The Government is planning to restrict zero-hour contracts by guaranteeing workers a minimum number of hours per week. Under the proposed legislation, companies would have to pay workers for shifts that have been “cancelled, curtailed or moved at short notice”.
Organisations such as UKHospitality and the British Chambers of Commerce are warning this would worsen the jobs market for young people, while lower paid workers argue this move will protect their income. So, are zero-hours contracts exploitative or essential in modern Britain? Political journalist Zoë Grünewald, Talk TV presenter Peter Cardwell and freelance writer Emily Watkins give their perspectives.
Zoë Grünewald: Zero-hours contracts let employers off the hook
Here comes the usual chorus of business leaders, dusting off their concern for the worker just in time to defend the contracts that exploit them. This time, the argument is that zero-hours contracts are good for British workers because they offer flexibility. Let’s test that.
Some workers, like students, carers or those juggling other commitments, do want irregular hours. But the problem with these contracts is the imbalance of power. An employer can cancel your shift due to a slow week and pay you nothing with barely a shrug. In theory, a worker can also refuse a shift, but in practice, their employer may respond by no longer offering work altogether. And that worker has no flexibility when it comes to paying their rent or bills until business picks up. Therein lies the trick of these contracts: the risk of a bad week gets transferred from the “risk-taking” business to the employees who can least afford it.
