6th October 2026
Britain has just been given another reminder that the cost of changing workers' pay and conditions can sometimes extend far beyond the workplace.
North Sea offshore workers employed by Wood Group are beginning strike action in a dispute over pay and employment conditions, including what unions say is the threat of "fire and rehire".
The first 48-hour strike is scheduled for Tuesday 6 and Wednesday 7 October, with further action planned for 20-21 October and 3-4 November.
And these are not workers in an isolated factory.
The Wood workers are employed on Harbour Energy platforms including Britannia, Jasmine, Judy, Lomond and North Everest.
That means a dispute between a contractor and its employees has the potential to affect the operation of major North Sea oil and gas assets.
Why does Wood Group matter?
Wood has a long-standing relationship with Harbour Energy.
Its services include operations and maintenance work on North Sea assets. The two companies previously announced a five-year strategic partnership covering a number of Harbour's offshore installations. Wood said at the time that the agreement would support hundreds of jobs both in Aberdeen and offshore.
So when technicians walk off installations, this is not simply an argument about an employment contract sitting in an Aberdeen office.
The people involved include electrical, production, instrument and mechanical technicians.
These are skilled jobs in an environment where safety is obviously critical.
Wood has confirmed that it has received notification of the industrial action and says the dispute relates to a recent consultation over changes to employment terms and conditions.
The company says personnel and operational safety remain its top priority. Harbour Energy has similarly said that its priority is the safety of its people and assets and that it expects to maintain safe and reliable operations and production.
The unions take a very different view.
Unite says Wood is attempting to cut the pay and conditions of dozens of workers and has threatened fire and rehire.
What is fire and rehire?
The principle is relatively simple.
An employer wants to change someone's employment contract.
The employee does not agree.
Instead of accepting the refusal, the employer dismisses the employee and offers them another job on the new terms.
Hence "fire and rehire".
The argument from employers is usually that they need to make changes to remain competitive or protect the future of the business.
The argument from employees is that it can amount to being told:
Accept worse conditions or lose your job.
That is why the issue has become so politically and industrially sensitive.
And the timing is extraordinary
The UK Government is already legislating to restrict fire and rehire.
The Employment Rights Act programme says new fire-and-rehire protections are due to take effect in January 2027.
So we are now only a few months away from a major change in the rules.
That creates an obvious question.
Are employers and unions going to see increasing numbers of disputes as companies try to change contracts before the new restrictions come into force?
It would be wrong to suggest that every employer is doing this.
But the Wood dispute shows that the issue is certainly not disappearing.
And this comes at a particularly awkward time for the North Sea
The Wood dispute is not happening in isolation.
Separate industrial action involving more than 160 Apache offshore workers is also being threatened.
Unite says that dispute could severely disrupt UK fuel supplies and potentially affect the Forties pipeline system. The union argues that the proposed pay deal represents a real-terms cut for many workers.
Apache disputes the potential scale of the disruption and says it has contingency arrangements.
But the important point is that Britain is discovering just how interconnected its energy infrastructure is.
A dispute involving a relatively small number of highly skilled workers can potentially have consequences far beyond the workers themselves.
The North Sea is not just an oilfield
This is something that is sometimes forgotten in political arguments about oil and gas.
The North Sea supports a huge network of companies, contractors, engineers, technicians, transport businesses, helicopter operations, supply bases and specialist services.
A platform may have relatively few people working on it compared with a large factory.
But those people are responsible for highly specialised operations.
You cannot necessarily replace an experienced offshore technician at short notice.
That is why disputes involving skilled offshore workers can attract attention well beyond the immediate employer.
Could Harbour's production actually be hit?
That is the question many people will be asking.
Unite says the industrial action will inevitably affect the operation of Harbour Energy's offshore assets.
Harbour, however, says it expects to maintain safe and reliable operations and production.
So it would be premature to claim that the strikes will cause a particular reduction in oil production or fuel supplies.
What we do know is that the action affects workers on five Harbour-operated platforms and that further strikes are already scheduled.
The outcome will therefore depend on how the companies manage staffing, safety and operations during the stoppages.
And that is perhaps where the story becomes particularly interesting.
Britain needs both sides of the argument
It is easy for a strike story to become a simple argument between "greedy companies" and "greedy unions".
Reality is normally more complicated.
Companies have to remain financially viable.
Workers have to protect their incomes and employment conditions.
Investors expect businesses to control costs.
Employees expect agreements they have worked under for years to mean something.
And customers ultimately pay for many of the costs.
But there is a bigger consideration in the North Sea.
Energy security.
Britain is still heavily dependent on oil and gas even while it tries to move towards a lower-carbon energy system.
That means maintaining the existing energy infrastructure safely and reliably remains important.
There is a wider lesson here
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this dispute is that it illustrates how decisions made inside a company can have consequences outside it.
A decision to change employment conditions may appear to be a matter between an employer and its workforce.
But when the workforce is maintaining North Sea oil and gas installations, the consequences can potentially extend to energy production.
And when another group of offshore workers is simultaneously threatening action that could affect the Forties pipeline, the combined picture becomes even more significant.
This does not mean Britain is about to run out of petrol or diesel.
It does mean that energy security depends on people as well as pipelines, platforms and fuel terminals.
Perhaps fire and rehire needs a rethink
The Government clearly believes that the existing balance between employers and employees needs changing, which is why stronger restrictions are coming.
But there is a question worth asking.
Could the attempt to impose changes to employment contracts actually become more expensive than negotiating with workers?
Industrial action itself carries a cost.
Lost production can carry a cost.
Disruption to customers can carry a cost.
Recruiting and training replacement staff can carry a cost.
And damaged industrial relations can last much longer than a particular pay dispute.
The Wood dispute therefore provides a useful case study in what happens when negotiations over employment conditions reach the point where both sides decide they are prepared to take the fight further.
And there is one final irony
Britain is currently worrying about energy prices, fuel supplies and the resilience of its energy system.
At the same time, some of the people who keep that system operating are fighting over their own employment conditions.
Perhaps the lesson is that energy security is not simply about having enough oil and gas underground or enough fuel in storage.
It also depends on having enough skilled people willing to keep the system running.
And that may be something worth remembering the next time somebody says that Britain's energy infrastructure is simply a collection of platforms, pipelines and terminals.
Behind all of it are people.
And sometimes those people can turn off the machinery by turning up the pressure at the negotiating table.