Workers’ Rights – 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

Unfair dismissal – A quiet bombshell

Advertisements

Last week the government quietly dropped a (little) bombshell, by adding an ‘Unfair Dismissal Factsheet’ to this page on the Employment Rights Act 2025.

The government’s quiet publication of a new Unfair Dismissal Factsheet marks a significant shift in the UK’s employment landscape, signalling the most substantial expansion of dismissal protections in decades. The update, added without fanfare to the Employment Rights Act 2025 factsheet collection, confirms that from 1 January 2027, the qualifying period for ordinary unfair dismissal will fall from two years to six months, and the long‑standing cap on compensatory awards will be abolished.

The changes amount to a fundamental recalibration of power in the workplace. Reducing the qualifying period to six months brings millions more workers within the scope of unfair dismissal protection far earlier in their employment. The removal of the compensation cap—currently the lower of £118,223 or 52 weeks’ pay—means tribunals will be able to award losses in full, a shift that will be particularly consequential for higher‑earning employees and for employers accustomed to predictable financial exposure. This is not a minor technical tweak; it reshapes the risk profile of every dismissal decision.

What is striking is the government’s insistence that no further consultation will take place. Ministers describe the measures as the product of “constructive, government‑convened conversations” between unions and business groups, but the quiet publication of the factsheet—rather than a ministerial announcement—suggests an awareness of the political sensitivity. Employers now face a compressed window to overhaul probation policies, performance management processes, and dismissal procedures before the 2027 commencement date.

For workers, the reforms promise earlier security, stronger bargaining power, and a meaningful check on one‑sided flexibility. For employers, they represent a decisive end to the era in which the two‑year qualifying period acted as a buffer against litigation risk. The factsheet may have been published quietly, but its implications are anything but: this is a structural shift in UK employment law, and organisations that fail to prepare now will feel the consequences later.

By Maria Camara

Why Delaying Retirement Age Harms Workers

Advertisements

The proposal to push the state pension age beyond 68 feels like a betrayal. It undermines the deal we’ve earned through decades of work. As RMT General Secretary Eddie Dempsey warns, “Raising the pension age even further isn’t just cruel and unnecessary, it’s a slap in the face to the very people who keep this country running.” Pensions are deferred wages—every National Insurance pound was meant to fund our retirement, not vanish into general taxation.

Remember, National Insurance began in 1946 as a separate, ring-fenced pot to guarantee our pensions. Over time, governments folded NI into general taxation, breaking the direct link between what we paid and what we receive. That erosion of trust leaves us exposed every time ministers launch a “review” of retirement age.

Private pensions were supposed to fill the gap, yet only 44% of working-age adults hold one. Nearly 30% of people over 55 rely solely on the state pension. The average private pot is around £35,000. This amount is hardly enough to generate an income to live on. When savings or private pension income fall short, the state pension is all that stands between you and hardship.

Our bodies don’t keep pace with policy deadlines. By age 75, more than 70% of us have at least one chronic condition. By 85, that number climbs to nearly 90%. Almost half struggle with everyday tasks. “Asking people to labour an extra six, even eight years effectively steals the dignity of retirement,” says Pat Harrington of Solidarity union. Forcing us to wait until bones ache and energy fades robs every dream of travel, family time, or simply resting.

Worse still is the uncertainty. With regular reviews, whispers of ages 69, 70 or even 74, how can anyone plan? You don’t know when your last pay cheque arrives. So, you delay home-buying. You hesitate on pension contributions. You hoard cash instead of investing. That paralysis can cost you a lifetime of compound growth—and the financial freedom you thought you were building.

We’ve earned the right to step off the treadmill when our bodies demand it. Policymakers should restore NI’s ring-fencing. They should tax wealth fairly. Loopholes need to be closed. Policymakers must secure the retirement we’ve already paid for. Retirement isn’t a privilege to be delayed at will—it’s the promise of rest after a lifetime of work.

Government Urged Not to Resurrect Fees for UK Employment Tribunals

Advertisements

484 words, 3 minutes read time.

In a move that has sparked controversy, the UK government is considering the reintroduction of fees for employment tribunals. These fees, previously scrapped in 2017, are now being reconsidered, and unions and workers’ rights groups are voicing their concerns.

The Background:

Back in 2013, the government introduced fees for employment tribunals, ranging from £390 to £1,200 depending on the case. However, this fee regime faced significant backlash. The supreme court ruled that it hindered access to justice, violating both UK and EU law. Consequently, the government was forced to abandon these fees.

The Current Proposal:

Now, the government is consulting on bringing back employment tribunal fees. The proposed fees start at £55 per claim, with an additional appeal fee for each judgment, decision, direction, or order being appealed against. While the initial fee can cover claims on behalf of multiple individuals, the appeal process could still result in significant costs for claimants.

Unions and Workers’ Rights Groups React:

A coalition of 48 organizations, including the TUC, Citizens Advice, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the Fawcett Society, and Maternity Action, has expressed strong opposition to the reintroduction of fees. They argue that:

Exploitation Concerns: Bringing back fees risks pricing many people out of workplace justice. It could deter individuals from lodging worthy claims and give a green light to bad employers to exploit their workers.
Undercutting Good Employers: By allowing fees, bad employers may undercut good ones, knowing they are less likely to face claims in the employment tribunal.
Enforcement of Employment Rights: The workers’ rights groups emphasize that employment rights are only real if they are enforced. Reintroducing fees could undermine workers’ ability to seek justice.

The groups opposing the fees said in a joint statement: “Workers seeking recovery of wage theft, unpaid redundancy pay and compensation for unfair dismissal are to be asked to stump up extra money at an incredibly tough moment in their lives.”

“Access to justice must never be contingent on your ability to pay.”

TUC general secretary Paul Nowak said: “All working people should be able to enforce their rights. But introducing fees for tribunals puts yet another hurdle in the way of those seeking justice at their most vulnerable moment.”

Government’s Stance:

The government contends that the proposed fees are proportionate and affordable, aligning with the supreme court judgment. It argues that users should contribute to the running costs of tribunals, similar to users of other courts and tribunals. Additionally, help will be available for those unable to afford the fee.

The consultation period runs until March 25, during which stakeholders can provide feedback. The government claims it aims to strike a balance between access to justice and financial sustainability for the tribunal system.

While the debate continues, the fate of employment tribunal fees hangs in the balance, affecting workers’ rights and the pursuit of justice in the workplace.

By Pat Harrington

Picture credit: Image by Daniel Bone from Pixabay