trade unions – Solidarity Trade Union

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

Advertisements

A speaker gesturing passionately at a podium, promoting electoral reform, with a large banner in the background that reads 'Vote Reform'.

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

Overview

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

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

What Reform UK says it intends to remove

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

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

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

Rights and protections at risk

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

1. Ban on fire‑and‑rehire practices

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

2. Protections against exploitative zero‑hour contracts

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

3. Stronger unfair‑dismissal protections

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

4. Parental leave and sick‑pay rights

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

5. Local government pension security

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

6. Housing protections for renters

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

Why this matters for members

If enacted, these proposals could affect:

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

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

Solidarity’s position

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

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

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

By Maria Camara

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

Advertisements

By Maria Camara

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

The Workplace Has Entered a New Era

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

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

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

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

Today, the workplace is a negotiation.

A “workplace” can be:

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

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

COVID Didn’t Break the System — It Revealed It

The pandemic exposed truths that had been ignored for years:

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

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

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

Younger Workers Aren’t Lazy — They’re Realists

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

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

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

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

Enter AI: The Second Earthquake

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

AI is:

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

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

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

AI Exposes the Flaws in the Old Work Philosophy

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

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

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

Workers Are Reclaiming Their Time

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

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

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

Companies Are Losing Their Old Power

Before COVID and AI, companies relied on:

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

Now:

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

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

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

A New Social Contract Is Emerging

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

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

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

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

What This Means for Unions

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

Workers need:

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

The new social contract must be negotiated — not assumed.

The Bottom Line

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

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

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

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

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

Advertisements

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

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

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

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

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

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

Farage’s Persona vs. Farage’s Politics

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

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

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

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

Understanding the Appeal, Changing the Conversation

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

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

We need to:

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

What Solidarity Stands For

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

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

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

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

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

In solidarity,

Pat Harrington
General Secretary, Solidarity

UK Supreme Court’s 2025 Ruling: ‘Woman’ Defined by Biological Sex – Context, Implications, and Reactions

Advertisements

In April 2025, the UK Supreme Court delivered a historic judgment confirming that under the Equality Act 2010, the term “woman” refers to a biological female – in other words, one’s sex assigned at birth.[1] This unanimous ruling by five justices resolved a long-running legal dispute and clarified the law’s intent regarding sex-based rights.

Legal Background

The Equality Act 2010 is the UK’s comprehensive anti-discrimination law, establishing sex as a protected characteristic alongside others like race, religion, sexual orientation, and gender reassignment. Notably, the Act’s glossary defines “woman” as “a female of any age” and “man” as “a male of any age.”[2] The Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA), passed in response to a 2002 European Court of Human Rights ruling, allows transgender people to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) legally recognizing their acquired gender. A GRC holder is to be treated as their affirmed gender “for all purposes” of law (with a few exceptions).[3] For nearly two decades, the working understanding in the UK was that a trans woman with a GRC would generally be regarded as legally female (a “woman”) in most contexts.

The Supreme Court’s decision in 2025 upended this assumption by drawing a distinction between gender identity and the protected category of sex in the Equality Act. As Deputy Court President Lord Patrick Hodge put it, the EA “deals with biological sex at birth, and not with a person’s acquired gender, regardless of whether they held a gender recognition certificate.”[4]

The For Women Scotland Case

The case was brought by feminist advocacy group For Women Scotland (FWS). In 2018, the Scottish Parliament passed the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act, aiming for 50/50 representation of men and women on public sector boards. The Scottish government’s accompanying guidance stated that for these purposes, a “woman” included trans women with a GRC, treating them as legally female.[5] FWS – supported financially by author J.K. Rowling – challenged this guidance, arguing that the Scottish government had overstepped its devolved powers by effectively redefining “woman” beyond the meaning intended in the UK-wide Equality Act.

After losing in the Scottish courts in 2022, FWS was granted permission to appeal to the Supreme Court, which heard the case in November 2024.

Supreme Court’s Decision and Reasoning

On April 16, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in FWS’s favor.[6] The central question was whether a transgender woman with a GRC counts as a woman under the Equality Act 2010. The court’s answer was a clear “no.”

In an 88-page judgment, the justices held that the ordinary, “plain and unambiguous” meaning of woman in the Equality Act “corresponds with… biological characteristics,” i.e. someone born female.[7] They emphasized that sex in the statute means biological sex, and this had always been Parliament’s intent. Any broader interpretation (e.g. including those who changed legal gender) would, in their view, render parts of the Act “incoherent and unworkable.”

Lord Hodge noted that interpreting sex as “certificated gender” would produce “heterogeneous groupings” and clash with specific provisions on pregnancy, maternity, and sex-specific protections that logically refer only to biological sex.

Workplace and Employment Implications

The Supreme Court’s ruling carries significant implications for workplaces, employers, and trade unions, especially regarding policies on sex and gender. By legally cementing that “women” means only biological females in the Equality Act, the judgment potentially affects everything from hiring practices and diversity policies to provision of single-sex facilities at work.[8]

Single-Sex Spaces and Facilities

Employers that provide sex-specific spaces – such as women’s toilets, changing rooms, or shower facilities – may feel more confident in restricting these to biologically female employees. Previously, many organizations adopted gender identity-inclusive approaches as a matter of good practice or legal caution. While the law already permitted exclusion of trans people from single-sex spaces if it was a “proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”, the Supreme Court has “cleared up [that] legal ambiguity,” confirming that such spaces can be lawfully reserved for natal women.[9]

Practically, this may make it easier for employers to exclude trans women from, say, a women’s locker room or female dormitory at a work site, on the basis that they are not legally women. Employers should still tread carefully: any exclusion must be justifiable to avoid unlawful gender reassignment discrimination.[10]

Recruitment and Job Roles

Employers sometimes use genuine occupational requirements to hire only women for certain roles – for example, a counselor for female rape survivors. Under the clarified definition, only biological females count as women for such roles. A trans woman applicant, even with a GRC, could now be lawfully treated as ineligible for a “women-only” position, based solely on her sex at birth.[11]

Equal Opportunities and Diversity Policies

Many employers have adopted expansive equality policies that go beyond the letter of the law. While these commitments aren’t directly affected by the court ruling, the legal baseline has shifted. Employers must be mindful that affirmative action or quotas for women (e.g., in governance or board appointments) cannot automatically include trans women unless this is explicitly stated as a policy choice.[12]

Workplace Dress Codes and HR Practices

The ruling may also affect workplace inclusion. HR professionals have observed that ensuring a welcoming environment for trans employees might become more challenging. One employment law partner noted that “because of the ruling, ensuring workplaces are welcoming places for trans people will be an ‘uphill battle’.”[13] Trans employees could feel alienated if workplace policies start distinguishing “legal women” versus “trans women.”

Trade Unions and Worker Representation

Trade unions – with responsibilities to advocate for equality and represent all members – must navigate this ruling sensitively. A union like Solidarity, for instance, may find the decision validates long-held concerns of some members about preserving sex-based protections. However, they must still robustly support trans members, who are protected under the Equality Act’s gender reassignment provision. No union can lawfully deny representation based on a member’s transgender status.[14]

Unions may also play a crucial role in ensuring that employers implement the ruling fairly – avoiding blanket bans or policies that create hostile environments for trans workers. Updated guidance for shop stewards and equality reps may be necessary to handle sensitive disputes with clarity and fairness.

Consequences for the Trans and Cisgender Communities

The Supreme Court’s decision has profound implications for both transgender people and cisgender women, particularly in their access to services, spaces, and opportunities previously understood to be protected under the broader interpretation of the term “woman.”

Reactions from Trans Communities and Advocacy Groups

LGBTQ+ organizations including Stonewall and TransActual UK have expressed concern that this ruling may reinforce discriminatory behaviour and deepen social exclusion. They argue that although protections under the gender reassignment characteristic remain in place, the ruling effectively creates a legal distinction that reduces the scope of rights and recognitions trans people may have previously assumed.[15]

Jane Fae, director of TransActual, warned the ruling could have a symbolic impact that makes trans people feel “as if they have been told they do not exist.” While not creating new offences, the judgment may be misinterpreted by service providers or individuals, potentially increasing the risk of exclusion and misapplication of the law.[16]

Access to Single-Sex Spaces and Public Services

Trans women may now face greater exclusion from rape crisis centres, domestic violence refuges, hospital wards, and changing rooms, even when they hold a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC). The ruling confirms that these services can legally define access by biological sex, provided the exclusion is proportionate and justified.[17]

NHS guidance from 2019, which stated that trans patients should be accommodated according to their gender presentation, is expected to be revised to align with the ruling. Baroness Falkner of the EHRC has indicated that the NHS and similar service providers will need to “start to implement the new legal reasoning and produce their exceptions forthwith.”[18]

Public Boards and Civic Participation

Trans women will no longer qualify as women for the purposes of measures aimed at achieving gender balance on public sector boards, such as those legislated for by the Scottish Government. This has immediate implications for civic representation and may set a precedent for similar assessments across the UK.

Responses from Cisgender Women

Some gender-critical feminists and advocacy groups such as For Women Scotland and the LGB Alliance celebrated the ruling, calling it a “victory for women’s rights” and a confirmation that women-only spaces and services should be protected as such.[19] They argue this offers legal support to cisgender women who have raised concerns about privacy, safety, and dignity in shared spaces.

However, many cisgender women and feminists who support transgender inclusion have responded with dismay, noting that trans women have used these spaces safely for years. Critics worry the ruling may embolden harassment and vigilance by the public in gender-policing spaces like toilets and changing areas.

Legal Ambiguity for Trans Men and Non-Binary People

Interestingly, the ruling also means that trans men – individuals assigned female at birth – are still considered women under the Equality Act, unless future legislation states otherwise. This has potential implications for inclusion in women-only spaces and in measures designed to promote female representation or opportunity. For non-binary individuals, who do not identify strictly as male or female, the ruling provides no clear guidance, leaving them in a legal grey area.

Social and Psychological Impacts

Though the court emphasized that trans individuals are still protected under the Equality Act, the symbolic message of the ruling is profound. Many in the trans community feel relegated or erased, while some cisgender women feel that their rights are being newly upheld. The challenge for service providers, employers, and advocacy groups is to ensure that in asserting sex-based rights, society does not inadvertently foster exclusion, hostility, or harm.

Comparative International Legal Context

The UK Supreme Court’s ruling has placed the country at one end of a spectrum of international approaches to legal definitions of sex and gender. While some democracies are codifying sex as based on biology, others are expanding legal frameworks to affirm gender identity regardless of sex assigned at birth.

United States

In the United States, the legal approach is more fragmented. The landmark Supreme Court case Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) ruled that firing someone for being transgender constitutes discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits sex-based discrimination.[20] However, definitions vary by state. Several U.S. states have passed legislation explicitly defining sex as immutable and based on birth anatomy, similar to the UK’s new interpretation. Conversely, the federal government under the Biden administration has broadly interpreted sex-based protections to include gender identity.

Canada

Canada has enshrined gender identity and expression as protected categories under the Canadian Human Rights Act and provincial human rights codes. Since 2017, federal law explicitly prohibits discrimination based on gender identity, and most provinces allow for gender marker changes on identification documents without surgical requirements.[21] Legal sex is defined by self-identification in most contexts, and transgender individuals are fully recognized in the gender they live in.

European Union

Across the EU, many countries have moved toward gender self-identification. For instance, Ireland, Denmark, and Spain allow individuals to change legal gender based on self-declaration without medical certification. Spain’s 2023 “Ley Trans” legislation allows individuals over 16 to change their legal sex based on self-identification, aligning with progressive EU standards.[22]

However, not all European countries are aligned. Poland and Hungary have taken restrictive stances, with Hungary banning legal gender changes altogether in 2020. In general, though, EU human rights case law, including decisions by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), has supported trans rights, particularly through privacy and non-discrimination provisions.

Australia and New Zealand

In Australia, federal and state laws vary, but generally include gender identity as a protected attribute. Court rulings have recognized trans individuals in their affirmed gender, and several states allow self-identification for legal gender change. New Zealand introduced self-ID for gender on birth certificates in 2023, marking a significant shift toward gender autonomy.[23]

Sports and Global Bodies

Internationally, governing bodies like World Athletics and World Rugby have introduced policies restricting trans women’s participation in female competitions, citing fairness and safety. The UK ruling may reinforce similar domestic policies, although interpretations continue to evolve.

Summary

Compared to its peers, the UK now occupies a more restrictive position on the legal definition of sex. While many liberal democracies are moving toward gender-inclusive frameworks, the UK has clarified a biological interpretation of sex for equality law purposes. This divergence may have implications for future international human rights reviews or legal conflicts involving cross-border rights recognition.

What the Employment Rights Bill Means for Workers Today

Advertisements

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

Union News (18 June 2023)

Advertisements

Welcome to Union News, the weekly podcast from the labour and trade union movement in the UK. In this edition: Unmasking the Cover-Up: Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign Fights for Accountability, The People Stand with Nurses: Public Support Surges as Strike Action Continues, Rising Cost of Living Hits Hard: Public Service Workers Struggle to Make Ends Meet, Rising Cost of Living Hits Hard: Public Service Workers Struggle to Make Ends Meet, Train Drivers Take a Stand: Strikes Loom as Working Agreements Come Under Fire, Strike for Change: Junior Doctors Demand Decisive Action on Pay, and finally, Pay Battle Escalates: Teachers in England Set for July Strikes. Writing is by the Solidarity team and music is by Tim Bragg.

Unmasking the Cover-Up: Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign Fights for Accountability

The Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign (OTJC) renewed its calls for an inquiry into a severe state attack on organized workers by the Conservative government at a march this week. The campaign seeks to hold those responsible accountable for their actions. The campaigners argue that an inquiry would expose the government’s lies and cover-ups regarding their role in managing the pit closure program, orchestrating militaristic police operations during the miners’ strike in the 1980s, and manipulating the courts and media to create a false narrative that demonized and criminalized workers fighting for their jobs and communities.

The incident in question took place on June 18, 1984, when police confronted striking miners at the Orgreave Coking Plant in South Yorkshire. The police had previously impeded pickets and engaged in acts of violence. On that day, they corralled the miners into a field and initiated a violent charge with mounted and riot police, leading to what has been referred to as the “Battle of Orgreave.” However, eyewitnesses and campaigners contend that it was an assault rather than a battle, with the police being the only armed side.

The OTJC argues that an inquiry is essential due to several factors, including pardons granted by the Scottish government to Scottish miners arrested during the strike, ongoing resentment in former mining communities, the withholding of strike-related documents until 2066, and growing public support for the campaign. They believe that a comprehensive and authoritative review is in the public interest to uncover the truth about what transpired and why the workers were treated so harshly.

Despite the evidence compiled and submitted, the Tory government has refused to grant pardons or initiate an inquiry into the events at Orgreave. The OTJC emphasizes that no one in government or the police has been held accountable for their actions. They view the government’s attempts to bury these issues as a serious threat to democracy. Some campaigners suspect that the government fears an Orgreave inquiry would expose scandals, corruption, and attempts to suppress dissent. They argue that the right to protest and strike should not be subject to the state’s discretion but should be inherent rights in a democratic society.

The People Stand with Nurses: Public Support Surges as Strike Action Continues

Support for striking nurses has surged even higher than when the industrial action began six months ago, according to the Royal College of Nursing (RCN). In an RCN poll, it was revealed that 62 percent of the public now backs the strikes, marking the highest level of support for any profession engaged in strike action. A majority of supporters expressed strong support for nurses. Additionally, more than eight in 10 respondents (82 percent) expressed their backing for a pay increase for nurses.

The RCN is conducting a second ballot among its 300,000 members as per government regulations, which require reballoting after a six-month period of industrial action. If nurses vote to continue their campaign, the strike will persist until December of this year, with voting concluding on June 23.

RCN General Secretary and Chief Executive Pat Cullen acknowledged the immense public support received by nursing staff during this time. The presence of patients on picket lines, some coming directly from their hospital beds, provided a significant morale boost for the nurses concerned about leaving patients unattended. Cullen emphasized that the unwavering public support should draw attention in Downing Street, calling on Rishi Sunak to recognize the significance of this backing. Cullen stressed the importance of doing right by nurses, as it ultimately benefits patients as well. Cullen noted that support for the nursing strikes cuts across party lines, and urged Sunak to regain public support this summer. The upcoming 75th anniversary of the NHS is expected to elevate this issue further in the context of elections.

Rising Cost of Living Hits Hard: Public Service Workers Struggle to Make Ends Meet

During a debate on the rising cost of living, Unison delegates highlighted the difficult choices faced by public service workers, including having to sacrifice meals to provide for their children. The cost-of-living crisis disproportionately affects already disadvantaged workers, including women, black, disabled, LGBT, and young members.

Yvonne Green from the Greater London region expressed concern over members struggling to meet their financial obligations and being priced out of living near their workplaces due to escalating housing costs. She emphasized the importance of supporting and holding employers accountable to address these issues.

Tina Roach from the Northern region highlighted the insecurity faced by many individuals, with some members even relying on charitable donations as current benefits prove inadequate. She lamented that instead of making progress in eradicating poverty, the country is witnessing the opposite trend.

The conference resolved to advocate for a well-funded public sector that prioritizes its workers and to raise awareness of the mounting financial pressures faced by public service workers.

Train Drivers Take a Stand: Strikes Loom as Working Agreements Come Under Fire

Train drivers from the union Aslef have initiated two new disputes against private rail operators to protect their working agreements. Avanti West Coast is being accused of attacking the workers’ sick pay agreement, leading to a vote in favour of strike action. The drivers will stage a 24-hour walkout on Sunday, July 2. In a separate dispute, drivers at London North Eastern Railways (LNER) will enforce an overtime ban starting from Saturday, July 1. These conflicts add to Aslef’s ongoing national dispute over pay.

Mick Whelan, the general secretary of Aslef, expressed regret that their members had to resort to such actions but emphasized that they would not tolerate violations of their agreed terms and conditions by the train operating companies. Whelan stated that they have been actively seeking resolutions to these disputes for several months, but unless the operators honor their agreements, further action will be necessary.

Strike for Change: Junior Doctors Demand Decisive Action on Pay

Junior doctors in England, following their 72-hour walkout, are being encouraged to escalate their strikes to demand proper negotiations and a substantial pay offer. Tens of thousands of doctors, supported by the BMA union, took part in a march from Tavistock Square to Parliament Square last week, calling for fair pay and the preservation of the NHS. The government’s current offer of a mere 5 percent pay increase has been deemed inadequate, leading to calls for more decisive action. Junior doctors express concerns about the strain on waiting lists and the shortage of staff, emphasizing the importance of unity and continued strikes. They are also considering collaborating with other unions, such as the RCN nurses’ union, to strengthen their cause. The ultimate goal is to bring about meaningful negotiations for a significant pay offer and rejuvenate the fight to protect the NHS.

And finally, Pay Battle Escalates: Teachers in England Set for July Strikes

Teachers in England, represented by the National Education Union (NEU), are planning to strike over pay in July. The strikes are scheduled for two dates, 5th and 7th July, and are likely to result in the closure of many schools, either fully or partially. The NEU considers strike action as a last resort and is calling for renewed negotiations with the government. The Department for Education has expressed concerns that further strikes would negatively impact student learning.

The NEU has previously organized five national and three regional strike days since February, making it the largest education union in the UK. The most recent strike on 2nd May affected a significant number of schools, with less than half fully operational.

The joint general secretaries of the NEU, Dr. Mary Bousted and Kevin Courtney, accuse Education Secretary Gillian Keegan of abandoning teachers in England. They demand that Keegan engage in negotiations, as their previous appeals have been disregarded. Bousted and Courtney emphasize that Keegan possesses the authority to prevent the strikes.

State school teachers in England received a 5% pay increase for the 2022-23 academic year. The government also proposed a one-time cash payment of £1,000, which was forfeited when negotiations failed. The unions argue that the offer should be higher to account for inflation, and they insist that any pay rise should be funded by additional government funds rather than schools’ existing budgets.

The government has offered a 4.3% pay rise for most teachers in the 2023-24 academic year, with starting salaries reaching £30,000. The Department for Education regards this offer as fair and reasonable, noting that schools will receive an additional £2.3 billion over the next two years. It claims that, on average across England, the offer is fully funded, although individual schools will be affected differently.

Negotiations stalled when all four unions rejected the government’s offer, arguing that most schools would need to make cuts elsewhere to accommodate it. The unions are urging the government to disclose the recommendations of the independent pay review body, which advises on appropriate pay rises for teachers in the coming year.

Picture credits

Cops with riot shields: West Midlands Police from West Midlands, United Kingdom – Day 150 – West Midlands Police – Handsworth riots (1985), CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=84332454
Teacher image 14995841 from Pixabay