ZERO HOURS CONTRACTS

In 2008 there were around 100,000 people employed on ‘zero-hours’ contracts offering them no guarantee of day-to-day work. That number has steadily risen since. In the last few days the Office for National Statistics upped its previous estimate by a quarter to 250,000. Other sources have quoted the figure nearer to one million, which equates to more than 3 per cent of the labour market.  Such employer tactics are not just restricted to sectors with sharply fluctuating demand such hospitality; the NHS, Amazon and large retail outlets such as sportsdirect.com also use them.

Employers benefit from arrangements under which they have a contingent workforce on call but must pay only when it is active. Some employees will appreciate the flexibility too, earning at times sums of money that may help them in their work-life balance, particularly as zero-hour contracts fluctuate with the seasons. More importantly still, in times of economic and financial uncertainty, when companies might otherwise not be hiring, it is better to have unpredictable and unsociable hours than no job at all. For small firms, in particular, such adaptability by having a flexible workforce will be a crucial factor for survival.

The problem, though, is that too often zero-hours contracts are a licence for employer exploitation. Commonly registered complaints include employees being required to be permanently available, despite there being no certainty of work. Many staff are also displeased with no entitlement to standard benefits such as maternity pay, sick pay or pension contributions. Holiday pay is another contentious area, although some firms offer discretionary holiday payments for some staff employed on zero-hours.

There is also an unhealthy concentration of power in the hands of individual departmental managers, who may allocate hours or withdraw them according to personal preference. In theory, at least, workers may turn down work, but most assume – probably rightly – that such a refusal would mean no further offers, with little or no hope of redress.

As estimates of the working-based concept inexorably rise, there have been calls for zero-hours contracts to be banned. The Business Secretary, Vince Cable MP – who is reviewing the situation – is resisting such moves. He is right to do so. The issue is not so much the contracts themselves, but more as to how and why they are used.

Consider a case in point: social care. Social care has long been disproportionately reliant on zero-hours contract arrangements because government funding is way too low to pay anything but meagre wages. As the population ages, and more people are expected to live longer into retirement, the situation will only worsen. By banning them, is to allow the specifics of one, very particular sector to skew a policy affecting all.

There are things, however, that should be done. The first priority for the Business Secretary will be to establish the true scale of the issue, and there is a strong case for reform. For instance, staff required to be always ‘on call’ should be compensated given the inconvenience involved. Basic employee rights should also be enforced. It might also be argued that businesses above a certain size, such as 50 employees, should be required by law to provide a minimum number of hours. For larger companies, what excuse do they have for passing on risks they can well afford?

It should come as no surprise that the number of zero-hours contracts has risen significantly since the recession of 2008. Economic stagnation has forced many firms to cut their workforces, but have required a degree of flexibility in the knowledge that expansion and growth would return. But as the outlook improves, it is essential that staff are given more typical terms. If the current spike in zero hours terms is no cyclical occurrence but, instead, is an emergence of a new and insecure, low-paid workforce, then the price of flexibility being asked of people will be too high.