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conditioning to buses by May 2027 and accepted a new rule that buses with defective heating or cooling systems would be withdrawn from service after 35 minutes rather than leaving drivers exposed for extended periods.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

Early release scheme piles further pressure on probation service

Probation is being asked to carry a great deal of weight.

From 1 October 2026, the Government’s new progression model begins to change when eligible prisoners serving standard determinate sentences can be released. The Ministry of Justice estimates that around 4,500 prisoners will be released earlier on the first day of ten phased tranches running from October 2026 to June 2027. The first-day figures are estimates rather than a lifetime total: once each tranche has begun, eligible releases continue as part of the permanent system.

That distinction matters. This is not simply a one-off exercise in which 4,500 people walk out of prison and the problem disappears. It is a structural change to sentencing and release arrangements, introduced partly in response to serious pressure on prison capacity. And much of what happens next lands on probation.

There is the rub.

The service expected to supervise those leaving custody is already struggling with workload and staffing pressures. The Government acknowledges the strain. Napo, the probation union, goes considerably further and argues that the service is approaching the point where excessive workloads threaten both the quality of supervision and public protection.

The figures explain why the argument has become so heated.

Channel 4 News FactCheck obtained workload data showing that in December 2025 the Probation Service as a whole was operating at 110% of workload capacity. That national average concealed much sharper local pressures. Mid Kent was recorded at 171%, while Oxfordshire stood at 161%. Earlier data showed several other units exceeding 150%.

Put more simply, 110% capacity means there is more assessed work than there are contracted staff hours available to perform it. At 160% or 170%, the arithmetic becomes considerably uglier.

There is also a shortage of qualified probation officers.

Official HMPPS workforce figures for June 2026 show 5,445 full-time-equivalent probation officers in post against a target staffing level of 7,380. That is a shortfall of 1,935 FTE officers. The wider Probation Service workforce has grown, including a substantial increase in probation services officers, but the number of band-4 probation officers fell by 109 FTE between March and June 2026 and was 54 lower than a year earlier.

Those are not union estimates. They are the Government’s own workforce statistics.

Appointments already being lost

The consequences of workload pressure can also be measured in something more tangible than percentages.

In March, the Government told Parliament that 31% of target probation appointments between 2023 and 2025 had not taken place because of unmanageable workloads. There has been some improvement: the proportion fell from 35% in 2023 to 31% in 2024 and 27% in 2025. Ministers nevertheless acknowledged that the system remained under significant strain.

That should give pause.

Probation is not chiefly a paperwork operation. Its purpose includes assessing risk, monitoring compliance with licence conditions, supporting rehabilitation and deciding when deteriorating behaviour requires intervention or recall.

None of those tasks becomes easier when an officer is attempting to squeeze twelve hours of assessed work into ten, never mind the equivalent of sixteen or seventeen.

Napo told Channel 4 that members were already “firefighting every day” and warned that excessive pressure could mean details being missed. The union linked that directly to its concerns about public protection as the new sentencing arrangements increase the number of people being managed in the community.

That is the union’s assessment, rather than proof that particular offences will occur because of the changes. But it is difficult to dismiss the underlying workload figures.

A ballot that should not be misdescribed

The strength of feeling among Napo members is unusually clear.

In August, 90.76% of members who participated in an indicative ballot backed potential industrial action over workloads. Thousands took part, according to the union. Napo described chronic staff shortages, excessive workloads, burnout and reliance on overtime as factors behind the result.

There is an important qualification. This was not a statutory strike ballot, and 90.76% refers to those who voted, not 90.76% of the entire union membership.

Indeed, as recently as 9 September the Ministry of Justice told Parliament that although a formal trade dispute over probation workloads existed, no statutory industrial-action ballot had been called.

Even with that caveat, more than nine in ten participants supporting the possibility of industrial action is not a result easily brushed aside.

Napo national chair Ben Cockburn summed up the union’s case in blunt terms:

“If you overload probation, you increase risk.”

Napo general secretary Ian Lawrence made a similar point when the release changes were announced, arguing that public attention had concentrated overwhelmingly on prisons while probation was being overlooked.

“Without probation none of this can happen.”

That is more than a trade-union slogan. Release from prison transfers responsibility rather than abolishing it.

Someone leaving custody under licence has not simply vanished from the criminal justice system. Risk has to be assessed. Conditions have to be monitored. Breaches have to be investigated. Victims may have to be contacted. Housing and other practical arrangements can influence whether resettlement succeeds. Where necessary, recall decisions have to be made.

Every additional case therefore carries work with it.

The Government says resources are coming

Ministers do not accept that probation is simply being abandoned to cope with the consequences.

The Government says funding for probation and community services will increase by up to £700 million by the final year of the Spending Review period, compared with 2025-26. That investment is intended to support increased staffing, accommodation provision, technology and a substantial expansion of electronic monitoring.

It has also committed to onboarding at least 1,300 trainee probation officers during 2026-27. The Ministry of Justice says 1,057 trainees were onboarded in 2024-25 and 1,389 in 2025-26.

There are other measures. Electronic-monitoring information is being made more readily available to probation practitioners, and the Government says technology and process changes should reduce administrative work. Ministers have set an ambition through the Our Future Probation Service programme to reduce workload by 25% by April 2027.

Those are substantial commitments.

But they do not alter the immediate staffing position. A trainee is not an experienced probation officer on the day they arrive. Recruitment requires training, supervision and retention, and the official figures show that the number of fully qualified band-4 officers was still moving in the wrong direction in the latest quarter.

Napo’s argument is therefore that recruitment by itself cannot solve the problem if experienced staff continue to leave or if workloads remain excessive. It wants the new money to translate into additional frontline capacity, improved retention and manageable caseloads rather than being absorbed predominantly by technology and monitoring programmes.

There is a genuine dispute here, but at least it can be stated accurately.

The Government says it is rebuilding probation while simultaneously changing sentencing. The union says the rebuilding is not happening quickly enough to carry the additional burden safely.

October will begin to test those competing claims.

Early release is more complicated than opening a prison gate

The new progression model itself is also more nuanced than the phrase “early release scheme” sometimes suggests.

Eligible prisoners on standard determinate sentences can reach an earlier release point, but the arrangements contain exclusions. Following a government review, rape, specified child sexual offences, offences connected with organised child sexual exploitation, unlawful killing and indecent assault were among those excluded. Indeterminate sentences and Extended Determinate Sentences for serious violent and sexual offenders are also outside the scheme.

The Government also stresses that prisoners who behave badly can spend longer in custody rather than automatically receiving release at the earliest point.

That provides essential context.

But exclusions do not remove the operational challenge for probation. Thousands of cases are still affected, and the Government’s own modelling anticipates 700 additional first-day releases in the first tranche, followed by 650 in the second and further tranches continuing into June. The model then becomes permanent.

For prisons, bringing forward eligible releases creates space.

For probation, those people become work.

Technology is useful. It is not an officer

Electronic monitoring will form a much larger part of the new system.

The Government has committed £100 million over the Spending Review period to expanding electronic monitoring and is introducing tools intended to give probation officers faster access to location and behavioural information. Ministers argue that better data can help staff identify licence breaches and emerging risks earlier.

There is a perfectly respectable case for using that technology.

But a tag cannot conduct a difficult conversation. It cannot judge from someone’s demeanour that something has changed. It cannot arrange accommodation, challenge behaviour, build the professional relationship on which effective supervision sometimes depends or bring together different agencies around a difficult case.

Technology may help probation officers do their jobs. It does not eliminate the need for probation officers.

The Government’s own admission that nearly a third of target appointments across 2023-25 were lost because workloads were unmanageable makes that distinction particularly important.

One crisis cannot simply be transferred to another service

Nobody seriously disputes the prison-capacity problem that prompted the sentencing reforms.

The Ministry of Justice describes the progression model as part of its response to a prison system in which demand was threatening to exceed available places. Ministers argue that maintaining sufficient capacity is itself a public-safety requirement.

That case deserves to be taken seriously.

But it leads to an equally serious question. If more of a sentence is going to be managed in the community, is the community supervision system ready to carry it?

At present, the evidence is mixed at best.

There is additional funding. There is recruitment. Overall Probation Service employment has risen. New technology is being introduced and workloads have improved from the particularly severe levels recorded in 2023. Those are real developments and should not be ignored.

Set against them are a national workload figure still above capacity, extreme pressure in some individual units, almost 2,000 fewer qualified probation officers than the target staffing requirement and an indicative union ballot in which 90.76% of participants backed potential industrial action.

That is the situation into which the October reforms arrive.

Probation staff will ultimately be judged on whether people released into the community are supervised properly, whether risks are recognised and whether intervention comes before something goes badly wrong.

They cannot control how many prison places exist. They do not write sentencing legislation. They cannot manufacture housing or treatment services.

But when someone leaves prison, much of the practical responsibility arrives at their door.

That makes probation much more than an administrative afterthought to sentencing reform. It is one of the mechanisms upon which the reform depends.

The debate over the progression model will inevitably continue: over prison capacity, sentence lengths, public protection and the balance between custody and community supervision. There are legitimate arguments on each side.

One conclusion requires rather less ideology.

If government policy places more responsibility on probation, the capacity of probation to carry that responsibility has to be measured against the work actually arriving through the door.

On the latest figures, that is precisely where the uncomfortable questions remain.

By Maria Camarra

St George’s Day: Work, Identity, and the Quiet Politics of a Missed Holiday

St George’s Day arrives each year with a strange kind of weightlessness. England’s flags appear in pub windows, schoolchildren draw dragons, and local councils put on modest parades — yet the country works straight through its own national day. It is a celebration observed in spirit but not in structure, and that tension has become increasingly relevant to British trade unionists.

In recent years, unions have begun to use 23 April as a moment of strategic emphasis. When the RMT timed industrial action for St George’s Day, it wasn’t a coincidence. It was a deliberate act of political framing: if this is England’s national day, why is it treated as indistinguishable from any other Tuesday? The strike sharpened a question that has been lingering for years — what does it mean to celebrate a nation symbolically while refusing to honour it with a shared day of rest?

This is where the debate over a St George’s Day bank holiday becomes more than a cultural curiosity. It becomes a conversation about labour, identity, and the value placed on collective time.

The Argument For a St George’s Day Bank Holiday

Supporters of a new bank holiday tend to circle around three themes: cultural parity, worker wellbeing, and the reclamation of English identity.

First, parity. England is the only nation in the UK without a public holiday for its patron saint. Scotland rests on St Andrew’s Day; Wales marks St David’s Day; Northern Ireland embraces St Patrick’s Day with full civic confidence. England’s absence stands out. For many, this is not about nationalism but about balance — the idea that England should be able to celebrate itself without embarrassment or hesitation.

Second, the value of rest. Trade unionists see the potential for a meaningful pause in a country that has fewer public holidays than many comparable nations. A St George’s Day holiday would offer workers a collective moment to breathe, reflect, and reconnect. In an era of rising workloads, burnout, and the erosion of work‑life boundaries, the symbolism of a shared day off matters. It says something about what a nation values.

Third, reclaiming the flag. English identity has often been left to the margins, claimed by fringe groups or politicised in ways that make ordinary people wary of embracing it. A national holiday could help re‑anchor the flag in inclusive civic pride rather than exclusionary rhetoric. It would give England a day that belongs to everyone — not just those who shout the loudest.

The Argument Against a St George’s Day Bank Holiday

Opponents of the idea tend to focus on economic caution, political hesitancy, and the risk of symbolic distraction.

The economic argument is straightforward: an additional bank holiday disrupts productivity, places pressure on public services, and creates costs for businesses already under strain. Governments of different stripes have used this reasoning to avoid committing to the idea.

The political argument is subtler. English identity is a sensitive terrain. Governments often prefer to gesture towards it rather than legislate around it. A bank holiday risks becoming a lightning rod — too nationalistic for some, not nationalistic enough for others. The result is a cautious refusal to engage.

The symbolic argument comes from within the labour movement itself. Some union voices argue that a holiday, while welcome, does not address the structural issues workers face: pay erosion, unsafe conditions, insecure contracts, and the steady intensification of work. A day off, they warn, must not become a substitute for meaningful reform.

Why Trade Unionists Care

For trade unionists, St George’s Day is not simply about flags or folklore. It is about the politics of time. A nation that cannot pause for its own celebration is a nation that has not yet reconciled its identity with its labour reality.

When unions strike on 23 April, they are making a pointed observation: England asks workers to celebrate their country while working through the celebration. The contradiction is not trivial. It speaks to a deeper imbalance in how England understands itself — proud in rhetoric, hesitant in practice, and reluctant to grant workers the dignity of a shared national moment.

St George’s Day, in this sense, becomes a mirror. It reflects a country still negotiating what it means to belong, to rest, and to recognise itself.

The Larger Question

The debate over a St George’s Day bank holiday is not really about dragons, saints, or medieval legends. It is about whether England is ready to align its cultural symbolism with its lived experience. It is about whether national pride can be expressed through collective rest rather than commercial spectacle. And it is about whether workers — the people who keep the country functioning — deserve a day that acknowledges both their labour and their place in the national story.

Until that question is resolved, St George’s Day will continue to hover in the English calendar as a half‑celebration, a day that gestures towards identity without fully embracing it. And trade unionists will continue to use it as a reminder that a nation’s values are measured not only in symbols, but in the time it grants its people to breathe.

By Pat Harrington

Birmingham Bin Workers Hold Line in Historic Strike

Eight months into their indefinite strike, Birmingham’s refuse workers remain steadfast against council wage cuts. With overwhelming community support and union solidarity, the dispute has become a defining battle over fairness, dignity, and the right to resist “fire and rehire.”

Birmingham’s refuse workers are continuing their indefinite strike after eight gruelling months, standing firm against the city council’s attempt to slash wages by up to £8,000 through a controversial “fire and rehire” strategy. The workers, represented by Unite, have refused to back down in the face of council intransigence, which has so far blocked meaningful negotiations.The strike has become a symbol of resistance across the city. Unite reports that nearly 6,000 households are proudly displaying posters and stickers in support of the workers, while more than 150 local businesses and faith groups have pledged solidarity. This groundswell of backing demonstrates that the community recognises the justice of the workers’ cause and the unfairness of the council’s approach.

Allegations of blacklisting and intimidation have further tarnished the council’s conduct. Agency staff have reportedly been threatened to deter them from supporting the strike, raising serious questions about the legality and morality of the council’s tactics. At the same time, millions of pounds are being wasted on fighting a dispute that could be resolved through negotiation—money that could instead be invested in public services.

Meanwhile, residents are left to suffer the consequences, with recycling rates plummeting and waste piling up.Pat Harrington, General Secretary of Solidarity union, voiced his support for the strikers: “These workers are showing immense courage in the face of injustice. Fire and rehire is an attack on dignity and livelihoods. Birmingham’s bin workers are standing up not just for themselves, but for every worker threatened by this exploitative practice. They deserve our full solidarity.”The Birmingham bin strike is now one of the longest-running disputes in recent memory, and its outcome will resonate far beyond the city. For union members across Britain, it is a reminder that collective action remains the most powerful tool against employer overreach.

Action points
Sign the petition at the campaign website https://www.unitetheunion.org/campaigns/back-birminghams-refuse-workers-sign-our-petition-today

Consider making a small donation to the strike fund. Unite Solidarity Fund
60-83-01 | 20502672
Ref: BCC strike donation

What the Employment Rights Bill Means for Workers Today

Labour have delivered on some key promises to workers and the unions

The recent approval of the Employment Rights Bill marks a significant step forward in strengthening workers’ protections across the UK. The bill introduces key measures to enhance job security, workplace fairness, and employee well-being. However, while it offers notable improvements, certain provisions have been diluted or omitted, raising concerns from the Solidarity trade union, which welcomes progress but remains critical of areas where protections have been watered down or delayed.

Key Provisions of the Employment Rights Bill

Guaranteed Hours for Zero-Hours Workers
The bill ensures that agency workers must be offered contracts reflecting their average hours over a 12-week reference period. This closes loopholes that previously allowed employers to exploit zero-hours contracts by switching workers to agency status.
Day-One Protection from Unfair Dismissal
Employees will now have the right to protection from unfair dismissal from their first day of employment, ending the two-year waiting period that has left many workers vulnerable. This is a crucial win for workers who were previously afraid to challenge poor conditions for fear of immediate dismissal.
Immediate Sick Pay Eligibility
All workers will be entitled to statutory sick pay (SSP) from the first day of absence, addressing a long-standing issue where low-paid workers were left without financial support when unwell.
Enhanced Trade Union Access
Trade unions will now have the right to access workplaces—both physically and digitally—to support and organise workers. Stronger protections are also in place to prevent employers from using unfair tactics to block union recognition efforts.
Establishment of a Fair Work Agency
A new state Fair Work Agency will bring together existing enforcement bodies to improve oversight and crack down on labour law violations, aiming for fairer conditions across industries.

Critical Perspectives and Areas of Concern

While the bill introduces several progressive measures, Solidarity trade union highlights areas where loopholes, delays, and missing protections remain:

Sick Pay Levels Are Still Too Low
The government has set minimum sick pay at 80% of normal wages or SSP, whichever is lower. While this is better than the previously suggested 60%, it still means many workers will receive less than their usual income while off sick. A full review of sick pay rates is urgently needed.
Loopholes in Guaranteed Hours Contracts
The bill allows for collective agreements to modify guaranteed hours arrangements, which could lead to exploitation by employers. Without clear protections, there is a risk that workers will still face insecure scheduling and last-minute shift cancellations.
Employment Status Reforms Are Missing
The bill fails to clarify employment status definitions, leaving many gig economy and self-employed workers vulnerable to misclassification and denial of key protections. A clear, universal definition of ‘worker’ is needed to prevent abuse.
Restrictive Trade Union Laws Remain
Some positive changes have been made to industrial action laws, such as:
- Strike notice periods reduced from 14 to 10 days
- Strike mandates now lasting 12 months instead of six
However, the bill still enforces a three-year waiting period before a union can reapply for recognition—a gift to union-busting employers. Reducing this delay would strengthen workers’ ability to organise.
Delayed Implementation of Electronic Balloting
The bill promises electronic balloting for industrial action but delays its implementation. This means unions must still rely on costly and bureaucratic postal ballots for the time being.

Conclusion

The Employment Rights Bill represents a long-overdue shift towards better protections for UK workers. Solidarity trade union welcomes these changes but calls for further action to strengthen sick pay, close loopholes in employment protections, and remove barriers to union organising.

Progress is being made—but workers cannot afford to stop fighting for the rights they deserve.

By Maria Camara