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.

Why Delaying Retirement Age Harms Workers

The proposal to push the state pension age beyond 68 feels like a betrayal. It undermines the deal we’ve earned through decades of work. As RMT General Secretary Eddie Dempsey warns, “Raising the pension age even further isn’t just cruel and unnecessary, it’s a slap in the face to the very people who keep this country running.” Pensions are deferred wages—every National Insurance pound was meant to fund our retirement, not vanish into general taxation.

Remember, National Insurance began in 1946 as a separate, ring-fenced pot to guarantee our pensions. Over time, governments folded NI into general taxation, breaking the direct link between what we paid and what we receive. That erosion of trust leaves us exposed every time ministers launch a “review” of retirement age.

Private pensions were supposed to fill the gap, yet only 44% of working-age adults hold one. Nearly 30% of people over 55 rely solely on the state pension. The average private pot is around £35,000. This amount is hardly enough to generate an income to live on. When savings or private pension income fall short, the state pension is all that stands between you and hardship.

Our bodies don’t keep pace with policy deadlines. By age 75, more than 70% of us have at least one chronic condition. By 85, that number climbs to nearly 90%. Almost half struggle with everyday tasks. “Asking people to labour an extra six, even eight years effectively steals the dignity of retirement,” says Pat Harrington of Solidarity union. Forcing us to wait until bones ache and energy fades robs every dream of travel, family time, or simply resting.

Worse still is the uncertainty. With regular reviews, whispers of ages 69, 70 or even 74, how can anyone plan? You don’t know when your last pay cheque arrives. So, you delay home-buying. You hesitate on pension contributions. You hoard cash instead of investing. That paralysis can cost you a lifetime of compound growth—and the financial freedom you thought you were building.

We’ve earned the right to step off the treadmill when our bodies demand it. Policymakers should restore NI’s ring-fencing. They should tax wealth fairly. Loopholes need to be closed. Policymakers must secure the retirement we’ve already paid for. Retirement isn’t a privilege to be delayed at will—it’s the promise of rest after a lifetime of work.

Recent Employment Appeal Tribunal Cases: Summaries & Lessons for Trade Unionists

629 words, 3 minutes read time.

Understanding recent appellate judgments helps unions guide members through pitfalls in whistleblowing, dismissal and harassment claims. Below are three case snapshots, each followed by practical take-aways for shop stewards, legal officers and member advocates.

Savva v Leather Inside Out (in liquidation) & Others [2025] EAT 96

Antony Savva worked for a charity now in liquidation and brought three successive claims alleging detrimental treatment and unfair dismissal for making protected disclosures. The Employment Tribunal struck out many complaints as out of time, imposed a deposit order on others, and ultimately found no qualifying disclosures. On appeal, the EAT:

Upheld the tribunal’s time-limit and strike-out decisions in large part, confirming the strict application of the 3-month deadline and the proper use of “series of similar acts” to bundle late allegations.
Quashed the deposit order for one group of complaints.
Found errors in the tribunal’s merits judgment by omitting one claim and misunderstanding whether certain disclosures and subsequent detriments had been established. Those merits issues were remitted to a fresh tribunal.

Lessons for trade unionists

Whistleblowing claims must be lodged promptly; the “series of similar acts” exception can only rescue genuinely linked events, not disconnected incidents.
Deposit orders can be challenged – they’re not an automatic barrier to redress.
Scrutinise tribunal decisions for omitted complaints or misapplied definitions of protected disclosure; timely appeals preserve members’ rights to a full merits hearing.

Marshall v McPherson Limited [2025] EAT 100

James Marshall, an HGV driver delivering spent grain to a bio-plant, resigned after a night-shift colleague was sent to “shadow” him without warning. He said changes to plant processes, constant pressure to refill hoppers and past safety incidents amounted to a fundamental breach of trust and confidence. The tribunal dismissed his constructive dismissal claim, applying the “last straw” test too narrowly. On appeal, Lady Haldane found that:

The tribunal misdirected itself by requiring the final incident itself to be repudiatory before it could revive earlier, accumulative breaches.
This legal misdirection went to the heart of the case and undermined confidence in the original decision.
The matter was therefore remitted for rehearing before a fresh tribunal.

Lessons for trade unionists

In constructive dismissal cases, emphasise the cumulative impact of managerial failings, not only the final act.
Ensure tribunal self-directions accurately reflect authorities like Omilaju and Kaur on “last straw.”
Where legal misdirection is apparent, push for appellate review and, if necessary, a fresh hearing to safeguard members’ claims.

Logo v Payone GmbH & Others [2025] EAT 95

Mr Logo, a Black British accounts manager, complained of three acts of race harassment: a colleague in blackface at a Christmas party (2016), a racist joke at a dinner (2019) and a “Pure Blonde” beer advert circulated on WhatsApp (2020). The tribunal accepted the first two as harassment by effect but refused time-extensions, and found no race-related link in the beer advert. Judge Tayler held that:

The tribunal had erred in refusing to extend time without properly weighing prejudice to the claimant and imposing an unrequired “convincing explanation” test.
The advert of a white-blonde utopia was obviously “related to” race, and the tribunal should have assessed its effect on the claimant’s dignity rather than focusing on the poster’s intent.
Those issues were remitted for redetermination.

Lessons for trade unionists

Advise members to lodge harassment claims promptly, but press tribunals to exercise their wide “just and equitable” discretion when delays occur.
Harassment “related to” a protected characteristic does not require bad intent – focus on the context and the complainant’s perception.
Preserve contemporaneous evidence (photos of blackface, screen-captures of messages, emails requesting extensions) to counter tribunal scepticism on credibility or prejudice.

By tracking how the EAT applies time limits, cumulative breach principles and harassment tests, union advocates can spot early warning signs, frame stronger claims and marshal the right authorities when representing members.

By Pat Harrington

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

UK Industrial Strategy: A Path to Sustainable Jobs and Growth

402 words, 2 minutes read time.

Solidarity welcomes the UK Government’s new Industrial Strategy as a long-overdue recognition of the need to rebuild British industry—but warns that ambition must be matched by action.

“For too long, workers have paid the price of short-termism,” said Solidarity General Secretary, Pat Harrington. “This strategy offers a chance to reverse that—but only if workers are at the heart of delivery.”

Jobs, Skills, and Respect Must Be Non-Negotiable The strategy’s focus on job creation and sectoral growth is a positive signal. Solidarity supports the aerospace sector’s pledge to create 40,000 apprenticeships and expand its workforce by 27% by 2050. But the union insists that job quantity must not come at the expense of job quality.

TUC General Secretary Paul Nowak echoed this sentiment, stating: “This plan can be the foundation for a stronger, fairer economy—one where more things are made in Britain by workers who are properly trained, fairly paid and respected for what they do.”

Worker Voice in Every Sector Solidarity welcomes the commitment to Workforce Strategies in sectors facing recruitment and retention challenges. However, the union calls for binding guarantees that these strategies will deliver stable contracts, fair pay, and a genuine voice for workers.

Tackling Energy Costs—A Matter of Survival The introduction of the British Industrial Competitiveness Scheme and reforms to the Supercharger programme are steps in the right direction. But as Unite General Secretary Sharon Graham warned: “Tackling industrial energy prices is the single most important thing the government can do as part of the industrial strategy.”

Solidarity agrees. Without urgent action to bring UK energy prices in line with European competitors, entire industries—and the communities they support—remain at risk.

Rebuilding Supply Chains with Union Oversight The creation of a Supply Chain Centre and Market Demand Guarantee could help restore domestic manufacturing capacity. Solidarity urges that these initiatives be developed with union involvement to ensure that good jobs and fair conditions are embedded throughout the supply chain.

Turning Promises into Progress Solidarity recognises this strategy as a promising beginning. But as Paul Nowak cautioned, “Trade unions are ready to work with the government to turn this vision into a reality. There is no time to waste.”

Solidarity stands ready to hold government and employers to account—because rebuilding British industry must mean rebuilding it on the foundation of dignity, fairness, and worker power.

Report by Maria Camara

Renationalising South Western Railway: A New Era for Britain’s Railways

694 words, 4 minutes read time.

Britain is witnessing a historic shift on its railways. After nearly 30 years of fragmented private rail franchises, the government has begun renationalising the network, starting with South Western Railway (SWR) in May 2025. Enabled by the newly enacted Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024, this move delivers on a long-promised commitment to fix a broken system and put passengers—not profits—at the heart of our transport infrastructure.

This article explores why bringing rail back into public hands offers greater accountability, efficiency, and value. It sets out how renationalisation addresses decades of failure under privatisation, while responding to public concerns about cost and service quality.

The Failures of Rail Privatisation

When the UK railways were privatised in the mid-1990s, the public was promised cheaper fares, improved service, and a lighter burden on taxpayers. In practice, privatisation failed on every front.

Fares rose far faster than wages, with British commuters paying significantly more than their European counterparts. Infrastructure investment was inconsistent, and early safety incidents—including fatal crashes—highlighted the dangers of outsourcing to fragmented private contractors.

Public subsidy to the railways tripled during privatisation, while profits continued to flow to shareholders. Multiple operators collapsed, requiring government bailouts. A fragmented system of operators led to poor integration, delays, and confusion for passengers.

A New Legislative Framework

The Passenger Railway Services Act 2024 provides the legal foundation for returning passenger rail services to public ownership as private contracts expire. SWR became the first major franchise to make the transition. Others—including c2c and Greater Anglia—will follow, with all franchises renationalised by the end of 2027.

Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander described the SWR transition as “a new dawn for our railways.” Early estimates suggest renationalisation will save around £150 million annually—money now available for reinvestment in services, staffing, and infrastructure.

Great British Railways: One Network, One Vision

Central to the reforms is the creation of Great British Railways (GBR), a single, publicly accountable body to manage both operations and infrastructure. GBR will replace the fragmented model with unified planning, scheduling, ticketing, and investment strategies.

This integrated approach will eliminate duplication and confusion, allowing passengers to benefit from clearer timetables, simpler fares, and better-coordinated services. GBR also creates a single point of accountability and oversight, ending the “blame game” that plagued the previous system.

Why Public Ownership Works

1. Accountability and Public Focus
Decisions will be guided by service quality, safety, and access—not shareholder return. Public ownership ensures railways are run in the national interest, with transparency and democratic oversight.

2. Reinvestment of Surplus
Profits can be reinvested in the railway, not paid out in dividends. Public ownership removes franchise fees and shareholder returns, allowing funds to go directly into improvements for passengers.

3. Integration and Efficiency
With one public body in charge, planning becomes streamlined. Infrastructure upgrades, maintenance schedules, and service expansions can be coordinated without the inefficiencies of multiple private operators.

4. Better Treatment of Staff
Public ownership offers the chance to improve working conditions, end outsourcing, and promote stable industrial relations. A motivated workforce delivers better outcomes for passengers.

5. Environmental Goals
Rail is a low-carbon mode of transport. A publicly run railway can align directly with national climate policies, investing in electrification, cleaner technologies, and greener infrastructure.

Addressing Public Concerns

Cost to taxpayers: The state was already heavily subsidising rail under privatisation. Renationalisation eliminates inefficiencies, cuts out profit extraction, and offers better value for money.

Service quality and fares: While immediate fare cuts aren’t guaranteed, reinvestment and integration will stabilise the system and improve services. Over time, these reforms should lead to better reliability, customer experience, and potentially fairer pricing.

Conclusion

Renationalising South Western Railway is more than a managerial change—it’s a decisive realignment of transport policy. With SWR as the first step and GBR leading the way, Britain is moving toward a railway that serves the public first and foremost.

This is a chance to fix the system, modernise it, and rebuild trust. With proper investment, oversight, and a clear commitment to public service, our railways can once again become a national asset—reliable, affordable, and fit for the future.

By Pat Harrington

Tax and Trust: HMRC, the Wealthy, and the Battle Against Avoidance

976 words, 5 minutes read time.

A new report by the National Audit Office has raised serious questions about how HMRC tackles tax avoidance and non-compliance among the UK’s wealthiest individuals. The findings paint a picture of limited strategy, a lack of transparency, and worrying gaps in skilled enforcement — all at a time when public trust in the fairness of the tax system is under strain.

The NAO’s report makes clear that HMRC knows far more than it tells. Internally, it has identified a much larger sum of tax at risk from offshore non-compliance than it publishes. This hidden figure, linked to the complex tax affairs of wealthy individuals using offshore structures, remains undisclosed to the public — a decision the NAO suggests undermines transparency and weakens public confidence. When ordinary taxpayers see cuts to services while wealthy individuals appear to escape proper scrutiny, the social contract starts to fray.

The wealthy, defined here as individuals with over £10 million in assets or high levels of income, are often in a better position than most to exploit loopholes and complex tax arrangements. Yet, despite this, HMRC has adopted what the NAO calls only a “limited strategy” to address non-compliance in this group. The report warns that this piecemeal approach lacks the overarching vision or coherence needed to systematically close tax gaps and deter wrongdoing.

Adding to the concern is a resourcing issue. In the Autumn Budget, the government announced funding for an extra 5,500 compliance staff over the next five years. While this sounds impressive on paper, the NAO cautions that there’s no clear plan to ensure that these roles are filled with people who have the right expertise to investigate sophisticated financial arrangements. The question isn’t just about numbers — it’s about capability. Tackling high-end avoidance isn’t the same as chasing unpaid PAYE or VAT; it requires specialist knowledge, legal insight, and investigative skill.

The NAO makes several recommendations. Chief among them is the call for HMRC to develop a clear, strategic plan specifically aimed at wealthy non-compliance. It also urges the department to be more open about the scale of the problem — arguing that greater transparency could reassure the public and act as a deterrent to those tempted to push the boundaries.

The report’s message is that fairness matters — and is not just about outcomes, but visibility. When ordinary working people are held to strict compliance and face fines for minor mistakes, the perception that the rich play by a different set of rules corrodes the legitimacy of the entire system.

For those advocating tax justice and a fairer society, the NAO’s findings offer a powerful tool. They expose the need for structural reform in how the tax authorities approach the powerful — and remind us that without scrutiny, fairness is just a slogan. The next step must be political will: not only to fund enforcement, but to demand the transparency and accountability that a healthy democracy requires.

By Maria Camara

Court Says Old Employer Still to Blame for Staff Mistakes Made Before Job Transfer

High Court ruling clarifies what happens under TUPE when employees move jobs but past harm is alleged

407 words, 2 minutes read time.

In the case ABC v Huntercombe (No. 12) Ltd and others, the High Court has ruled that employers cannot pass the blame for their workers’ past mistakes onto a new company just because the staff have been transferred. The decision has important implications for businesses, workers, and anyone affected by workplace negligence.

The Claimant in the case suffered harm while receiving care at a hospital operated by Huntercombe. She claimed that two hospital staff members were responsible. But by the time she took legal action, those two workers had moved to a different company—Active Young People Ltd—through a process known as TUPE.

What is TUPE?

TUPE, short for Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment), is a UK regulation that protects employees when the business or service they work for changes hands. It ensures that workers keep their jobs, pay, and employment terms even when a new employer takes over.

TUPE also means that many of the old employer’s responsibilities—like holiday pay, notice periods, or ongoing grievances—transfer over to the new employer.

But there are limits.

What did the court decide?

The key issue was whether vicarious liability—where an employer is legally responsible for their staff’s actions—also transfers. The Claimant said it should, and argued the new employer should be held responsible for harm caused by staff before the transfer.

The court disagreed. It ruled that TUPE is designed to protect employees, not to make new employers responsible for everything the staff may have done in the past. It said that only legal duties and obligations that exist between the employer and the employee are transferred. Responsibilities for injuries or damage to third parties, like patients or customers, are not.

The court also rejected a previous case, Doane v Wimbledon Football Club, that had suggested the opposite. That earlier case should no longer be followed, it said.

Why it matters

This ruling helps clarify that past liabilities stay with the old employer, even if staff move under TUPE. New employers taking over services or contracts won’t be unexpectedly hit with claims for things that happened before they were in charge.

It also tells Claimants where to aim their legal actions: even if the person responsible has changed employers, the company that employed them at the time of the incident is still the one legally accountable.

By Patrick Harrington

Picture credit: By sjiong – https://www.flickr.com/photos/sjiong/109817932/, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=6380215

‘One to Four and Not One More’: The Islington Nursery Workers’ Strike and Why It Still Matters

1,343 words, 7 minutes read time.

In the spring of 1984, more than 150 low-paid nursery workers—nearly all of them women—walked out of their council-run workplaces in Islington and took to the picket lines. Their strike lasted 14 weeks. It was a battle for dignity, for the children in their care, and for the recognition that nursery work is skilled labour, deserving of decent conditions and fair pay.

Their demand was simple, powerful, and memorable: “One to four and not one more.” It was a call for a safe and manageable staff-to-child ratio. This slogan became a rallying cry not only for the strike itself but for a broader recognition of what nursery work entails and why it matters.

Now, over 40 years later, their story is being retold in a powerful new podcast series, Childcare Voices, produced by a team of childcare workers, trade unionists, and parents. The series gives the strikers the chance to tell their story in their own words—of how they organised, what they fought for, and what lessons remain for today’s nursery sector.

This article takes a closer look at the Islington nursery workers’ strike, the conditions that led to it, and why nursery workers—then and now—desperately need the power of collective organisation.

The Road to the Strike

In the early 1980s, Islington Council’s Children’s Day Centres were in crisis. These centres provided vital care for some of the borough’s most vulnerable children, but were chronically underfunded, dangerously understaffed, and neglected by the authorities. Nursery workers were expected to supervise too many children, often in unsafe environments, with inadequate resources and little recognition.

Despite these conditions, or perhaps because of them, nursery staff were deeply committed to their work. They weren’t striking to abandon their responsibilities—they were striking to uphold them.

As early years expert and strike participant Julia Manning-Morton put it, “We were fighting for better conditions for the children in our care as well as for ourselves. That’s just as important today as it was then.”

At the time, Islington Council was led by Margaret Hodge, who had come to power on a progressive platform promising to improve services, including children’s care. But the reality, as the workers soon found, didn’t match the rhetoric.

In response to unfulfilled promises and worsening conditions, the nursery workers—organised through the National Union of Public Employees (NUPE)—took a courageous decision. They walked out.

Fourteen Weeks of Solidarity

The strike quickly became a rallying point for others in the borough. Parents staged their own protests, including an overnight occupation of Islington Town Hall with their children. The Islington Gazette dubbed the action the “Sit In Babes Back Strike.”

The nursery workers also built alliances beyond the borough. Delegations of striking miners and their families visited Islington and stood in solidarity with the nursery workers. Arthur Scargill, then president of the National Union of Mineworkers, shared platforms with nursery workers at rallies.

A delegation of miners’ wives who came to meet the mayor of Islington refused to cross the nursery workers’ picket line. Instead, they had tea with the mayor on the steps of the Town Hall. It was a powerful moment of mutual respect between two groups of workers fighting different, but deeply connected, battles.

Support also spread across the council workforce. Eventually, 400 workers from other departments joined the strike in solidarity.

The nursery workers remained determined throughout. They weren’t just striking for better pay—they were fighting for the basic safety and wellbeing of the children they cared for every day.

The Outcome

After 14 weeks on strike, the workers achieved significant gains. The council agreed to a ratio of one nursery worker to every four and a half children—still short of the “one to four” demand, but a major improvement. Other changes were also secured, including commitments to better working conditions and staffing.

But the struggle didn’t end there. Just five years later, in 1989, nursery workers in Islington were forced to strike again—this time to defend the very gains they had previously won. Once again, staffing ratios and conditions were under threat.

These repeated struggles speak to a larger truth: victories won through collective action can be eroded if not defended. That’s why strong union organisation and active engagement remain essential.

Why Aren’t More Nursery Workers in Unions?

Despite the success of the Islington strike and the clear benefits of collective action, nursery workers today remain among the least-unionised parts of the public sector. Why?

First, many nursery workers—especially in private settings—are on precarious contracts. Part-time roles, casual hours, and limited job security make it harder to organise. It’s not uncommon for workers to be unaware that they even can join a union.

Second, there’s a persistent myth that caring work isn’t “real work.” This damaging notion suggests that childcare is a “natural” extension of femininity and therefore doesn’t require the same protections, training, or pay as other professions. This sexist narrative has kept pay low and discouraged organising.

Third, nursery settings are often small and dispersed. Without a concentrated workforce under one roof, it can be difficult to build momentum or share information about workplace rights and union membership.

Finally, there is sometimes a lack of confidence. Nursery staff may feel unsure about raising concerns, worried about reprisals, or simply overworked and exhausted. This is where unions can make all the difference.

Why Nursery Workers Should Be Unionised

Unions provide nursery workers with collective power, protection, and a voice.

When you’re in a union, you’re not alone. You have access to legal advice and support. You have the backing of experienced negotiators. You have the chance to push for better pay, better staffing, and better conditions—not just for yourself, but for your colleagues and the children you care for.

Unions also fight for the future of early years provision itself. As government austerity cuts continue to undermine public nurseries, and as private providers chase profit over quality, it is union members who stand up for what childcare should be: publicly funded, accessible, safe, and nurturing.

When nursery workers are unionised, they are also part of a wider movement. They can link arms with teaching assistants, school staff, cleaners, council workers—and build the kind of solidarity that changes not just workplaces, but whole communities.

The Islington strike proves this. Those workers were supported by other council departments, by parents, by local campaigners, by the miners and their families. That kind of strength doesn’t come from silence or isolation. It comes from organisation and courage.

A Podcast Tells the Story

A new podcast series, Childcare Voices, tells the story of the Islington strike in the words of those who lived it. Produced by On the Record, a community history organisation, the podcast is the result of a training and production project involving nursery workers, parents, nannies, trade unionists and community organisers.

One of the producers, herself a nursery worker, said:

“During my career, I have seen pressures on nursery staff increase to almost unmanageable levels. Last year, in response to a plan to make redundancies, trade union members in my nursery voted to strike. It feels unjust that as levels of need and childhood poverty have risen, capacity in quality public nursery provision such as mine has reduced.”

This personal connection between the past and present is what makes Childcare Voices so powerful. It isn’t just a history lesson. It’s a call to action.

The podcast has already received recognition, winning silver in the grassroots production category at the 2024 Audio Production Awards. It brings to life a vital, often forgotten, chapter in working-class history and highlights how collective action can shape services that matter to us all.

Lessons for Today

The Islington strike should not be seen as a one-off moment. It is a case study in how low-paid, marginalised workers—often ignored or dismissed—can challenge powerful employers and win. It’s also a warning that victories can be short-lived without continued pressure and vigilance.

Listen to the podcast here: https://shows.acast.com/childcare-voices

By Maria Camara

Farage is No Friend of Working People: A Personal View from Pat Harrington, General Secretary of Solidarity

The recent successes of Reform UK at the ballot box – including a by-election win in Runcorn and the Doncaster mayoralty – have understandably caused a stir in political and trade union circles. As General Secretary of Solidarity, I believe we must take these developments seriously and respond with clarity and resolve. Let me be clear: in my personal opinion, Nigel Farage is no friend of working people.

I understand why some working-class voters are tempted by Farage and his Reform UK movement. They are fed up. Years of neglect, stagnant wages, crumbling public services, and a political establishment that appears more interested in spin than substance have left many disillusioned. Farage appears to speak plainly and taps into genuine frustrations. That appeal should not be dismissed or ridiculed. But it should be challenged, because behind the rhetoric lies a record that working people must be made aware of.

Farage’s Voting Record: Repeatedly Opposed to Workers’ Rights

As the Trades Union Congress (TUC) recently revealed, Farage’s voting record speaks volumes. Time and again, he has voted against the interests of the very people he claims to represent:

He voted against banning zero-hours contracts, which trap workers in uncertainty and insecurity.
He opposed banning ‘fire and rehire’, a cruel tactic allowing employers to sack workers and offer them worse terms.
He voted against sick pay from day one, leaving workers vulnerable when they fall ill.
He rejected stronger protections for pregnant workers.
He voted against collective bargaining rights and trade union access in workplaces.

This isn’t a handful of votes taken out of context. It’s a pattern. A worldview that prioritises deregulation, corporate interests and weakening the power of organised labour. That’s why the focus of all trade unions, in my view, must be on exposing this anti-worker record every time Reform UK is discussed.

Farage’s Persona vs. Farage’s Politics

Farage has built his brand as an anti-establishment rebel. Many see him as someone who is willing to say what others won’t. But we must ask: who benefits from his policies? Paul Nowak of the TUC put it well when he described Farage as a “political fraud cosplaying as a working-class champion.”

Reform UK’s economic platform, far from supporting workers, offers a Thatcherite rehash:

£50 billion in public service cuts.
Slashing corporation tax from 25% to 15%, giving more to big business.
No plan for raising wages or expanding workplace rights.

This is not a programme for social justice or economic renewal. It’s the same old trickle-down economics, dressed up with a Union Jack.

Understanding the Appeal, Changing the Conversation

To defeat Farage and Reform UK, we must first understand why their message resonates. People are angry – and rightly so. But anger must be channelled toward those responsible: the employers who exploit, the politicians who betray, the system that puts profit over people.

The job of trade unions is not only to defend workers at the workplace but also to provide clarity in the public debate where workers rights are at issue. In that spirit, I urge all unions to put Reform UK’s record on workers’ rights front and centre in our campaigning.

We need to:

Challenge the myth that Farage stands with ordinary people.
Remind voters what his voting record really says.
Offer a clear, alternative vision rooted in solidarity, justice, and dignity at work.

What Solidarity Stands For

At Solidarity, we stand unapologetically for working people. That means:

Fighting for secure jobs and decent pay.
Defending collective bargaining and union rights.
Demanding fair sick pay, pensions, and protection for the vulnerable.
Building unity, not scapegoating the marginalised.

We also believe in having an open, honest discussion about migration, immigration and refugee policy. That conversation should aim to achieve a fair and humane policy – one that is grounded in reality and guided by compassion, while also maintaining the support of the British people. We want a harmonious national consensus, not culture wars or scapegoating.

The future for our class will not be won by blaming migrants, attacking public services, or cutting taxes for the rich. It will be won by building power from the ground up.

Nigel Farage may talk like he understands working people, but his record shows otherwise. Let’s make sure everyone knows it.

In solidarity,

Pat Harrington
General Secretary, Solidarity