I figured this would be as good a place as any to get a quick and insightful response.

So as I understand them, zero hours contracts:

– are a form of working contract whereby the employer commits to pay ‘x’ per unit of work done and the employee commits to that work having established their suitability

– there is no guarantee of how much work will be offered; only how much pay will be received for work that is offered and completed

– there is NO minimum notice period for there being no work on any given day. An ’employee’ can turn up for work and be sent home if there is no work available

– the employee is free to sell their labour to anyone else in that situation (this is of course notwithstanding the impossibility of that situation if you’re looking to do so at such short notice)

– there may be periods where plenty of work is available and you end up working on what looks and feels like a regular contract but that could all end very suddenly.

– the zero hours element means you effectively don’t have to give notice periods; the notice period such as it is could simply involve a month/week of no work.

– it is possible that such flexibility has contributed greatly to the growth in jobs and the prosperity of our economy relative to other European countries

– it is possible that many people on zero hours contracts actually experience normal continual employment with regular income even if other do not.

OK so which of these is correct which are not and what have I missed?

This is not a troll. I’m certainly more right of centre when it comes to the economy and politics but I’ve always felt like zero hours contracts were a terrible thing based on the above understanding.

– the employee is free to sell their labour to anyone else in that situation (this is of course notwithstanding the impossibility of that situation if you’re looking to do so at such short notice)

This one is effectively wrong in practice as the employee must make themselves available for work, even if there is none, so in practice they can’t “sell” their labour to another employer. If they don’t then they won’t be given work in the future. It’s this point that makes these contracts so bad; it stacks all the risk against the employee and all the benefit with the employer.

the employee is free to sell their labour to anyone else in that situation (this is of course notwithstanding the impossibility of that situation if you’re looking to do so at such short notice)

you often have to turn up to see if they have work on the day /shift start

if they call you up and you say no as per the terms of my contract I have freely sold my labour elsewhere , do you think they will call you up again?

How can you turn up for work and then go to another job if they dont pick you?

it is possible that such flexibility has contributed greatly to the growth in jobs and the prosperity of our economy relative to other European countries

Anything is possible and it has contributed to under employment as much as employment. I am sure ” exploitative flexible labour markets” have contributed to this but at a cost

– it is possible that many people on zero hours contracts actually experience normal continual employment with regular income even if other do not.

If that is the case then why do they not just give them a FT normal contract. IME that is the least likely scenario and it is used to bully and manipulate folk. Work this BAnk Hoilday or we wont ever give you any more hours.

lets look at it another way

how many people on a normal contract would, via free will alone, swap what they have for a zero hours contract?

Then ask what % of those on a zero hours contract would swap that for a normal contract

IMHO if your contract does not state hours then WTF is the point of it as a contract of employment. they are heavily weighted to the employer side and they are largely used to bully employees – poor working practices and anyone who complains is instantly sacked [ without having to bother to actually do anything] they are exploitative

Almost no one would choose a zero hours contract as their preferred method of employment

I have a zero hour contract with the uni for teaching. Its not regular work and I can pick and choose when I want to do it (emails get sent with offers). I get paid a standard rate plus 12.5% inleu of holidays. For this type of work the zero hour contract is a good thing and as a member of staff I still have all the rights that other staff members have at the uni. I have to let them know when I don’t want to be offered any more work. There is no real point in it being a contract as its not ment to be a proper 9-5 job. Would hate to be on a zero hour contract for a proper job though.

Yes it really does doesn’t it.

I can see why stacking things so much in favour of the employer is a stimulus for creating jobs, but at the same time, you can also argue that you’re creating them on a false foundation. Job creation is only real if it’s sustainable in the long run.

It’s a bit like a Ponzy scheme (or indeed a rapidly inflating house price bubble); it’s not actually real. You’re artificially creating a situation where an otherwise poor/unsustainable business model only works because you’re derisking a major cost component for the employer.

Now if the government were to say that they would combine benefit income, pro-rated to the amount of work done and paid for, that might be fairer and more sustainable.

Labour MP – possibly John sweeney [ forgive me ] was saying that the other thing was that using lots of zero hours contract gave less scrupulous employers a competitive advantage over the better employers who would not do this ie they did reduce their costs doing this.

Personally i would rather improve the way the worst work than hamper the competitiveness of the way the best work. Lets race to the top not the bottom

Zero hour contracts are pretty popular with some people though.

There’s a few colleagues of mine in the NHS who use zero hours bank contracts to arrange their work to suit their lifestyle. We’ve actually had quite a few Paramedics qualify then almost straight away go onto these contracts as it suits them to pick and choose when they want to work.
They don’t get holiday or sick pay as far as I’m aware but get a higher hourly rate than a full time employee so it suits them.

Not all zero hour contracts are created equal. Not sure if we need different terms to describe those where the employee decides the hours they work and the ones where the employer decides the hours they work.

There is definitely a place for this type of ‘contract’ but I think it is being misused.

It works well to prevent people who would be providing a locum service (medical/vets for example) having to be self employed and also a lot of companies won’t use sole traders and they have to be employed by a limited company.

But using it for low paid shift workers for example is wrong in my eyes, well in the examples I have seen where they are not treated fairly. I think once a worker is on site then they should be paid for that day and there should be plenty of notice given to them to say if they are needed or not and would hope responsible employers would do that.

Labour MP – possibly John sweeney [ forgive me ] was saying that the other thing was that using lots of zero hours contract gave less scrupulous employers a competitive advantage over the better employers who would not do this ie they did reduce their costs doing this.

Except it seems that the public sector is a far greater user of ‘zero-hours’ than the private sector.

Oldish story, but probably still relevant (my colleague’s OH is on zero-hours teaching contract and the only job I did that was zero-hours was also the public sector)

•Employers in the voluntary sector (34%) and the public sector (24%) were more likely to use zero hours contracts than private sector employers (17%);

http://www.cipd.co.uk/pressoffice/press-releases/zero-hours-contracts-more-widespread-thought-050813.aspx

When there is more work than people (see NHS bank hours) then zero hours contracts are good for the employee as they can work when they want and the employer as they can avoid expensive agency fees by having a flexible workforce on tap.

When there is more people than work (see warehouse/factory work) then zero hours contracts are good for the employer becuase they can exploit and manipulate their workforce (not all do) but bad for the employee as they don’t get flexibility or a guaranteed wage and can be ofloaded at a moments notice.

Our workforce needs to become more flexible to maintain competitiveness in a global market, and flexibility has massive benefits to employees if done correctly. Zero hours contracts are a good start but need some tweaking as they have gone to far towards the employer in certain situations

certainly going to be a big thing in the election campaign.
i;m sure many/lots of those aren’t in the type where you turn up at 7am to find if you have a job for that day, but are those with a big calendar to offer to cover shifts over the next weeks.

I’m sure it’s being abused but when ed becomes MP, they’ll regulate something, and then all those on flexible part time contracts will call themselves flexible part time contracts rather than zero hours contracts.

ban them ? no. provide some guidelines or rules for scheduling who covers and when ? maybe.

It depends on the contract. I have a zero hours contract for the NHS. I’m offered shifts, usually with a week or two notice and I can take or leave them. The shifts are a fixed length 6 – 8 hrs. I fit these shifts around another part time job. The number varies. Can be zero a month. But the only time that has happened was when I kept a couple of months clear to go bike touring. Usually it’s 4 – 6 shifts a month.

Suits me. On the other hand zero hours contracts where the employer wants the employee available exclusively to them are morally wrong. A zero commitment from the employer doesn’t deserve an exclusive tie from the employee.

There is probably a spectrum between the good zero hrs contract I have and the worst examples. Perhaps there is a need for some legislation.

For example my son employed on a zero hrs contract for a pub/diner. Worked 40 odd hrs most weeks. Had a dispute with employer who didn’t try any discipline procedure but just completely stopped offering shifts. There was nothing he could do under law as he had worked there less than 2 years so couldn’t claim constructive dismissal.

It’s pretty difficult tbh, yes it’s being abused but how do you stop that? Just outlawing them isn’t the answer- we have 200 “zero hours” casual staff, we employ a bunch of them every month or so but it’s as much on their terms as ours, and nobody expects to earn more than pocket money. For students, retired people, and other folks who don’t want permanence they’re great.

Maybe a maximum number of hours per month or something?

b r – Member

Except it seems that the public sector is a far greater user of ‘zero-hours’ than the private sector.

Not really relevant to the point, is it?

When I went to visit a friend in Pheonix, AZ, I noticed that in run-down hispanic neighbourhood near his house that all the young men would hang around in the morning on the street. When I asked him what that was about, he said they were queueing to be picked up by people who would give them work. Every morning pickup trucks would arrive and the men would jump in the back of them. Some were left behind. Seems to me zero hours contracts are the thin end of the wedge on the way to this.

An ok idea in principle, but massively open to abuse by employers that choose to do so…

One idea might be a max percentage of staff that could be zero hours. 25%? 35%? Allows the employer flexibility but doesn’t allow an employer to take the piss and employ almost all staff zero hours because of the power this gives them.

Sports Direct for example. Nearly 90% of staff are zero hours.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/oct/27/sports-direct-zero-hours-contract-terms

I’ve been on several zero hours contracts. At the time it suited me very well for much the same reasons others have given.

Having said that, two issues do need addressing so that workers for whom the zero hours contract is there only means of income are protected:

1. They should have the automatic right to seek work / offer their services elsewhere – I think this is something the government recently legislated on

2. Telling people on the day or within 20 mins of shift start that they are not required is absolutely wrong – there’s no reason why 24 hours notice can’t be given in every instance so that the worker can potentially find different work for the following day. It would also require a bit more discipline on scheduling and forecasting which isn’t always a bad thing with the exception of work impacted by weather e.g. in tourism, events, construction etc.

When there is more work than people (see NHS bank hours) then zero hours contracts are good for the employee as they can work when they want and the employer as they can avoid expensive agency fees by having a flexible workforce on tap.

When there is more people than work (see warehouse/factory work) then zero hours contracts are good for the employer becuase they can exploit and manipulate their workforce (not all do) but bad for the employee as they don’t get flexibility or a guaranteed wage and can be ofloaded at a moments notice.

This is really helpful. Thanks. Good responses. I definitely understand the pros and cons better.

It sounds like they need better regulation for the latter scenario above rather than just being made illegal. And it doesn’t sound at all like the Labour Party proposal of a permanent contract after 12 weeks is the right solution.

What about the idea of topping up via benefits? Does that currently happen?

Almost no one would choose a zero hours contract as their preferred method of employment

Sure, and I bet the same number would also chose a six figure salary over a five figure salary given the choice. Something being less preferential isn’t any kind of argument for that less preferential thing being something we should get rid of.

Not really relevant to the point, is it?

Yes the sector is relevant, as the MP was talking about:

less scrupulous employers a competitive advantage over the better employers

BR is right. The public sector is far less likely to be unscrupulous than a profit motivated individual.

One seemingly obvious answer is to outlaw those contracts where you have to turn up to find out if you’ve got work (or even where you only find out on the day). Should be a minimum notice period for shifts. It wouldn’t stop all abuses, but might help a bit with some.

I think the problem is the same as with the minimum wage. Over the years its changed from being ‘the minimum wage’ to just being ‘the wage’ for a lot of jobs. Its an employers default position. Its the minimum the employer can legally get away with, and in a ‘flexible’ labour market, with mass immigration adding to an oversupply of potential employees, means that the very minimum is all thats offered.

The massive increase in zero hours contracts show that this is whats happening here. Employers are defaulting to provide the minimum that is legally required of them. I’m sure that in plenty of industries, these will be the only contracts available before too long. Just the employers default provision, as they hold all the cards

Not sure if we need different terms to describe those where the employee decides the hours they work and the ones where the employer decides the hours they work.

CIPD

Zero hours contracts, used appropriately, can provide flexibility for employers and employees and can play a positive role in creating more flexible working opportunities. This can for example allow parents of young children, carers, students and others to fit work around their home lives. However, for some this may be a significant disadvantage where they need more certainty in their working hours and earnings, and we need to ensure that proper support for employees and their rights are not being compromised through such arrangements. Zero hours contracts cannot be used simply to avoid an employer’s responsibilities to its employees.

Suits me. On the other hand zero hours contracts where the employer wants the employee available exclusively to them are morally wrong. A zero commitment from the employer doesn’t deserve an exclusive tie from the employee.

Others on here as well saying similar but I will resist the urge to copy and paste 😉

i have never met anyone who like them – I accept my sample is skewed given the data on here.I just meet the ones who consider themselves underemployed and thoroughly dislike the practice.

Interesting debate that has changed my opinion somewhat on them
Cheers all.

When I went to visit a friend in Pheonix, AZ, I noticed that in run-down hispanic neighbourhood near his house that all the young men would hang around in the morning on the street. When I asked him what that was about, he said they were queueing to be picked up by people who would give them work. Every morning pickup trucks would arrive and the men would jump in the back of them. Some were left behind. Seems to me zero hours contracts are the thin end of the wedge on the way to this.

This is how the UK worked in many areas, a fair time ago though – google Dockers, casual work and the 1947 Act.

When there is more people than work

surely that’s the whole point?
employer has a much bigger pool of people to call on to cover shifts.

and many of those getting zero hours aren’t because the employer has shafted them, but because they’re on the books by their choice expecting no or very few hours.

what good will 12 weeks do? some will just be crossed off the list of potentially available people, and the employer has a smaller pool. others will get a contract that says theyre part time with flexible hours (maybe that may stipulate a minimum number that must be paid?), and instantly lose half the flexibility that they signed up for.

This is how the UK worked in many areas, a fair time ago though

And we want to go back to that? Presumably there was a reason for moving away from it in the first place?

BR is right. The public sector is far less likely to be unscrupulous than a profit motivated individual.

Eh! Where did I say that?

FWIW they may be more unscrupulous from a profit perspective, but they are just as likely to shaft someone for their own ‘benefit’ and/or incompetence.

And we want to go back to that? Presumably there was a reason for moving away from it in the first place?

The erosion of worker rights started back in the early 80’s, with the de-linking of the ‘dole’ value from earnings. All downhill since then, unless you are an employee who is ‘valued’, then the rewards have outstripped inflation etc. Just look at the ratio of worker-exec earnings. And it really increased in the years preceding the story.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/28286264

If I had the choice, I’d ban them entirely.

I used to be on one with EasyJet and suspect the answer to “I’m not coming in today” would have been met with a prompt “Don’t let the door hit you on the way out”. Good money though, circa £85/hour. Though obviously no NI contributions / pension / sick pay etc from them.

Having said that, at least two close friends are on them on a part-time basis and love them. I can’t understand why.

Perhaps make them “right to request” instead of banning?

Eh! Where did I say that?

Apologies if I/we misunderstood you. I thought we were making an argument as to why the sector was relevant.

part time with flexible hours

I’m fairly sure a minimum number of hours will need to be specified to avoid them being a zero hours contract. IANAL

I work on zero hours for a good employer. I have had full-time working for the last 3 years, sometimes too many hours! In winter I get flexible working with hours to suit me and the business. I also get holiday pay at 12.5% of my hours worked banked, he would be breaking the law if he didn’t offer this.

Downside is that I can’t have my bike to work bike out of taxable pay for fear my wage would drop below minimum some months. It suits me as I’m done with raising a family and all that goes with it. How a 21 year old man gets finance for a house of his own on a zero hours contract with the new rules on mortgage affordability is anyones guess.

Essentially the entertainment industry which I work in works on zero hour contracts, although it’s known as freelancing.

It’s this situation

When there is more work than people (see NHS bank hours) then zero hours contracts are good for the employee as they can work when they want and the employer as they can avoid expensive agency fees by having a flexible workforce on tap.

Work is offered anywhere between 24 hours (unusual) to a couple of weeks in advance. We have a core of regulars who make jolly good money out of us (but they do work bloody hard for it). Then there’s an ever evolving list of guys who come and go – there’s plenty who go off and do the festival season over the summer when we’re quiet, then come to us for some corporate whoring in the run up to Christmas when we’re busy.

For these guys it works very well – most of them wouldn’t take a conventional 9-5 job if you offered them one. I wouldn’t like to say where the legal definition of freeelancing differs from zero hours though.

When there is more people than work (see warehouse/factory work) then zero hours contracts are good for the employer becuase they can exploit and manipulate their workforce (not all do) but bad for the employee as they don’t get flexibility or a guaranteed wage and can be ofloaded at a moments notice.

This is where unscrupulous employers can make the whole concept come unstuck.

How does a zero hours contract worker differ from being an ‘agency’ worker ? Surely the latter can generally be hired / ‘off-hired’ by the employer at a moments notice as well ?

agency takes a cut?
as an employee you might be sold in to more than one place of work.
as an employer, you’re one step removed from the pool of staff when sorting out the shift calendar, possibly with several agencies in the way?

Are these really a new and evil thing? When I was a student I signed up with an agency for various jobs – laying cones on the roads, working various catering jobs (mainly washing up), cleaning offices. I just picked up work as and when it was offered and I could do it. This is effectively in all but name a zero hours contract – the agency did not guarantee work for me, and I did not guarantee my availabiltiy. Not ideal if what you really want/need is a steady full time job, but if you can’t get a full time job for whatever reason then surely this is better than nothing.

The majority of jobs being created are not zero hours contract jobs anyway. Clearly in the right environment employers would prefer a full time or regular hours part time job, but if the work doesn’t demand it then a flexible arrangement works to the benefit for all.

it is possible that such flexibility has contributed greatly to the growth in jobs and the prosperity of our economy relative to other European countries

Ban them now. I’m sure its added flexibility for employees to suit their lifestyle choices, but it clearly isn’t the case for everyone.

The simple fact is that these contracts will get more and more popular with employers from all sectors, and once they become “mainstream”, it will de-stabilise our consumer led economy.

Ban them now. I’m sure its added flexibility for employees to suit their lifestyle choices, but it clearly isn’t the case for everyone.

Why ban rather than regulate? I think this thread has highlighted two things that everyone seems to agree on.

One, they can actually work to the employee’s and the employer’s advantage where there is an equal balance of power between supply and demand.

Two, there are too many cases where the imbalance in favour of the employer puts far too much risk and pressure on the employee (for example having to turn up hoping there is work only to be sent home if there isn’t any).

Surely a more stringent approach to regulation or a commitment by the government to underwrite the risk to the employee by topping up with benefits would be a good solution?

or a commitment by the government to underwrite the risk to the employee by topping up with benefits would be a good solution?

You seem to be suggesting that the taxpayer subsidise businesses with poor working practices. Surely once the government does this then every business will jump on the bandwagon and it will cost a fortune.

the government to underwrite the risk to the employee by topping up with benefits would be a good solution

I would much rather my taxes did not go to enabling multinational billion pound companies making even more money by not paying their staff a living wage and the rest f us chipping in so they can make even more profit

I know its meant to help the employee but IMHO it just allows the employer to further abdicate their responsibility to the state and all of us whilst make them richer

You seem to be suggesting that the taxpayer subsidise businesses with poor working practices. Surely once the government does this then every business will jump on the bandwagon and it will cost a fortune.

and

I know its meant to help the employee but IMHO it just allows the employer to further abdicate their responsibility to the state and all of us whilst make them richer

<Edit> I do agree but <Edit> I think to some degree that is what is already happening, it’s just that currently it’s the employee that bears the cost of that.

Another way of looking at it is like this. If zero hours contracts do give a valuable lifeline to small businesses that enables them to be viable (where without them they would become insolvent) and if those businsses can then create say collectively 500,000 jobs (just a for arguments sake number), but the down side is that those jobs are only financially sustainable for the employer 50% of the time, you can either say, let’s take away zero hours contracts and have those 500k people leave employment and go onto 100% benefit income, or else decide that while not ideal, it costs less and in the long run might cost a lot less, to let it run and subsidise the short fall for the emplopyee.

Some of those businesses may then go on to become thriving enterprises that don’t need zero hours contracts to be viable.

The key point here is one of ‘need’. It’s one thing for a business to use the option to create something that might not otherwise exist. But it’s a different (and more pernicious) issue if an already viable business simply uses zero hours contracts to artificially riase profits and returns for shareholders at the expense of the employee.