Labour opens door to employer input on workers' rights overhaul, amid business pressure concerns.
Business Secretary Peter Kyle has signaled that Labour's landmark changes to workers' rights could be watered down as the party seeks to balance demands from unions and employers. Kyle, who previously held the science and technology portfolio, told a CBI conference in London that he would engage with businesses through 26 consultations on the proposed overhaul.
Kyle acknowledged that some business leaders have expressed frustration over speculation surrounding the changes, which include banning zero-hours contracts and introducing day-one protections against unfair dismissal. He said he would "listen" to their concerns and give them a voice in future decisions.
However, Labour's own analysis suggests the changes could cost employers up to £5 billion to implement, sparking fears of job losses and economic disruption. Business leaders, including CBI President Rupert Soames, have warned that the bill would be "really, really damaging" for firms.
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch claimed that Labour's shake-up represented a bigger risk to companies than tax rises in this week's budget, telling business leaders it was an "assault on flexible working." She also questioned Kyle's ability to fix issues through 26 consultations, saying the problem might be too big for any one solution.
Labour has sought to reassure bosses that they could tweak the law once passed using secondary legislation. However, unions fear this could lead to watered-down changes and undermine workplace protections for millions of workers.
Business Secretary Peter Kyle has signaled that Labour's landmark changes to workers' rights could be watered down as the party seeks to balance demands from unions and employers. Kyle, who previously held the science and technology portfolio, told a CBI conference in London that he would engage with businesses through 26 consultations on the proposed overhaul.
Kyle acknowledged that some business leaders have expressed frustration over speculation surrounding the changes, which include banning zero-hours contracts and introducing day-one protections against unfair dismissal. He said he would "listen" to their concerns and give them a voice in future decisions.
However, Labour's own analysis suggests the changes could cost employers up to £5 billion to implement, sparking fears of job losses and economic disruption. Business leaders, including CBI President Rupert Soames, have warned that the bill would be "really, really damaging" for firms.
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch claimed that Labour's shake-up represented a bigger risk to companies than tax rises in this week's budget, telling business leaders it was an "assault on flexible working." She also questioned Kyle's ability to fix issues through 26 consultations, saying the problem might be too big for any one solution.
Labour has sought to reassure bosses that they could tweak the law once passed using secondary legislation. However, unions fear this could lead to watered-down changes and undermine workplace protections for millions of workers.
... I mean, it's a good thing they're listening to both sides, right? 
It shows they care about finding a balance between workers' rights and business needs. Those £5 billion costs are no joke, but maybe some tweaks could make it more manageable 
. I'm all for flexible working, but not at the expense of worker protections 
... Still, 26 consultations sounds like a good start – it's better than just imposing their will on us 
. Who knows, maybe this is an opportunity for businesses to step up and show they care about their employees too 
.
. And I get why Labour wants to introduce day-one protections against unfair dismissal – it's about giving workers some security and fairness in their jobs 
.
. It's like they're caught in the middle between two opposing forces 
. Maybe they just need to listen more to what workers are saying and work together to find solutions that benefit everyone? 
but at the same time, businesses need to take care of their employees too, like, how much can they really cut back on costs? 
And 26 consultations just seems like a way to delay the inevitable... what if no agreement can be reached and the changes go through anyway? 
. But £5 billion is a lot of cash, and if business leaders are really that convinced it'll lead to job losses, maybe they have a point? 
. Can we find a middle ground here and make sure everyone's protected without breaking the bank 
. The idea that these changes could cost employers up to £5 billion is crazy 
. Can't they see that this issue is complex and needs nuanced solutions? 
! Labour opening up the door for employer input on workers' rights overhaul is like a double-edged sword right? On one hand, it's like they wanna listen to businesses concerns but at the same time its like their own party members are saying "no way no consultation needed"
! I need to see some more info on how Labour plans to balance the books and make this work
I'm a bit worried about these proposed changes to workers' rights 
. We need employers on board if we want to make this overhaul work 
. But at the same time, £5 billion is a pretty big dent in the economy 
.