Reform in power: when the slogans meet the balance sheet

Campaigning is the easy bit. You can promise to slash waste, freeze taxes, fix the potholes, sweep away bureaucracy and generally make the whole creaking machine work by applying a little common sense. It fits nicely on a leaflet.

Governing is rather less obliging. Social care still has to be provided on Monday morning. Children with special educational needs still need support. Roads still deteriorate. Staff still need paying. And council finance, annoyingly, does not disappear because somebody has denounced it as “waste”.

That is what makes Reform UK’s record in local government worth examining. The party’s breakthrough in the May 2025 elections gave it real power over substantial public services. A year later, it expanded again: Reform itself says it took another 14 English councils in May 2026, while UNISON noted that it also won seats in both the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd.

For a party that has sold itself as the great disruptor, local government has provided something unusually useful: evidence.

And the evidence is considerably messier than the sales pitch.

HOPE not hate’s Reform in Power investigation put the charge starkly. It said residents in Reform-run areas were experiencing “rising council tax, cuts to vital services, and a stream of scandals and resignations”, while the allegedly vast reservoir of waste waiting to be eliminated had proved rather harder to locate.

That is the central problem. Reform’s politics is built around the suggestion that Britain’s difficulties persist because nobody has been ruthless enough. Send in the auditors. Root out the woke spending. Find the diversity officers. Apply a DOGE-style efficiency drive and watch the savings tumble out.

Then came the awkward encounter with arithmetic.

The great council-tax revolt — followed by higher council tax

Take Worcestershire.

Reform had campaigned against high council tax and critics, including UNISON, highlighted the contradiction when its administration ended up pursuing an increase approaching 9%. The final budget set the rise at 8.98%, lifting the Band D county precept to £1,760.80.

There was, to be fair, a serious inherited financial crisis. Worcestershire’s own documents describe intense pressures in adult and children’s social care and a huge SEND deficit. Its chief financial officer advised councillors that the maximum increase permitted by government was required to avoid the risk of a Section 114 notice — local-government language for a council effectively admitting that it cannot balance its books.

That context matters. But it also rather destroys the fantasy politics.

It turns out you cannot simply march into County Hall, shout “waste” three times and produce a balanced budget. The bills are real. The legal duties are real. The elderly person requiring residential care is not a line of woke expenditure that can be deleted from a spreadsheet.

The Reform administration argued that it had inherited the mess from its Conservative predecessors. There is force in that defence. But there is also an obvious lesson: promising tax freezes before examining the books is a great deal easier than delivering them afterwards.

Campaign rhetoric met municipal finance. Municipal finance won.

Durham: cuts, charges and 88 posts

County Durham provides another useful case study.

By late 2025 the Reform-led council was facing a projected funding gap which had grown from £71 million to £82 million in two months. The council cited inflation, children’s social-care costs and school transport among the pressures. Its response included a package of roughly £10 million in savings proposals, involving 88 full-time-equivalent posts, about a third then vacant.

There were proposed reductions in grass cutting and litter picking, changes to bus provision and higher parking charges. Residents’ parking permits were subsequently increased by 40%. The administration defended that particular increase by pointing out that permit prices had not risen since 2015 and saying that the additional cost amounted to about four pence a day per permit.

Again, there are explanations. There always are when you actually govern.

But compare the dull reality — higher charges, fewer posts, reduced services — with the swagger of the original proposition that supposedly unnecessary spending could simply be hunted down and eliminated.

That contrast is precisely why public-service unions are paying such close attention.

UNISON general secretary Andrea Egan said in April that “the millionaires calling the shots in Reform don’t think those putting in a hard day’s graft deserve basic rights or fair pay.” Its report argued that Reform’s first eleven months running councils had produced broken promises over tax, internal turmoil and efficiency exercises that ran into the reality that local authority services had already endured years of cuts.

Whether one accepts every part of UNISON’s political analysis or not, the local-government numbers cannot simply be wished away.

SEND: an experiment that parents stopped

Perhaps the most telling cases are where proposed savings collided directly with public resistance.

In Leicestershire, the Reform administration proposed changing early-years SEND provision so that the council would no longer commission places at four specialist nurseries. Instead, it intended to direct additional money and specialist support towards mainstream nursery provision, with the existing arrangements potentially phased out by April 2027.

Parents were not impressed.

More than 2,500 consultation responses were received and a petition attracted about 2,000 signatures. In February the council abandoned the proposal.

There is nothing dishonourable about changing course after consultation. Indeed, that is what consultation is supposed to be for.

But it is worth remembering how this episode began. Reform was not rescuing a service from faceless bureaucrats. Its own administration was proposing a change affecting specialist provision for some of the county’s most vulnerable children, and organised public opposition persuaded it to retreat.

UNISON later cited Leicestershire alongside care-home controversies elsewhere, saying local campaigns had helped save the nurseries.

The neat story in which Reform arrives to protect ordinary people from an uncaring state becomes rather less neat when ordinary people find themselves campaigning to protect services from Reform.

Lancashire and the care-home row

Something similar happened in Lancashire.

The council launched a strategic review examining five residential care homes and five day centres. Its case was that several buildings were old, expensive to maintain and potentially unsuitable for future care needs. That was not an invented problem: the council published detailed reasons for the review, including maintenance backlogs, outdated layouts and changing patterns of demand.

But the proposals generated fierce resistance. The consultation drew 1,622 responses, with about 76% disagreeing with the reprovision proposals. By February, council leader Stephen Atkinson announced that there was no intention to close the five residential homes, and later council material confirmed that the day centres would also remain open while a new care model was developed.

Again, the reversal deserves to be recorded alongside the proposal.

Yet it also demonstrates something rather important. When political rhetoric about efficiency reaches the front door of a care home, things become complicated remarkably quickly.

There are residents. Families. Staff. Buildings. Transport arrangements. Medical needs. Human attachments accumulated over years.

Not everything in public expenditure is an inefficiency simply because it costs money.

And then there are the flags

While some Reform councils wrestled with social care and SEND, considerable political energy was also being expended on symbols. Their interest in Pride flags borders on the obsessive.

In Lancashire, the council formally revised its flag policy to remove a number of campaign flags, including the Pride, White Ribbon and NHS flags. Interestingly, the council’s own equality assessment acknowledged that removing the Pride flag could be perceived as reducing visibility for people sharing protected characteristics, though it characterised the impact as symbolic rather than a direct change in services.

In Durham, council support for Pride was withdrawn. Trade unions then stepped in. The Durham Miners’ Association, TUC, Aslef, CWU and others helped assemble more than £25,000, and the 2026 event went ahead with what organisers described as its largest turnout. Reform defended the decision on financial grounds, arguing that the success of private and union fundraising demonstrated that council funding was unnecessary.

Then there is Nottinghamshire.

The Reform-led county council allocated £75,000 to a programme of Union flag banners. Council documentation says the expenditure came from corporate contingencies and that the authority regarded the scheme as promoting civic identity. It also insisted the money had not been taken from a frontline service budget.

The original expectation was that sponsorship would help cover the cost. An FOI response in March said that although some organisations had expressed interest, no sponsorship agreements had yet been entered into. By July, reporting indicated that no sponsors had been secured.

There is something wonderfully circular about a movement promising to interrogate every penny of public expenditure and then finding itself explaining why £75,000 on flags represents good value.

The National Education Union’s Daniel Kebede gave the union movement’s view rather neatly, describing Reform as “adept at stoking culture wars and performative actions about flags, Pride marches and the like.”

Harsh? Certainly.

But not conjured from thin air.

The revolving door of councillors

There has also been the problem of personnel.

HOPE not hate tracked a remarkable churn among the councillors elected in Reform’s 2025 breakthrough. By spring 2026, roughly one in ten of that cohort had resigned, defected, been removed or otherwise left the party. Other reporting put the figure at between 65 and 74 of the approximately 677 councillors elected in 2025, depending on the date and definition used.

Some departures were mundane political defections. Others followed allegations or controversies involving offensive remarks or conduct.

HOPE not hate’s broader conclusion was that the gap between outsider rhetoric and the disciplines of office had become increasingly visible. Its own summary said that “the simple answers offered on the campaign trail have quickly unravelled in office.”

That is probably the most significant criticism because Reform has always benefited from not being responsible for very much.

Once responsibility arrives, protest politics loses one of its great advantages: somebody can check what you actually did.

Workers’ rights: the national argument behind the council fights

For trade unions, the argument does not stop at County Hall.

The TUC has launched its Stop the Steal campaign in response to Reform’s proposed “Great Repeal Bill”. According to the TUC, the proposal would remove provisions contained in the Employment Rights Act, potentially affecting day-one sick pay, fire-and-rehire protections, regulation of exploitative zero-hours arrangements and other employment rights. The TUC also says Reform has proposed repealing the Equality Act.

TUC general secretary Paul Nowak says Reform wants to “strip working people of essentials like day-one sick pay and a fairer minimum wage.”

Reform disputes the unions’ wider characterisation of its politics. Nigel Farage has argued that his party is the real defender of working people, pointing to proposals to cut taxes on employment and overtime and insisting that Reform-controlled councils have delivered savings. In May he claimed nine Reform councils had saved more than £300 million and had kept council-tax increases below those of comparable authorities. Those are Reform’s own figures and claims.

That competing account should be heard.

But so should the evidence from the councils themselves.

Higher tax in Worcestershire. Job reductions and service cuts in Durham. Specialist SEND nursery proposals in Leicestershire, abandoned after mass opposition. Care-home proposals in Lancashire, also pulled back following consultation. Pride funding withdrawn in Durham. £75,000 found for Union flag banners in Nottinghamshire.

These are not theoretical objections dreamed up by Westminster opponents. They are decisions, budgets and consultations.

Governing is harder than raging

There is a wider point here.

Britain’s councils are in genuine trouble. Years of austerity, rising demand for adult and children’s social care, SEND pressures, inflation and an ageing population have produced structural problems that no political party can honestly pretend are painless to solve. Worcestershire’s official figures make that painfully clear.

Reform did not create all those problems. In many places it inherited them.

What it did do was suggest that the answers were much easier than they really are.

That is where the acid should bite.

Because once the slogans have been printed, the flags raised and the offending bits of “woke” bureaucracy identified, somebody still has to decide what happens to the care home, the nursery, the bus route, the pothole budget and the council-tax bill.

Local government has a brutal way of separating rhetoric from administration.

For years Reform could tell voters that somebody else was failing.

Now, increasingly, it has its own budgets, its own councillors and its own decisions to explain.

And that makes the record much more interesting than the rhetoric.

By Pat Harrington

Workers Must Stand Against Reform UK’s Assault on Rights

There are moments in the political life of a country when a proposal is so sweeping, so casually destructive, that it forces every serious organisation to pause and ask: What kind of society do we intend to be? Reform UK’s proposed Great Repeal Bill is one such moment. It is not a technical adjustment to the statute book. It is not a pruning of outdated regulations. It is a deliberate unravelling of the legal protections that millions of working people rely on every single day.

The joke will be on you if you vote for Farage and Reform UK

The Trades Union Congress (TUC) has been clear about the stakes. Paul Nowak, its General Secretary, has warned that Reform’s agenda would “rip up the rights that working people rely on”, describing the proposals as an attempt to “take us back to the 19th century.” That is not hyperbole. It is a sober assessment of a programme that explicitly targets the Employment Rights Act, the Equality Act, and the Renters (Reform) Act — the very architecture of modern workplace and tenant protection.

Solidarity, as an independent union, is not in the habit of echoing anyone’s line for the sake of it. But when the rights of workers are threatened, clarity matters. And on this issue, the TUC is right.

The Rights at Stake

To understand the scale of what Reform UK proposes, one must appreciate the nature of the rights they intend to sweep away. The Employment Rights Act is not an obscure technical document. It is the foundation of protections against unfair dismissal, redundancy abuse, and exploitative working practices. The Equality Act is the shield that protects workers from discrimination — on grounds of sex, race, disability, religion, and more. The Renters (Reform) Act is the legislation that finally began to address the insecurity of no‑fault evictions.

Reform UK’s Great Repeal Bill would dismantle these protections wholesale. The TUC has highlighted that this would mean the removal of pregnancy protections, bereavement leave, sick pay from day one, and safeguards against fire‑and‑rehire — a practice that Unite’s General Secretary Sharon Graham has rightly described as “a gift to bad bosses.” Graham has long argued that fire‑and‑rehire should be “outlawed, not encouraged,” and her warning lands with particular force in this context.

These are not luxuries. They are the minimum standards of a civilised labour market.

Workers Do Not Want Fewer Rights

One of the most striking elements of the TUC’s campaign is its grounding in public opinion. A 40,000‑person MRP poll commissioned by the TUC found overwhelming support for existing workplace protections — not just in Labour‑held constituencies, but in Reform‑held ones too. In Nigel Farage’s Clacton seat, for example, 77% of respondents supported banning exploitative zero‑hours contracts, 81% supported ending fire‑and‑rehire, and 66% supported sick pay from day one.

Paul Nowak summarised the findings bluntly: “Working people don’t want fewer rights — they want more.”

This is a crucial point. Reform UK’s agenda is not a response to public demand. It is a programme driven from above, not below. It is a vision of Britain shaped by those who have never had to worry about insecure work, sudden dismissal, or the fear of losing a home through a no‑fault eviction.

The Influence Behind the Agenda

The TUC has also drawn attention to the financial interests behind Reform UK. Their campaign highlights the role of Christopher Harborne, an offshore investor who has donated £15 million to Reform and £5 million to Nigel Farage personally. The TUC’s messaging is direct: “Billionaires might not want workers’ rights — but we do.”

This is not a claim that money alone determines policy. But it is a reminder that political agendas do not emerge in a vacuum. When a party funded by ultra‑wealthy donors proposes the wholesale removal of workplace protections, it is reasonable — indeed necessary — to ask who benefits.

Matt Wrack, General Secretary of the Fire Brigades Union, has warned that weakening rights is “a recipe for insecurity and fear at work.” For firefighters, whose safety depends on clear procedures, strong protections, and the ability to challenge unsafe practices, the implications are obvious. But the same logic applies across the labour market. When rights are weakened, insecurity spreads.

Why Solidarity Stands With the TUC

Solidarity is not affiliated to the TUC. Our independence and non-affiliation to any political party is central to our identity. But independence does not mean isolation. When the rights of workers are threatened, workers must stand together — not out of institutional loyalty, but out of necessity.

We support the TUC’s campaign because:

The Employment Rights Act is the backbone of workplace justice.
The Equality Act protects our members from discrimination.
Fire‑and‑rehire destroys livelihoods.
Zero‑hours exploitation traps workers in insecurity.
Pregnancy protections safeguard families.
Sick pay is a basic human necessity.

These are not abstract principles. They are the protections our members rely on when they face dismissal, harassment, discrimination, or sudden loss of income. They are the rights that allow workers to challenge unfairness without fear.

Mike Clancy, General Secretary of Prospect, has warned that Reform’s agenda would “undermine professional standards and weaken protections for skilled workers.” His point is well‑made. Rights do not only protect the vulnerable; they protect the integrity of professions, the safety of workplaces, and the dignity of labour.

The Broader Question: What Kind of Country Do We Want?

The debate over Reform UK’s Great Repeal Bill is not simply a dispute over legislation. It is a question about the kind of country Britain intends to be. Do we want a labour market where employers can dismiss workers at will? Where discrimination is easier to conceal? Where insecurity is normalised? Where tenants live in fear of sudden eviction?

Or do we want a society where rights are upheld, where dignity is protected, and where the law stands with the worker rather than the exploiter?

The TUC has framed its campaign with a simple message: “We won these rights together — and we’ll defend them together.” Solidarity agrees. Rights are not gifts from the powerful. They are the achievements of generations of workers who refused to accept exploitation as inevitable.

A Call to Every Worker

Solidarity urges every member — and every worker in Britain — to stay informed, stay organised, and stand firm. The Great Repeal Bill is not a distant threat. It is a clear and present danger to the rights that make work bearable, safe, and fair.

We say this plainly: If Reform UK gets its way, your rights at work will be weaker. Your protections will be fewer. Your security will be lower.

The TUC is right to call this out. Union leaders across the movement are right to warn against it. And Solidarity will not sit quietly while the rights of working people are lined up for repeal.

Workers built these protections. Workers rely on them. Workers must defend them.

By Pat Harrington, General Secretary of Solidarity union.

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

Solidarity with British Industry: Why Buying British Is More Vital Than Ever by Pat Harrington

All political groups and unions must unite in a ‘Buy British campaign says Pat Harrington

1,235 words, 7 minutes read time.

The call to “Buy British” has never been a matter of nostalgia or jingoism. For trade unions like Solidarity and the wider Labour movement, it’s a practical, progressive tool to protect jobs, revive our manufacturing base, and build a more self-reliant, future-ready economy. Amid the upheavals of global supply chains, mounting geopolitical tensions, and the rise of protectionist policies from international powers like the United States, the case for using our collective spending power to support British industry has never been stronger.

Solidarity union has proudly led the charge, running several public campaigns urging consumers to choose British-made goods wherever possible. These campaigns are rooted in a simple yet powerful belief: when we buy British, we invest in British jobs, communities, and skills. It’s not just about waving the flag—it’s about economic justice, sustainability, and national resilience.

Historically, the Labour Party and trade unions have often championed “Buy British” initiatives during times of industrial crisis. In the 1970s and 1980s, as traditional industries faced collapse, union campaigns highlighted the importance of keeping jobs in Britain. The Transport & General Workers’ Union, for example, actively promoted British-made vehicles and products to protect domestic manufacturing. Labour governments of the past also embraced this approach. Harold Wilson praised grassroots initiatives such as the “I’m Backing Britain” campaign in the late 1960s, and the Labour manifesto of 1983 proposed import controls and prioritising British-made goods in public procurement. While these efforts were sometimes controversial, they were rooted in a shared commitment to national industrial renewal.

In more recent years, trade union federations like the TUC have published position papers advocating for a coherent industrial strategy. These documents emphasise the need for investment in high-value manufacturing, green energy, and infrastructure—areas where government procurement can and should favour domestic suppliers. Solidarity fully supports these calls and continues to argue that only with a long-term industrial plan can Britain secure its economic independence.

That said, not all political leaders have shown the same resolve. Some voices within the Labour Party have expressed hesitation. For instance, Chancellor Rachel Reeves recently stated that she would not back a consumer-focused “Buy British” campaign, arguing that such efforts risk encouraging economic nationalism. While Solidarity recognises the dangers of xenophobia or trade isolationism, we firmly disagree with this conclusion. We believe the British public should be encouraged and empowered to support local production—not out of hostility to others, but out of loyalty to the communities in which they live and work.

It is important to state clearly: Solidarity does not base its policy on a shallow anti-Americanism or target U.S. imports specifically. Our position is motivated by a sincere desire to see an independent and prosperous United Kingdom—capable of making and trading high-quality goods, resilient in the face of global shocks, and free to pursue its own economic strategy. Buying British, in our view, is not about closing ourselves off from the world; it’s about building a strong, confident nation that can compete globally from a position of strength.

This aspiration is only possible because of the freedoms we now possess outside the European Union. Many of the measures we advocate—strategic procurement, public investment in domestic industry, and local content rules—would have been difficult, if not impossible, under EU single market and state aid rules. Whatever one’s position on Brexit, it is clear that the UK is now uniquely positioned to chart its own industrial future. That opportunity must not be wasted.

We’ve seen firsthand how offshoring and deindustrialisation have hollowed out communities. Entire generations have been robbed of the skilled, secure work that once defined working-class life in Britain. Yet, instead of despair, we see opportunity: the chance to rebuild. Rebuilding the UK’s manufacturing base is not a backward-looking project. On the contrary, it’s the only credible path to long-term prosperity, especially in a world where supply lines can snap overnight and foreign governments act unilaterally to prioritise their own industries.

Take the example of the U.S. tariffs under the Trump administration—first on steel and aluminium, then on aircraft, and now the new blanket 10% tariffs and targeted car tariffs. These are not just abstract trade disputes; they’re direct threats to British workers. When tariffs shut out our exports, our factories suffer, our jobs disappear, and our communities pay the price. The only responsible response is to fight back—not with hollow slogans, but with investment, procurement, and a serious industrial strategy.

That’s why Solidarity supports the Labour Party’s calls for strategic procurement to favour UK suppliers. Labour’s proposals to rebuild manufacturing capacity, invest in green industry, and embed “Buy British” principles in public contracts are not just welcome—they are essential. The promise to make, buy, and sell more in Britain isn’t protectionism—it’s common sense. It’s about using the enormous power of public spending—over £270 billion a year—to secure good jobs, shorten supply chains, and reduce reliance on volatile global markets.

Technology sovereignty is also at stake. The UK cannot afford to be dependent on others for semiconductors, energy components, or the tools of the future economy. If we want to lead in clean energy, digital infrastructure, or medical innovation, we need to make sure we can build the necessary parts here at home. Buying British isn’t just about steel and cars—it’s about making sure the next generation of industry is made in Britain, by British workers, under decent conditions.

Solidarity’s message is clear: every purchase is a political act. When we buy a car made in Sunderland, a steel beam forged in Port Talbot, or a jacket sewn in Leicester, we’re casting a vote for good jobs, fair pay, and national self-respect. That’s why we continue to campaign not only for better trade policy, but for better choices at the till.

We urge the government—and all political parties—to take up this cause without hesitation. We must match rhetoric with resources, and slogans with strategy. Britain needs a serious industrial policy, clear local content rules in procurement, and investment in the industries of the future. The Labour Party and trade unions are right to demand these things. Solidarity is proud to stand alongside them.

Buying British is not a luxury—it is a necessity. Let’s make it a national priority.

Footnotes

Trump administration imposed 25% tariffs on steel and 10% on aluminium in 2018, affecting UK exports.
UK exports of cars to the US exceed £8 billion annually; Trump threatened a 25% tariff on autos in 2019 and 2025.
Labour’s 2024 industrial strategy includes proposals for strategic procurement and rebuilding domestic supply chains.
Solidarity union campaigns have included local business spotlights, workplace posters, and social media campaigns to encourage consumers to buy British.
The TUC has long advocated for the revival of UK manufacturing and coordinated responses to trade shocks.
Labour and unions called for “Save Our Steel” procurement policies during the 2015-2016 crisis and after Trump-era tariffs.
The UK’s public procurement budget is approximately £270 billion per year, presenting a major opportunity to boost domestic industry.
Technology sovereignty has been cited by think tanks and unions as a key pillar of future industrial resilience.
The 1983 Labour manifesto proposed import controls and prioritisation of British-made goods.
Rachel Reeves, April 2025: “If every country decided to only buy things produced at home, that’s not a good way forward.”

Poll Shows Overwhelming Public Support for Workers’ Rights Reforms

A new poll conducted by the TUC and Hope Not Hate has revealed overwhelming public backing for key measures to strengthen workers’ rights across all constituencies.

Despite opposition from Conservative and Reform politicians, the survey of over 21,000 people shows that the British public—across all major political affiliations—strongly supports reforms aimed at improving job security and pay conditions.

Public Backs Key Workplace Reforms

The poll indicates strong cross-party support for policies in the Employment Rights Bill:

Banning zero-hours contracts: 72% of UK voters support a ban, including 65% of those who would vote Conservative and 67% of potential Reform voters. Only 15% oppose the policy.
Statutory sick pay from day one: 74% of voters back this measure, with 65% of Conservative-leaning and 66% of Reform-leaning voters in agreement. Just 14% are opposed.
Protection from unfair dismissal from day one: 73% of voters support immediate protection, including 65% of likely Conservative and 64% of likely Reform voters. Opposition stands at only 14%.
Greater flexibility in working hours: 74% of voters favour easier access to flexible working, with 67% of likely Conservative and 65% of likely Reform voters agreeing. Just 12% oppose the policy.

These findings highlight a significant gap between political rhetoric and voter sentiment.

Reform Party Votes Against Its Own Supporters’ Interests

The poll shows that even among Reform supporters, there is strong demand for better workplace protections.

In every constituency held by Reform—including party leader Nigel Farage’s seat—voters overwhelmingly support banning zero-hours contracts and ensuring sick pay from day one.

However, Reform MPs have consistently voted against these measures, placing them at odds with their own electorate.

Critics argue that this exposes the party’s alignment with corporate interests rather than the working people they claim to represent

By Pat Harrington

Union News 28th of January 2025

Welcome to this week’s edition of Union News, your go-to source for updates and insights into the labour and trade union movement across the United Kingdom. Edited by Pat Harrington, Union News brings you the latest stories, campaigns, and developments shaping the world of workers and their rights.

In this edition:

Hairdresser Wins £90K Payout After Pregnancy Demotion

Princes Workers Strike Over Union-Busting and Broken Pay Deal

Historic Strike to Shut Down Major Museums

Thames Water Collapse Looms Amid Mounting Debts

Four-Day Week Gains Momentum as Future of Work in Britain

Tax Office Strikes Continue Over Sacking of Union Reps

and, Energy Bills Push 40% of Brits Into Financial Anxiety for 2025

Hairdresser Wins £90K Payout After Pregnancy Demotion

A senior stylist has been awarded almost £90,000 in compensation after an employment tribunal ruled that she had been “effectively demoted” following her pregnancy announcement. Kayleigh Flanagan, who worked at Envy Hair and Beauty, said she experienced a sudden change in attitude from her employer, Amy Jury, after disclosing her pregnancy via text message in December 2019. The tribunal found that her duties were reduced to those of an apprentice, including cleaning and making tea, instead of her usual role as a senior stylist and technician.

The tribunal heard that Ms. Flanagan was removed from the salon’s online booking system, stripped of her regular customers, and subjected to increased scrutiny over her work. In one instance, she was given a final written warning for allegedly being rude to a client and providing poor customer service. Although the warning was later downgraded to a first written warning after an appeal, Ms. Flanagan reported feeling undermined and isolated at work.

Her situation deteriorated further when she raised concerns about a lack of risk assessments regarding her pregnancy, as required by workplace regulations. Despite these complaints, no meaningful action was taken, and Ms. Flanagan went on maternity leave in April 2020. Feeling unsupported and fearing for her mental health and safety, she ultimately resigned from her role in November 2021, a move the tribunal deemed constructive dismissal.

In its judgment, the tribunal stated that Ms. Flanagan had been unfairly treated, noting that she was systematically demoted to tasks far below her qualifications and experience. The ruling concluded that her employer’s actions created an intolerable working environment, leaving her with no option but to resign. Ms. Flanagan described the ordeal as having a devastating impact on her mental health, adding that it forced her to prioritize her wellbeing and that of her family.

The tribunal ordered Envy Hair and Beauty to pay Ms. Flanagan £89,849 in compensation for constructive unfair dismissal. The case highlights the importance of protecting pregnant employees from discrimination and ensuring that workplace practices comply with legal obligations. Ms. Flanagan’s victory serves as a warning to employers about the consequences of failing to support staff during pregnancy and maternity leave.

Princes Workers Strike Over Union-Busting and Broken Pay Deal

Unite union members at five Princes Food factories have accused their employer of union-busting after threats to transfer jobs overseas. Workers, who previously agreed to a pay deal, say the company reneged on the agreement following a takeover by Italian food conglomerate Newlat. Strike action is underway across sites in Cardiff, Glasgow, Lincolnshire, Bradford, and Wisbech. Unite general secretary Sharon Graham called the company’s actions “shameful” and vowed to support workers “every step of the way.”

The dispute stems from a pay rise of 5 to 7 percent agreed under the company’s former ownership by Mitsubishi, which Unite says Newlat has refused to honour. Workers say this decision has eroded trust and left them struggling amid rising costs. The union claims that threats to relocate jobs overseas are a clear attempt to undermine the workforce’s collective power.

Unite has accused Princes of employing union-busting tactics to silence dissent, but workers remain defiant. “If Princes thinks its threats will weaken workers’ resolve, it has another think coming,” said Graham. She criticized the company for “pulling the rug out from under” employees and escalating tensions by refusing to negotiate in good faith.

The ongoing strikes have disrupted production at the factories, with union members urging the public to support their cause by boycotting Princes products. Calls for solidarity have grown louder as workers fight for fair pay and job security in the face of corporate indifference. Princes has been invited to comment on the situation but has yet to respond.

Historic Strike to Shut Down Major Museums

Security guards at three of London’s most iconic museums are preparing for a month-long strike, marking the longest industrial action in the history of these institutions. More than 100 workers at the Natural History, Science, and V&A Museums, represented by the United Voices of the World (UVW) union, are demanding £16 an hour and equal terms with directly employed staff.

The strike will bring total industrial action at the museums to 50 days, with workers calling on the public to avoid visiting these cultural landmarks during the dispute. Guards from the Young V&A Museum in Bethnal Green and the V&A East Museum in Stratford have also joined the fight for fair treatment.

Union representatives visited V&A trustee Amanda Levete to deliver a letter outlining their demands, but she declined to meet them face-to-face, promising only a written response. UVW general secretary Petros Elia has called the museums’ defense of outsourcing an example of institutional racism, pointing out the stark racial disparity between contracted guards and directly employed staff.

UVW member and V&A guard Edi Palalej said the lack of engagement from museum trustees was disappointing but not discouraging. “We are standing together to demand respect and equality,” Palalej stated.

The strike action has drawn widespread attention to the growing issue of pay disparities and working conditions in the UK’s cultural institutions. UVW has pledged to support workers for as long as necessary to achieve fair pay and treatment.

Thames Water Collapse Looms Amid Mounting Debts

Thames Water is on the brink of collapse, burdened with £19 billion in debt and facing a critical High Court hearing next month over a £3 billion emergency loan. The utility giant has warned it will run out of cash by March unless the court approves the loan, despite its high-interest rate of 9.75 percent and associated fees.

The government is reportedly exploring options to place Thames Water under special administration to keep services running. Campaigners argue the crisis highlights the failures of privatizing an essential monopoly.

Matthew Topham of We Own It said: “Thames Water’s impending collapse is the ultimate result of privatizing an essential monopoly like water. It’s time to bring water services into local, democratic public ownership.” He called for renationalization to stabilize the company and improve its standards.

The company’s financial woes have drawn criticism after Ofwat fined it £18.2 million last month for unjustified dividends totaling £158.3 million. Meanwhile, water company Severn Trent announced plans to increase shareholder dividends while raising customer bills by 47 percent over the next five years.

Public outcry continues to grow, with many calling for government intervention to ensure sustainable and affordable water services for all.

Four-Day Week Gains Momentum as Future of Work in Britain

The four-day working week is rapidly becoming the future of work in Britain, campaigners say, as over 200 employers, including a district council, have embraced the model.

The 4 Day Week Foundation is driving the push for a shortened workweek with no reduction in pay or benefits. Campaign director Joe Ryle argued that the five-day week, established a century ago, is outdated. He highlighted the successes seen by companies and public organizations, stating, “A four-day week with no loss of pay can be a win-win for both workers and employers. With more free time, people can live happier, more fulfilling lives.”

The Trades Union Congress (TUC) also supports the shift, citing benefits such as improved productivity, cost savings, and stronger employee retention. TUC general secretary Paul Nowak emphasized the importance of flexibility, noting that while not all jobs can support a four-day week, some form of flexible working is possible for all roles.

Campaigners and unions are calling for broader adoption of the four-day week, positioning it as a key step toward a more balanced and productive future for workers and businesses alike.

Tax Office Strikes Continue Over Sacking of Union Reps

Workers at HMRC’s Benton Park View office in Newcastle are striking for two months in protest against the sacking of three union representatives who led walkouts last year. Rachel Farmer, Gordon Askew, and Joel Hamilton were dismissed in early 2024 after spearheading national action over pay and pension restoration. The PCS union claims the dismissals are an attack on union rights.

Rachel Farmer, a 20-year civil service veteran, described the experience as a “shock to the system” but vowed to keep fighting. Acting PCS branch secretary Angie Foggett said the workplace has become toxic, with employer relations at an all-time low. “This is an attack on our branch and an attack on democracy within the civil service,” she said.

The strikes have disrupted critical services during tax self-assessment season, with customers facing long wait times due to understaffed call centers. Union members insist the campaign will continue until management agrees to negotiate.

The dispute has drawn widespread solidarity from other unions and workers, underscoring the broader fight against anti-union practices. Foggett emphasized the importance of standing together, saying, “An attack on one is an attack on us all.”

Strikes and picket lines are set to continue until February 14, with calls for unionists to show their support.

and finally, Energy Bills Push 40% of Brits Into Financial Anxiety for 2025

Over 40% of adults in Britain expect their finances to worsen this year, with rising energy bills cited as the primary cause, according to the StepChange Debt Charity. Of those anticipating financial strain, 59% blame higher energy costs, while 17% report constant money worries. Women are particularly affected, with 58% more anxious about finances compared to 48% of men.

Since 2021’s energy crisis, British energy companies have amassed £457 billion in profits by mid-2024, as reported by the End Fuel Poverty Coalition.

StepChange’s chief executive, Vikki Brownridge, warns of worsening financial uncertainty, especially for women and parents, stressing that these challenges are long-term and require urgent support. Nearly 4,000 people sought debt advice on Christmas Day alone, underscoring the strain.

The findings highlight the urgent need for action as families face another difficult year.

By Maria Camara

Solidarity Union Fights for Fair Sick Pay in the UK

The Solidarity union has thrown its full weight behind the campaign to raise Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) in the UK. At just £109.40 per week, SSP currently amounts to less than £3 per hour for a full-time worker. This figure falls shockingly short of the minimum wage, leaving sick workers struggling to cover basic living costs. The inadequacy of SSP has been a long-standing issue, but the cost-of-living crisis has brought its dire consequences into sharper focus.

A Global Perspective

When compared to other developed nations, the UK’s SSP is embarrassingly low. In Germany, sick workers can receive up to 70% of their salary for a duration of up to 78 weeks. France offers 50% of the worker’s salary for up to six months, with additional employer contributions often making up the difference. Meanwhile, the UK’s flat-rate SSP not only fails to account for actual earnings but is also among the lowest in the OECD. It’s a policy that punishes the sick and entrenches inequality.

Labour’s Silence is Deafening

While unions like Solidarity are leading the call for reform, the Labour Party has been disappointingly quiet. This is particularly troubling given Labour’s historic commitment to workers’ rights. The party’s leadership has yet to outline a clear policy on SSP, leaving many to wonder whether it is truly prepared to champion the needs of working people. Solidarity is urging Labour to step up and back a meaningful increase in SSP that reflects the cost of living and restores dignity to workers.

Unions United

Solidarity is not alone in this fight. The Trades Union Congress (TUC) has repeatedly called for SSP to be raised to match the real living wage. Unite the Union and GMB have also highlighted the human cost of low SSP, citing examples of workers who have been forced to choose between health and financial survival. This coalition of voices underscores the growing recognition that the UK’s sick pay system is broken and in urgent need of reform.

A Call for Action

Pat Harrington, General Secretary of the Solidarity union, has been unequivocal in his demand for change: “The current rate of SSP is not just inadequate; it’s an insult to working people. No one should have to face financial ruin because they’re too unwell to work. Solidarity is committed to campaigning for an increase that brings SSP in line with the real living wage. We call on the government and the Labour Party to address this injustice without delay.”

What’s Next?

The campaign to raise SSP is gaining momentum, but it will take sustained pressure to achieve meaningful change. Solidarity is calling on all workers to join the fight, whether by supporting union campaigns, contacting their MPs, or sharing their stories of how low SSP has affected them. Together, we can push for a system that values health and protects the vulnerable.

It’s time for the UK to catch up with the rest of the developed world and ensure that no worker is left behind when they need support the most.

By Maria Camara

Reform and Tories vote against workers’ rights

328 words, 2 minutes read time.

In a significant move for workers’ rights, the Employment Rights Bill has successfully passed its second reading in the Commons, despite facing opposition from Tory and Reform MPs. This landmark bill, which enjoys widespread support from the electorate, including those who traditionally vote for right-wing parties, promises to usher in a new era of protections for workers.

The TUC has expressed its disappointment in the Tory and Reform parties stance, stating that their vote against the bill reveals a disregard for the welfare of working people. The bill’s provisions, which include immediate protection against unfair dismissal, entitlement to sick pay, and restrictions on zero-hours contracts and the controversial ‘fire and rehire’ practices, are seen as essential steps in safeguarding workers’ rights.

TUC general secretary Paul Nowak commented on the passage of the bill, highlighting the contrast between the bill’s intentions and the actions of the Conservatives and Reform. “At a time when so many are suffering in precarious and low-paid jobs, it’s disheartening to see these parties oppose measures that would improve the lives of millions,” he said.

Pat Harrington, General Secretary of Solidarity union commented, “Tories voting against the Bill was to be expected. The Reform MPs voting against shows that despite their spin that they are the champions of ordinary people they are not. They use Populist slogans but when you see how they vote it’s clear that they are no friends of the people.”

Labour MP Ian Lavery praised the bill as a pivotal move towards rectifying the injustices faced by the working class, a sentiment echoed by many of his colleagues. However, the debate also brought to light concerns over the bill’s silence on insourcing, with left MP John McDonnell cautioning that this omission could lead to industrial action within government departments.

The passage of the Employment Rights Bill marks a hopeful turning point for employment rights in the UK, signalling a commitment to creating a fairer and more secure working environment for all.

By Maria Camara

Union News 31st of July 2024

535 words, 3 minutes read time.

Welcome to Union News, your guide to what’s happening in the UK and trade union movement. Reporting is by Pat Harrington and music is from Tim Bragg. In this weeks edition: Call for Stronger Health and Safety Laws, G4S Job Centre Guards Launch New Strike, Workers Rally to Save Grangemouth Refinery and finally, Mixed Reactions to Junior Doctors’ Pay Deal.

Call for Stronger Health and Safety Laws

Union leaders are pressing the new Labour government to enhance the Health and Safety at Work Act (HSWA) and secure funding for enforcement to cut workplace fatalities. Marking the HSWA’s 50th anniversary, the TUC emphasized the need for continued progress and investment in workplace safety. TUC General Secretary Paul Nowak highlighted the Act’s success in saving thousands of lives but warned that recent Tory cuts have put workers at risk. With Britain averaging over 100 work-related deaths annually, Nowak called for fresh funding and collaborative efforts to boost safety measures. Hazards Campaign Chair Janet Newsham echoed the need for more investment, stressing the Act’s importance and advocating for a robust health and safety system .

G4S Job Centre Guards Launch New Strike

Hundreds of G4S security guards at job centres are set for a 10-day strike demanding better pay.

Public and Commercial Services (PCS) union members employed by the private security company as job centre security guards started a week-long strike this Monday.

The union said its members will now walk out alongside colleagues in the GMB union on weeks beginning August 12 and 26.

PCS General Secretary Fran Heathcote criticized G4S for underpaying workers despite their significant profits. G4S claimed PCS lacked a recognition agreement for negotiations, but the GMB union countered, accusing G4S of offering a misleading pay deal that amounts to a real-terms cut. The dispute has seen GMB membership double, with G4S facing investigation for using agency staff to undermine the strike .

Workers Rally to Save Grangemouth Refinery

Scottish workers will gather in Grangemouth this Saturday to fight for the future of the Petroineos oil refinery and its 2,000-strong workforce. The refinery, crucial to Scotland’s economy, faces closure in 2025. Unite’s Keep Grangemouth Working Campaign is pushing for a green transition plan to save jobs. Recent discussions with the government have led to potential funding for low-carbon projects at the site. Unite’s General Secretary Sharon Graham and Scottish Secretary Derek Thomson have noted a positive shift in government attitude, emphasizing the importance of getting the transition right for workers and the community.

and finally, Mixed Reactions to Junior Doctors’ Pay Deal

Rachel Reeves described the proposed pay deal for junior doctors as a minimal cost compared to the losses from NHS strikes. The new offer, which includes a 22.3% pay package, aims to discuss the wage gap but has received mixed reactions. BMA’s junior doctors committee recommends the deal, noting it changes the current trajectory but falls short of full pay restoration. Junior doctors, who have held 44 days of strikes, will vote on the offer, with some expressing dissatisfaction and calling for continued action. The deal includes a backdated pay rise and future increases, but many argue it doesn’t adequately discuss long-term pay issues.

Picture credit
Grangemouth: By User:John, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=2459867

Union News 14th of May 2024

Subscribe to Union News on YouTube to keep updated

1,969 words, 10 minutes read time.

Welcome to Union News This week: Government Benefit Overhaul Sparks Criticism from Campaigners, WASPI Women Await Compensation: Prime Minister Faces Tough Questions, Teachers ‘Morally Blackmailed’ into Excessive Workloads, Union Warns, High Court Greenlights Challenge to Government’s Anti-Strike Laws, Firefighters Urged to Refrain from Assisting Police in Removing Pro-Palestine Protesters, BrewDog Founder James Watt Steps Down as CEO Amid Controversy, and finally, BrewDog Founder James Watt Steps Down as CEO Amid Controversy. Reporting is by Pat Harrington and music is from Tim Bragg.

Government Benefit Overhaul Sparks Criticism from Campaigners

Campaigners are voicing sharp criticism against the government’s recent benefit overhaul, arguing that it pushes single mothers and others on razor-thin margins deeper into financial instability.

Under the new rules implemented today, universal credit claimants earning less than £892 will be required to search for additional or higher-paying work. Failure to meet these expectations could result in the loss of benefits altogether.

The threshold has notably increased from £617 for individuals and £988 for couples. Now, individuals are expected to earn at least £1,437, a significant jump.

This means that individuals working less than 18 hours a week on minimum wage will now have to actively seek more employment opportunities. Additionally, those working less than half of a full-time week will face more frequent meetings with their work coach to boost earnings or risk penalties.

The Department for Work and Pensions estimates that around 180,000 people will be affected by these changes.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak defended the reforms, stating that “welfare should always be a safety net and not a lifestyle choice.” He believes the changes will help more people on universal credit transition into well-paid jobs and achieve financial independence.

However, Michael Clarke, head of information programmes at anti-poverty charity Turn2us, disagrees. Clarke argues that the threshold rises severely challenge those juggling jobs with irregular or fluctuating incomes and balancing responsibilities like childcare.

“For single mothers and others on razor-thin margins, these adjustments risk tipping them into crisis, exacerbating financial insecurity and mental stress as they struggle to meet the new demands,” Clarke stated.

He emphasized the importance of a support system that truly aids those in need rather than penalizing them.

These reforms come in the wake of other welfare changes announced by Mr. Sunak last month, including a review into Personal Independent Payment (PIP), a non means-tested benefit aiding individuals with extra costs due to long-term disability or ill health.

Sunak pledged to reduce the number of those with mental health conditions claiming PIP and introduce a more “rigorous” approach, sparking criticism from campaigners who accuse him of launching a “full-on assault” on disabled people.

WASPI Women Await Compensation: Prime Minister Faces Tough Questions

During this week’s Prime Minister’s Questions session, SNP MP Chris Law directed a pointed query to Prime Minister Rishi Sunak regarding the much-anticipated compensation for WASPI (Women Against State Pension Inequality) women. Law pressed, “Can the Prime Minister finally set out when the WASPI women will receive the compensation they rightly deserve?”

The discussion referenced a motion passed by the Scottish Government advocating for “compensation in full” for the 3.8 million affected women. Responding to the inquiry, Sunak acknowledged the gravity of the issue, stating, “I understand the strong feelings across the Chamber on this topic, and the desire for urgency in addressing them.” He emphasized the need to meticulously review the comprehensive findings of the ombudsman’s five-year investigation before providing an update to the House.

The awaited report from the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO), released in March, recommended payments ranging from £1,000 to £2,950, urging Parliament to take decisive action on the matter. Echoing sentiments from various MPs, who have advocated for larger payouts, the Prime Minister highlighted the government’s commitment to ensuring pensioners’ dignity and security in retirement, citing recent increases to the state pension.

Members of the PHSO, appearing before a parliamentary committee, suggested that some WASPI women might merit payments exceeding the recommended levels outlined in the report. Interim PHSO ombudsman Rebecca Hilsenrath acknowledged the possibility of direct financial loss for certain individuals beyond those included in the sample cases studied.

WASPI chair Angle Madden reiterated the urgency of the matter, underscoring the financial hardships faced by many women as a result of delayed pensions. Madden emphasized the significant impact on those who had sacrificed full-time employment to care for loved ones, asserting the tangible financial consequences of such decisions.

As pressure mounts and expectations heighten, the quest for equitable compensation for WASPI women remains at the forefront of political discourse, underscoring the need for swift and substantive action to address this longstanding injustice.

Teachers ‘Morally Blackmailed’ into Excessive Workloads, Union Warns

Amid mounting concerns over the working conditions of teachers in Scotland, the Scottish Secondary Teachers Association (SSTA) has sounded the alarm, accusing educators of being “morally blackmailed” into accepting unsustainable levels of unpaid work.

Addressing delegates at the SSTA’s annual conference, union president Stuart Hunter highlighted the pervasive culture of excessive workloads, attributing it to a sense of obligation driven by the belief that additional tasks are necessary “for the sake of the kids.” Hunter lamented the toll this phenomenon takes on teachers’ mental health and called for an end to the cycle of emotional manipulation.

In the backdrop of Glasgow’s decision to slash 450 teaching positions over the next three years, Hunter criticized the lack of support for educators, noting the absence of vital roles such as social workers and educational psychologists. He denounced budget cuts as a political tactic, accusing authorities of prioritizing austerity measures over the well-being of teachers and students.

Meanwhile, the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers (NASUWT), hosting its own conference, highlighted the escalating crisis of violence and abuse faced by teachers in schools. NASUWT’s Scotland official, Mike Corbett, emphasized the urgent need for measures to address the effects of this alarming trend, citing recent incidents of weapon attacks on school premises.

Teachers’ safety concerns have been met with calls for immediate action from the Scottish government. While acknowledging the need for enhanced well-being support for school staff, officials stated that over £2 million has been allocated since October 2020 to address these issues.

As teachers and unions continue to raise the alarm on unsustainable workloads and safety risks in schools, pressure mounts on authorities to prioritize the welfare of educators and students alike in Scotland’s education system.

High Court Greenlights Challenge to Government’s Anti-Strike Laws

In a significant legal development, the High Court has granted permission for a judicial review of the government’s controversial Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, a move hailed as a victory for workers’ rights.

Civil Service union PCS will spearhead the challenge against the legislation, which grants employers in specific sectors unprecedented powers to enforce minimum service levels during strike actions, effectively compelling workers to undermine their own protests or risk dismissal.

Both PCS and the Trades Union Congress (TUC) welcomed the court’s decision, viewing it as a crucial step in combating what they perceive as an assault on trade union freedoms.

PCS General Secretary Fran Heathcote condemned the government’s attempt to curtail workers’ right to strike, highlighting the effectiveness of previous strike actions undertaken by PCS members in securing concessions. Heathcote vowed to resist any erosion of workers’ rights and expressed gratitude for the opportunity to challenge the legislation through legal avenues.

TUC General Secretary Paul Nowak echoed these sentiments, characterizing the Strikes Act as a regressive measure that undermines the fundamental right to strike. He criticized the government’s persistence in pushing through these reforms despite warnings about their potential unlawfulness and detrimental impact on industrial relations.

This legal setback for the government comes on the heels of private rail operators’ refusal to enforce minimum service regulations on striking train drivers represented by the union Aslef. The defiance of these regulations underscores the deep-seated resistance among workers to what they perceive as unjust constraints on their ability to collectively bargain and protest.

As the legal challenge gains momentum, workers and unions remain steadfast in their commitment to safeguarding the right to strike and challenging legislative measures that impede their ability to advocate for fair wages and working conditions.

Firefighters Urged to Refrain from Assisting Police in Removing Pro-Palestine Protesters

In a show of solidarity with the pro-Palestine movement, the Fire Brigades Union (FBU) has issued a directive to its 32,000 members, urging them not to aid police in evicting protesters engaging in rooftop occupations of British factories manufacturing weapons for Israel.

The call to action comes in response to an incident in Leicester where firefighters from the Leicestershire Fire and Rescue Service were summoned by police to address an occupation staged by supporters of the direct action group Palestine Action at the Israeli-owned Elbit Tactical Systems factory.

During the operation, firefighters were observed using an aerial appliance to remove a protester from the occupied building, sparking controversy over their involvement in what some perceive as a law enforcement activity.

In a message to firefighters following the incident, FBU General Secretary Matt Wrack underscored the primary role of firefighters in saving lives and protecting communities, emphasizing that there is no justification for their involvement in the removal of protesters. Wrack reiterated the union’s stance in supporting the rights of protesters and advocating for peace and justice in Gaza.

The FBU’s directive advises members to refrain from participating in law enforcement activities alongside the police, particularly in situations involving the removal of protesters. This stance aligns with previous instances where firefighters have declined police requests for assistance during rooftop occupations of arms factories targeted by campaigners.

John Nicholson of Greater Manchester Friends of Palestine recalled an occasion when firefighters, upon being informed of the FBU’s policy on Palestine, opted not to assist police in removing protesters during an occupation at an Elbit UK factory in Oldham.

As tensions escalate in the region, pro-Palestine protests are expected to continue across Britain this weekend, highlighting ongoing international concerns over Israel’s military actions in Gaza and the plight of Palestinians seeking refuge amidst the conflict.

and finally, BrewDog Founder James Watt Steps Down as CEO Amid Controversy

James Watt, co-founder of the Scottish brewery and pub group BrewDog, has announced his decision to transition to the newly-created role of “captain and co-founder,” retaining his shares in the company. This move will see Chief Operating Officer James Arrow assume the position of CEO, marking a significant shift in leadership for the company.

Established in Fraserburgh, Aberdeenshire, in 2007 by Watt and Martin Dickie, BrewDog has grown to encompass breweries and pubs worldwide, while maintaining its headquarters in Ellon, Aberdeenshire. Reflecting on his tenure as CEO, Watt expressed gratitude for the journey of the past 17 years, acknowledging the highs and lows experienced during his time at the helm.

However, Watt’s leadership has been marred by controversy in recent years, with BrewDog facing criticism over its marketing campaigns and workplace culture. Former employees publicly accused the company of fostering a “culture of fear” and “toxic attitudes” towards junior staff in an open letter in 2021. Furthermore, BrewDog drew ire earlier this year for its decision to abandon its commitment to the real living wage in favour of the minimum wage for new hires.

The announcement of Watt’s departure has been met with celebration by members of Unite, the union representing workers across BrewDog. Bryan Simpson, lead organiser for the hospitality sector at Unite, criticized Watt for presiding over a culture of bullying and mistreatment within the company. Simpson emphasized the need for BrewDog to address the concerns raised by workers and urged the company to prioritize improving pay and conditions in collaboration with the union.

As BrewDog undergoes this transition in leadership, it faces the challenge of rebuilding trust and addressing longstanding issues to foster a more positive and inclusive workplace environment for its employees.

Pension image:
Image by Frantisek Krejci from Pixabay
Brewdog
By https://www.facebook.com/brewdogofficial/?brand_redir=365381716870623, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=69878398