This paper examines the ongoing debate over whether UK employment laws are effective in protecting workers. It surveys key legislative areas — including the Equality Act, mandatory retirement ages, the Working Time Directive, zero-hours contracts, sickness absence provisions, and third-party harassment law — presenting arguments from those who believe current protections are insufficient and those who argue that existing regulations are excessive or poorly drafted. The paper concludes that while some provisions have been ineffective or badly constructed, stripping protections entirely risks leaving workers worse off, and that the tension between labor market flexibility and adequate worker protection remains unresolved in the UK context.
Research shows that the last three Parliaments exhibited a trend toward greater employment protection. However, some argue that these protections are still not sufficient, while others contend that employment regulation should be scaled back. Nevertheless, UK employment law maintains comparatively lower levels of worker protection and greater labor market flexibility than many other EU Member States. In France, for example, industrial relations law has preserved straightforward limitations on industrial action that were introduced by earlier Conservative governments. A range of measures has succeeded in raising rights and protections for working parents and their carers. Even so, a number of major employment law issues remain unsettled.
This essay discusses the substantial debate surrounding the volume of employment legislation that currently governs the workplace in the UK. Some participants in that debate would like to see employment law reduced, while others argue that existing law does not go far enough to protect the workforce. The tension between these two positions runs through nearly every area of employment regulation examined below.
The Equality Act 2010 was primarily designed to harmonize anti-discrimination law, and much of it duplicates pre-existing requirements that were subsequently repealed. Those earlier provisions were canceled even after a number of amendments had been made to them. Several of the resulting changes were resisted by the Conservatives; the most notable concerned the socio-economic equality duty, which would have placed an obligation on public sector organizations to address socioeconomic inequality, and proposals to require larger employers to publish data on gender pay gaps within their workforce. There was also extensive debate over whether social class should be added as a protected characteristic (Aronowitz, 2012). To this day, that question remains a matter of continuing review.
Discrimination on the grounds of race has been a growing concern, and some argue that the law does not do enough to protect minority workers. One specific debate has focused on whether "caste" should be added to the definition of "race" under the Equality Act 2010, or whether the Act can already be interpreted to include caste under the existing definition of race. The UK government had previously indicated its intention to amend the Equality Act 2010 to cover caste discrimination. In the meantime, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) was considering the validity of an employment tribunal ruling that the current wording of the Equality Act 2010 is sufficient to allow caste discrimination claims to be brought ('Economically dependent workers', 2015). Opposing arguments hold that the word "caste" would make no practical difference, and that its absence does not render the legislation insensitive to minority groups — though those from affected communities frequently disagree.
Some legislators also objected to changes made to discrimination questionnaires in 2014, when they were abolished and replaced with a new, more informal procedure. Many businesses welcomed this change, as discrimination questionnaires had been seen as lengthy, time-consuming, and burdensome to complete.
Mandatory retirement is another contested issue in UK employment law. Under Employment Equality legislation, employers have been within their rights to impose mandatory retirement ages in employment contracts. When age discrimination legislation came into force in 2006, mandatory retirement ages became unlawful unless they could be objectively justified (Offe, 2014). This remained subject to a national default retirement age of 65, which permitted compulsory retirement at that age, provided employees were given the opportunity to request to continue working beyond it (Coles, 2012). The argument has been made that this aspect of the regulations was subject to a failed legal challenge on judicial review concerning compliance with European law.
Others argue that the decision to retain a national default retirement age was closely tied to a review scheduled for 2011 — a review that some considered unfair. The Labour Government had repeatedly stated that this review was supposed to take place in 2010, but it was not completed before the end of that Parliament. One important clarification frequently raised in this debate is that "pension age" and "retirement age" are not the same thing (Pyah, 2012). The retirement age is the point at which a worker can be required to leave employment, while the pension age is the point at which a person becomes eligible to begin drawing an unreduced pension income.
The EU Pregnant Workers' Directive has also been a source of ongoing concern. Proposals for changes to the Directive at the EU level have generated significant debate for some time. Some argue that new mothers are not adequately financially supported. The UK currently offers new mothers a relatively generous one-year statutory leave entitlement, but at comparatively low levels of pay, which many consider insufficient. Business concerns have focused on a proposal to require 18 weeks of leave at full pay.
The Working Time Directive is another major area of contention. Under the Directive, workers may agree with their employers to "opt out" of the 48-hour maximum working week (Willman, 2012). Following a review, the European Commission proposed amendments to the opt-out provision. The European Parliament voted to eliminate it entirely, and the matter was subject to qualified majority voting (QMV) in the Council of Ministers, where discussions encountered a persistent deadlock — with the UK seeking to retain the opt-out and a number of other member states seeking to phase it out. This deadlock was broken in May 2008 when a common position was reached retaining the opt-out. However, on 17 December 2008 the European Parliament voted again to eliminate it, sending the matter to a final conciliation process involving Parliament, the Commission, and the Council. That conciliation failed to produce a mutual agreement, and the proposals were abandoned. After the 2009 European Parliament elections, the Commission revisited the proposals.
Concerns also arose in relation to the social and healthcare sector, and in particular to the position of doctors. Since August 2004, junior doctors have been progressively brought within the requirements of the Directive (Willman, 2012). The European Court of Justice ruled that time spent by doctors on call at a healthcare facility counts as working time. Consequently, removing the opt-out could create serious staffing difficulties in the UK health service and in other EU member states. These judgments are referred to as "SIMAP" and "Jaeger." EU Commission proposals were expected to address these judgments with a view to managing their impact on healthcare services across the EU (Boggs S. P., 2016).
Statutory holiday entitlement has also generated debate, particularly around conflicting European and UK decisions on holiday rights when a worker is unable to take leave due to sickness, and on carrying unused leave forward to the next leave year. This has caused considerable confusion among employers. Three broad camps appear to have emerged (Aronowitz, 2012): those who have revised their practices and are fully complying with the law; those who have taken no action, hoping not to be challenged by their workers; and those taking a risk-based approach, handling matters on a case-by-case basis.
"Zero-hours contract debate and tribunal access"
"Disability protections, sick leave, and flexible work rights"
"Woolworths ruling and repeal of harassment provisions"
It is clear that there is a significant debate as to whether employment law in the UK serves its purpose when it comes to protection. When it comes to workplace discrimination, history shows that it did not serve much purpose — it was, in certain respects, clearly ineffective. That ineffectiveness was one of the reasons some argued it should have been reduced. It is arguably regrettable that a combination of poor drafting and a lack of foresight provided justification for taking a step backward in terms of worker protection. On the other hand, if the only available choice is between retaining a largely defective piece of legislation — with all the uncertainty it entails — and reverting to the pre-Equality Act status quo, then employers are unlikely to exploit the resulting gap in ways that cause widespread harm. Nevertheless, that calculus does not resolve the underlying question of whether UK workers are adequately protected, and the tension between labor market flexibility and meaningful employment rights remains very much alive.
You’re 45% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.