Starmer accused of ‘betrayal’ by Labour MPs after workers’ rights U-turn
The government has been accused of “utter betrayal” by its own supporters after ministers abandoned plans to give workers day one protection against unfair dismissal in a U-turn that breached the Labor Party manifesto.
Ministers canceled the proposal to reduce the “qualification period” required for workers to claim unfair dismissal from 24 months to the first day, in order to pass the law in Parliament.
Following this escalation, the government now plans to introduce a six-month service entitlement instead; Other first-day paternity leave and sick pay rights will continue to come into force in April 2026.
Leading rebel Labor MP Rachael Maskell said she was “deeply disappointed” by the U-turn, an intervention that could signal trouble for the government.
Ms Maskell was one of 47 Labor MPs who rebelled against proposed benefit cuts in July, forcing Downing St to back down.
The bill has been caught up in a dispute between colleagues and MPs over measures to ban “abusive” zero-hour contracts, as well as the original plan to provide workers with protections on day one.
Labour’s manifesto explicitly promised “full consultation with business, workers and civil society on how to implement our plans before legislation is passed”.
“This will include banning exploitative zero-hours contracts, ending redundancy and rehiring, and introducing basic rights such as parental leave, sick pay and protection against unfair dismissal from day one,” he said.
The latest U-turn comes just hours after Sir Keir Starmer scrambled to rebut claims that Labor had misled the public. He vowed not to increase taxes on working people before overseeing a record £26bn tax increase in his autumn budget on Wednesday.
The concession on workers’ rights, which came after some businesses expressed concerns about potential costs and recruitment difficulties, sparked an immediate backlash from some hardliners and the Unite union.
Labor MP Justin Madders, a former government minister and ally of Angela Rayner, who spearheaded the legislation, accused the government of violating its manifesto.
“This could be a compromise. It might even be necessary to pass the bill.” [as soon as possible]. “But this is definitely a violation of the manifesto,” he said.
This statement came after Business Secretary Peter Kyle denied that the concession was a breach of Labour’s manifesto, claiming the compromise had been found by “unions and employers” and that “it is not my job to stand in the way of that compromise”.
“They went through the difficult process of working together to find a compromise…it’s my job to accept that,” he said.
Education minister Bridget Phillipson also denied the compromise on Labour’s flagship employment rights bill was an unfulfilled manifesto promise because Labor had a commitment to consultation in its election document.
“We said in the manifesto that we would work with unions, business and civil society to consult on the protection measures we would put forward.
“So there are both parts of the manifesto, important rights and consultation,” he said.
But Ms Maskell said: “I stood on a manifesto where we said we would introduce rights on day one, which included unfair dismissal, so of course I was deeply disappointed when I heard these changes had been made.
“First of all, this comes from the House of Lords, which is the unelected house.”
Meanwhile, Labor MP for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East, Andy McDonald, described the move as a “total betrayal” and vowed to press for its reversal.
“We cannot support this half-measure,” he said, adding: “This is the wrong move and I will be campaigning for this concession to be reversed.”
Neil Duncan-Jordan, Labor MP for Poole, claimed there had been “no discussions” with parliamentary Labor about the move.
“The Lords have no priority over the manifesto commitment, so why have we capitulated?” he told the PA news agency. he said.
Another Labor MP said the escalation showed Sir Keir and Ms Reeves were “weak” and had bowed to external pressure, adding: “The real nonsense is that this is a workers’ budget for working people and then one of your flagship programmes, you disable a significant part of it. It’s a manifesto breach.”
Unite boss Sharon Graham said the bill had become “a shell of its former self”, while TUC general secretary Paul Nowak said the “absolute priority” was to get the legislation on the statute books.
“Following the government’s announcement, it is now vital that peers respect Labour’s manifesto mandate and that this bill receives royal assent as soon as possible,” Mr Nowak said.
Ms Graham said: “These continued retreats will only undermine workers’ confidence that the protections promised will be worth the wait. Labor needs to keep its promises.”
Bell Ribeiro-Addy, the Labor MP for Clapham and Brixton Hill, told the BBC: “Going back now is a huge problem because if we go back now, what other tweaks will we accept? What else will we be dragged into? We are literally the Labor Party.”
Former shadow chancellor John McDonnell said in a post about
But business groups welcomed Thursday’s concession, saying the six-month vesting period was “crucial for the confidence of businesses to hire and support employment, but also to protect workers.”
But they warned companies would “still have concerns” about many of the powers in the bill, including strike thresholds, guaranteed hours contracts and seasonal and temporary workers.
“We are committed to working with the government and unions to address this issue in the secondary legislation required to implement the bill,” said six industry groups involved in talks with unions.
Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch described the move as “another humiliating U-turn” for Labor and said the legislation still contained “measures that will harm businesses and be terrible for economic growth”.
