FLEXIBLE WORKING – OR PURE EXPLOITATION? SHARE YOUR VIEWS
* UPDATE: 25 JUNE 2014 *
Business secretary Vince Cable has moved to ban ‘exclusivity’ clauses in zero-hours contracts, which have tied desperate workers to one employer, even when that employer won’t guarantee them any work at all. It’s a start, but critics say the move doesn’t go far enough, as workers on zero-hours contracts are still given too little notice about when their shifts are to enable them to plan their time properly. What do you think? Is this change enough to help you – or do the rules need to be even tougher to keep employers from taking advantage?
If you’re working part-time while you hunt for a permanent graduate job, do you know how many shifts you’ll be given this week – or what your income will be this month?
Exact figures are scarce, but it seems that thousands of graduates are being caught out by so-called “zero hours” contracts, the controversial agreements that allow bosses to demand part-time staff are always available to work, but where the company has no obligation to give workers any shifts at all. Common in retail positions, these contracts are regularly given to graduates desperate to earn money while they look for better-paid, permanent, graduate positions. So, if you’re offered one, should you sign it?
It seems that plenty of cash-strapped young people feel they have no choice. This week, the Guardian revealed that 90% of part-time staff at Sports Direct are employed on a zero-hours contract (that’s 20,000 employees). Then, it emerged that 350 staff at Buckingham Palace work under these conditions, although a spokesperson insisted these were not ‘zero hours’ contracts as when these staff members do work they are given lunch and, er, uniforms (no, we don’t get the logic either). The same report found that all of cinema chain Cineworld’s part-time multiplex staff are on zero-hours contracts, as are many employees at the Tate galleries in London, Liverpool and Cornwall.
As one of the first websites to write about these controversial zero-hours contracts (almost a year ago), Graduate Fog thinks it’s time to revisit the subject. So, what do you think? If you’re desperate for work, should you sign a zero-hours contract – or tell the employer to stick it? If you’ve done a zero-hours contract, did it work for you? Post your comment below…
Simply put: No, nobody should sign a zero hour contract. They should be illegal.
I understand they can be used legitimately for flexible labour needs (and from what I have read, Buckingham Palace uses them legitimately and fairly for this purpose), but there is huge potential for exploitation.
Where there is potential for exploitation, people will exploit (much like the “ambiguity” surrounding unpaid interns). It’s not necessarily that people are evil; But any competative advantage gained by exploitation by a competitor will make even the most moral companies emulate the practice.
In the UK, it is a director’s legal duty to ensure the success of the company. They would be failing that duty not to exploit the same as their competitors do.
Straight after uni I had a zero-hour contract (back before I really knew what they were) for one of the two part-time jobs I had that summer. I was lucky in having just about enough hours to keep me in the city, but wouldn’t get such a job again.
Even if I didn’t also ethically object to zero-hour contracts, the benefits system means that as long as I live away from my parents I don’t think I can risk taking a job with one anyway.
I work in a zero-hours job. I probably shouldn’t say who they are as they are *cough* a prestigious media company.
I’m working two jobs at the moment. Both are ‘zero hours’. One is seasonal and so hours come along on certain months. However last month I had almost zero-hours, and one one of the contracts I’ve not worked at all for two months.
I wouldn’t take this unless I was desperate, and this is the closest thing I’ve gotten to a proper job since graduating…I want to think this will help me work full time on a respectable and dignified contract…one day…
While I appreciate that there may be a genuine need for flexible working in some cases, I think the rise of zero-hour contracts is simply in order to cut costs. I think people are signing these contracts out of pragmatism because there aren’t enough FT jobs. They reason that having some work is better than no work.
In answer to the question “should I sign a zero hours contract”, and judging the picture the answer is a certain no.
Musicians are freelancers and not workers, as such they can charge what they like for a gig, even nothing.
What’s concerning is that what used to be full time permanent jobs are being replaced by these.
What’s concerning is that what used to be full time permanent jobs are being replaced by these.
I used to work on a zero hours contract. Never again.
You are not guaranteed any hours. Even if you do everything your employers asks you to do, i.e. accept shifts at very short notice, put up with shifts being cancelled, hourly rate reductions (it’s happened to me), you are still not guaranteed any work and sick pay. The system suits only employers and deprives people of basic worker’s rights!
I feel you have just touched the tip of the iceberg with this issue. Myself as a care worker working for the past 12 yrs on zero hours contract am part of thousands of people who do this. Since the privatisation of care work to unscrupulous agencies this has always been the case. I receive no sick except SSP. Every time I take a holiday I do not get paid for it.I am told that my work has been reduced is incorporated in my wages over the year. Tousands of other care workers or domicilary asst are exploited in the UK.
I really enjoyed the flexibility of my 0 hour contract while I was studying, but now I’ve graduated and am seeking full-time work, paying rent has become an increasingly scary ordeal. Last week, I worked 40 hours. Next, week, I am working only 5. The company I work for doesn’t have to worry about this, because they aren’t legally obliged to give me shifts, while I struggle from paycheque to paycheque. My advice- don’t even go there.
I been treated badly as I am d only person at work get 4 hours.
Hi all
Seen the development on this today?
* UPDATE: 25 JUNE 2014 *
Business secretary Vince Cable has moved to ban ‘exclusivity’ clauses in zero-hours contracts, which have tied desperate workers to one employer, even when that employer won’t guarantee them any work at all. It’s a start, but critics say the move doesn’t go far enough, as workers on zero-hours contracts are still given too little notice about when their shifts are to enable them to plan their time properly. What do you think? Is this change enough to help you — or do the rules need to be even tougher to keep employers from taking advantage?
For reference, here is the Guardian’s coverage:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jun/25/vince-cable-moves-against-zero-hours-contracts
And the BBC’s:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27996448
One step of many which needs to be done. It’s a great start, but it’s not enough.
So sorry guys – could you comment below this (newer) post instead of here? Thank you!
https://graduatefog.co.uk/2014/3341/zero-hours-contracts-give-workers-choice-and-flexibility-bosses-claim/comment-page-1/#comment-548337
My issue is less with the contracts themselves and more with the job opportunities that use them.
Retail and Service sector industries have little reason to use them since they have regular opening hours that need to be staffed.
Events staff could feasibly be on zero hours, but a shop or hotel? That makes no sense at all.
Even if your work is seasonal or temporary you can hire people on short term contracts or stipulate the dates of employment. You can also keep a record of people that have worked for you and contact them again later on should you need to hire extra staff, rather than keeping them without without work and unfairly tied into an exclusivity agreement.