Labour’s Employment Bill Won’t be Slaying any Dragons

Labour’s Employment Bill: A Charade of Progress

Here we are, a quarter of the way into the 21st century, with a Labour government wielding a 404-seat majority – a parliamentary juggernaut with the power to reshape Britain’s economic landscape. And what do we find? certainly not the bold, transformative policies you would expect from such unfettered authority, but rather another dreary act in the long-running farce titled “Pretending to Care About the Working Class While Courting Big Business”.

This is a Labour government that, when faced with its first real test of mettle, chose to withdraw The Winter Fuel Payment from millions of our pensioners and maintain the cruel two-child benefit cap. It’s as if they’ve traded their red flag for a white one, surrender being their first instinct when confronted with the task of actual governance.

The protagonist of this particular scene is none other than Sir Keir Starmer’s “changed” Labour Party, brandishing their new Employment Bill, like a knight with a rubber sausage instead of a sword. One can almost hear the dragon of worker exploitation chuckling at the sight.

This bill, much like its architects, seems to suffer from a severe case of identity crisis. It wants to be seen as progressive without actually progressing, to appear worker-friendly without upsetting its new friends in the City. It’s a masterclass in political equivocation, a document so full of caveats and consultations that one wonders if it was drafted by a committee of weathervanes, spinning frantically to catch the slightest breeze of public opinion.

At first glance, this legislative opus appears impressive – a weighty tome of 157 pages that promises to be “the biggest boost to pay and productivity in the workplace in a generation”. However, upon closer inspection, its heft proves more akin to a pillow than a cudgel, designed to cushion the blow to big business rather than strike a decisive blow for workers’ rights. The devil, as they say, is in the details – or in this case, the conspicuous lack thereof.

So let us pull back the curtain on this legislative extravaganza. The Bill promises a veritable feast for the workforce: day-one sick pay, enhanced paternity leave, flexible working rights, and a ban on those pesky zero-hours contracts. It’s all served up on a silver platter by a Labour Party eager to prove it’s still the workers’ champion.

Labour’s employment reforms won’t become law for two years as government seeks to reassure business

But then reality hits with all the subtlety of a brass band in a library. This legislative banquet won’t be served until autumn 2026 at the earliest. That’s right, folks – it’s jam tomorrow, and plenty of it, but not a crumb for today. And even that meagre offering is contingent on big business playing along.

Yes, you read that correctly. The timeline for this supposed revolution in workers’ rights won’t become law for two years, as the government seeks to “reassure” business. Reassure them of what, precisely? That they needn’t worry, for their profits will remain largely untouched? That the gravy train of exploitation will continue to run, albeit with a slight reduction in speed?

The result is a curious choreography of consultation and postponement. Key measures are left vague, subject to further ’roundtables’ and discussions. It’s less a bill and more a wish list, a promissory note payable at some indeterminate future date.

And what of the omissions? The long-promised single category of worker, seen as crucial to ending exploitation in the gig economy, is conspicuously absent. The ‘right to switch off’? Relegated to a code of conduct, whatever that means. One can almost hear the champagne corks popping in boardrooms across the country as executives realise they can continue to harass their employees at all hours with impunity.

The bill promises a “statutory probation period” of up to nine months for new hires, during which staff can be dismissed under a “lighter touch” process. One is left to ask: lighter for whom? Certainly not for the worker left jobless at the whim of an employer. This falls not only short of the promise of full workers’ rights from day one but descends into a tale of “ifs” and “buts” – if it comes at all.

‘More holes than Swiss cheese’ – Unions Disappointed by Labour’s Employment Rights Bill

Unite union’s assessment that this bill has “more holes than Swiss cheese” is apt, if perhaps too kind. Swiss cheese, after all, still has substance between its holes. This legislation seems more akin to a gossamer veil, providing the illusion of protection while leaving workers exposed to the harsh elements of unbridled capitalism.

General secretary Sharon Graham said: “This Bill is without doubt a significant step forward for workers but stops short of making work pay.”

“The end to draconian laws like Minimum Service Levels and the introduction of new individual rights, for example on bereavement leave, will be beneficial. But the bill still ties itself up in knots trying to avoid what was promised.

“Failure to end fire a rehire and zero hours contracts once and for all will leave more holes than Swiss cheese that hostile employers will use.”

While the bill will give workers the right to a contract reflecting the number of hours they regularly work, it leaves room for employees who want zero-hours contracts to opt in.

Promising to push for improvements to the legislation as the bill goes through parliament, she added: “The Bill also fails to give workers the sort of meaningful rights to access a union for pay bargaining that would put more money in their pockets and, in turn, would aid growth.”

The government’s plan is that once an employee establishes a pattern of regular working over a 12 week period, an employer would be obliged to offer a regular contract of employment.

Workers who prefer zero hours would be able to refuse – there will be no obligation to accept.

Some business groups would prefer this to be “a right to request” rather than an obligation.

The Unite union is not pleased as it thinks that the word “exploitative’ will be used as loophole by some companies.

Unite is also concerned that the practice of “fire and rehire” – getting rid of workers and re-employing them on lower pay and/or terms and conditions – will still be allowed in exceptional circumstances.

Some companies are also critical, for different reasons.

They will claim that new restrictions could make them unviable – and that poorer pay is better than no job for workers.

“We know what happens to people who stay in the middle of the road.
They get run over!”

― Aneurin Bevan

A whole range of measures flagged in Labour’s pre-election “Making Work Pay” document, – the supposed blueprint for the legislation – have been put in the “too difficult” box for the time being and the way things are will never see the light of day again.

This includes measures to make it easier to ensure equal pay between in-house and “contracted out” staff who do similar jobs in public services.

Labour claims this represents the “biggest uplift in workers’ rights in a generation”. A generation of what, one wonders? Snails? Glaciers? To be fair, this claim could indeed be honoured simply by abolishing the draconian Conservative legislation on strike ballots and minimum service levels. But is this truly progress, or merely a return to a slightly less oppressive status quo?

As George Orwell, that keen-eyed observer of political double-speak, once wrote, “Political language… is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” You cannot help but feel the gust of hot air emanating from Westminster as they trumpet these reforms.

While this Employment Bill may represent a step forward, it is a step so small as to be almost imperceptible. It is a tepid reform in an era that calls for radical change, a whisper when we need a roar. As we face the challenges of the 21st century – automation, climate change, and growing inequality – we must demand more than this lukewarm offering from those who claim to represent the interests of working people.

The Labour Party may have changed, but it seems the song remains the same: a lullaby to soothe the masses while the so-called elite… the oligarchy really in charge continue their merry dance unabated. We deserve better.

This should have been ‘bread and butter’ for the Labour Party instead, it’s more like jam tomorrow…It all falls far short of what was promised…