BUT CAMPAIGNERS INSIST THEY EXPLOIT VULNERABLE, LOW-PAID STAFF
* UPDATE: 25 JUNE 2014 *
Business secretary Vince Cable has today 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?
******
Bosses and workers’ rights campaigners have clashed angrily over calls to ban controversial ‘zero-hours contracts’ – in which low-paid workers are often tied to a single firm but not guaranteed any employment from week to week. Meanwhile, new figures suggest that the number of zero-hours contracts in the UK has so far been vastly underestimated – and is now 1.4 million.
A new report by the Trades Union Congress (TUC) has slammed the contracts – which many of Graduate Fog’s users have also complained about as being unfair, insecure and exploitative. Meanwhile, the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) has insisted that the contracts offer workers “choice” and “flexibility” and “provide opportunities for work and help people build careers.”
The TUC’s report Casualisation and Low Pay found that young workers – including graduates – were among the most likely to be trapped in zero hours contracts, with more than two in five zero-hours workers in their twenties saying they were working part-time because they can’t find full-time employment. Those on zero-hours are also likely to be among the lowest paid in society – with the majority of those on them earning less than the living wage.
Further fresh figures from the Office of National Statistics (ONS) have suggested that the problem is far bigger than analysts realised, and findings by the Resolution Foundation also raised concerns that the UK’s lowest-paid workers were not feeling the benefits of the economic recovery. TUC General Secretary Frances O’Grady said:
“Insecure work with no guarantee of regular paid hours is no longer confined to the fringes of the jobs market.
“It is worrying that so many young people are trapped on zero-hours contracts, which can hold back their careers and make it harder to pay off debts like student loans. The fact that these contracts have become the norm in tourism, catering and food will be a major concern for the millions of people employed in these industries.
“With a further 1.3m workers reportedly doing no work at all, the jobs market is far more precarious than the government would have us believe. This should spur ministers into action to crackdown on the abuse of zero-hours contracts by employers.”
But Neil Carberry, CBI Director for Employment and Skills, insisted that any problems from zero-hours contracts come only from a small minority of irresponsible employers – and that banning them would be a mistake:
“Zero-hours contracts have helped protect and create jobs through the recession and beyond.
“Flexible contracts provide opportunities for work and help people build careers. To focus on numbers is to miss the point — zero-hour contracts are a small part of the labour market and provide benefits to businesses and workers. They offer a choice to those who want flexibility in the hours they work, such as students, parents and carers.
“Of course we need to address bad practice, but arbitrary attacks on the existence of flexible contracts would cost jobs and damage growth.”
Last week Ed Miliband said that zero-hour contracts had reached “epidemic” levels as employers sought to exploit laws allowing flexible working. Labour’s leader said workers with irregular shifts and pay should get a contract with fixed hours if they had worked regularly for the same employer for a year.
*SHOULD ZERO-HOURS CONTRACTS BE BANNED?
If you’ve ever worked on a zero-hours contract, what was your experience? And if you haven’t, would you consider it? Are zero-hours contracts inherently unfair, or are their circumstances in which they can benefit workers as well as bosses?
Zero hour contacts are a genuine problem for many but I fear banning them outright is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
I employ current students on zero hour contracts (NB Not gradauates and not interns both of whom we pay at C25K pro-rata). The reason we use zero hour contracts for current students is the flexibility it offers not just to my organisation but importantly to the students themselves.
It means that if they have essay deadlines, are away doing fieldwork or have exams looming they can opt out of working in a given week without the headaches of having to arrange to make those hours up at a later date. On the other hand if they want to earn extra money at any point they can take on extra hours at short notice.
I fear an outright ban on zero hour contracts would disadvantage one of the groups this website seeks to support.
I have not worked a zero hours contract myself but did work somewhere where they started using them instead of hiring permanent people. What concerns me is that it seems that a lot of jobs which would have been permanent jobs are being replaced with these zero hours contracts. I suppose it would still be a good way to gain experience and better than an unpaid internship.
I would only work a zero hours job if I was living with someone who could support me financially in the weeks when I don’t get many hours. Not knowing how much you will be earning week to week could make things very difficult financially.
Here you have the problem exemplified by Carefulnow and Catherine in one go.
On the one hand an employer speaks (as if for the workers) extolling the benefits of zero hours contracts but completely overlooking the exploitative employers who ABSOLUTELY wont offer any hours if a workers has other things to do and turns down hours.
Matched with the worker who is so desperate for experience that they consider this a viable option and rather than trying to change the status quo or buck against it is willing to accept and perpetuate it.
The only way to change this appalling situation is to band together join a trade union and fight for better terms and conditions.
Everyone moans about the London Underground strike and how much drivers are paid, yet they themselves put up with poorly paid jobs and zero hours contracts. LU workers got where they are today by standing together and negotiating well. They might be a dinosaur union, you might not like their tactics but they are effective whereas the rest of the workforce (in low paid jobs and graduates in particular) seem unwilling to challenge anything or to find any unity.
We’re all doomed unless workers (and perhaps this blog) start doing something instead of whinging.
I’m not sure I favour making zero-hours outlawed entirely, but there needs to be some heavy regulation. Here is what I want to see:
1) Clear rights and responsibilities for workers and employers, including rules to ensure holiday pay is paid.
2) Establish a system to ensure the fair and consistent division of hours among workers so that favouritism cannot prevail
3) Ensure that zero-hour contracts are not used to minimise or eliminate an employer’s national insurance bill
4) The outlawing of exclusivity clauses
5) Formation of a ombudsman who acts as a single point of complaint for zero hour workers who feel their rights have been breached
6) Establish a “premium” minimum wage for zero-hours contracts: If employers expect the utmost flexibility, then they should be paying more for that priveledge
7) If an employer expects someone to be on call, they must pay for the entirety of that time on call
8) Travel time between jobs must be paid, not just time at the job.
9) Minimum shift times / payment for zero-hour workers (e.g. Four hours minimum work on offer)
The only difference between zero-hour contracts and other forms of contract of employment then should be the absence of guaranteed hours, and employers should pay a premium for that and should be forced to implement a method of diving work equally and fairly between workers without bias.
Hi all
Seen this development? Will it make a difference do you think?
* 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?
I worked for two employers on zero hours contracts. The first was as a student in hospitality and it was good for me because of the flexibility it offered although some of my colleagues needed more hours and were clearly struggling which is when it becomes exploitative. These contracts have pros and cons but i think a ban is unnessecary I think the idea of offering fixed hours after a year is good but you should be able to opt out and then get reoffered every year.