The UK government has retreated from another core election promise, provoking accusations that Labour has broken its manifesto for the second time in two days.
Ministers confirmed on Thursday that workers will no longer be guaranteed protection from unfair dismissal from their first day in a job — despite a clear pledge in Labour’s 2024 election platform to introduce the right immediately upon employment. Instead, the qualifying period will now be set at six months, following objections from business groups.
Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson echoed that defence in an interview with Sky News, arguing that insisting on the original proposal risked derailing the entire bill.
“Sometimes you do have to adopt some pragmatism if you want to make sure that you get the wider package through.”
The UK government has retreated from another core election promise, provoking accusations that Labour has broken its manifesto for the second time in two days.
Ministers confirmed on Thursday that workers will no longer be guaranteed protection from unfair dismissal from their first day in a job — despite a clear pledge in Labour’s 2024 election platform to introduce the right immediately upon employment. Instead, the qualifying period will now be set at six months, following objections from business groups.
The reversal comes just one day after the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, acknowledged that income tax thresholds would remain frozen — a move critics say amounts to a stealth tax rise on working households and another departure from Labour’s election commitments.
The announcement on employment rights was made by Business Secretary Peter Kyle, who insisted the new position struck a balance between reform and practical implementation.
“Compromise is strength,” he said.
Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson echoed that defence in an interview with Sky News, arguing that insisting on the original proposal risked derailing the entire bill.
“Sometimes you do have to adopt some pragmatism if you want to make sure that you get the wider package through.”
She said the revised position emerged from talks between employers, trade unions and the government, and warned that the legislation could fail entirely without concessions.
Ms Phillipson also confirmed she has not spoken to Angela Rayner — the former deputy prime minister who had led Labour’s employment reform agenda — since the government changed course.
The shift immediately reignited political criticism inside and outside the party. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch branded the move “another humiliating U-turn”, while several Labour MPs publicly accused the government of abandoning its own platform.
Andy McDonald, the MP for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East, described the decision as a “complete betrayal”. Poole MP Neil Duncan-Jordan said the government had “capitulated” under pressure.
Former employment minister Justin Madders, who was dismissed during Sir Keir Starmer’s cabinet reshuffle earlier this year, rejected claims that the change did not constitute a broken promise.
“It might be a compromise,” he said, “but it most definitely is a manifesto breach.”
At the heart of the dispute is the Employment Rights Bill, one of Labour’s most prominent campaign pledges. Under current law, employees must work for two years before they qualify for protection against unfair dismissal. Labour promised to cut that period to zero.
The manifesto pledged sweeping changes to workplace law and committed the party to consultation before legislating.
The document promised to “consult fully with businesses, workers, and civil society on how to put our plans into practice before legislation is passed”.
“This will include banning exploitative zero-hours contracts; ending fire and rehire; and introducing basic rights from day one to parental leave, sick pay, and protection from unfair dismissal,” it said.
However, the legislation has since faced resistance in the House of Lords, where peers raised concerns that day-one dismissal rights could discourage firms from recruiting.
Opposition also centred on proposals that employers should guarantee working hours from the start of a job. Critics in the upper chamber argued that zero-hours contracts provide needed flexibility for some workers and businesses.
Ministers now argue that extending dismissal protections to six months — rather than one day — preserves the bill while making it workable.
Whether that compromise stabilises the legislation or deepens internal party tensions remains to be seen.
Adapted From:
