Pat McFadden says that the Labour Party would “survive and go on” if Unite disaffiliated. Challenge accepted. We shall elect our General Secretary next year, faced with a Government that was requiring our youth to work for benefits instead of giving them the jobs that clearly needed to be done, while also doing as set out by Andy McDonald:
Even though it was heavily trailed, the clear positive from the Budget was the scrapping of the two-child limit — a single measure that will be transformative for hundreds of thousands of children.
What was far less positive was the post-Budget announcement that the government would abandon one of its clearest promises to working people: day-one protection from unfair dismissal. Much has been said about whether freezing tax allowances breached the manifesto, but on this issue, there is no ambiguity. The government has broken faith with the electorate — openly and unmistakably.
Only months ago, senior Labour figures, including the now Prime Minister, championed day-one rights as the cornerstone of the biggest expansion of workers’ protections in a generation. They framed it as a simple moral truth: no worker should live in fear of being fired on a whim. Yet these protections have now been traded down to six months — a compromise that ministers claim came from balanced negotiation between unions and business. In reality, it did not. Trade unions were presented with a stark ultimatum: accept this compromise or watch the rest of the Employment Rights Bill — including the Fair Work Agency — stall as the House of Lords created further roadblocks.
That an unelected chamber felt able to meddle with a clear manifesto pledge is troubling enough. More troubling is the government’s willingness to fold, rather than compel the Lords to respect its mandate. A government with a commanding majority should not cede ground so easily. It acted decisively to support the steel industry, yet when confronted by a rebellion of titled obstructionists, its resolve suddenly evaporated.
The retreat matters because what’s at stake is simple justice. Most people change jobs to improve their prospects and provide stability. Under the revised timetable, a worker could leave secure employment, take a new role in good faith, and still be fired without cause five months and three weeks in — left with no rights, income, or route to redress. This is not hypothetical; it is happening now. And until unfair dismissal protections truly apply from day one, it will continue.
Critics often point to probationary periods as justification for the status quo, but this is a straw man. Probation was never in question. What is in question is whether good workers — meeting every expectation — can still be arbitrarily dismissed out of managerial whim. Under current law, they can. Under the compromise, they still will.
The change to lift the compensation cap is welcome and further evidence of the advances possible under this government. But if the government imagines its concession will end pressure from anti-worker interests, it is mistaken. Powerful business organisations are already preparing to soften core protections through consultations and secondary legislation. Many openly seek to alter how the law operates in practice.
Individually, their interventions appear measured. The CBI warns of a “thicket of regulation” unless ministers create an employer-friendly “landing zone.” The Federation of Small Businesses says over 90 per cent of small firms are concerned and urges longer qualifying periods or carve-outs. The British Chambers of Commerce claims the Bill lacks the “right balance,” urging ministers to revisit dismissal rules, union access, and zero-hours protections.
Viewed together, this is not benign commentary but a coordinated effort to hollow out the Bill before it becomes lived reality. These organisations treat consultation not as implementation but as a second negotiation — an opportunity to dilute protections ministers promised the public.
If this legislation is to mean anything — if it is truly to be a New Deal for Working People — the government cannot allow it to be quietly rewritten by those who opposed it from the outset. Working people were promised change. They have waited long enough. Now the government must decide whether it stands with them — or with those ready to weaken their rights at the first sign of resistance.
No comments:
Post a Comment