Just when the UK economy is showing signs of stress, Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner is pushing forward with a sweeping new set of workers’ rights—and not everyone’s happy about it.
Her Employment Rights Bill has sparked fierce backlash, with critics calling it a “strikers’ charter” and even warning it could drag the country back to the chaos of the 1970s.
A New Era of Strikes with Just 10 Percent Support?
One of the most controversial aspects of the bill is how easy it could become to trigger strike action.
Under the proposed changes, industrial action might be allowed with support from just 10% of a workforce.
Business leaders are calling this a dangerous move, fearing it could paralyze operations across the country.
To paint a picture: in a workplace of 1,000 employees, as few as nine people could vote in a strike ballot—and if just five vote “yes,” the strike would be approved.
Conservatives say it’s a recipe for disruption, especially with the proposed scrapping of the current 50% turnout rule for strike ballots.
Employers Warn of a Costly Shake-Up
It’s not just the strike threshold that’s raising eyebrows.
The bill also includes major employment changes: scrapping zero-hour contracts, giving unfair dismissal protection from day one, enhancing sick pay, boosting rights around tips, and offering more parental and bereavement leave.
Labour admits the bill could cost businesses up to £4.5 billion each year and potentially lead to 50,000 job losses.
Critics—including the British Chambers of Commerce—are sounding the alarm over what they call “deeply worrying” implications.
They say the plan doesn’t strike the right balance between protecting workers and keeping the economy moving.
The Shadow Business Secretary Doesn’t Hold Back
Andrew Griffith, the Conservative Shadow Business Secretary, didn’t mince words.
He dubbed the proposal the “Unemployment Bill,” accusing Labour of putting politics before the national interest.
He believes the bill plays straight into the hands of trade unions, allowing them to “grind the country to a halt” with minimal worker support.
Griffith even claimed the bill was a political “quid pro quo” designed to satisfy union backers of the Labour Party.
With union funding to the party potentially becoming automatic under the new rules, many are questioning whether this is reform or payback.
Union Power Gets a Major Boost
Under the proposed law, union leaders would gain new rights to enter workplaces to recruit members and organise, even if only 2% of staff in a given bargaining unit back the union.
This change, along with the low strike thresholds, is what has critics claiming the bill hands far too much power to organised labour.
Business advocates are also uneasy about the proposed changes to dismissal rules and say they fear a chilling effect on hiring and productivity just when the UK needs a boost the most.
A Throwback to the 1970s?
For many, the comparisons to the 1970s are hard to ignore.
Back then, strikes were frequent and often led by small but vocal groups of union activists.
Critics fear a repeat of that disruptive era, especially at a time when the UK’s economy just shrank by 0.3% in April—worse than forecasted.
Add to that a £25 billion National Insurance hike, and businesses are already feeling the heat.
Now, they say, Labour’s new bill is piling even more pressure on already strained employers.
Rayner and Labour Stand Their Ground
Despite all the noise, Angela Rayner is sticking to her guns.
She insists that the current strike laws have failed, pointing to the record number of days lost to industrial action in recent years.
Labour’s position is clear: workers need stronger rights, and the country needs a modern framework that works for the many, not just the few.
A government spokesperson echoed that sentiment, saying the bill is a core part of their “Plan for Change.”