Show the Working

Implement a New Deal for Working People

Labour · what the evidence says

An independent, source-checked look at Labour’s policy “Implement a New Deal for Working People” — what it would actually do across the things that affect your life. Every claim below quotes the source behind it. How this works.

Prosperity & living standards — Mixed picture

moderate · moderate confidence

This package of labour market reforms is likely to lift real living standards for the lowest-paid workers in the near term, but also raises genuine costs for employers that could dampen business investment and hiring at the margin. The net effect on aggregate prosperity depends heavily on whether productivity gains from better worker security materialise.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether the compliance costs, hiring caution, and reduced wage-bill flexibility for employers will meaningfully reduce business investment and firm formation enough to offset the living-standards gains for low-paid workers.

Our reading: The package has two distinct effects on O13. On the living-standards side, raising the minimum wage to a genuine living wage is the single largest lever: IFS evidence from past NLW rounds shows employment effects were small and mostly insignificant, while wage gains were real and spread via spillovers to workers above the floor. The Living Wage Foundation projects meaningful income gains for low-paid workers, though these are advocacy-sourced estimates and should be treated as indicative. Day-one rights and zero-hours protections add security and predictability for workers in insecure employment, which the evidence associates with reduced financial loss from hidden costs of insecure work. On the business dynamism and investment side, the policy bundle increases employer compliance costs, restricts restructuring flexibility (fire and rehire rules), and raises the financial risk of workforce changes (uncapped unfair dismissal). The IFS characterises the day-one rights changes as modest, limiting concern about hiring freezes on that front alone. However, the cumulative burden of the full package — guaranteed hours, union recognition, fire-and-rehire constraints, and a higher wage floor — could constrain business formation and investment at the margin, particularly in lower-wage sectors and regions where the NLW bite is greatest. The CIPD and TUC evidence on union-productivity links is plausible but comes from advocacy-adjacent sources and should not dominate magnitude. On balance, near-term living standards for the lowest-paid improve materially, but the aggregate effect on business investment and dynamism introduces a genuine downward pull on broader prosperity. This warrants a mixed verdict rather than a clean improves: the gains are real but not evenly distributed across the O13 indicators, and the productivity-gain mechanism from better worker security, while analytically reasonable, lacks cited evidence of firing at scale in comparable cases.

Inequality & fair shares — Helps

moderate · moderate confidence

This package of labour market reforms — minimum wage uplift, stronger union rights, and better job security — would primarily benefit lower-paid workers, narrowing the income gap between the top and bottom. The main caveat is that employer adjustments such as reduced hours or slower hiring could partially offset gains for the most precarious workers.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether employers respond by cutting hours, slowing hiring, or restructuring contracts in ways that leave the lowest-paid workers worse off than the headline wage gains suggest.

Our reading: The New Deal for Working People targets three labour market channels that directly bear on the gap between high and low earners. First, a minimum wage raised to a genuine living wage with age bands removed directly lifts the floor: the measurable gap between young and adult workers is around £2.21/hour (E51), and an estimated 700,000 young workers lose ~£2,400/year under current banding (E50). IFS evidence shows previous NLW increases had negligible employment effects nationally (E54) and generated spillover wage gains above the floor (E56), so distributional gains are unlikely to be substantially eroded by job losses. Second, strengthened collective bargaining could raise pay in workplaces where union density grows; the TUC (an advocacy source, treated as indicative only) reports a 5.3% average union wage premium (E33). This does not establish that the premium accrues disproportionately to the lowest earners specifically, but since union recognition tends to be new in lower-wage sectors under this policy, the channel is plausibly pro-equality in direction even if magnitude is uncertain. Third, ending exploitative zero-hours contracts and fire and rehire removes hidden income costs concentrated at the bottom (E3), narrowing the effective income gap. The main offset risk is employer restructuring (E4), but IFS evidence and retained flexibility provisions (E6) suggest this is unlikely to reverse the direction. The mechanisms are statutory and committed rather than aspirational, satisfying the mechanism threshold. The verdict is 'improves/moderate': real, multi-channel compression of the wage gap, tempered by residual uncertainty over employer behavioural responses and the indicative nature of advocacy-sourced union premium data.

Cost of living — Helps

moderate · moderate confidence

This package raises the minimum wage to a genuine living wage, bans exploitative zero-hours contracts, and gives workers day-one sick pay — all of which should put more money in the pockets of low-paid workers. The main caveat is that some employer adjustments (like reduced hours or cautious hiring) could partially offset the gains.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether a higher minimum wage and stronger worker protections lead employers to cut hours, slow hiring, or pass costs on through prices, eroding the real-terms benefit for low-income households.

Our reading: The policy targets cost of living through three main channels: higher minimum wages, reduced income insecurity, and stronger worker protections. On wages, removing age bands and linking the minimum wage to cost of living would directly raise take-home pay for the lowest-paid workers — particularly the young, who currently earn substantially less than adult workers. However, the commitment on age bands lacks a fixed timeline, tempering the certainty of this gain. On income security, day-one sick pay rights remove a gap that currently leaves low-paid and part-time workers without income when ill — a direct cost-of-living relief. Similarly, banning exploitative zero-hours contracts is projected to save the lowest-paid workers hundreds of pounds lost to the hidden costs of insecure work, and gives workers more predictable income to plan around. On fire and rehire, the reform protects workers from having terms worsened, shielding take-home pay from unilateral employer cuts. Stronger union rights could deliver a further wage premium (evidenced at ~5.3% in unionised workplaces), though this is a longer-run and less certain effect. The main risk to the verdict is employer adjustment: previous NLW increases showed minimal employment effects nationally, but small negative effects in lower-wage regions. If employers respond to higher wage floors and greater obligations by reducing hours or slowing hiring, some of the intended income gains could be partially offset. This risk is real but — based on IFS evidence — has historically been modest. Overall, the balance of evidence points to a moderate improvement in cost of living for lower-income households, felt primarily over the parliament as the reforms bed in. The gains are most certain for sick pay (immediate) and least certain for the age band removal (no fixed date).

Good work & fair pay — Helps

moderate · moderate confidence

This package of reforms — banning exploitative zero-hours contracts, ending fire and rehire, extending day-one rights, strengthening unions, and raising the minimum wage — would materially improve pay, security and conditions for low-paid and insecure workers. The main caveat is that some protections are weaker in practice than billed, and there is a genuine risk of modest negative employment effects at the margins.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether the combined effect of higher labour costs and stronger dismissal protections causes employers to reduce hiring or hours enough to offset the pay and security gains for existing workers.

Our reading: The policy package acts on several well-evidenced drivers of poor work quality: insecure contracts, one-sided power to vary terms, weak enforcement, low minimum wages, and limited collective bargaining. The projected gains for workers are substantial: banning exploitative zero-hours contracts increases income predictability and is projected to save the lowest-paid hundreds of pounds; strengthening union rights in workplaces with recognised unions is associated with a 5.3% pay premium; and raising the minimum wage to a genuine living wage could mean £2,400 more per year for low-paid full-time workers outside London. Ending fire and rehire gives workers meaningful protection against having terms worsened unilaterally, with dismissal for refusing detrimental contract changes made automatically unfair. However, several caveats temper the verdict from 'major' to 'moderate'. Day-one unfair dismissal protection — a headline commitment — has been walked back to a six-month qualifying period in practice. The removal of age bands lacks a firm timetable. The IFS evidence on past minimum wage rises shows only small negative employment effects, but those effects were real in lower-wage regions, and a larger simultaneous package of labour cost increases could amplify them. Employer restructuring in response to guaranteed-hours obligations and stronger dismissal rules may reduce hiring at the margins. On balance, the evidence leans clearly toward improvement for workers currently in insecure, low-paid employment. The gains in pay, security and enforceability are concrete and supported by multiple institutional sources. The employment-effect risk is real but historically modest. The direction is 'improves' with moderate magnitude, felt across this parliament as measures phase in.

Compare all parties on prosperity & living standards →Compare all parties on inequality & fair shares →Compare all parties on cost of living →Compare all parties on good work & fair pay →Open this in the interactive comparison →← Show the Working home