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

A store employee looks frightened and raises her hand in front of a masked individual holding a knife in a convenience store.

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

Understanding the 2026 Changes to UK Employment Rights Act

The law has shifted: since late 2025–early 2026 Parliament has repealed large parts of the Trade Union Act and introduced the Employment Rights Act reforms that simplify ballot and picket rules, extend mandates and strengthen dismissal protection for strike participants, while separate April changes alter statutory sick pay and entitlement timing — all of which materially change the risks and costs for workers in the UK.

Plain statement of what changed

  • Repeal and simplification of 2016 Trade Union Act provisions: The government removed many of the extra reporting and ballot constraints introduced in 2016, restoring simpler statutory requirements for unions and ballots. Key repeal and simplification measures took effect on 18 February 2026.
  • Industrial‑action ballot and notice rules: Ballots remain required and must follow statutory form and notice rules, but the support thresholds for important public services (the 40% rule) were removed and the mandate period for action was extended to 12 months for ballots opened on/after 18 February 2026. Turnout and basic ballot transparency remain legally required.
  • Picketing law and supervision: The statutory requirement to appoint a named picketing supervisor was removed; the updated Code of Practice on Picketing reflects these changes and was revised to align with the Employment Rights Act. The code still requires peaceful conduct and recommends stewarding and safety arrangements.
  • Protection from dismissal for taking protected industrial action: From 18 February 2026 dismissal for participating in protected industrial action is treated more robustly; the previous short‑term limits on protection were removed so that dismissal related to protected action is more likely to be automatically unfair under the new framework.
  • Certification Officer reporting and investigatory powers: The additional annual‑return reporting requirements about industrial action and some political‑expenditure reporting were repealed, narrowing the Certification Officer’s mandatory reporting fields and publicity powers.
  • Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) and entitlement timing (April changes): From 6 April 2026 (part of the April package) SSP entitlement timing and the lower‑earnings threshold were reformed: SSP is payable from the first day of sickness once entitlement conditions are met, and statutory rates have been uprated in recent years (check GOV.UK for the current weekly rate).

Direct legal impacts on workers

  • Greater legal cover for striking workers: Stronger dismissal protection reduces the legal risk of being sacked for taking protected action. This shifts the balance of power in disputes.
  • Easier to sustain campaigns: 12‑month mandates mean unions can lawfully plan longer campaigns without immediate re‑balloting, increasing bargaining leverage.
  • Lower formal barriers for public‑service ballots: Removing the 40% threshold makes lawful action more achievable where a majority of votes cast support action.
  • Practical responsibilities remain: Removal of the picket supervisor box does not remove the need for organised stewarding, safety planning, or legal compliance on picket lines; unions must still follow the Code of Practice.
  • Financial and health‑leave effects: SSP timing and eligibility reforms change cash flow for sick and striking workers; uprated weekly rates help some, but removal of waiting days and LEL changes alter who receives SSP and when. Workers on low pay remain vulnerable and will need strike‑fund and hardship planning.

By Pat Harrington


Sources: GOV.UK Plan to Make Work Pay timeline; Acas guidance on the Employment Rights Act 2025; GOV.UK guidance on ballots and picketing; Certification Officer materials; GOV.UK SSP pages.