Communities Secretary Angela Rayner celebrated the passage of the Employment Rights Act, which came into force in December, during an address at the Trade Union Congress annual conference in Brighton. The legislation introduced more generous sick pay and paternity leave provisions, with additional measures to make it more difficult for companies to dismiss employees set to take effect next year.
Rayner, who championed the initial stages of the law following the 2024 election, emphasized the collective efforts of trade unions in crafting and advocating for the legislation. "We created new rights for working people not just individually but importantly, collectively through their trade unions," she told delegates. "Not in theory but out there in the real world, on the shop floor and in the workplace."
However, Conservative shadow business secretary Julia Lopez criticized the act, stating that it acts as a "handbrake on hiring and costing business millions." Lopez suggested that the legislation is a reason firms are hesitant to hire young people and voiced concerns that union demands could lead to a return to a pre-Thatcher era where unions heavily influenced national policy.
Rayner also used her speech to criticize the Reform party, highlighting its recent acquisition of £72 million in donations from two crypto billionaires. She asserted that only Labour represents working people, contrasting the party's stance with Reform's voting record against the Employment Rights Act and their stated intention to repeal it, along with the Equality Act, if elected. Rayner warned that such actions would leave millions of workers unprotected from exploitative zero-hours contracts, delay sick pay, and allow for easier termination and rehiring on worse terms.
She further characterized the motives of Reform's donors as transparent, suggesting they prioritize their own interests over the public good and would dismantle workers' rights, renters' rights, social protections, and regulatory oversight. Rayner questioned what actions Nigel Farage might take if he received such substantial financial backing, implying a significant negative impact on public interests.