Opinion: On the Workers’ Rights Bill, it all comes down to the detail

Workers’ Rights Bill, it all comes down to the detail. Finito World

As the new government takes shape, we are beginning to get a sense of the direction and possible meaning of the government. One of the themes that’s already emerging is a split between Rachel Reeves‘ careful approach at the Treasury, and the more gung-ho language coming out of the Deputy PM Angela Rayner’s office.

Once again, a General Election has proven to be of limited utility when it comes to the crucial question of what an incoming government will actually do. This is certainly the case on the mooted Workers’ Rights Bill.

For a start, there is little clear language on the flexible working position, and much of the public discourse falsely implies that employees can’t already request flexible working. They can. In addition, employers already have several possible reasons under law to reject the request – this fact also gets very little airtime.

So what did the Labour Manifesto say? It said that any Starmer administration would look at the possibility of enshrining in law the notion of employees being able to ask for flexible working from day one. So far, there is no indication that the Government will change the position to a four-day working week being the norm or that the reasons to refuse a request will change.  That hasn’t stopped much hyperbole around the four-day working week.

As usual, it will all come down to the detail, and sources say that it is likely that Reeves will get her way, and that little will be done to agitate business. But in the event that the four-day week did happen, there are a range of issues which will need to be looked at including: ensuring adequate client service, adequate staff supervision, ensuring the health and safety and preventing burn out, reducing errors and managing asynchronised working.

Where the government looks set to be more radical is on the question of unfair dismissal. If it becomes possible to claim this much earlier during the cycle of employment, then businesses may have a genuine headache when it comes to avoiding claims. It will certainly increase the pressure on businesses to have a fair reason and follow a fair process to dismiss employees. The likely result is cost to business – again, something which Reeves’ language would suggest she wouldn’t like to see.

Melanie Stancliffe of Cripps tells us: “We expect an explosion of claims – the previous increase in the qualifying period for unfair dismissal claims shrank claims (and raised access to justice issues).” That sounds like something which may alienate the City.

This brings us to another likely result of the legislation. “Companies need change contracts and policies when the detail is known. They will need to implement the policies, train on them, anticipate and manage claims effectively, change business practices.”

It is early days and the detail on Workers’ Rights policy may change things. But what won’t change is that Labour is already at loggerheads as to precisely the sort of government it wants to be.