Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner was cheered to the rafters when she restated Labour’s policy on workers’ rights in her speech to Labour’s conference in Liverpool.

She told the party faithful “Tory anti-worker” laws would be repealed and legislation offering a new deal for working people would be introduced within 100 days of taking power.

She has one month left to deliver on that promise.

Away from the conference floor, and behind closed doors, deciding on the detail is proving difficult.

As one not unsympathetic insider said: “a timetable isn’t a policy”.

Much has been written about the concerns of employers and of perceived differences between Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds and Rayner herself.

The reality, though, is more complicated than that.

While unions are united in welcoming the repeal of Conservative laws on minimum turnouts in strike ballots, and minimum service levels during industrial action, they are not all agreed on the detail of Labour’s new laws.

A series of “roundtables” – some via zoom – have already taken place involving ministers, business organisations and union officials.

An attempt to hold a summit of Rayner, Reynolds and union general secretaries and Reynolds and Rayner on the eve of Labour conference didn’t come off.

But both the prime minister and deputy PM did address union leaders on Saturday night and answered questions on their concerns.

And earlier on Sunday, Reynolds told BBC News: “We had 100 days deadline to bring in our employment rights bill, which is a significant part of that plan to make work pay. Yes we will stick to that.”

He added that the government was “committed to the implementation of those measures in a way which works with unions, businesses, with civil society because we want to get that right”.

“The reason this is so important is we don’t just want a stronger economy, we want one where everyone benefits.

“We’re still talking about how to implement that in the usual way we do with any major piece of legislation.”

Some unions are demanding that the results of recent talks with ministers are written down in a document – so that any clarifications, caveats and compromises are clear.

As for the substance of the discussions, I understand some differences are yet to be reconciled.

Labour had pledged to give workers their rights – for example on parental leave and sick pay – from “day one”.

The current qualifying period for parental leave is six months.

But what does “day one” really mean? Does “day one” start after a probation period, or alongside one?

And how long should a probation period be – three months, six months, a year – or two years (which is the current qualifying period for claiming unfair dismissal)?

Recent reports that six months had been agreed were dismissed as “jumping the gun” by a source close to the talks.

You would expect businesses to be pushing for a long period of probation, or to push back on “day one”, but at least one union is concerned that a short period of probation could make employers more reluctant to hire new staff, and cut jobs.

Then there is the question of banning “exploitative” zero hours contracts.

At least one union believes this caveat is actually a get-out clause, and is still seeking clarification on what rights employers will have to refuse regular contracts, and to refuse requests for flexible working or compressed hours.

And one union – Unite – is already on record questioning whether Labour’s commitment to end ‘fire and rehire” is going to be solid enough if companies can simply claim that it’s necessary to move to worse pay and conditions to remain viable.

At least three unions believe the self-imposed 100 days timescale for introducing new legislation, while eye-catching, is unrealistic.

One source involved in the talks predicted some issues would be put in the “too difficult box” – and when legislation come forward many of the “rights” would in fact be subject to further consultation.

Sources are also suggesting one issue already in the ‘too difficult’ box is the delivery of equal pay.

Legislation already exists on this but a significant gender pay gap, though narrowing, remains.

Some unions have been successful in making pay claims against councils but that has added – in some cases substantially – to the financial difficulties in local government.

Sources suggest that the Treasury is running its rule over not just this issue but across the whole workers’ rights agenda.

And that there are really three ‘Rs’ involved in deciding how Labour’s new deal for workers will be delivered – Reynolds and Rayner, who are fronting the talks, and Reeves, who is determined that the party’s pledge to be “pro-business” as well as “pro-worker” will be honoured.

Whatever emerges in legislation, there is little doubt that it will be a step forward for the rights of employees and those with job insecurity – even if some unions would prefer a giant leap.

Cabinet minister Lucy Powell told the BBC that the government was ‘working at pace’ to deliver its promises – but it seems ministers may have to breach existing working time directives if they are to complete their work in time.