When Words Hurt: Mental Health, Workplace Harassment and the Lessons of McManus v British Airways

The Employment Appeal Tribunal has confirmed that a worker’s mental health can influence whether unwanted conduct amounts to unlawful harassment. But its latest ruling also reveals the difficulties employees face when trying to establish that insensitive treatment has crossed the legal line.

There is a familiar problem in workplace disputes involving mental health. An employee complains that something said by a manager, supervisor or occupational health adviser caused considerable distress. The employer responds that no offence was intended, that the conversation was part of an ordinary management process, or that the employee simply reacted too strongly.

For workers already struggling with anxiety, depression or other mental health difficulties, such responses can make a distressing experience even worse. They may feel that the very condition which makes them vulnerable is being used to dismiss their concerns.

But where does the law draw the line between an insensitive remark and unlawful harassment? Should someone experiencing anxiety or depression be expected to react in the same way as a person without those conditions? And how much weight should a tribunal give to the particular vulnerabilities of the individual concerned?

These questions were considered by the Employment Appeal Tribunal in McManus v British Airways plc [2026] EAT 155, a judgment delivered on 9 October 2026.

The decision offers both encouragement and a warning to workers and their representatives. It confirms that mental ill health can be relevant when deciding whether unwanted conduct has a legally recognised harassing effect. At the same time, it demonstrates that even a genuinely upsetting, inappropriate and disability-related comment will not necessarily amount to unlawful harassment.

For trade union representatives, understanding that distinction is essential.

A difficult return to work

Mrs McManus was a British Airways cabin crew employee who had experienced depression, anxiety and social phobia during the Covid-19 pandemic. British Airways accepted that she was disabled for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010.

Following a lengthy period of sickness absence, she was preparing to return to work in 2022.

That prospect was already causing considerable anxiety. Changes within British Airways meant she would not be returning to precisely the same working arrangements she had previously known. She was also seeking adjustments that would help her manage her health conditions and resume her employment.

She had received support from a mental health support team and had developed a wellness and recovery action plan. She regarded the recommendations arising from that support as important to making a successful return.

British Airways referred her to its occupational health service for assessment.

The subsequent telephone consultation lasted approximately two hours and, according to the tribunal’s findings, did not go well.

Mrs McManus was nervous about the assessment. She found the occupational health practitioner’s approach upsetting, and there were disagreements over what adjustments were appropriate and whose recommendations should carry weight.

During the consultation, the occupational health practitioner made a remark about Access to Work, the government scheme that can provide practical and financial support to help disabled people obtain or remain in employment.

The practitioner told Mrs McManus:

“not for people like you, its for people in wheelchairs”

The tribunal accepted that the remark had been made and related to her disability.

It also accepted that the practitioner had a poor understanding of the scheme. Access to Work is not confined to people with physical disabilities or wheelchair users. Support may also be available to eligible workers experiencing mental health difficulties.

Mrs McManus regarded the comment as harassing and brought proceedings alleging disability discrimination, failures to make reasonable adjustments and disability-related harassment.

However, the original Employment Tribunal dismissed her claims.

Her appeal concentrated on the rejection of the harassment complaint arising from the Access to Work remark.

What does the Equality Act actually require?

Section 26 of the Equality Act 2010 defines harassment related to a protected characteristic.

In broad terms, a person harasses another where they engage in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, such as disability, and that conduct has the purpose or effect of violating the person’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment.

There is an important distinction between conduct intended to cause such harm and conduct which has that effect regardless of intention.

If an employer or manager deliberately humiliates a disabled employee because of their disability, the purpose of the conduct may provide the basis for a harassment claim.

But unlawful harassment can also arise where there was no intention to cause humiliation or offence.

That does not mean every unpleasant or thoughtless remark is unlawful.

Where a claimant relies on the effect of the conduct, section 26(4) requires the tribunal to consider three matters: the claimant’s perception, the other circumstances of the case, and whether it was reasonable for the conduct to have the alleged effect.

This creates an assessment that combines the individual’s actual experience with an objective consideration of whether the conduct could reasonably be regarded as sufficiently serious in the circumstances.

An employer cannot escape responsibility simply by claiming that no harm was intended.

Equally, an employee cannot establish unlawful harassment solely by demonstrating that they were upset.

Both sides of that equation matter.

Mental health is part of the circumstances

The central legal question in McManus concerned how the tribunal should approach the claimant’s mental health when assessing reasonableness.

British Airways argued that her mental ill health was relevant to establishing how she subjectively perceived the remark, but should not separately influence the objective assessment of whether the remark could reasonably be regarded as having a harassing effect.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal rejected that narrow approach.

His Honour Judge Auerbach confirmed that mental ill health could properly form part of the circumstances considered when deciding whether the conduct had the prohibited effect.

That is an important clarification.

An employee with a recognised anxiety disorder may experience particular language, behaviour or circumstances differently from someone without that condition.

A worker recovering from depression may be especially vulnerable during a return-to-work assessment. Someone with post-traumatic stress disorder may react particularly strongly to certain forms of confrontation or questioning.

These individual circumstances cannot simply be ignored when assessing what it was reasonable for the conduct to do.

The law does not require tribunals to imagine an entirely abstract employee, stripped of personal characteristics, and then judge every workplace interaction against that fictional individual’s reactions.

The person who experienced the conduct matters.

However, the EAT was equally clear that mental ill health does not automatically make every reaction objectively reasonable.

The tribunal must still consider the whole picture, including the nature of the conduct, the circumstances in which it occurred and its actual effect.

There is an important difference between saying that a condition must be taken into account and saying that the condition determines the outcome.

McManus establishes the former, not the latter.

Why did British Airways win?

At first sight, the result may seem surprising.

The occupational health practitioner had made an inaccurate and insensitive remark about a disability support scheme. Mrs McManus was genuinely distressed, and the comment related directly to her disability.

Yet the tribunal found that the legal threshold for harassment had not been met.

The EAT agreed that this conclusion was legally open to the tribunal.

A major consideration was the setting in which the remark had been made.

This was an occupational health assessment intended to establish what support Mrs McManus needed to return to work. Such consultations can involve difficult, personal and sometimes uncomfortable questions.

The original tribunal accepted that some of the practitioner’s approach could have been expressed differently. Nevertheless, it considered that the practitioner was carrying out a legitimate medical assessment, and that the Access to Work remark arose in a discussion about potential adjustments.

The tribunal also considered the fact that the offending remark formed a relatively small part of a two-hour consultation.

The practitioner appeared to have misunderstood the scope of Access to Work rather than deliberately sought to belittle the claimant.

Importantly, a lack of malicious intention would not, by itself, defeat a harassment claim based on the effect of conduct. But the nature and context of the remark were relevant to evaluating that effect.

The EAT concluded that the tribunal had considered Mrs McManus’s mental health and distress alongside these other circumstances.

It had not simply assumed that her anxiety was irrelevant.

Nor had it been required to reach a different conclusion because her distress was genuine.

Judge Auerbach emphasised that an appeal tribunal should not substitute its own assessment merely because it might have evaluated the facts differently. Intervention requires a legal error or a decision that meets the demanding threshold for perversity.

That threshold had not been reached.

The appeal was dismissed.

This is an important limitation on what the case decides. The EAT did not establish that remarks of this kind are generally acceptable, or that similar conduct could never constitute harassment. It decided that the original tribunal’s assessment was legally permissible on the particular facts.

Insensitive treatment is not automatically unlawful

There is an uncomfortable but necessary lesson in this judgment.

Employment law does not provide a remedy for every instance of insensitive, unfair or thoughtless workplace behaviour.

A manager may handle a conversation badly. An HR adviser may misunderstand an employee’s condition. An occupational health practitioner may use language that is unnecessarily blunt or dismissive.

Such conduct may justify a complaint, additional training, an apology or changes to workplace procedures without necessarily satisfying the legal definition of harassment.

That distinction can be frustrating for workers.

Someone who experiences genuine humiliation may understandably struggle to accept that a tribunal can recognise their distress yet conclude that no unlawful harassment occurred.

But the distinction is deliberate. The Equality Act requires the conduct to have a particular purpose or effect. It is not a general statutory code of workplace courtesy.

This should not encourage employers to tolerate poor treatment.

An employer interested only in whether conduct crosses the threshold for legal liability is setting its standards far too low.

Workplaces should be places where employees are treated with dignity because that is the right way to manage people, not merely because a tribunal might otherwise award compensation.

In occupational health consultations, that responsibility is especially important.

Employees may already feel vulnerable because of illness, prolonged absence or uncertainty about whether they will be permitted to return to their normal duties.

They should be able to expect accurate information, professional sensitivity and genuine consideration of their circumstances.

The importance of Access to Work

The comment at the centre of McManus also highlights a wider problem: misunderstanding the support available to disabled workers.

Access to Work is a government programme designed to help eligible disabled people obtain or remain in employment. Depending on individual circumstances and eligibility, it can provide assistance with practical workplace support, specialist equipment, travel or mental health-related support.

It is not exclusively intended for people who use wheelchairs.

For someone seeking to return after an extended absence caused by depression or anxiety, the possibility of Access to Work assistance may be significant.

An inaccurate statement suggesting that such support is unavailable could discourage someone from seeking help that might make continued employment possible.

Employers and occupational health professionals therefore have a responsibility to understand the scheme properly.

They should also distinguish between Access to Work assistance and an employer’s own obligations under the Equality Act.

An employer’s duty to make reasonable adjustments does not disappear simply because external assistance might be available.

Nor should an employee be expected to navigate complex support arrangements without appropriate guidance.

In McManus, the tribunal concluded that the practitioner’s misunderstanding did not amount to unlawful harassment. That should not obscure the practical importance of ensuring that employees receive accurate advice about the assistance available to them.

What this means for workers experiencing mental ill health

For employees with anxiety, depression or other mental health conditions, the judgment offers a significant point of principle.

Their health can be relevant not only to explaining why they experienced distress but also to the legal assessment of whether it was reasonable for the conduct to have that effect.

A tribunal considering a harassment complaint should not disregard a relevant mental health condition simply because the assessment contains an objective element.

This has practical implications.

Suppose an employee with a diagnosed anxiety disorder is subjected to repeated aggressive questioning by a manager who knows about the condition.

The employee becomes distressed and complains that the questioning created an intimidating environment.

It would be wrong to assess that complaint without considering the employee’s anxiety where it is a relevant circumstance.

The manager’s conduct might be regarded differently if the employer knew that particular approaches were likely to cause significant distress.

But this does not mean that the employee’s condition prevents the employer from asking difficult questions.

Employers remain entitled to investigate complaints, address performance concerns, manage sickness absence and make legitimate decisions about employment.

The question is how they exercise those responsibilities.

There is a difference between asking necessary questions respectfully and using an unnecessarily humiliating or aggressive approach.

The presence of a mental health condition may affect where that line is drawn, but it does not remove the line altogether.

Why the wider pattern of behaviour matters

One of the difficulties in harassment cases is that individual remarks may appear relatively minor when considered separately, even though their cumulative effect is much more serious.

A worker may experience a series of comments, dismissive responses or confrontational meetings that gradually create an intimidating or humiliating environment.

Each incident might appear insufficient on its own.

Taken together, they may present a different picture.

This was another issue raised in McManus.

Mrs McManus argued that the Access to Work remark should not be considered in isolation from other things said during the occupational health consultation.

The wider conversation had included sensitive questioning, disagreements about her proposed adjustments and an approach that she found distressing.

However, the EAT concluded that the tribunal had not ignored this wider context. It had considered the meeting as a whole and was entitled to distinguish the specific remark being challenged from other allegations that it had already assessed.

This is an important point for union representatives.

When representing a member who complains of harassment, it is necessary to identify both the individual incidents and the overall pattern.

Rather than relying upon a general assertion that management has been intimidating or bullying, representatives should establish what was said, when it was said, who was present and how the conduct affected the employee.

If several incidents are said to have produced a cumulative harassing effect, that should be explained explicitly.

The evidence may include emails, meeting notes, contemporaneous complaints, medical information and witness accounts.

It is also important to distinguish between conduct that is merely upsetting and conduct that can reasonably be regarded as violating dignity or creating one of the environments described in section 26.

A carefully documented history can help a tribunal understand the true context instead of viewing every incident as an isolated disagreement.

Evidence of vulnerability can be important

McManus demonstrates why representatives should give careful thought to evidence about a member’s mental health.

It may be established that an employee has depression or anxiety, but that does not necessarily explain how a particular incident affected them.

Where the link is relevant, medical evidence may assist.

An occupational health report, GP letter or specialist assessment might explain particular difficulties associated with the condition.

The employee’s own evidence will also be important.

A member may be able to describe why particular words or actions caused distress, whether similar incidents had occurred previously and what consequences followed.

Was the employee unable to continue working? Did the incident lead to an increase in symptoms? Was medical assistance sought? Did the employee complain at the time?

None of these matters is an automatic requirement for establishing harassment. Nor should a worker’s complaint be dismissed merely because they did not immediately report the incident or seek medical attention.

But relevant, reliable evidence can assist the tribunal in understanding the employee’s experience.

It is equally important to consider what the employer knew.

If an employer has been told about particular vulnerabilities, that may affect the context in which later conduct is assessed.

A manager who has received clear information about an employee’s mental health needs is in a different practical position from someone who has no knowledge of those difficulties.

That distinction does not automatically determine legal liability, but it may be significant when assessing the circumstances.

Harassment is not the only possible claim

Another important lesson is that workers should not assume harassment is the only legal route available when they experience insensitive or unfair treatment connected with mental health.

The Equality Act provides several distinct protections.

Where an employee is disabled within the meaning of the Act, the employer may have a duty to make reasonable adjustments.

A failure to take appropriate steps to remove substantial disadvantages may give rise to a claim even where there has been no unlawful harassment.

For example, an employer might refuse to consider changes to working hours, duties or procedures that could enable a disabled employee to remain in employment.

Depending on the circumstances, that could raise reasonable adjustment issues regardless of whether anyone made offensive comments.

Similarly, section 15 of the Equality Act addresses discrimination arising from disability.

This can occur where a disabled employee is treated unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of their disability, unless the employer can establish the relevant justification. The employer’s knowledge of disability and the statutory conditions must also be considered.

An employer that penalises an employee for disability-related absence or behaviour may therefore face questions quite separate from harassment.

Direct disability discrimination may also be relevant where an employee is treated less favourably because of disability.

These legal claims have different requirements and should not be confused.

In McManus, Mrs McManus had originally pursued several types of disability discrimination complaint, all of which were dismissed by the Employment Tribunal. The appeal concerned the particular harassment allegation arising from the Access to Work comment.

The decision should therefore not be interpreted as determining the outcome of every possible disability-related claim involving similar facts.

For union representatives, the practical lesson is to consider the full range of legal protections rather than placing every complaint under the heading of harassment.

A practical approach for trade union representatives

When a member reports harassment connected with mental health, the first task is to establish a clear account of events.

The representative should understand the precise conduct complained of and the circumstances in which it occurred.

It is then necessary to consider why that conduct is said to relate to disability and whether it had the purpose or effect required by section 26.

If the complaint concerns the effect rather than the purpose, McManus makes clear that the representative should address two questions.

Did the employee actually experience the conduct as violating their dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment?

If so, was it reasonable to regard the conduct as having that effect, taking account of the relevant circumstances?

The employee’s mental health may be important to both questions.

But representatives should resist the temptation to argue that the existence of anxiety or depression, by itself, establishes that the employee’s reaction was reasonable.

The stronger argument explains how the condition affected the employee, what the employer knew, the nature of the conduct and why its effect should reasonably be recognised as unlawful harassment.

It may also be useful to examine whether the employer followed its own procedures, whether concerns were raised before the incident and whether less confrontational approaches were available.

Where management claims that difficult questioning was necessary, the representative can legitimately ask whether the questions were relevant, proportionate and conducted professionally.

A legitimate management purpose is not a licence to humiliate employees.

At the same time, a representative must recognise that necessary and appropriately conducted management conversations do not become unlawful harassment simply because they concern matters that an employee finds distressing.

The objective is to distinguish genuine harassment from other forms of workplace disagreement or poor management, while ensuring that legitimate concerns are not dismissed because the employee has a mental health condition.

The danger of labelling workers oversensitive

There is a broader concern arising from cases of this kind.

Workers experiencing mental ill health can sometimes find their credibility questioned precisely because of their condition.

An employee who reports aggressive management behaviour may be described as oversensitive, emotional or unable to cope with ordinary workplace pressures.

Such descriptions can be deeply unfair.

They may also discourage employees from disclosing mental health difficulties or seeking support.

McManus makes clear that mental ill health cannot simply be excluded from the legal assessment of reasonableness.

That matters because there is no single universal standard of emotional resilience against which every employee must be measured without regard to personal circumstances.

The same workplace interaction may have very different effects upon different people.

Recognising that fact does not mean abandoning objective legal standards.

It means applying those standards with a proper understanding of the circumstances of the person concerned.

There must still be limits. Employers must be able to conduct investigations, discuss performance and manage their workforce.

But those responsibilities should be exercised with reasonable sensitivity, particularly where an employee’s disability is known.

Employers who confuse legitimate management with a right to behave aggressively or dismissively may find themselves exposed to legal claims that could have been avoided through better management.

What Solidarity believes

Solidarity believes that protecting the dignity of working people must be a basic principle of employment practice.

Workers should not have to tolerate humiliation, intimidation or discriminatory treatment.

Those experiencing mental ill health deserve the same respect and consideration as employees with physical health conditions.

Mental health difficulties should neither automatically validate every complaint nor provide employers with an excuse to disregard genuine concerns.

The law must balance the need for effective management with the obligation to protect employees from unlawful treatment.

McManus illustrates how difficult that balance can sometimes be.

The judgment confirms that mental health can form part of the assessment of harassment, even at the stage where a tribunal considers whether the alleged effect was reasonable.

But it also demonstrates that the threshold for unlawful harassment remains substantial.

For employers, there is a clear practical message. Do not assume that an employee’s distress can be dismissed as an unreasonable reaction without considering their circumstances. Ensure that managers and occupational health professionals understand disability-related responsibilities and communicate with appropriate care.

For workers, the message is equally important. If you believe you have experienced harassment, document what happened, explain its impact and seek advice about the legal protections available.

For trade union representatives, the case reinforces the importance of constructing arguments around evidence, context and the precise legal test.

A poorly handled meeting may justify a grievance without establishing harassment. But a legitimate management process can still become unlawful if the conduct, purpose or effect crosses the statutory threshold.

The distinction must be examined carefully rather than assumed.

A right to dignity at work

The most significant aspect of McManus is not simply that British Airways successfully defended the harassment allegation.

It is the recognition that a worker’s mental health may be relevant when deciding whether unwanted conduct could reasonably have the effect of violating dignity or creating a hostile or humiliating environment.

That principle acknowledges an important reality about working life.

Employees are individuals, not interchangeable units who all respond identically to pressure, criticism or confrontation.

Their experiences, health conditions and vulnerabilities may affect how workplace behaviour impacts them.

The law is right to recognise that.

However, legal protection must be established through the facts of each case. A tribunal must weigh the employee’s experience against the nature and context of the conduct and the statutory definition of harassment.

There is no automatic answer.

For Solidarity, the wider principle remains straightforward.

A decent workplace should not require employees to endure unnecessary distress before anyone takes their concerns seriously. Nor should respect and sensitivity be reserved only for situations where an employer faces a realistic prospect of losing an Employment Tribunal claim.

Good employment practice demands more than compliance with the minimum legal standard.

Workers experiencing mental health difficulties should be supported, listened to and treated as individuals whose circumstances matter.

That is not an unreasonable expectation.

It is a fundamental part of creating workplaces in which people can work with confidence, security and dignity.

By Maria Camara

Legal reference: McManus v British Airways plc [2026] EAT 155, judgment of His Honour Judge Auerbach, 9 October 2026. The article considers the judgment alongside section 26 of the Equality Act 2010.

When the Weather Turns Against Workers: How Trade Unions Are Winning New Protections

For generations, workplace safety campaigns centred on machinery, chemicals, noise and manual handling. Today, another issue is moving rapidly up the union agenda: extreme weather.

Whether it is bus drivers trapped in overheating cabs, postal workers walking miles in soaring temperatures, or probation staff traveling through floods and storms unions across Britain are increasingly treating severe weather as a workplace safety issue rather than an unavoidable inconvenience.

That shift matters because workers are often the first to experience the consequences of extreme conditions. Long before government agencies issue guidance or employers update policies, drivers, delivery workers, construction workers, teachers, cleaners, caterers and transport staff are dealing with the reality on the ground.

From collective bargaining to industrial action, unions are forcing employers to recognise a simple principle: workers should not have to risk their health simply to do their jobs.

The London Bus Drivers Who Refused to “Sweat It Out”

One of the clearest examples of workers taking collective action over weather-related conditions came in 2026 when around 1,500 Unite members employed by Arriva North London took strike action over excessive temperatures inside bus cabs. Many vehicles were fitted only with air-cooling systems rather than proper air conditioning.

According to Unite, drivers reported cab temperatures reaching 40°C or higher during periods of exceptionally hot weather. The union argued that the conditions increased the risk of fatigue, dehydration, heat exhaustion and heat stroke.

The dispute demonstrated how workplace safety concerns can become industrial relations issues when employers fail to act quickly enough.

After industrial action and negotiations, drivers secured what Unite described as a “groundbreaking” agreement. Arriva committed to fitting air conditioning to buses by May 2027 and accepted a new rule that buses with defective heating or cooling systems would be withdrawn from service after 35 minutes rather than leaving drivers exposed for extended periods.

Unite national lead officer Onay Kasab summed up the significance of the victory:

“This is an excellent win for our members, who stood together on picket lines to fight for and win an agreement that means that drivers are not simply expected to sweat it out.”

The dispute set an important precedent. It showed that workers could move beyond simply reporting unsafe conditions and instead win enforceable protections through collective action. It also shows how union action can benefit the wider community by improving conditions in areas used by all.

From Heatwaves to Snowstorms: The Napo Warning

The concerns extend far beyond transport.

The probation union Napo has argued that severe weather should become a permanent item on health and safety agendas throughout the Probation Service. Members routinely work through heatwaves, flooding, storms, poor air quality, snow and ice while conducting home visits and community appointments.

Napo’s position is notable because it places weather-related risks alongside more traditional occupational health concerns. The union argues that weather conditions can affect not only workers but also vulnerable people under probation supervision.

The union has called for clear national guidance covering issues such as:

Dynamic risk assessments during weather alerts.
Safe travel arrangements.
Postponement of journeys where necessary.
Home working and remote appointments.
Additional protections for vulnerable staff.
Emergency contingency plans.

As Napo put it, “extreme weather” is not simply an environmental concern but “a workplace, health and safety issue.”

Postal Workers Push for Stronger Heat Protections

Communication Workers Union (CWU) members provide another example of how unions are driving workplace change.

Postal workers spend long hours outdoors and are particularly vulnerable during periods of high temperatures. Following severe heat episodes, the CWU negotiated enhanced guidance with Royal Mail covering heat-related risks. The guidance requires formal assessments, consultation with union safety representatives, support for vulnerable workers and adjustments to duties during weather alerts.

The union has consistently argued that heat exposure should be treated like any other workplace hazard.

That approach has increasingly gained traction throughout the labour movement. Rather than accepting weather conditions as unavoidable, unions have argued that employers must identify risks, assess them and take practical steps to reduce them.

The Growing Campaign for Temperature Standards

A wider campaign has also emerged around the absence of legally defined maximum workplace temperatures.

Trade unions have long criticised the fact that UK law requires workplaces to be kept at a “reasonable” temperature but does not establish a clear upper limit.

The Trades Union Congress has responded by organising workplace inspections, producing model agreements and encouraging union health and safety representatives to challenge unsafe conditions. During its workplace heat campaign, more than 1,000 union health and safety representatives participated in inspections aimed at identifying excessive temperature risks.

The movement’s argument is straightforward. Workers in offices, warehouses, kitchens, buses, rail depots, factories and construction sites should have access to clear protections rather than vague assurances.

Industrial Action Over Safety Is Nothing New

The recent focus on weather-related risks fits into a much longer trade union tradition.

Workers have repeatedly used industrial action to address safety concerns when employers failed to respond adequately.

A Return to Core Trade Union Values

There is a tendency to view extreme weather solely through the lens of public policy or environmental debate. Trade unionists tend to see it differently.

The real question is practical.

Can a bus driver work safely inside an overheated cab?

Can a postal worker complete a delivery round during a heat alert without adequate protection?

Can a probation officer travel safely during flooding or severe storms?

Can employers demonstrate they have assessed the risks and taken reasonable steps to reduce them?

Across Britain, unions are increasingly insisting that the answer to those questions must be yes.

The victories won by London bus drivers, the campaigns mounted by postal workers, and the demands from probation staff all point in the same direction. Workers are no longer prepared to accept that severe weather is simply something they must endure.

Instead, they are using the most powerful tools available to them, organisation, collective bargaining and, when necessary, industrial action, to ensure that workplace safety keeps pace with the realities of modern working life.

Because when temperatures soar, storms hit or conditions become dangerous, health and safety cannot be treated as an afterthought. It has to be the first priority.

By Maria Camara

Violence at Work: The Hidden Crisis Facing Britain’s Public‑Facing Workforce

The latest findings from the Trades Union Congress land with the weight of a national warning. Their new survey, covering more than five thousand workers across the UK, reveals a working world in which violence and abuse have become disturbingly routine. What emerges is not a collection of isolated incidents but a portrait of a workforce exposed, unprotected, and increasingly resigned to harm. It is a crisis that has been building in plain sight, and one that demands a far more serious response than it has so far received.

The headline figure is stark: eight in ten workers experienced some form of abuse in the past year. This is not a marginal problem affecting a handful of volatile workplaces. It is a systemic pattern cutting across transport, education, prisons, health and social care, and local government—sectors that form the backbone of public life. The survey shows that nearly 40% of respondents work in transport, a sector where staff shortages, passenger frustration, and operational pressures collide daily. Education workers report abuse from pupils and parents; prison staff face the constant threat of violence; health and social care workers navigate environments where emotional strain and under‑resourcing heighten risk. These are not abstract categories—they are the people who keep society functioning.

The frequency of abuse is equally troubling. More than half of workers say they experience violence or abuse weekly or more, and nearly one in five face it monthly. This regularity is what transforms individual incidents into a structural problem. When violence becomes predictable, it becomes normalised. And when it becomes normalised, it becomes invisible to those with the power to change it.

The perpetrators are not confined to one group. Customers, passengers, members of the public, pupils, colleagues, and even managers appear in the data. This breadth matters. It shows that violence is not simply a matter of “difficult customers” or “challenging environments”. It is a cultural issue—one that reflects how workers are valued, how services are funded, and how employers understand their duty of care.

The human consequences are severe. Nearly half of respondents feared for their safety during the most serious incident they experienced. Others suffered physical injury, required medical treatment, or needed police involvement. A third reported mental trauma. These are not minor workplace irritations; they are harms that reshape lives, careers, and families. Yet more than half of those who did not report incidents said they believed violence was simply “part of the job”. That phrase—so often repeated in frontline sectors—reveals the depth of resignation that has taken hold. It is a quiet, corrosive acceptance that harm is inevitable and that nothing will change.

This resignation is not accidental. It has been cultivated by a decade and a half of cuts to the very institutions meant to protect workers. The Health and Safety Executive, once a robust regulator, has seen its funding cut by more than 50% since 2010. Inspector numbers have fallen, inspections have dwindled, and enforcement has weakened. A regulator cannot regulate when starved of resources. The result is a vacuum in which employers face little scrutiny and workers face escalating risk. The TUC is right to call this out. A society that claims to value its frontline workers cannot simultaneously dismantle the structures designed to keep them safe.

The deeper question is why violence has become so embedded in the modern workplace. Part of the answer lies in austerity. When staffing levels fall, waiting times rise, and services strain under demand, frustration spills onto the people who remain. Another part lies in management culture. Too many employers treat violence as an unavoidable by‑product of public‑facing work rather than a preventable hazard. And then there is the silence—workers who do not report incidents because they believe nothing will happen. That silence is not apathy; it is exhaustion.

For unions, the implications are clear. Violence at work is not an individual problem but a collective one. It requires collective solutions: stronger reporting systems, violence‑specific risk assessments, trauma‑informed support, and a regulatory environment capable of enforcing the law. It also requires a cultural shift in which violence is recognised not as an occupational inevitability but as a failure of planning, staffing, and leadership.

The TUC’s message is blunt: unionised workplaces are safer. This is not rhetoric; it is borne out by decades of evidence. Where unions are present, risks are identified earlier, incidents are challenged, and employers are held to account. In a climate where violence is rising and regulatory oversight is weakening, collective organisation becomes not just beneficial but essential.

The crisis revealed by the TUC survey is not one that can be solved by platitudes or piecemeal interventions. It demands a national commitment to restoring the Health and Safety Executive, strengthening legal protections for public‑facing workers, and ensuring that employers meet their obligations. It demands that violence be treated not as an unfortunate feature of modern work but as a breach of fundamental rights.

Above all, it demands that workers are not left to face danger alone. Violence is never “part of the job”. It is a sign that something has gone profoundly wrong in the way we organise work, value labour, and protect those who serve the public. The task now is to confront that reality with honesty, urgency, and solidarity—and to build a working world in which safety is not a privilege but a guarantee.

By Maria Camara

Picture credit: KollectivFutur

Safety on Britain’s Railways Is Failing — Workers Need Protection Now

The British rail industry is living through a period of profound contradiction. Ministers and operators speak the language of “modernisation,” “efficiency,” and “digital transformation,” yet the lived reality for rail workers is one of rising violence, shrinking safety budgets, eroded dignity, and a creeping institutional amnesia about the lessons written in blood across the last century of rail history.

In an article in the February Labour Research magazine ‘The railways: safe for rail workers’ —and across the testimonies of our own members—the same themes recur: assaults rising year on year, mental health neglected, earthworks left to crumble, and the lessons of Carmont already fading from managerial memory. The railways are not unsafe by accident. They are made unsafe by political choice.

This essay gathers those threads and sets out the case—our case—for a rail system that treats workers’ safety not as a cost centre but as the foundation of a functioning public service.

1. Violence Against Rail Workers: The Hidden Epidemic

The numbers alone should shame the industry.

• Assaults on rail workers rose 17% in 2022/23, with more than 3,000 incidents reported.

• Since 2019, assaults have increased by over 50%.

• Only 68% of assaults were even recorded by British Transport Police.

• Only one in four resulted in charges.

Behind each statistic is a worker who went to do their job and instead faced aggression, threats, or physical harm. Ticket office closures, lone working, and understaffing have created the perfect conditions for violence to flourish. When companies talk about “customer service improvements,” they rarely mention that the human beings delivering those services are increasingly exposed and unsupported.

Unions have fought back. The TSSA’s agreement with the Rail Delivery Group on aftercare and counselling is a step forward, but it is not enough. Body‑worn cameras help, but they are not a shield against a political climate that treats public‑facing workers as disposable shock absorbers for social frustration.

Violence is not inevitable. It is the predictable outcome of a system that prioritises cost‑cutting over human safety.

2. Carmont and the Price of Austerity

The Carmont crash of 2020—Britain’s worst rail disaster in nearly 20 years—was not an unforeseeable act of nature. It was the result of a landslip caused by heavy rain, hitting a section of track whose risks had not been properly assessed. Three people died.

The RAIB report was clear: the driver and conductor did everything possible. The failure was systemic.

Yet in the years following the crash, Network Rail’s spending on earthworks was cut by 25%.

Cuts to drainage, embankments, culverts, and monitoring systems are not abstract budget lines. They are the difference between a safe railway and another Carmont. When unions warn that lessons are being forgotten, they are not being rhetorical. They are describing a real, measurable retreat from safety.

Austerity is not a neutral policy. It is a safety hazard.

3. Lessons Forgotten: The Danger of Complacency

The TSSA has warned that the Carmont crash is already being treated as an anomaly rather than a warning. Britain’s long‑term safety record is often cited as proof that the system is fundamentally sound. But safety is not a static achievement. It is a culture—one that must be renewed, resourced, and defended.

Complacency is itself a risk factor. When budgets tighten, safety is the first thing to be reframed as “efficiency.” When institutional memory fades, the same mistakes reappear in new forms. When workers raise concerns, they are too often treated as obstacles to “progress.”

The rail industry cannot afford another era of forgetting.

4. Air Quality Underground: The Invisible Threat

While the public debates fares and timetables, another danger lurks beneath London: toxic air.

The TSSA’s Tube Air Quality Campaign has forced the issue into the open. PM2.5 particles—generated by brake dust and wheel wear—are present at levels that would be unacceptable in any other workplace. Research from Imperial College London shows these particles penetrate deep into the lungs and bloodstream.

Workers spend entire careers underground. The long‑term health implications are obvious, yet investment in ventilation, filtration, and cleaning remains inadequate.

The Underground is the beating heart of London. It should not be a slow‑burn occupational health crisis.

5. Mental Health: The Unspoken Cost of Rail Work

Shift work, isolation, traumatic incidents, and the constant pressure of public scrutiny take a toll. The RMT’s Mental Health Charter is a vital intervention, but it exists because employers have failed to provide the support workers need.

Mental health is not a “soft” issue. It is a safety issue. A workforce under chronic stress is a workforce at risk.

6. The Politics of Safety: Why Public Ownership Matters

Every issue above—violence, infrastructure neglect, air quality, mental health—shares a common root: a fragmented, underfunded, profit‑driven rail system.

Unions are right to demand:

• A fully funded, publicly owned railway

• Investment in infrastructure, not cuts

• Safety as a non‑negotiable principle

• A culture that remembers its history rather than repeating it

Safety is not a cost. It is the foundation of a civilised transport system.

7. A Railway Worthy of Its Workers

The railways are often described as the arteries of the nation. But arteries only function when they are cared for, maintained, and protected. The workers who keep the system running deserve dignity, safety, and respect—not rising violence, shrinking budgets, and forgotten lessons.

The Solidarity Union stands with every rail worker fighting for a safer industry. We stand with the RMT, the TSSA, and every rep who refuses to accept that danger is “part of the job.” And we stand with the public, who deserve a railway built on investment, not austerity.

A safe railway is a political choice. It is time to choose it.

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

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

Workers’ Memorial Day: Remembering Lives Lost at Work

Monday 28 April 2025 is Workers’ Memorial Day. It’s the day we remember all those killed, injured, or made ill because of their jobs. We’re asking everyone to wear something red that day. A red ribbon. A red t-shirt. Even a red badge. Whatever works. It’s a small gesture, but it makes a clear point: no one should die just for going to work.

The truth behind the headlines

Workplace deaths aren’t “tragic accidents.” They’re the result of bad decisions. Unsafe buildings. Poor training. Overwork. Stress. Some employers cut corners. Some push people too hard. And some just don’t care. And while they save money, people get hurt. Or worse.

Hundreds of workers in the UK died at work last year. Thousands more became ill or injured. The real number is probably even higher. Stress, anxiety, and depression are now major health risks. Some workers have taken their own lives because of what’s happening at work. This isn’t just sad. It’s a scandal.

Safe work is a basic right

Health and safety isn’t about ticking boxes. It’s about staying alive. It’s about making sure people don’t fall off scaffolding. Don’t collapse from heat and pressure. Don’t break their backs lifting things. Don’t end up burned out or traumatised. And yet we keep hearing the same things: “We haven’t had time to do the checks.” “It’s only a small risk.” “It’ll be fine.” That’s what they always say — until someone ends up in hospital. Or in a body bag.

What we’re calling for

We want action. Not talk. Not sympathy. Real change. That means: The right to say “no” to unsafe work — without losing your job. Better protection for people who speak out. Bosses held to account when workers get hurt. Mental health treated as seriously as physical injuries.Stronger inspections and real penalties for unsafe practices.None of this happens by itself. Workers make it happen. Union reps make it happen. Standing together makes it happen.

Remember and resist

On 28 April, we remember those who didn’t make it home.

We remember the cleaner with no PPE. The delivery driver forced to keep going in a storm. The care worker left alone on a night shift. And we don’t just remember them — we organise. We speak up. We refuse to accept it. So this Workers’ Memorial Day, wear red. Talk to your mates. Raise the issue at work. If it’s not safe, say so. Because the best way to honour the dead — is to protect the living.

By Maria Camara

2025 AGM Highlights: Solidarity Union’s Commitment to Workers

The 2025 Annual General Meeting (AGM) of Solidarity Union brought members together in-person in Belfast. Others joined via online platforms. This reflects the union’s continued commitment to accessibility and democratic participation. The meeting covered the year’s activities, reviewed finances, and most importantly, debated and passed several motions addressing pressing issues facing workers across the UK.

Unanimous Support for All Motions

All motions presented during the meeting were passed unanimously, showcasing strong unity among members. Key motions included:

Support for Workers in Industrial Disputes: The union pledged moral, logistical, and financial support to various groups of striking workers. This assistance is provided on an individual basis. These groups include cleaners at the Old Bailey and Birmingham bin workers. Also included are NHS staff in Gloucestershire and London, and Merseyrail cleaners. These actions highlight deep-rooted issues of outsourcing, poor working conditions, and unfair pay.
Reform of Statutory Sick Pay (SSP): Solidarity called for an overhaul of the UK’s meagre SSP system. They advocated for higher rates and better eligibility to match European standards. This ensures no worker is forced to choose between health and income.
Employment Rights Bill: While welcoming new protections—like day-one rights and zero-hour contract reforms—the union criticized loopholes and omissions. It committed to campaigning for clearer employment status definitions and the immediate implementation of electronic balloting.
Raising the Tax Threshold for Pensioners: The union voiced concern about pensioners facing creeping tax liabilities. This is happening due to a frozen personal allowance. Solidarity resolved to campaign for increased thresholds to protect low-income retirees.
Neurodiversity and Acas Activity: This motion received particularly passionate support. Members shared powerful personal stories about systemic barriers faced by neurodivergent individuals. Examples included highly capable people being kept in unpaid volunteer roles for years. Others are endlessly cycled through repetitive “employability” courses. These experiences underscored a widespread view that such courses may be more about reducing unemployment statistics than enabling real employment.

A Lively and Emotional Debate

What truly stood out was the depth and energy of the debate surrounding these motions, especially the one on neurodiversity. Several members described how they or family members had been excluded from employment, despite having valuable skills. One recurring theme was the exploitation of neurodivergent people. They were placed in endless unpaid placements or training cycles. These rarely led to paid jobs. There was strong criticism of benefit cuts under the current Labour government. There was no corresponding effort to remove genuine workplace barriers for disabled people.

Even after the formal AGM ended, the discussion on neurodiversity continued informally. Non-union members joined the conversation. This dynamic is a testament to how immediate and real this issue feels to many in the wider community.

Leadership Messages: Strength in Unity and Personal Support

The General Secretary and the President addressed the reality of worker isolation. They emphasized the need for proactive, personal support to tackle workplace bullying or unexpected challenges. A key theme was that you cannot rely on so-called “neutral” institutions or ombudsmen. You need a union to fight for your interests.

The President’s rousing speech highlighted the importance of unity and personal connection. He asserted that what sets Solidarity apart is its commitment to providing a personal service. This service is grounded in real communication—not just distant voices or generic advice.

Conclusion

Solidarity Union may be small in size. The AGM reflected a passionate, informed, and united membership. They are committed to fighting for justice, inclusion, and fair treatment in the workplace. The motions passed. The debates held confirm that the union continues to be a voice for those often left unheard. Solidarity’s message is clear: when we stand together, we are never alone.

Solidarity forever!

By Maria Camara

Firefighters Face Growing Mental Health Challenges: Action Needed Now

503 words, 3 minutes read time.

The fire and rescue sector is facing an escalating mental health crisis, and without immediate government intervention, the wellbeing of these critical workers—and the safety of the public they serve—will remain at grave risk, the Fire Brigades Union (FBU) warned today.

New data paints a troubling picture. Over the past three years, 458 staff members in Greater Manchester Fire Service have taken time off due to mental health struggles. Conditions such as work-related stress, depression, anxiety, and PTSD are driving these absences, according to figures obtained by Accident Claims Advice (ACA).

The situation is worsening. In 2021-22, 10 percent of staff who took mental health-related leave left the service entirely. By the following year, this figure more than doubled, with 22 percent departing. These numbers reflect not only the severe toll on individual firefighters but also the broader systemic issue of inadequate mental health support within the sector.

FBU General Secretary Matt Wrack did not mince words, stating, “The fire service is facing a mental health crisis.” He highlighted that mental health provision across the service remains inconsistent, leaving many workers to struggle alone. “After a decade of cuts to the fire and rescue service, firefighters are being pushed beyond limits to keep the public safe,” Wrack continued. “Responding to life-or-death situations without adequate resources is intensely stressful.”

This crisis cannot be separated from the broader austerity measures that have decimated the fire and rescue sector over the past decade. Years of funding cuts have stripped services to the bone, leaving crews overworked, under-resourced, and burdened with the emotional weight of their life-saving roles. Firefighters often find themselves responding to harrowing situations with little or no time for recovery or support.

Yet despite the clear evidence that workers are struggling, mental health support remains patchy and underfunded. The lack of consistent, accessible resources for fire and rescue staff compounds the issue, creating a cycle of burnout and attrition that undermines the very foundation of public safety.

This is not just a workplace issue—it is a public safety concern. Firefighters and rescue workers are society’s first line of defense in emergencies. Their ability to perform their roles effectively hinges on their mental and physical wellbeing. When they suffer, the public suffers.

The government must act decisively. Investment in mental health support for firefighters and rescue workers should not be seen as optional but as a fundamental component of a functioning emergency response system. Rebuilding the fire and rescue service requires both the funding to restore staffing levels and the creation of robust, nationwide mental health provisions. Anything less is a disservice to the brave individuals who risk their lives daily—and to the communities they serve.

This crisis did not arise overnight, nor will it be resolved without sustained commitment and action. The time for excuses and piecemeal solutions is over. The government must prioritize the mental health and wellbeing of fire and rescue workers, recognizing that a strong, resilient workforce is the backbone of public safety.

Report from Pat Harrington

Labour’s Initiative for Work-Life Balance: The Right to Disconnect Explained

649 words, 3 minutes read time.

The Labour government has reaffirmed its dedication to ensuring workers’ well-being. It is committing to introduce the “right to disconnect,” a key initiative aimed at promoting a healthy work-life balance. This right is designed to tackle the growing concerns over the blurred lines between personal and professional life. These concerns have particularly arisen after the surge in home working during the pandemic. The government is determined to prevent homes from becoming round-the-clock offices. It emphasizes the importance of protecting workers from the pressures of constant availability.

Labour first proposed the right to disconnect in their 2021 Green Paper A New Deal for Working People. This right would allow workers to refuse to engage in work-related communication outside of their standard working hours. This would extend to evenings, weekends, and even during periods of annual leave. This ensures that employees have protected time to rest, recharge, and enjoy their personal lives. They no longer have the looming expectation of responding to work emails or calls.

Labour’s recent document Plan to Make Work Pay: Delivering a New Deal for Working People was published in May 2023. It outlines a broad framework for how this right might be implemented. Nonetheless, there are still questions about how this will translate into law. The upcoming Draft Employment Rights Bill, expected to be presented to Parliament by October 2024, could offer more concrete details.

Labour’s proposal takes inspiration from successful models in countries like Ireland and Belgium. The right to disconnect has already been enacted in various forms in these countries. In Ireland, for example, the Code of Practice on the right to disconnect was introduced in 2021. It protects workers from being penalized for refusing to work outside normal hours. It also encourages employers to develop a formal policy respecting this right. While this Code isn’t legally binding, breaches can be used as evidence in employment claims. This offers some degree of accountability for non-compliant employers.

Belgium, on the other hand, has gone further by introducing legally binding right-to-disconnect legislation. In 2022, this law was first applied to civil servants. It was later expanded to cover private sector employees in companies with 20 or more workers. The law prohibits employers from contacting workers outside of normal working hours, barring exceptional circumstances. It holds employers accountable for violations. It may potentially impose sanctions for breaches of collective bargaining agreements (CBAs).

Labour’s plan is unlikely to completely revolutionize the UK’s work culture overnight. However, it is a critical step toward empowering workers. The right to disconnect would create space for employees to reclaim their time. It would allow them to focus on personal well-being. It would also combat the increasing culture of burnout. It also challenges the current norms of overwork and underappreciation, ensuring workers aren’t merely resources to be tapped 24/7.

Workers’ advocates emphasize the importance of this right. They see it as a crucial tool for balancing the power dynamic between employees and employers. It pushes back against exploitative practices that expect workers to be constantly available. It emphasizes that work should not dominate their lives. Implementing this right will help safeguard mental and physical health, productivity, and job satisfaction.

Nonetheless, to truly help workers, Labour must make sure that the right to disconnect is enshrined in law. There must be clear enforcement mechanisms. Without meaningful penalties for non-compliance, employers may treat this right as optional, potentially undermining its impact. To be effective, any policy must ensure that workers can exercise this right without fear of retaliation. Unions should be involved in negotiating and implementing workplace policies. These policies must match the needs of workers across different sectors.

Ultimately, while employers may feel inclined to hold off on developing right-to-disconnect policies. They may wait until the specifics of the Draft Employment Rights Bill are clarified. Proactive steps toward protecting workers’ downtime could set a precedent for healthier, more sustainable working conditions across the country.

By Maria Camara