of possibility.

The workplace will never return to what it was before COVID. And with AI accelerating change, it shouldn’t.

The future belongs to those who work smart, protect their time, and refuse to trade their lives for breadcrumbs. And it belongs to unions willing to fight for a world where technology serves workers — not the other way around.

Britain’s Work‑Related Stress Crisis: What the New TUC Survey Tells Us — and Why It Matters

A new TUC survey has laid bare what many of us in the movement have been warning about for years: Britain is now in the grip of a work‑related stress crisis. The findings, released this week, confirm that stress is not a marginal issue or a personal failing — it is the single biggest health and safety hazard facing working people today, and it is being fuelled by employer inaction, excessive workloads, and a failure to meet even the most basic legal duties.

The TUC’s 15th biennial survey of union safety reps — more than 2,700 reps from across 36 affiliated unions — paints a stark picture of a workforce under strain and a regulatory system stretched to breaking point.

Stress: The Leading Workplace Hazard Across Britain

Almost eight in ten safety reps (79%) now cite stress as a major hazard in their workplace. This is the highest level ever recorded in the survey’s history, and it outstrips every other hazard by a significant margin.

What is particularly striking is the consistency of the problem:

Every region of Britain reports stress as the top concern.
Almost every sector shows the same pattern, with especially acute levels in:
- Central government (80%)
- Local government (66%)
- Health (68%)
- Education (74%)
- The voluntary sector (71%)

These are sectors where staffing levels have been cut to the bone, where demand has risen relentlessly, and where workers are routinely expected to “do more with less”. The result is predictable: burnout, anxiety, and a workforce pushed beyond sustainable limits.

Workload Pressures Driving the Crisis

Behind the stress statistics lies a familiar culprit: excessive workload. Sixty per cent of reps identified workload as a major hazard, and many reported that rising demands are pushing stress to unprecedented levels.

This is not simply about “busy periods” or “challenging roles”. It is about structural understaffing, unrealistic targets, and a culture in which workers are expected to absorb the consequences of managerial decisions without consultation or support.

A Systemic Failure to Assess and Prevent Stress

Perhaps the most damning finding is the widespread failure of employers to meet their legal obligations.

Two‑thirds of safety reps say they are unaware of any assessment of stress risks in their workplace.
Nearly half (43%) say they were not consulted at all on their employer’s risk assessment process — a direct breach of safety regulations.

Stress is not an optional extra in risk management. It is a recognised hazard, and employers are legally required to assess and prevent it. Yet the survey shows that many simply do not bother.

HSE Data Confirms the Scale of the Problem

The TUC’s findings are reinforced by the Health and Safety Executive’s latest statistics for 2024/25, which show:

Workers reporting work‑related stress, depression, or anxiety rose from 776,000 in 2023 to 964,000 in 2024 — an extraordinary increase in just one year.
22 million working days were lost due to work‑related stress in 2024/25.

These are not abstract numbers. They represent exhausted nurses, overstretched teachers, burned‑out civil servants, and millions of workers across the economy whose health is being sacrificed to poor management and chronic under‑resourcing.

The economic cost is vast, but the human cost is greater still.

What the TUC Is Calling For

The TUC is urging government and employers to take immediate action, including:

Enforcing existing laws requiring employers to assess and prevent stress.
Strengthening the HSE with the funding needed to investigate hazards and inspect workplaces.
Reducing excessive workloads and ensuring safe staffing levels.
Giving safety reps the rights and time they need to carry out their roles effectively.
Treating harassment and violence as core health and safety risks, given their strong links to stress.

These are not radical demands. They are the minimum steps required to protect workers’ health and uphold the law.

A National Crisis That Demands a National Response

TUC General Secretary Paul Nowak describes the findings as exposing “a growing national crisis”. He is right. Stress is no longer a background issue — it is entrenched, escalating, and affecting workers across every corner of the economy.

“No worker should find themselves lying awake at night from stress,” he says. Yet too many are doing exactly that, while employers ignore the law and pile impossible workloads onto staff.

Solidarity’s Response

Solidarity General Secretary Pat Harrington added his voice to the warning, emphasising that the crisis is not only widespread but avoidable:

“These figures confirm what our members have been telling us for years: stress is not a personal weakness, it is a workplace hazard created by employer decisions. When staffing is cut, when workloads spiral, when consultation is ignored, workers pay with their health. Solidarity will continue to challenge employers who break the law and support every member facing stress at work. No one should suffer in silence.”

His words reflect what many of us see daily: stress is not an individual problem but a structural one — and it demands a collective, organised response.

What This Means for Solidarity Members

For Solidarity, these findings reinforce what our own members have been telling us: stress is not a private burden but a workplace hazard that demands collective action. Safety reps need time, training, and authority. Workers need safe staffing levels and realistic workloads. And employers need to be held to account when they fail to meet their obligations.

We will continue to support members facing stress at work, challenge employers who ignore the law, and push for a national approach that treats mental health with the seriousness it deserves.

This crisis is not inevitable. It is the result of choices — and it can be changed by collective action, strong unions, and a renewed commitment to dignity at work.

Full TUC Survey Report:
https://www.tuc.org.uk/sites/default/files/2025-12/SafetyRepsSurvey20242025.pdf

By Maria Camara