Zero hour contract ban to include agency workers
Agency workers will be included in a ban on "exploitative" zero hour contracts as part of ammendments to the government's employment reform bill, the BBC understands.
The new rules will mean that agency workers will have to be offered a contract guaranteeing a minimum number of hours each week.
It is one of a number of additions to the Employment Rights Bill which will be outlined on Tuesday.
While unions welcomed the inclusion of agency workers in the ban, the Recruitment and Employment Confederation (REC), which represents the sector, said the change should not "undermine" the "flexibility" that zero hour contracts offer some workers.
Agency workers who choose to be on zero hour contracts will also be made eligible for compensation if their shifts are changed at short notice, it is understood.
Although the amendments will not spell out what "short notice" means.
There are around one million agency staff in the UK, working across areas such as warehouses, in hospitality and within the NHS.
The Labour government pledged last year to ban "exploitative zero hours contracts" as part of the Employment Rights Bill.
The minimum hours offered in a contract to agency workers will be calculated according to the average number of hours they normally work.
The BBC understands that the government is yet to decide whether this will be based on a 12-week reference period or longer.
Trade unions have been campaigning for agency workers to be included in the legislative changes to prevent employers getting round the proposed zero hours rules by hiring agency staff.
Paul Novak, general secretary of the Trades Union Congress, said the government was right to close this "loophole".
He said agency workers "make up a significant proportion of the zero hours workforce and need protections from bad working practices too".
But the REC said it was concerned about the change.
Its deputy chief executive, Kate Shoesmith, said people choose agency work "for the flexibility it provides at a time and stage in their life" and that the new rules must not undermine that.
She added that time should be given "to ensure any legislative changes do not conflict with existing and hard-won protections for agency workers".
The REC would "keep working with the government to ensure that," she said.
The BBC understands that the government will table 250 amendments on Tuesday.
They will include doubling of the penalty imposed on companies that engage in so-called "fire and rehire'' practices.
This means that if they fail to properly consult employees before dismissing and then rehiring them on less favourable terms, they could be forced to pay the worker 180 days' worth of pay in compensation up from the current 90 day penalty payment.
The amendments also contain a commitment to extend sick pay to workers earning under £123 a week from the first day of their illness.
They will be entitled to 80% of their average weekly earnings or statutory sick pay - which is currently £116.75 per week – whichever is lowest.
Currently, to qualify for statutory sick pay, a worker must have been ill for three days in a row.
There will also be changes to rules around trade union recognition and the ability of unions to take industrial action.
The government is proposing that workers will have to give their employers 10 days' warning of any strike action – rather than the existing 14 days' notice.
Currently, there can be a ballot for union recognition if 10% of the workforce is a member of a union.
The government had been consulting on lowering it to 2% but the proposed amendment will not state a figure and will simply give the secretary of state the power to lower the 10% threshold.
Mr Novak said the changes were about ''creating a modern economy that works for workers and business alike'' and that driving up standards "will stop good employers from being undercut by the bad, and will mean more workers benefit from a union voice".
Several business groups have been critical of the government for not providing more detail about how the legislation will work in practice.
They are unlikely to be satisfied by what's in the amendments.
Craig Beaumont, executive director of the Federation of Small Businesses, said that "anyone hoping to see government take serious account of the concerns of small employers looks likely to remain disappointed for the time being".
He said: "There is a huge gulf between the stated aims of this bill and the real world negative impact on jobs and growth."
Low-paid workers to get 80% of salary in sick pay
How will the changes to workers' rights affect you?
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Aukus: Could Trump sink Australia's submarine plans?
Australia's defence minister woke up to a nightmare earlier this week - and it's one that has been looming ever since the United States re-elected Donald Trump as president in November. A landmark trilateral agreement between the US, UK and Australia - which would give the latter cutting-edge nuclear submarine technology in exchange for more help policing China in the Asia-Pacific - was under review. The White House said on Thursday it wanted to make sure the so-called Aukus pact was "aligned with the president's America First agenda". It's the latest move from Washington that challenges its long-standing friendship with Canberra, sparking fears Down Under that, as conflict heats up around the globe, Australia may be left standing without its greatest ally. "I don't think any Australian should feel that our ally is fully committed to our security at this moment," says Sam Roggeveen, who leads the security programme at Australia's Lowy Institute think tank. On paper, Australia is the clear beneficiary of the Aukus agreement, worth £176bn ($239bn; A$368bn). The technology underpinning the pact belongs to the US, and the UK already has it, along with their own nuclear-powered subs. But those that are being jointly designed and built by the three countries will be an improvement. For Australia, this represents a pivotal upgrade to military capabilities. The new submarine model will be able to operate further and faster than the country's existing diesel-engine fleet, and allow it to carry out long-range strikes against enemies for the first time. It is a big deal for the US to share what has been described as the "crown jewel" of its defence technology, and no small thing for the UK to hand over engine blueprints either. But arming Australia has historically been viewed by Washington and Downing Street as essential to preserving peace in the Asia-Pacific region, which is far from their own. It's about putting their technology and hardware in the right place, experts say. But when the Aukus agreement was signed in 2021, all three countries had very different leaders - Joe Biden in the US, Boris Johnson in the UK and Scott Morrison in Australia. Today, when viewed through the increasingly isolationist lens Trump is using to examine his country's global ties, some argue the US has far less to gain from the pact. Under Secretary of Defence Policy Elbridge Colby, a previous critic of Aukus, will lead the White House review into the agreement, with a Pentagon official telling the BBC the process was to ensure it meets "common sense, America First criteria". Two of the criteria they cite are telling. One is a demand that allies "step up fully to do their part for collective defence". The other is a purported need to ensure that the US arms industry is adequately meeting the country's own needs first. The Trump administration has consistently expressed frustration at allies, including Australia, who they believe aren't pulling their weight with defence spending. They also say America is struggling to produce enough nuclear-powered submarines for its own forces. "Why are we giving away this crown jewel asset when we most need it?" Colby himself had said last year. The Australian government, however, is presenting a calm front. It's only natural for a new administration to reassess the decisions of its predecessor, officials say, noting that the new UK Labor government had a review of Aukus last year too. "I'm very confident this is going to happen," Defence Minister Richard Marles said of the pact, in an interview with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). But there's little doubt the review would be causing some early jolts of panic in Canberra. "I think angst has been inseparable from Aukus since its beginning… The review itself is not alarming. It's just everything else," Euan Graham, from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, tells the BBC. There is growing concern across Australia that America cannot be relied upon. "[President Donald Trump's] behaviour, over these first months of this term, I don't think should fill any observer with confidence about America's commitment to its allies," Mr Roggeveen says. "Trump has said, for instance, that Ukraine is mainly Europe's problem because they are separated by a big, beautiful ocean. Well of course, there's a big, beautiful ocean separating America from Asia too." Washington's decision to slap large tariffs on Australian goods earlier this year did not inspire confidence either, with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese saying it was clearly "not the act of a friend". Albanese has stayed quiet on the Aukus review so far, likely holding his breath for a face-to-face meeting with Trump on the sidelines of the G7 summit in Canada next week. This is a chat he's still desperately trying to get the US president to agree to. But several former prime ministers have rushed to give their two cents. Scott Morrison, the conservative leader who negotiated the Aukus pact in 2021, said the review should not be "over-interpreted" and scoffed at the suggestion another country could meet Australia's security needs. "The notion… is honestly delusional," he told ABC radio. Malcolm Turnbull, who was behind the French submarine contract that Morrison dramatically tore up in favour of Aukus, said Australia needs to "wake up", realise it's a "bad deal" which the US could renege on at any point, and make other plans before it is too late. Meanwhile, Paul Keating, a famously sharp-tongued advocate for closer ties with China, said this "might very well be the moment Washington saves Australia from itself". "Aukus will be shown for what it always has been: a deal hurriedly scribbled on the back of an envelope by Scott Morrison, along with the vacuous British blowhard Boris Johnson and the confused President Joe Biden." The whiff of US indecision over Aukus feeds into long-term criticism in some quarters that Australia is becoming too reliant on the country. Calling for Australia's own inquiry, the Greens, the country's third-largest political party, said: "We need an independent defence and foreign policy, that does not require us to bend our will and shovel wealth to an increasingly erratic and reckless Trump USA." There's every chance the US turns around in a few weeks and recommits to the pact. At the end of the day, Australia is buying up to five nuclear-powered submarines at a huge expense, helping keep Americans employed. And the US has plenty of time - just under a decade - to sort out their supply issues and provide them. "[The US] also benefit from the wider aspects of Aukus - all three parties get to lift their boat jointly by having a more interoperable defence technology and ecosystem," Mr Graham adds. Even so, the anxiety the review has injected into the relationship is going to be hard to erase completely – and has only inflamed disagreements over Aukus in Australia. But there's also a possibility Trump does want to rewrite the deal. "I can easily see a future in which we don't get the Virginia class boats," Mr Roggeveen says, referring to the interim submarines. That would potentially leave Australia with its increasingly outdated fleet for another two decades, vulnerable while the new models are being designed and built. What happens in the event the US does leave the Aukus alliance completely? At this juncture, few are sounding that alarm. The broad view is that, for the US, countering China and keeping the Pacific in their sphere of influence is still crucial. Mr Roggeveen, though, says that when it comes to potential conflict in the Pacific, the US hasn't been putting their money where its mouth is for years. "China's been engaged in the biggest build-up of military power of any country since the end of the Cold War and the United States' position in Asia basically hasn't changed," he says. If the US leaves, Aukus could very well become an awkward Auk – but could the UK realistically offer enough for Australia to sustain the agreement? And if the whole thing falls apart and Australia is left without submarines, who else could it turn to? France feels like an unlikely saviour, given the previous row there, but Australia does have options, Mr Roggeveen says: "This wouldn't be the end of the world for Australian defence." Australia is "geographically blessed", he says, and with "a reasonable defence budget and a good strategy" could sufficiently deter China, even without submarines. "There's this phrase you hear occasionally, that the danger is on our doorstep. Well, it's a big doorstep if that is true… Beijing is closer to Berlin than it is to Sydney." "There is this mental block in Australia and also this emotional block - a fear of abandonment, this idea that we can't defend ourselves alone. But we absolutely can if we have to." What is Aukus, the submarine deal between Australia, the UK and US? Submarine deal sends powerful message to China The laidback Australian city key to countering China Donald Trump is looming over Australia's election
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
The War Israel Was Ready to Fight
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. On October 7, 2023, Israel suffered the most catastrophic assault in its history when Hamas terrorists killed more than 1,000 people and took hundreds of others hostage. Almost a year later, Israel assassinated Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, the most powerful militia in the world, along with the entire leadership of his organization. Last night, it did the same to the rulers of Iran, eliminating the heads of the regime's armed forces, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, and regional proxies. How could the same country that was bested by a ragtag militia in its own backyard turn around and ravage multiple regional powers with devastating decapitation strikes? The dissonance between these events has fomented confusion and conspiracy theories. But Israel's successes and failures in the past 20 months stem from a single source. A very specific plan to stop Iran led to both the disaster of October 7 and the triumphs since. For decades, Iran's theocratic leaders have called for Israel's destruction, denying the Nazi Holocaust while urging another one. The regime funneled millions of dollars and thousands of missiles to proxies on Israel's borders and beyond: Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, the Houthis in Yemen. Iran's authorities constructed monuments to their predicted victory, displaying missiles emblazoned with the words Death to Israel and even erecting a countdown clock to Israel's end. [Read: What Trump knew about the attack against Iran] Israel, a nation born out of the ashes of an attempted Jewish genocide, took these threats seriously. Just as Iran labeled America 'the Great Satan' and Israel 'the Little Satan,' Israel's security establishment conceived of its adversaries in tiers: Iran was the biggest threat, its fearsome proxy Hezbollah ranked next, and the smaller Hamas posed the least danger. The Israelis prioritized their resources accordingly. Their best people—and best exploding beepers—were put to work countering Iran and Hezbollah, which had formidable arsenals of advanced weapons. Hamas, by contrast, was treated as an afterthought, contained behind a blockade of Gaza that was maintained less by manpower than by advanced security technology. October 7 exposed this folly, as Hamas and its allies disabled that technology and stormed across the border on land, meeting little resistance as they rampaged through civilian communities. This was a war Israel did not expect and was not prepared to fight. That fact was evident not only in the casualties and hostage-taking during the massacre, but in the grinding, brutal, and haphazard war in Gaza that has followed. Simply put, Israel was flying without radar. It did not know Hamas's capabilities, had not infiltrated its leadership, did not have widespread intelligence sources on the ground, and was largely ignorant of the group's sprawling underground infrastructure in Gaza. This operational ignorance has resulted in a horrific meat grinder of a war with thousands of civilian casualties and still no end in sight. It's also why Israel's military took more than a year after October 7 to find and kill the Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar. By the time that happened, Israel had already taken out Hezbollah's Nasrallah, a far more protected and high-value target, after neutralizing many of his elite forces via exploding beepers and walkie-talkies and blowing up many of the group's missiles while they were still in storage. The very resources that had not been brought to bear on Hamas, thus enabling the disaster of October 7, achieved the neutralization of Hezbollah within weeks. Hezbollah had joined in the attacks on Israel after the assault on October 7, apparently believing that Israel was too hobbled to respond beyond token tit-for-tat strikes. Likewise, the group's patrons in Iran may have misread the events of October 7 as evidence of fundamental Israeli weakness, rather than a terrible but isolated error. For months, Tehran continued to supply its proxies in Lebanon and Yemen with advanced missiles to fire at Israel, seemingly under the belief that it would be immune from similar incoming in response. That mistake, like Israel's on October 7, proved costly. Last night, Israel began running the same playbook it used on Hezbollah against Iran. Key military leaders were reportedly assassinated, drone factories were targeted, and missile depots and launchers were eliminated before they could be used. In retrospect, October 7 wasn't a preview of an Israel-Iran war—the mysterious strike last July that killed the Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in an Iranian Revolutionary Guard guesthouse in Tehran was. That audacious assassination revealed that Israel had clandestine capabilities within Iran's most fortified strongholds of a sort it never had in Gaza. After last night's initial assault, Israel's Mossad released rare footage of its agents operating inside Iran. [Read: In the game of Spy vs. Spy, Israel keeps getting the better of Iran] When Israel went after Hezbollah in Lebanon last September, American and Israeli officials characterized the move as 'de-escalation through escalation.' That line was mocked by many, but it is largely what happened, because Israel was prepared for the conflict—unlike in Gaza—and achieved a decisive victory. Within months, Israel and Lebanon had agreed to a cease-fire, and Hezbollah was effectively disabled. Israel did the heavy lifting, and the U.S. acted as the closer with its diplomacy. By contrast, Israel's unplanned war in Gaza has seen no such resolution and steadily devolved into a messianic power grab by Israel's far right. No Israeli faction has religious or territorial designs on Tehran, which makes this outcome less likely in Iran. Nonetheless, Iran is a far more powerful adversary than any Israel has yet faced, making a protracted and profoundly destructive conflict likely. This is the war Israel had prepared to wage, but in war, preparation is no insulation from devastation. Article originally published at The Atlantic
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Life Science Labs Signal Shifting Strategies Amid New Economic Pressures, According to Survey of 550+ Researchers
ARLINGTON, Va., June 13, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- New survey insights reveal a measurable shift in how life science labs are responding to global financial uncertainty, rising operational costs, and upcoming U.S. tariff policies. Based on responses from more than 550 academic and industry researchers, the latest data from BioInformatics' Beyond the Bench series captures how lab priorities, purchasing decisions, and funding strategies have evolved from January to mid-April 2025—offering a rare pre- and post-policy view of market sentiment. While the first wave of the survey was fielded prior to the announcement of new tariff policies, the second wave offers a timely comparison as labs began adjusting to anticipated policy changes under the Trump administration and broader macroeconomic pressures, including inflation, tightened research budgets, and supply chain strain. Click here to download the Lab Budgets & Funding Survey Key Survey Findings Include: Funding confidence is declining, with only 57% of labs reporting confidence in securing 2025 funding—down from 66% in the first wave. Financial strain is hitting North American labs harder than those in Europe: 46% report new funding challenges (vs. 21% in Europe), and over half are considering personnel cuts, compared to just 28% in Europe. 42% of labs cite new concerns about securing funding through year-end, signaling heightened financial risk across the sector. Cost-saving strategies are accelerating, including resource sharing, supplier renegotiations, outsourcing, and delayed equipment purchases. These findings reflect shifting institutional priorities and underscore the growing need for timely, market-aligned planning as labs face increased constraints and financial pressure. "By fielding this survey before and after key policy announcements, we're able to offer a real-time snapshot of how labs are adjusting to economic volatility," said Richa Singh, VP, Market Insights at BioInformatics. "As tariff policies begin to reshape lab planning, companies need focused, evidence-backed insights to align their strategies. This data helps commercial teams track funding sentiment, adapt messaging, and make confident, evidence-based decisions—especially in a market where priorities can change within weeks." About Beyond the Bench Beyond the Bench is a free monthly intelligence series created by BioInformatics to help life science and diagnostics companies understand how customer sentiment and commercial priorities are shifting—particularly during times of uncertainty and industry disruption. Powered by the Science Advisory Board, BioInformatics' proprietary network of over 55,000 life science professionals, each report delivers survey-based insights on market trends, strategic shifts, and buyer behavior. The series was launched to provide a clear, unbiased view into the evolving challenges facing researchers and decision-makers—giving commercial teams actionable guidance to align strategy, messaging, and resource planning with what matters most to their customers. Access & Get Involved: Download the Lab Budgets & Funding Survey Sign up to receive monthly Beyond the Bench reports Join the Science Advisory Board — qualify to participate in surveys, earn rewards, and shape the future of scientific research. About BioInformatics BioInformatics, part of the Science and Medicine Group, is a leading market research and advisory firm serving the life science and diagnostic industries. The company delivers custom and syndicated research powered by a proprietary global panel of more than 55,000 professionals. View original content to download multimedia: SOURCE BioInformatics Inc.
