Labour Backbenchers Revolt Over Workers' Rights Retreat
Sir Keir Starmer is confronting significant internal rebellion after his government abandoned plans to provide workers with day-one protection against unfair dismissal. The dramatic U-turn, announced on Thursday night, has been condemned by Labour MPs as a clear breach of the party's election manifesto.
The controversial decision involves scrapping the proposal to reduce the qualifying period for unfair dismissal claims from 24 months to the first day of employment. Instead, ministers now plan to introduce the right after six months of service, marking a substantial retreat from their original commitment.
Manifesto Promise Broken
Labour's election manifesto had explicitly promised to introduce "basic rights from day one to parental leave, sick pay, and protection from unfair dismissal." The document also committed to full consultation with businesses, workers, and civil society before implementing these changes.
The government's concession follows concerns raised by some businesses about potential costs and recruitment challenges. However, the compromise has ignited immediate backlash from within Labour's own ranks and trade unions.
Andy McDonald, Labour MP for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East, described the move as a "complete betrayal" and pledged to campaign for its reversal. "We cannot support that halfway measure," he stated emphatically.
Internal Criticism Escalates
Several Labour MPs have voiced their discontent, with Neil Duncan-Jordan, MP for Poole, questioning why the government had "capitulated" to the Lords when manifesto commitments should take precedence. Rachael Maskell, MP for York Central, argued that "employers have nothing to fear from day-one rights, but workers have everything to fear from an employer who doesn't want day-one rights."
Another unnamed Labour MP told Press Association that the climbdown demonstrated weakness from Sir Keir and Chancellor Rachel Reeves, suggesting they had yielded to external pressure. "It's a manifesto breach," the MP insisted.
Former employment minister Justin Madders, who lost his position in the Prime Minister's recent reshuffle, directly contradicted Business Secretary Peter Kyle's assertion that the move didn't constitute a manifesto breach. "It might be a compromise. It might even be necessary to get the Bill passed. But it most definitely is a manifesto breach," Madders stated.
Government Defence and Union Reaction
Business Secretary Peter Kyle defended the compromise, telling broadcasters that unions and employers had reached this agreement and "it's not my job to stand in the way of that compromise." He maintained that the concession didn't violate Labour's manifesto promises.
However, trade union leaders expressed deep disappointment. Unite general secretary Sharon Graham declared that the Bill had become "a shell of its former self" and warned that "these constant row-backs will only damage workers' confidence that the protections promised will be worth the wait."
In contrast, TUC general secretary Paul Nowak struck a more conciliatory tone, emphasising that the "absolute priority" was to get the legislation onto the statute books. He urged peers to respect Labour's manifesto mandate and ensure the Bill receives royal assent promptly.
Business Response and Political Fallout
Business groups welcomed the government's concession, describing the six-month qualifying period as "crucial for businesses' confidence to hire and to support employment." However, they cautioned that firms remained concerned about other aspects of the legislation, including thresholds for industrial action and regulations covering temporary workers.
Tory leader Kemi Badenoch seized on the controversy, labelling it "another humiliating U-turn" for Labour and warning that the legislation still contained measures that would "damage businesses and be terrible for economic growth."
Despite the compromise, some day-one rights will proceed as planned. Rights to paternity leave and sick pay are still scheduled to take effect in April 2026, providing some consolation to workers' rights advocates.
The Employment Rights Bill had been stalled in Parliament due to disagreements between peers and MPs over the original day-one protection proposal and measures to ban "exploitative" zero-hours contracts. The government's retreat aims to break this deadlock and secure the legislation's passage.
As the controversy continues to unfold, backbench Labour MPs are preparing to challenge the government's position, setting the stage for potential further confrontations over workers' rights legislation in the coming months.
