Business

Britain’s biggest trade unions have warned Labour not to water down its Employment Rights Bill following a cabinet reshuffle that removed some of the legislation’s strongest supporters from government.

The bill, expected to become law in the coming weeks, represents one of the most significant shake-ups of workplace rights in decades. It includes new protections against unfair dismissal, the outlawing of “exploitative” zero-hours contracts, and wider reforms intended to rebalance power in favour of employees.

But trade union leaders fear that the loss of Angela Rayner as deputy prime minister and the departure of employment minister Justin Madders could weaken Labour’s commitment. Senior union figures voiced concern at the Trades Union Congress (TUC) in Brighton, warning that the government may bow to business pressure and “slow walk” implementation.

Christina McAnea, general secretary of Unison, which represents more than a million workers, said the reshuffle was a troubling signal.

“It doesn’t send out a very good message that the people who were absolutely committed to driving through the Employment Rights Bill are no longer doing those jobs,” she told the BBC.

McAnea described the legislation as a “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity” to tilt the balance “slightly in favour of working people” and warned:

“Any attempt to pull back would be a huge mistake. Unions will furiously campaign against it. We are expecting a clear timetable, and if that doesn’t happen there will be some very unhappy trade union leaders around — including me.”

Paul Nowak, general secretary of the TUC, echoed those concerns but said he remained confident Labour would deliver.

“This bill will give a massive boost to rights for millions of working people in insecure, low-paid employment,” he told Business Matters. “My message to the government is simple: stay on course, deliver the Employment Rights Bill, and deliver it in full.”

He also rejected suggestions that ministers might soften measures to placate business groups. “Having people in well-paid, secure employment is good for everybody. It’s good for workers, good for responsible employers who are undercut by cowboys, and good for the UK economy.”

The USDAW union, which represents more than 300,000 supermarket, warehouse and factory workers, is particularly concerned about an amendment added by the House of Lords in July.

The amendment would change the bill from a requirement for employers to offer guaranteed hours to employees, to a weaker right for workers merely to request guaranteed hours. USDAW has warned this could strip away meaningful protections for shift workers, leaving zero-hours contracts largely intact.

While unions push for stronger protections, the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) has argued the bill is already too onerous. Craig Beaumont, the FSB’s policy director, said: “In some of our recent polling, 92% of small employers said they were worried about this legislation. They don’t have HR teams and they feel overwhelmed by the scale of change.”

Beaumont suggested that Rayner’s resignation and Madders’ sacking created an opportunity for compromise. “This is a chance to fix the issues,” he said.

The Employment Rights Bill was a flagship Labour pledge during the election, designed to cement the party’s support among working people. But with the economy under strain, some MPs fear ministers could delay or dilute implementation as a gesture to business.

One senior Labour MP told the BBC: “Many colleagues fear that with the economy under strain, ministers may be tempted to drag their feet on implementation as an olive branch to business.”

For now, the message from unions is clear: any sign of retreat will spark fierce opposition. With expectations high and the reshuffle unsettling allies, Sir Keir Starmer faces a delicate balancing act between keeping businesses onside and delivering on Labour’s promise to strengthen workers’ rights.

Read more:
Unions warn Labour not to dilute landmark workers’ rights bill after cabinet reshuffle

Meta, the social media giant led by Mark Zuckerberg, is preparing to open its first physical store in London as part of a push to drive sales of its virtual and augmented reality devices.

Property sources said the company is exploring Oxford Street as the likely location for a permanent flagship space where shoppers can try out products such as the Meta Quest headset and Ray-Ban smart glasses. The move would mark Meta’s first bricks-and-mortar presence in the UK.

Meta has already hired property agents to scout potential sites. Meanwhile, Meta Labs, a subsidiary of the group, has registered a trademark in Britain covering the sale and demonstration of “virtual reality, mixed reality and augmented reality hardware and software.”

Since its founding in 2004, Meta has been best known for its software platforms Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp. But in recent years it has poured billions into hardware through its Reality Labs division, seeking to compete with Apple, Microsoft and Asian tech giants like Samsung.

Meta has already trialled pop-up shops in the US under the Meta Labs brand, including collaborations with Ray-Ban owner EssilorLuxottica. Its smart glasses have seen sales triple in the past year as more consumers experience the technology firsthand.

Despite mixed results for its early “metaverse” platforms, Meta continues to invest heavily in augmented reality. Last year it unveiled advanced AR glasses capable of projecting computer screens and video games into a wearer’s field of view.

Zuckerberg recently argued that AI-enabled glasses would become essential tools: “In the future, if you don’t have glasses that have AI, or some way to interact with AI, I think you’re probably [going to] be at a pretty significant cognitive disadvantage compared to other people.”

Meta’s planned London store mirrors strategies by its biggest rivals. Apple operates a global network of retail stores, while Microsoft once had a flagship site on Oxford Street before closing it.

Opening a permanent location where consumers can try on VR headsets and smart glasses is seen as crucial to persuading mainstream users to adopt emerging technologies.

Meta declined to comment on the store plans.

Read more:
Meta plans first London AI store to showcase VR headsets and smart glasses

Barclays Bank has been hit with a formal complaint alleging anti-Semitism after a customer claimed staff at its Leicester business team unfairly froze his account because of his Israeli residency.

In a letter addressed directly to group chief executive CS Venkatakrishnan, journalist Martin Blackham accused the bank of discriminating against him on the basis of his nationality and location.

Blackham, who said he is a member of His Majesty’s press corps currently covering the war in Israel, claimed that his Barclays account had been blocked from normal use after the system flagged a request for further details which he was unable to update online.

“As the account details show that I am based in Israel this is clearly a case of anti-Semitism by the Barclays Business Team management in Leicester,” Blackham wrote in his complaint.

He alleged that despite raising the issue with Barclays three months earlier, on 8 June, the bank had failed to respond to his repeated correspondence. He described the situation as “disgraceful” and urged Venkatakrishnan to order a “thorough investigation” into the conduct of Leicester-based staff.

The letter further stated: “Anti-Semitism has no place in the Barclays Leicester workplace, and I expect not only a thorough investigation into this matter [but also] assurance that the matter has been resolved.”

The account freeze, Blackham argued, had restricted his access to funds while reporting from Israel, an operational difficulty he described as both unprofessional and discriminatory. He also claimed this was not the first time he had experienced similar issues with Barclays.

Barclays, which employs more than 80,000 people worldwide, has faced heightened scrutiny in recent years over its compliance processes in high-risk jurisdictions. While the bank has not yet commented on Blackham’s specific claims, it has previously stated a “zero tolerance” policy towards discrimination of any form.

Anti-Semitism complaints within UK financial services remain relatively rare, but banks have been criticised in the past for opaque decisions to close or restrict accounts linked to certain nationalities, residency statuses or politically exposed clients. In July 2023, NatWest was forced to apologise after the closure of Nigel Farage’s Coutts account sparked a political and regulatory storm over “debanking.”

Blackham’s complaint adds a fresh dimension to that debate, raising questions about whether compliance flags risk straying into unlawful discrimination.

A spokesperson for the Board of Deputies of British Jews, when contacted by Business Matters, said: “We are extremely concerned to hear allegations of anti-Semitism in the banking sector. All financial institutions must ensure that their compliance procedures are robust, transparent, and free from discriminatory practices.”

Barclays is expected to come under pressure to respond swiftly. The letter, dated Sunday 7 September, was copied to Business Matters after months of silence from the bank, according to Blackham.

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) declined to comment on individual cases but pointed to its rules requiring firms to treat customers fairly and to act without discrimination.

With anti-Semitism levels in the UK at their highest recorded since 1984, according to the Community Security Trust, the complaint is likely to draw broader scrutiny of how banks balance compliance with equality obligations.

Whether Barclays views the freeze as a procedural error, a compliance measure or a more serious internal failing may determine the reputational fallout. For now, Blackham says he awaits a reply “by return.”

Read more:
Barclays faces complaint over alleged anti-Semitism at Leicester branch