Latest news with #Employment Rights Bill
Daily Mail
20-07-2025
- Business
- Daily Mail
Tory opponents of Angela Rayner's strikers charter will celebrate ‘Norman Tebbit Day' in honour of Margaret Thatcher's union-bashing ally
Opponents of Angela Rayner 's controversial new industrial laws will tomorrow celebrate 'Norman Tebbit Day' in honour of Margaret Thatcher 's late union-bashing ally. Tory peers will use a debate in the Lords to try to amend Ms Rayner's Employment Rights Bill, which critics say will make it harder to employ workers, leave businesses vulnerable to strikes and force firms to employ diversity officers to censor conversations they deem inappropriate. The Bill also contains a raft of other measures. They include the end of zero-hours contracts, strengthened redundancy rights, more flexible working and the power for ministers to take companies to employment tribunals on behalf of employees – even if they do not want to sue. The peers are planning to amend measures granting access rights for union officials, and new electronic balloting which would make it easier for union reps to persuade workers to back industrial action. Lord Tebbit, who died aged 94 on July 7, led Mrs Thatcher's drive to restrict the unions' ability to bring industrial action. He described Marxist totalitarians in unions as 'small in number, anti-democratic forces [which] have gained great power through the trades union movement'. The peers are also expected to raise fears that hostile states such as Russia, Iran and North Korea could cyber-hack the e-ballots. As The Mail on Sunday revealed earlier this month, under the Bill employers must protect their staff from harassment by third parties. It means, for example, that a worker could take an employer to a tribunal if they feel jokes or banter they overhear was offensive on grounds such as race, sex or religion if their bosses didn't do 'all they could' to prevent it. That is likely to lead to firms taking on more diversity officers to monitor what people are saying to help them prove they had taken steps to protect their workers. The Bill fails to stipulate any ring fence allowing the expression of opinions on political, moral, religious or social matters. Shadow Business Secretary Andrew Griffith said: 'Angela Rayner's extreme union charter will take us right back to the 1970s, a period Norman Tebbit fought tooth and nail to drag Britain out of. 'These laws will see the unions run rife, strangle private enterprise and grind the country to a halt. 'Most worryingly are measures which risk industrial sabotage. This goes against everything Tebbit fought for, and must be stopped at once'.
The Independent
16-07-2025
- Business
- The Independent
Workers may not get ‘day one' protection against unfair dismissal despite government pledge
Proposals to give new workers 'day one' protection against unfair dismissal has suffered a heavy defeat in the House of Lords on Wednesday. The defeat is a new blow for the government as the proposals were a Labour manifesto commitment. The House of Lords backed by 304 votes to 160, majority 144, a Conservative -led measure which would instead reduce the existing qualifying period for the workplace safeguard from two years to six months. It was the latest setback suffered by the Labour frontbench to its Employment Rights Bill in the upper chamber and puts peers on a collision course with the administration, given it was an explicit election pledge. The change will be considered by MPs when the draft law returns to the Commons during so-called 'ping-pong', when legislation is batted between the two Houses until agreement is reached. The proposed reforms also give workers other 'day one' rights, such as sick pay, paternity leave and the right to request flexible working. In addition, the Bill would introduce new restrictions on 'fire-and-rehire' processes when employees are let go and then re-employed on new contracts with worse pay or conditions. Business minister Baroness Jones of Whitchurch told peers: 'This Government was elected on a manifesto to provide unfair dismissal protections from day one of employment. 'Not two years, not six months, but day one. 'To deliver this commitment we will remove the qualifying period for these rights.' She added: 'These amendments would not deliver on the Government's manifesto commitment to introduce a day one right against unfair dismissal, leaving many newly hired employees without robust employment protections.' However, Tory shadow business minister Lord Sharpe of Epsom said: 'We are debating a change that will fundamentally alter the balance of risk in hiring, and at a time when unemployment has risen in every month this government has been in power.' He added: 'This clause will do nothing to promote fairness in the workplace. 'It will erode flexibility, it will choke opportunity, and it will harden the barriers that those on the margins already face.' He pointed out the Government's own impact assessment which said that introducing the day one right to claim unfair dismissal 'could damage the employment prospects of people who are trying to re-enter the labour market, especially if they are observed to be riskier to hire', including younger workers with less experience and ex-offenders. Lord Sharpe went on: 'The Government already knows and thinks this so why are they doing this? 'So I don't believe this clause is ready. I don't believe that it's safe, I don't believe that it's wise.' Independent crossbencher Lord Vaux of Harrowden said: 'With this Bill, the Government is knowingly and deliberately damaging the life chances of the most vulnerable, in particular young people trying to get their first step on the employment ladder, and for no apparent tangible benefit. 'I urge them to think again.' The Government was subsequently dealt a further blow as peers backed by 248 votes to 150, majority 98, a change to the legislation, proposed by the Liberal Democrats, which would force ministers to strengthen whistleblower protections.
The Independent
14-07-2025
- Business
- The Independent
Why zero-hours contracts could be here to stay in new blow to workers' rights
A proposed crack down on zero-hour contracts in the workplace have suffered a setback today. Flagship plans by the Government to halt zero-hour contracts in the workplace have been scuppered by peers in the House of Lords. The House of Lords backed by 264 to 158, majority 106, a move to change the legal requirement for an employer to offer guaranteed hours to an employee's right to request the arrangement. Peers went on to inflict a further blow on the Labour front bench in supporting by 267 votes to 153, majority 114, a measure to exempt employers from having to make a payment to a worker if a shift was cancelled with at least 48 hours' notice. The defeats came as the Employment Rights Bill, which has already been through the Commons, continued its passage through the upper chamber. The changes made by peers to the draft law paves the way for a parliamentary tussle, known as 'ping-pong', where the legislation is batted between the two Houses until agreement is reached. The proposed workers' rights reforms also introduce new restrictions on 'fire-and-rehire' processes when employees are let go and then re-employed on new contracts with worse pay or conditions. In addition, the Bill strengthens trade unions and gives workers certain 'day one' rights, such as sick pay, paternity leave and the right to request flexible working. Proposing his alternative to the proposed zero-hours provision, Liberal Democrat Lord Goddard of Stockport acknowledged the need to tackle the 'exploitative' use of the practice that left workers in 'precarious employment circumstances'. But he added: 'That said, our amendment reflects that shared objective, while offering a more practical and balanced view. 'The amendment changes legislation from an obligation to offer guaranteed hours to a right to request them. 'Furthermore, it maintains that when a such request is made, the employer must grant it.' He added: 'Our amendment seeks a fair balance, protecting workers from exploitation while preserving the flexibility which is crucial for many industries to function.' But opposing the move, Labour peer Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill, a former assistant general secretary of the Trades Union Congress, warned: 'I very much fear that it undermines the purpose of the Bill, which is trying to deal with the problem of zero-hours contracts.' She said: 'What the amendment doesn't take account of is the imbalance of power in workplaces and the characteristics of employees who are working on zero-hours contracts.' Arguing those on zero-hours contracts were 'the least empowered workers', Lady Carberry added: 'So the right to request guaranteed hours in those circumstances is not a real right at all. 'And then how many of those workers, vulnerable as they are, might come under pressure not to press for guaranteed hours 'This formulation of the amendment leaves open the path to some of those worst employers to make sure that they don't end up offering guaranteed hours to workers on zero-hours contracts.' However, Tory shadow business minister Lord Sharpe of Epsom said: 'It makes no sense to require employers to offer guaranteed hours to employees who don't want them. 'The Government appears to misunderstand or simply disregard the autonomy of the individual worker. 'Imposing this administrative burden, especially on small employers, to calculate and offer guaranteed hours where they are neither wanted nor needed, is an unnecessary and unavoidable cost. 'We therefore strongly support the right to request amendment proposed by Lord Goddard which better respects worker choice and employer flexibility.' Responding, business minister Baroness Jones of Whitchurch said: 'We believe the duty to make a guaranteed offer should lie with the employer. 'This is the best way to ensure that all qualifying workers benefit from the right guaranteed hours when they want them. 'If a worker on an exploitative zero-hours contract had to request the guaranteed outcome, they may feel less able to assert their right to those guaranteed hours, and they would lose out as a result. 'It's quite right to highlight the imbalance of power in the workforce for these individuals, and this is particularly true when workers take up a new job.' She added: 'A right to request model could create undesirable barriers, making it especially difficult for vulnerable workers on exploitative zero-hours contracts to access their right to those guaranteed hours, especially as many workers are younger and often in their first job. 'As the Bill is currently drafted after receiving an offer from the employer, qualifying workers will be empowered to make a decision based on their individual circumstances. 'If a worker wants to retain their zero-hours contract, as many will, they can do so by rejecting the offer.'
