According to Deputy Prime Minister Angela Raynor, the new Employment Rights Bill aims to “turn the page on an economy riven with insecurity, ravaged by dire productivity and blighted by low pay.”
The bill was published last week by the government. The elimination of the two-year qualifying term for claims to unfair dismissal, the establishment of a statutory probation period for new recruits, and efforts to prohibit “exploitative” zero-hour contracts are all part of the package.
With the wording “default for all, unless the employer can prove it is unreasonable,” the measure firmly establishes flexible work arrangements as the wave of the future in the workplace.
Jemima Olchawski, CEO of the Fawcett Society, has hailed the law as ‘a success for women’ due to its several provisions that bolster employment rights for women. Having said that, there are many who are opposed to the measure. In a post on X (previously Twitter),
Unite union general secretary Sharon Graham asserted that the law contains “more holes than Swiss cheese,” allowing businesses to circumvent the regulations around zero-hour contracts and fire-and-rehire.
Not only that, but the whistleblower advocacy group Protect has voiced their dismay that the measure does not bolster whistleblower rights sufficiently.
Last week, the Tory leadership contest proceeded with the elimination of all but two contenders, the conservative Kemi Badenoch and the centrist Robert Jenrick.
The candidate’s status as an ECHR member has emerged as a major campaign topic. According to Badenoch, who spoke to Sky News, concentrating on the ECHR “shuts down the conversation we need to have with the entire country” over migration, despite Jenrick’s declaration that, should he ever be elected prime minister, the issue would be to “leave or remain” from the ECHR.
During the party conference, both candidates made statements that have since drawn criticism. According to Jenrick, who is pushing to withdraw from the ECHR, special forces are choosing to murder terrorists rather than capture them because the “European Court will set them free.”
This is a contentious assertion. The charity Action on Armed Violence has demanded that the probe into SAS killings in Afghanistan be “allowed to proceed without political interference” and that Jenrick’s remarks “do a disservice to the serious accusations at hand” in this investigation.
Critics have pointed out that Badenoch implied that maternity pay is “excessive” and that “about 5 to 10%” of government employees are so terrible that they “should be in prison” in his remarks. Claiming her remarks were “misrepresented,” she has now retracted her statements on both counts.
