By Alison Gaughan, UCU member
The Employment Rights Bill is making headlines as a key piece of legislation promised in the Labour manifesto. It has been touted as one of the most transformative policies proposed by the Starmer government. Although containing some important improvements, the Bill does not go nearly far enough in addressing what remain some of the most restrictive union laws in Europe. Moreover, without workers’ action the Bill is in danger of being further watered down.
The new government is under pressure to appease the trade unions and avoid another 2022-2023 style strike wave. This has been partly done by offering pay rises to selected public sector workers, like junior doctors and school teachers, and partly through the Employment Rights Bill, both of which are a testimony to the effectiveness of strikes. In reality, Labour are offering crumbs to the union leaders, who have been very supportive in the lead-up to the election.
The mood in the Trade Union Congress (TUC), generally a good reflection of the union bureaucracies, in early 2024 was very much against rocking the industrial boat and looking positively towards what a Labour government would have to offer.
Some prominent trade union leaders, such as TUC leader Paul Nowak and RMT General Secretary Mick Lynch, have praised the Bill in glowing terms, with Lynch describing it as a “reset” of industrial relations. This is drastically overstating the case given the concessions to employers that Labour have made. Others, including General Secretary of Unite, Sharon Graham, have been more critical, but the recent setback at Port Talbot Steel in South Wales shows that criticism is not effective without meaningful action.
Minimum Service Levels and the 50% strike threshold scrapped
In terms of trade union legislation, one of the headlines is the repeal of the Minimum Service Levels (MSL) laws. These were a creation of the previous government during the 2022-2023 strike wave and stated that workers in essential services such as health, transport and education could be forced to work even when their union had a live mandate for strike action.
It is worth noting that no employer, including departments of the then Tory government, has ever enforced these laws. The backlash from the workers’ movement was and is liable to be too big to take a chance on. At the time, Labour identified the MSL law as “symbolic”, thus repealing it is an empty gesture.
The Bill will also see the vicious anti-union strike thresholds scrapped. Under the Tories’ 2016 Trade Union Act, in order to take industrial action such as a strike, over half of eligible members must return their postal ballot paper. This has proven the biggest barrier to strike action in recent times.
The Bill is committed to removing this industrial straitjacket; instead, Labour will hope that right-wing union leaders will play a role in holding back struggle more directly. However, the Bill still leaves in place the antiunion regulations introduced by Margaret Thatcher during the Miners’ Strike 40 years ago.
Watered-down pledges
Labour is very keen to emphasise their business-friendly credentials, hoping to avoid comparison with the party under Corbyn, and the concessions to workers have already been severely watered-down compared to the original manifesto promises.
Angela Rayner has been quoted as saying that the Bill is “good for business” which makes the rabid reaction among some of the right-wing press particularly laughable. The Telegraph for example has made much of the suggestion that employers will pay for time off for union reps to take part in diversity training, a very minor detail and not much different to the current rules.
So far the government has rowed back on the headline “employment rights from day one” by agreeing to allow nine-month probationary periods. While these are already used in some workplaces, in others they will actually make it easier to sack a worker.
They have also allowed a massive loophole in the pledge to ban zero-hours contracts. Employees will now be allowed to ‘choose’ to sign a waiver and in fact be put on a zero-hours contract. It is very easy to see that many workers will, under the social and economic pressure to find work, feel – or indeed be – coerced into signing these waivers.
There is precedent for this scenario with the Working Time Directive 2003, a piece of EU law which supposedly outlawed anyone being forced to work more than 48 hours per week: there were many examples where jobs were offered on the specific condition that employees signed a waiver of this right.
Crucially none of these laws will be on the Statute Books for at least two years, as there will be extended consultation on the Bill. It is likely that pressure from big business will result in further weakening of the promises to workers. It is up to the workers’ movement and especially the unions to fight to see every piece of Tory anti-union and anti-worker legislation totally repealed. For unions to step up to this challenge, rankand-file members will need to transform our unions into democratic, fighting organisations, with a strategy of class struggle.
With the cost of living continuing to rise – inflation has fallen but is not negative – and wages are stagnant, a failure by the government to improve conditions for workers has the potential to become another explosive situation as we saw in 2022. This could play out positively in a new strike wave leading to better conditions for workers or negatively, driving unhappy workers into the hands of the right and far right. We have seen both processes play out over the last few years, the latter in the popularity of Reform UK in the election and the riots that followed the Southport murders. It is crucial that the left offers a positive outlook and a real alternative.
