Show the Working

Strengthen workers' rights and trade union powers

Green · what the evidence says

An independent, source-checked look at Green’s policy “Strengthen workers' rights and trade union powers” — what it would actually do across the things that affect your life. Every claim below quotes the source behind it. How this works.

Personal liberty & free speech — Helps

minor · moderate confidence

Repealing laws that restricted workers' ability to strike removes a layer of state control over collective action, which is a genuine gain for personal liberty. The flip side is that new mandatory employment terms limit some freedom of contract, so the net O10 gain is real but modest.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether courts or future governments re-impose equivalent ballot or minimum-service constraints, and how strongly judges interpret the new Charter as restricting individual opt-outs from collective agreements.

Our reading: O10 scores a policy by whether it withdraws or adds state coercion over individuals. The dominant signal here is the removal of three layers of state restriction on collective action: the Trade Union Act 2016's ballot thresholds, the Minimum Service Levels Act's duty to work during strikes, and the 12-week dismissal-protection cap. Each of these was a direct state intervention constraining workers' freedom to organise and act collectively — a classic O10 concern. Repealing them expands the practical liberty of workers to exercise collective voice without state-imposed procedural barriers or dismissal risk. The counterfactual (absent this policy, the restrictions remain in force) makes the liberty gain concrete. The partial offset is that the policy simultaneously mandates new employment terms — day-one rights, guaranteed hours after a reference period — that limit the freedom of employers and, to a lesser extent, workers who genuinely prefer flexible arrangements. This is a real O10 cost under the 'freedom from state mandates' indicator. However, this cost is secondary in scale to the removal of explicit strike restrictions: the ballot-threshold and minimum-service rules are direct prohibitions on group action, whereas the new employment minimums are floor standards that leave significant contractual space above them. The net direction is therefore an improvement in O10, but the magnitude is minor: the gains are real but narrow in scope (affecting primarily unionised and gig workers), and the mandatory-terms offset prevents a higher rating. Confidence is moderate because the practical extent of the liberty gain depends on how courts interpret the new Charter and whether minimum-service obligations are reimposed in a different form.

Prosperity & living standards — Mixed picture

minor · moderate confidence

Stronger workers' rights and union powers are projected to raise living standards for millions of low-paid workers, but credible independent bodies warn of modest negative effects on employment, productivity, and prices — the net effect on overall prosperity is small and contested. The biggest uncertainty is how employers adjust hiring and investment in response to higher labour costs.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether employers respond to higher labour costs by reducing hiring, investment, or passing costs to consumers — the OBR flagged net negative impacts on employment and productivity while the Resolution Foundation found negligible aggregate effects, and this disagreement is unresolved.

Our reading: The policy bundle — repealing anti-union legislation, day-one rights, and protections for gig and zero-hours workers — has two distinct channels of effect on O13 (prosperity and living standards broadly defined). On the upside: extending rights to 1.23 million zero-hours workers and millions of gig workers addresses a real gap in economic security and labour market participation. The government and TUC project significant net economic benefits, including gains from reduced conflict costs and higher participation — the latter worth up to £2.6 billion alone. Reducing workplace conflict (with conflict currently costing employers nearly £30 billion annually) could plausibly lift productivity if even marginally resolved. The labour market would remain less regulated than most OECD peers even after reform, limiting the 'sclerotic labour market' risk. On the downside: the OBR — the most independent fiscal authority — explicitly flagged likely net negative impacts on employment, prices, and productivity, and declined to incorporate them into forecasts due to insufficient detail. The IFS raises the standard concern about mandated benefits: if employer costs exceed employee valuations, hiring contracts. The OBR specifically noted risks for young workers' flexible employment from guaranteed hours provisions — a group already disproportionately concentrated in zero-hours contracts. The Resolution Foundation sits in between, finding aggregate employment effects negligible, which itself implies limited aggregate living-standards uplift from the macro channel. The near-term picture is mixed: modest costs to business investment and hiring set against real security gains for workers at the precarious end. The long-term (10yr+) picture depends on whether tighter labour protections suppress or, by raising worker security and participation, modestly boost productivity. The honest verdict is 'mixed/minor': real but modest gains for lower-income workers' economic opportunity, offset by credible institutional warnings of small negative aggregate effects. Neither side's projected magnitude is large enough to dominate.

Inequality & fair shares — Helps

moderate · moderate confidence

This policy extends employment rights and collective bargaining to the lowest-paid and most precarious workers, which should narrow the gap between the richest and the rest. The main uncertainty is whether employers respond by cutting hours or jobs, which could offset some gains for those at the bottom.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether employer responses — reduced hours, fewer contracts, or slower hiring — offset income gains for the lowest-paid workers the policy targets.

Our reading: The distributional direction of this policy is clearly downward — that is, toward the bottom of the income distribution. The beneficiaries are explicitly those in the most precarious positions: gig workers, zero-hours contract workers, and those in short-tenure employment who previously lacked rights like unfair dismissal protection, sick pay, and union representation. These groups are disproportionately low-paid and young (E24), meaning gains accrue to those with the least bargaining power, which by definition narrows the income and security gap between the richest and the rest (O14). Restoring and strengthening collective bargaining further shifts the balance of wage-setting power toward lower-paid workers, an established mechanism for compressing wage dispersion. The principal counter-risk to this inequality-narrowing direction is employer adjustment: if businesses respond to higher labour costs by cutting hours, reducing headcount, or hiring fewer precarious workers in the first place, some intended beneficiaries could end up worse off. The OBR flagged likely net negative employment impacts (E34), and the IFS warns of potential employment reductions where benefit costs exceed employee-perceived value (E40). However, the Resolution Foundation — an institutional source focused precisely on living standards distribution — judges the macro employment effect to be negligible, estimating only ~11,000 job losses against millions of workers gaining protections (E38). The UK also remains lightly regulated relative to OECD peers (E39), limiting the plausibility of large disemployment effects. On balance, the weight of evidence is that distributional gains to low-paid workers outweigh employment-reduction risks, but the uncertainty is real enough to hold confidence at moderate rather than high.

Good work & fair pay — Helps

moderate · moderate confidence

This policy would give millions of workers stronger rights from day one — including protection from unfair dismissal, sick pay, and guaranteed hours — and make it easier for unions to strike. The main caveat is that economists disagree on whether the added costs to employers could reduce hiring or flexibility, though most credible estimates suggest any job losses would be small.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether higher employer costs lead to meaningful job losses or reduced hiring, particularly for young and gig workers, or whether improved conditions and lower workplace conflict offset those costs.

Our reading: The policy makes sweeping changes across multiple dimensions of O4: pay security, employment rights, job quality, and collective bargaining power. On the positive side, extending day-one rights to unfair dismissal protection, sick pay, and guaranteed hours directly addresses insecurity for millions — the evidence identifies 1.3 million low-paid workers gaining SSP access and 2.4 million zero-hours workers gaining shift protections. Restoring union ballot rights removes restrictions that credibly suppressed workers' collective leverage. The scale of workers affected is large and the direction of effect on pay security and job quality is clear. The contested ground is the employment effect. The OBR flags net negative impacts on employment, prices, and productivity, and the IFS warns of perverse effects where mandated benefits cost more than workers value them. However, the Resolution Foundation — a credible, relevant source — estimates job losses at around 11,000 even under pessimistic assumptions, a 0.02% reduction in employment. Given tens of millions of workers gaining stronger protections, the balance of credible evidence points to a net improvement in work quality and security, even if there are modest hiring trade-offs at the margin. The fact that UK dismissal regulation would still only move from 34th to 21st among OECD countries (per Resolution Foundation) further undermines claims of dramatic labour-market damage. The genuine uncertainty — whether OBR's qualitative warning will materialise into significant job losses — prevents a 'high' confidence rating, but it does not warrant 'too-uncertain' given the Resolution Foundation and government quantitative estimates both pointing to minimal employment cost. The verdict is a moderate improvement, felt over this parliament as reforms phase in through 2026–27.

Equal treatment & democratic rights — Helps

moderate · moderate confidence

This policy extends employment rights to groups currently excluded from standard protections — gig and zero-hours workers — reducing unequal treatment based on employment status. It also restores trade union rights curtailed by earlier legislation, strengthening workers' collective democratic voice, though the scale of practical gain depends on implementation.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether employers respond by reducing hours or reclassifying workers in ways that undermine the new equal-treatment protections in practice.

Our reading: O9 covers equal treatment and anti-discrimination protections, voting and democratic rights, and due process — not pay or conditions per se. This policy advances O9 on two distinct fronts. First, equal treatment: gig economy and zero-hours workers currently occupy an inferior legal status compared to standard employees — they face qualifying periods for unfair dismissal protection, lack access to SSP, and have limited recourse against arbitrary scheduling. The policy would extend full day-one rights universally, closing a structural legal inequality. The 1.23 million zero-hours workers and 1.3 million low-paid workers gaining SSP are disproportionately young and lower-income — groups whose unequal treatment under existing employment law is the precise concern O9 targets. Extending protections against unlawful dismissal and arbitrary shift cancellation equalises their legal standing. Second, democratic and collective rights: the Trade Union Act 2016's ballot thresholds restricted the ability of workers to exercise collective voice through lawful industrial action. Their repeal restores a broader democratic right to collective self-organisation. This is not scored as an economic outcome here — it is scored as the restoration of a collective democratic right curtailed by earlier legislation. The projected trade-off (reduced gig flexibility, possible employer restructuring) is real but falls mostly on O4 and O13, not O9. The one O9-relevant caveat is whether reclassification or reduced hours could leave some workers worse off in practice — but even the Resolution Foundation's sceptical assessment confirms the UK would remain lightly regulated by OECD standards, suggesting the equal-treatment gains are not illusory. On balance, the evidence supports an 'improves/moderate' verdict: concrete, statute-backed equalisation of legal status for millions of previously excluded workers, with a credible mechanism and real scale, tempered by implementation uncertainty.

Compare all parties on personal liberty & free speech →Compare all parties on prosperity & living standards →Compare all parties on inequality & fair shares →Compare all parties on good work & fair pay →Compare all parties on equal treatment & democratic rights →Open this in the interactive comparison →← Show the Working home