Political bias aside, Labour has given pay rises to public sector workers, raised taxes, cut payments to pensioners and wants to see more houses being built. And not all its actions have been welcomed.

But beyond that, Labour – not unsurprisingly given its political priorities – is looking to reform the employment landscape too and recently introduced a 150-page Employment Rights Bill into parliament.

Key points outlined

As to the key points that have been included, the Bill proposes removing the two-year qualifying period for unfair dismissal while adding a statutory probation period, banning or restricting zero-hours contracts and ‘fire and rehire’, making flexible working a default right where practical, strengthening parental rights, changing trade union law and collective rights, granting sick pay from day one, and extending time for tribunal claims and removing compensation caps.

However, elements that were expected to be included did not make the cut. These include the ‘right to switch off’ which would have prevented employers from contacting workers out of hours, making larger firms report their ethnicity and disability pay gap, introducing a single status of worker, and further reviewing parental and carer leave systems.

If enacted – along with the increase in employers National Insurance contributions – the Bill is going to change the landscape for employers.

But what does the print sector think of it?

A legal view

Before we examine that, we should consider the legal profession’s view of the planned changes.

Mark Stevens, legal director at law firm VWV, thinks that the Bill outlines the most significant and far-reaching changes to employment law for many years. He says of the reforms that they “are aimed at strengthening worker protections and adapting to the changing labour market.” To this he notes “the need to upgrade employment protections so that they keep pace with the modern economy and ways of working.”

As to the impact of the Bill, Stevens highlights the removal of the two-year qualifying period for ordinary unfair dismissal claims. Because of the shift to day-one unfair dismissal rights that provide individuals with greater job security, he says that “employers will need to rethink their onboarding and probation management strategies, ensuring that robust and transparent procedures are in place.” There will be a statutory probationary period, but Stevens thinks that this will bring greater scrutiny to dismissals. His advice to employers is to review and update employment contracts and probation policies to stay compliant.

There is clearly much information to absorb, and Stevens’ clients are, he says, looking to understand the key areas of focus and how the proposed changes may impact their businesses. It does seem to bother him that the Bill’s reliance on future regulations has left employers with some uncertainty as “the practical challenges of implementing the new rights, such as guaranteed hours, reasonable notice of shifts, and compensation for late changes for zero-hours and low-hours workers, remain unresolved”.

Some wonder if there were any missed opportunities and from Stevens’ standpoint, more change is likely: “The Bill does not touch on equal pay issues, or the reporting of workplace pay-gaps. The government had also proposed a reconfiguration of the rules around employment status which was omitted from the Bill.” Here he says that it is anticipated that a new employment status framework, under which there would be only two statuses – worker and self-employed – will be the subject of detailed consultation.

However, he says that there are further plans to reform employment law beyond the Bill, with, for example, a ‘right to switch off’ through a statutory Code of Practice, and the Equality (Race and Disability) Bill which will require large employers to report their ethnicity and disability pay gaps.

Ultimately, employers will have no choice but to cope with a new employment landscape from autumn 2026 when the new laws are expected to come into force. However, while no immediate steps may be required, Stevens counsels employers to “start thinking about which of their policies and practices may be impacted and keep a watching brief for when further details are released”.

Micropress

Rob Cross, joint managing director, is concerned with how the employment and business landscape is changing. In particular, he feels that the direction of travel of the government is “making it more onerous and costly for employers”. He thinks that the government is “misguided if they think these proposed changes in employment law and some of their other policies are actually going to encourage growth. I fear it may have the opposite effect… and… employers will be more cautious when employing people”.

His concerns and views are not unique to him and points to what others are telling him: “Every business I have spoken to is horrified about the NI hikes coming in.”

Fortunately, Cross describes Suffolk-based Micropress as “a strong, profitable business” and while it will have a negative effect on operating margin Cross says that the company will be able to navigate the changes. However, he reckons – and fears – that “it will prove too costly for many print businesses and not everyone will survive. It is bad enough for our industry, but I dread to think what affect it will have on sectors where labour costs are a much bigger proportion of sales”. He worries about the effects on prices that are likely to go up and so add further pressure on inflation.

His advice to others in print is to focus on efficiency. On this Cross says that “we are fortunate enough that as a manufacturing sector we can invest in technology to gain efficiency”. He adds that “people are the single most important thing to any business, and this should be embraced more than ever… it is certainly not a time to have disengaged employees”.

Despite his comments, Cross thinks that elements of the Employment Rights Bill do make sense and says that he is fully behind many of the items such as the clamping down of ‘fire and rehire.’ As he says: “I understand there are some poor employers out there whose employees should be protected, but I feel the government is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut and they are not considering the consequences to good businesses.”

Webmart

Simon Biltcliffe, founder and executive chairman, says that he understands what the government is trying to achieve – that is, to get “companies to effectively pay for an increasing proportion of the welfare bill” and he can see the effect of recent changes in that when the national minimum wage rises so more are taken off benefits.

But beyond the matter of pure pay, Biltcliffe sees the government also working to bring people on disability benefits back into the workforce.

As to the content of the Bill, Biltcliffe thinks that we’re only seeing an early draft and thinks that it will be amended “because you can’t give people all the rights from day one – that’s farcical to be brutally honest; nobody will want to take a punt on [an individual], and that’s key as not everybody is preordained to be successful”.

Biltcliffe is firmly behind the concept of giving workers a chance, but comments that “if you’ve got legislation which precludes that then all it means is that people are disenfranchised, or less obvious choices will get less opportunity which is quite contrary to the intended consequences”.

On the subject of zero-hours contracts he notes that Webmart rarely utilises them “unless it works for the individual... occasionally people have said ‘could we have flexibility’ and then we do it, but not as standard”.

And as for the hike in employers National Insurance, “that,” says Biltcliffe, “comes straight out of profitability”. He cites the example of an organisation near where he lives that told him the move will add £400,000 to the wage bill through a combination of the minimum wage increase and the rise in National Insurance – “that’s a huge sum of money for anybody and they don’t make anything like that as a profit so they’re going to have to radically re-engineer what they do”. By this he means shed employees and deploy automation. In essence, Biltcliffe reckons that this change alone “will be quite significant and I don’t think necessarily the government has thought through all of the ramifications”.

In terms of print firms looking to cope with the bill, Biltcliffe says that the only solution is to look to automation and AI in workflow management: “You’ve really got to look at whether you’ve got low value-added activity or anything that is not empathetic – as in not client touching and that is repeatable. There will be tools out there that are AI enabled to allow you to automate that.”

His thinking is that doing this “will release quality people that you’ve got to do higher value-added activity and allow a business to grow”. Regardless, he fears that the Bill will see firms shrink their workforces: “I think in two years’, three years’ time, we will see what has actually happened... whether the optimistic view of releasing people from drudgery and giving them creativity has happened, or [many] probably older people have moved out of the workforce or out of the industry into more mundane roles in supermarkets, driving and logistics that are very difficult to automate.”

Bishops Printers

Managing director Gareth Roberts holds the view that the Bill was fairly well telegraphed in advance by the government and “is what you should reasonably expect from a left leaning party”. He says that the Bill contained no surprises and “much of the legislation is well intended and chimes with the sort of employer/employee dynamic well established in many parts of Europe in contrast to a balance more in favour of the employer in the US”.

As he sees it, “if you are a genuine employer who places a value on the relationship with staff then I don’t think there is an awful lot to fear in this Bill”. He considers that cutting out malpractice around fire and rehire tactics or eliminating the imbalance which can exist in zero-hours contracts, as well as some of the enhanced family rights, are the right thing to do when enforcing good standards and fairness in the workplace.

This said, Roberts says that there might be some additional conversations and discussions to be had around flexible working “which might be unhelpful for some,” but he seems pleased that “the employer does look likely to retain the right to defend their own stance in such areas.”

But it’s the day-one right to unfair dismissal which Roberts reckons is probably the one key area where he would “expect that employers will ‘sharpen up’ both their recruitment process and their measurement of staff performance.” He says this because at present “there might exist some element of feeling that an employer could ‘get it wrong’ but make corrective decisions in the months thereafter.” With a positive spin Roberts suggests that the change might lead employers to make more effort to get the match between candidate and vacancy right before making an appointment.

Further, and on balance, Roberts thinks that the combination of this legislation coupled with the recent and “notable increase” in employers NI contributions, “will likely make the scale of recruitment soften across many employers”. It’s also going to reduce the likelihood that more speculative employment will be more difficult to justify. Here he says that “a number of business leaders I have spoken to recently are much more interested in automation and machinery of whatever sort which might increase productivity without the burden and worry of additional staff”.

While the detail of the Bill in its final form is unknown, Roberts points out that other commercial necessities are on the minds of printing industry managers: “The Budget and GDP figures tell you that many businesses will simply be focused on how to navigate the economic challenges of 2025 and not really the impact of legislation coming into effect in 2026. Next month, next quarter, is quite enough of a concern at the moment.”

In fact, Roberts worries that “this country does not encourage or support ‘doing business’…and where does that leave us in terms of economic buoyancy and investment?” Ultimately, he would encourage others to think about how they have navigated much more serious challenges such as energy costs and paper price increases in recent times. “This cost burden is tough and feels both frustrating and unnecessary, but it’s coming and the answers to overcome can be found in each of our businesses.”

Compass Business Finance

Compass director David Bunker sees most firms acting positively in how they handle staff relations, when considering the govenment’s thinking and plans. He says: “The vast majority of employers I encounter act responsibly towards their staff, offering recognition and respect for all they contribute to the businesses they work for.”

In this light, he thinks that most of what is covered under the new Employment Rights Bill is “little more than best practice, aimed at ensuring employers who may otherwise treat their team as commodities cannot continue to do so, whilst offering employees further security and comfort”.

In commenting on the impact the new rights granted will have if the legislation is passed, Bunker notes that the new Bill, as stated by the government, “aims to tackle low pay, poor working conditions and poor job security”. He thinks that these are positive moves, but worries about “unintended consequences, including increased costs for employers who already act in a fair and responsible manner, particularly around reporting and implementation, along with more stringent recruitment practices”.

Bunker says his clients are more concerned about the hike in employer National Insurance contributions than the legislative changes, although the former too “will impact the cost base of businesses.” Indeed, he’s well aware that the cost of running a print business has surged dramatically due to rising taxes, energy costs, material costs, inflation, and salaries. This is why he says that “it’s hardly surprising that [the legislation] feels like yet another barrier for employers who have already faced numerous challenges”.

And of the adjustments to the NI thresholds, Bunker comments that “employers are now required to pay higher contributions for a larger portion of their employees’ salaries, directly impacting overall payroll expenses, and creating higher operational costs”.

He explains that one of his firm’s customers, made just under £300,000 in the last 12 months – “the new changes will nearly eliminate this profit margin, and we are seeing similar situations across the print and packaging sectors”.

Bunker’s parting advice to those looking to cope with the Bill should it be enacted, is to naturally consider the finance perspective. As he says: “We’re working with our customers to implement strategies that will help them to keep their cash flow stable.” On this he reckons that “there are a lot more conversations taking place around Asset Based Lending (ABL), which is why we recently published a white paper on the subject as it’s a form of financing that is not only focused on raising capital for larger projects but is also a good way to take a more holistic view of the mix of finance utilised within businesses, providing improved headroom and cashflow”.

Summary

It’s clear that the Employment Rights Bill, if passed as outlined, is going to have quite an impact on employers in the print sector. The question will be how they react and whether it’ll affect recruitment policies and pay settlements. Further, will the Bill lead to greater levels of automation? Or could it force some out of business? And then there’s the matter of how employees could ‘use’ the new regimes?

Only time will tell what the outcome will be.