Today we’re releasing our analysis of how the mainstream press has covered the worker protections agenda. We find that despite strong public appeal, the conversation in the media has been highly polarised with significantly more coverage presenting these reforms as burdens on business rather than as key protections. Our key findings are:
- The conversation on worker protections is far more polarised than discussions on other regulatory issues. E.g. online safety
- For every editorial in support of the government’s reforms, more than five have criticised them
- In total, 67 editorials have framed labour market regulations as burdens, while just 13 have presented them as protections
- Roughly seven times more people are reading editorials which attack Labour’s worker protections agenda compared to those that defend it
- The most common narrative in the pushback is that these reforms will be a burden on businesses and will stifle growth
Full report below. Please do share on socials and with your network.
Labour came to power with a bold pledge – to deliver “the biggest upgrade of workers’ rights in a generation”. Recent polling by the TUC shows this agenda is resoundingly popular with roughly three quarters of the population supporting day-one sick pay, immediate protection from unfair dismissal, and a ban on zero hours contracts. This adds to a large body of research which finds strong support amongst all voter groups for this agenda.
But since taking office, Labour’s strategy seems to have been to push these reforms through under the radar. Publicly, the government has been on a mission to establish its pro-business credentials with their Investment Summit in the autumn, along with the Chancellor’s Mansion House Speech in November and Growth Speech at the end of January all underscoring an approach to growth driven by deregulation.
Their silence on this agenda is all the more risky in light of what appears to be a pro-worker pivot by Reform UK. In an interview with the Financial Times, Nigel Farage praised trade unions for their role in protecting British workers, signalling a surprising shift in tone from the party’s traditionally Thatcherite policies. On top of this, earlier in the week, Reform UK leader Richard Tice wore a trade union badge in the House of Commons.
Although all Reform UK MPs voted against the Employment Rights Bill, these moves are undoubtedly an appeal to economically insecure voters in marginal seats. In this context, Labour’s unwillingness to vocally champion the workers’ rights agenda risks ceding ground to a populist right that is increasingly willing to adopt pro-worker rhetoric.
Keeping key business groups on-side is likely only one part of the reason behind Labour’s silence. Our research suggests the mainstream press coverage of this agenda has probably also played a role in their coyness.
We’ve tracked the editorials of eight national UK newspapers since Labour took office until the first of February, and have found a very strong pro-market bias to most of them. We find that for every editorial in support of the government’s reforms, more than five have criticised them for holding back the economy and limiting Labour’s ability to drive national renewal.
The newspapers we analysed are representative of the political leanings of the national press. The four newspapers from the right-leaning press are The Times, The Telegraph, The Mail and The Sun. From the centre ground, The Independent and The Financial Times, and from the progressive side of the press, The Guardian and The Mirror.
Editorials serve as the ‘formal voice’ of a newspaper, making them a valuable lens through which to understand how the press frames this issue. Below we outline how the battle for the story on worker protections is being won by the right-leaning press and why progressives urgently need to amplify a strong and collective narrative that supports these reforms.
The right-leaning press has been consistently hostile to the worker protections agenda
Since Labour took office, we have identified 80 editorials in our sample of newspapers that have discussed the worker protections agenda. Of these, 67 have framed labour market regulations as burdens, while just 13 have presented them as protections. In other words, for every editorial supporting worker protections, more than five have criticised them.
This imbalance becomes even more pronounced when factoring in newspaper circulation. There is a clear ideological divide in the coverage, with the left-leaning press almost exclusively responsible for positive framing, while the right-leaning press overwhelmingly frames worker protections as harmful. The Sun, Mail, Times, Telegraph, and Financial Times—along with their Sunday editions— are estimated to have a combined daily circulation of nearly three million, whereas The Guardian and Mirror together reach around 450,000.
Not only therefore is the right-leaning press more frequently attacking this agenda, but its critiques are also reaching a significantly larger audience. Approximately seven times more people are reading editorials which attack Labour’s worker protections agenda compared to those that defend them.
The language used in these critiques has also been visceral. Editorials have warned that regulatory changes will “strangle the private sector”, “suffocate” entrepreneurialism, and will be a “green light for mayhem”. These strongly worded attacks have become a regular feature of the press since Labour took office.
The most notable defence of worker protections has come from The Guardian and The Mirror. Both publications have been steadfast in their support, without publishing a single critique. The Financial Times has also occasionally backed worker protections – though typically with the caveat that businesses must be thoroughly consulted before any legislation is enacted. However, this support has been minimal compared to the sustained opposition from the right-leaning press, resulting in a media landscape where the narrative on labour market protections remains overwhelmingly one-sided.
Our analysis also shows that the debate over worker protections is far more polarised than discussions on other regulatory issues. When examining media coverage of topics such as emerging technologies, stronger oversight of the water industry, or crackdowns on rogue healthcare practices, our research shows that right-leaning publications often acknowledge the need for regulation. However, labour market reforms continue to face fierce and sustained opposition from these same outlets, underscoring the uniquely charged nature of this debate.
Worker protections have predominantly been presented as economic burdens
Criticism of Labour’s agenda has largely revolved around the argument that it will burden the economy. With the government focused on driving growth, opponents claim its approach is contradictory — pushing for economic renewal while simultaneously weighing businesses down with new legislation that could stifle progress.
The strongest pushback often comes following a government announcement around the growth agenda. Rachel Reeves’ growth speech at the end of January, for example, prompted a strong backlash with The Mail calling Labour “shamelessly disingenuous” for pursuing growth whilst introducing workplace regulations that “suffocate it”, and the FT claiming the government is quashing the “animal spirits of enterprise” with the new regulations they have “heaped on business”.
The negative framing of worker protections largely falls into four categories. The most common is that these regulations will damage our ability to generate growth, and linked to that, that it will shackle employers and businesses with new ‘red tape’. Newspapers have also often extolled the benefits of free markets and criticised the government for emboldening workers, which they suggest will lead to social and economic chaos. Often these arguments are not directed at particular aspects of the Employment Rights Bill but come as a general attack on an agenda perceived to damage the economy and limit the country’s prospects for renewal. Below, we explore these narratives in greater depth
Worker protections limit growth
The most common narrative within the ‘burden coverage’ portrays workplace regulations as a barrier to economic growth. The Times has framed the Employment Rights Bill as a threat to Britain’s competitiveness, warning that tighter labour market regulations could scare off both overseas investors and domestic businesses. This narrative stresses that greater worker protections translate to a less attractive environment for investment, making Britain a less appealing place to start or grow a business.
The narrative extends to concerns about growth more broadly. The Telegraph, for example, has argued that Labour’s reforms – including making flexible working the default and “making it easier for staff to sue employers” – will discourage businesses from expanding. The Mail echoes this sentiment, warning that Labour’s package of new regulations and obligations could raise business costs, suppress profits, and ultimately “stifle growth.”
The overarching message is that Labour’s agenda will be a brake on the economy at a time when stimulating growth ought to be the national priority. This narrative casts Labour’s policies as shortsighted, reasserting traditional critiques of Labour as being untrustworthy with the economy. Alongside regular jibes about the Chancellor’s supposedly exaggerated CV, this narrative stresses the incompetence of Labour’s strategy for growth and renewal.
Worker protections are burdensome red tape
Another common narrative portrays Labour’s worker protections agenda as burdensome red tape for employers. This narrative is similar to the one on growth, but it focuses specifically on the impact on employers rather than the wider growth agenda. Expanding workers’ rights is portrayed as coming at the expense of employers, creating additional costs and regulatory hurdles that make it harder for businesses to thrive. The Daily Mail, for example, has argued that the Employment Rights Bill will “strangle the private sector” with excessive bureaucracy.
Several publications also describe Labour’s plans as a direct financial hit to businesses. The Telegraph, for instance, describes the National Minimum Wage increase as a burden, emphasising the added cost to employers rather than the potential gains for low-paid workers. Similarly, The Sun warns that the proposed changes, including banning zero-hours contracts, could be “ruinous” for small businesses, portraying Labour’s agenda as disconnected from the needs of employers. These narratives collectively present Labour’s reforms not as a necessary rebalancing of workplace power, but as a harmful overreach that could stifle business innovation and job creation.
Markets know best
There is a broader narrative which suggests that markets — not governments — know best when it comes to running businesses and driving economic growth. This perspective, prevalent in outlets like The Telegraph and The Daily Mail, portrays Labour’s employment rights reforms as an unwelcome intrusion by politicians with no business experience. Business Secretary, Jonny Reynolds, has come under particular scrutiny for his plan to enshrine in law the right to work from home – something which led The Mail to write, “businesses know what’s best for them and their workers – not some man from the ministry.”
The Financial Times has been particularly vocal in pushing this narrative. An editorial entitled “Labour must keep listening to business” sums up their stance – the government ought to consult businesses on any reforms and avoid tilting the balance too far toward workers. This, they argue, could risk both the UK’s economic stability and the government’s relationship with the private sector.
A more extreme version of this narrative, prominent in The Telegraph, calls for a US-style free market revolution, inspired by the deregulatory principles of Donald Trump and Elon Musk. Editorials argue that Britain’s economy needs less regulation, lower taxes, and greater encouragement of entrepreneurship. The Labour government is therefore seen as out of step with global economic trends and the needs of a competitive, agile economy.
New regulations will lead to disruption
The final narrative portrays Labour’s employment rights reforms as a recipe for social and economic disruption, driven by the trade unions. Media outlets like The Sun and The Daily Mail have characterised Labour’s plans to repeal strike laws and lower the threshold for industrial action as an invitation to chaos. Headlines warn that easing restrictions on walkouts will be a “green light for mayhem“, painting a picture of mass walkouts, shutdowns, and national disruption.
Alongside fears of social disruption, articles from The Times and The Daily Mail have presented Labour’s employment rights agenda as a cynical political manoeuvre, designed to reward unions for their financial and electoral backing. This interpretation suggests Labour’s reforms are less about economic growth and fairness, and more about securing political advantage. By framing this agenda as both socially disruptive and politically opportunistic, this narrative seeks to delegitimise it as reckless, regressive, and self-serving.
The left-leaning press has attempted to reframe the debate
In the face of this extensive criticism of Labour’s employment rights agenda, the left-leaning press has attempted to defend these reforms by appealing to a different set of values. Although there has been an acknowledgment that employment rights can actually be a positive force in the economy by boosting long term productivity, generally the coverage has attempted to recast them as the bedrock of a different, more progressive kind of economy. Whilst agreeing with the need to boost UK growth, these editorials frame worker protections as producing a more equitable form of growth, which both workers and businesses can benefit from. Below we explore these narratives in greater depth.
Worker protections are the bedrock of a fair and inclusive society
One of the main narratives behind the call for better workplace protections, is that over the past decade the balance of power between workers and employers has tilted in favour of shareholders and the private sector. The Guardian has often made this case, arguing that over the last 15 years, the Conservatives have “whittled away” key protections. Labour’s agenda is seen in this context as a welcome modernisation of employment rights which will bring the UK at least in line with OECD average. The Guardian has also suggested that UK employment law has failed to keep pace with changes in the work environment, resulting in a dramatic rise of insecure work.
The push for stronger worker protections has commonly been framed therefore as essential for creating a fair society. The Guardian argues that trade unions are a vital force for holding the private sector to account and ensuring that workers receive a fair share of the economy’s gains. This perspective positions unions as crucial to modern capitalism.
The Mirror echoes this sentiment, pointing to the National Minimum Wage rise — particularly for younger workers — as a clear example of how updated protections can help lift people out of poverty and make work genuinely rewarding. Ensuring fair pay, secure work, and union representation is therefore portrayed as a way to combat inequality and ensure the economy serves everyone, not just a wealthy elite.
The Guardian also makes the case that labour market protections can give workers a greater stake in the economy which can prevent the drift towards more populist politics. In this context, Labour’s proposals — including union access to workplaces and stronger collective bargaining rights — are seen as a key way to restore faith in mainstream politics.
Worker protections are good for growth
There has been some pushback against the ‘burden on businesses’ narrative within the left-leaning press. The Observer argues that better job quality and improved statutory rights — like sick pay — are linked to higher productivity, a healthier workforce, and better public health outcomes. This economic angle reframes worker protections as an investment in long-term growth rather than as a short-term cost to employers.
The Guardian similarly emphasises that fair pay and decent treatment are not just matters of justice, but that they are key drivers of business success. Workers who feel secure are more motivated, more innovative and more productive, leading to better outcomes for companies. By improving job quality, Labour’s proposed reforms aim to create a virtuous cycle where a happier, healthier workforce fuels innovation and drives growth. The Financial Times has made a similar case, suggesting that a strong system of rules can make workers feel secure and respected, limiting absenteeism.
Although worker protections are framed as positive for productivity and growth, these efforts to reframe the agenda are limited in scope and pale in comparison to the vehement critiques launched in the right leaning press. As such, the attempts to reframe worker protections as part of a modern capitalist economy are losing out to a far stronger voice pressing for further deregulation of the labour market.
Winning the battle for the story
The overwhelming public support for Labour’s worker protections agenda should, in theory, make it a political strength. Yet, as our analysis has shown, progressives are losing the battle for the story. Despite widespread backing from voters, the right-leaning press has successfully framed these protections as economic burdens, stifling growth and discouraging investment. The consequence is a government reluctant to champion its own policies and a public largely unaware of the changes being implemented in their favour.
Progressives urgently need to reframe this debate. Too often, arguments in favour of these reforms are losing out to a relentless tide of emotionally charged warnings of economic catastrophe. By reframing the debate we can make a stronger case that worker protections are not just an essential part of a fair society, but are also key for a thriving economy, a resilient workforce, and prosperous local communities.
To achieve this, we need to speak with a more unified voice and present a shared vision that reinforces the value of worker protections. This means developing a consistent, compelling narrative that underscores the economic and social benefits of these reforms. By aligning our messaging, progressives can start to push back against the dominance of right-leaning narratives and reassert control over the debate.
Without a course correction, the danger is clear: an agenda with overwhelming public support could be undermined by relentless negative framing, leaving Labour hesitant and voters uninformed. Progressives need to seize the opportunity and tell a different story— if they fail to do so, they risk ceding yet another crucial debate to those who would dismantle these hard-won rights altogether.
We’ve developed a new messaging guide with NEON to help progressives tell a different story and communicate about this issue effectively. Please share it with your network.