To ask what is so bad about zero hour contracts

[Idontlikecheesecake]

I know there’s a lot of controversy about them and the government want to get rid of them, but they’ve always worked for me. Ive always had contracted hours and then had a zero hours contract as an extra. They paid weekly so they helped me budget with monthly pay. I could do an extra shift i wanted to, and i didnt have to if i didnt want to. Last year i walked out of a job, and the zero hours contract i had was the only thing that kept me going until i started new employment 3 months later.

I get that they don’t have pensions, many don’t pay holiday and some places don’t offer enough hours (that was why I registered with a few agencies). But surely a contract that says you may get some work in line with your availability is better than nothing at all?

They are wide spread now for lower paid jobs. Lots of people have no choice but to take Zero hours contracts. Lots of people need regular income, Lots of people need full time hours to pay bills feed families and are at the mercy of Zero hours contracts, they have no rights, no stability, no holiday pay, no statutory sick, no statutory maternity pay, no pension. All the things that our society put in place to protect workers. Unbridled Zero hours are taking us back to victorian times.

Kudos to all the PP who have so patiently, politely explained the obvious to the OP.
Zero-hours contracts are all right for me because I don't live in the UK and I only want to work in the UK in winter, when I don't mind working a minimum of 10 hours a day, seven days a week. The money I earn is pocket money. If a client is really bad I can leave ( the agency doesn't like that, so I usually get myself sacked for "backchat" or "lack of experience" or suchlike)

But when I see British natives and residents working in the same job, earning the same money and having to survive and pay rent, council tax and so on in the UK, I think we are heading back to the Victorian era at breakneck speed. It's really scary.

They work fine when they are for extra income. A while ago I worked somewhere where we had "casual" staff - zero hours contracts by any other name. If someone was off sick or on annual leave, they came in and covered. They were all semi-retired women of a certain age though - so presumably had pensions or other means of support eg husbands. And maybe it would have been better if the employer had employed enough people properly not to need them. But it worked for them.

But as a general rule, no. Employers take the mick.

And even if your employer isn't unscrupulous, you won't necessarily be able to work when they have the hours and vice versa.

I get that they don’t have pensions, many don’t pay holiday and some places don’t offer enough hours

Yes, zero hours contracts are just fab 🙄

I've worked the same as you op, with a regular contract and an extra supply contract. It's fine when you have a regular income and are asked occasionally to provide extra hours which you can pick and choose. What you aren't seeing is that some employers are getting away with not giving 'regular' staff regular contracts and are putting them all on ZHCs. This means that they get regular hours covered entirely with no requirement to provide holiday and sick pay entitlements. Then you have the hostile and aggressive requirement that employees have to be available to work 24/7 for some of these contracts, so unable to take other regular jobs while guaranteeing nothing, as pp have explained. Add in the hostile and aggressive approaches refusing access to benefits as you have to be looking for work 24/7 to get those. There's no such thing as employee rights or citizenship rights in Britain unless you're at the top of management chains any more.

Ive always had contracted hours and then had a zero hours contract as an extra.

That's not the same as a zero hours contract. Thats having a steady income and some extra now and then. Some people have to live on the 'now and then' bit. For obvious reasons it doesn't work.

"Ive always had contracted hours and then had a zero hours contract as an extra. "

So in other words you've always had a steady source of income. One you know will be coming in (unless you lose you job obviously).

Are you unable to imagine what it'd be like paying for all you need to pay for to live with just the zero hours contract? (i.e. you don't work the contacted hours only the zero hours ones.)

I had a low hours contract in retail. I was expected to be available to do those hours any time they chose and it wouldn't have been possible to have a second job.
It's zero hour contracts that come with the expectation of exclusivity that cause the problem.

It’s the world of the future for all of us with increasing automation. “Middle class, professional jobs” too. The gig economy is the future.

They are ideal as a second, non necessary income.

Not really workable for someone who needs a regular income and I'm stumped as to why anyway in that situation would agree to it to be honest. Why not just get a job with a regular amount of contracted hours?

They paid weekly so they helped me budget with monthly pay

Imagine for a moment you rely on Universal Credit to keep a roof over your head and food in your child's belly.

You get a job, woo hoo, let's celebrate, but wait.. it's paid weekly. Still never mind, Universal Credit will top up so you'll be better off right?... WRONG

Anyone on Universal Credit that works and is paid weekly will have several months a year where their Universal Credit claim is cancelled, they get £0 and have to reclaim the following month. Leaving them with no rent, no food, no heating.

This is built in to Universal Credit, the government know and designed it this way.

I think they are terrible and we should outlaw them. I don't know how anyone copes with them, unless you are living at someone else's expense.

I think.they can work for some people , the NHS have bank staff that fill in on different wards etc when the wards,units are short staffed a lot of people with young family's worked on the bank because it was very flexible and ime there was always loads of work so people could pick and choose when they wanted to work but in other jobs i f it's someone's only job it must be incredibly hard if the work days up!

Yes, they work for people who don't actually need a steady job and aren't relying on the income.

They should not be allowed where the needs of the service indicate that full time, permanent staff are necessary.
For example a restaurant will need waiters, kitchen staff etc. It's not right that only the manager and the head chef get contracted hours and everyone else gets zero hours. They should have core staff who are on contracts which would allow for zero hours contracts for casual staff. But they don't - they put everyone on zero hours even though it's obvious that they will need people working in their restaurant all the hours it's open.
It's exploitative.

I trained as a college lecturer.the colleges at FE level went on a drive to make all staff redundant and replace with zero hour contracts. No paid leave. No sick pay. No pension. Great isn't it?

AJPTaylor - that’s awful. But is the way that the UK is heading. The “professionals” who have until now been immune to zero hours contracts and the gig economy, have a huge shock in store!

My son has zero hours. Works well for him - as his Saturday job. Can go to festivals etc. However absolutely no good if you need a regular stable income. Hours are all over the place. Luckily for him he is 17 and is supported by me so his wage is pocket /pin money. That’s all they are good for.

We have a mixed experience of these. We have two sons who’ve been on zero hour contracts for a fast food company, one at a small restaurant and the other at a large one.

It worked well for the one in the small one, they didn’t employ ‘many’ staff so hours were regular and he’s still there now after graduating (he’s taking a year off before continuing with education) and has been given a full time contract. He’s worked there since 6th form and continued to work weekends through university as he was local.

The other one though had no shifts at all between mid-June and mid-September as work during Summer was given to university students who were kept as employees but with their availability set as zero so that they’d have work when they returned home for the Summer. He’s since quit and now has a part time job with fixed hours.

I'm stumped as to why anyway in that situation would agree to it to be honest. Why not just get a job with a regular amount of contracted hours?

I don't know where to start with this. (resigned sigh)

I hate them. Having unpredictable earnings makes it awfully difficult for people to manage their finances, unless they have another, significant source of income as well. If your income is so low it needs topping up with UC or HB, it's a bloody nightmare. ZHCs were a significant factor in rent arrears cases when I was working in homelessness prevention.

Some employers use them as a way of circumventing employment legislation, too. They won't sack anyone or go through disciplinary proceedings, just stop giving them shifts. I also know that some employers permit under-18s to work far in excess of the maximum hours for young people and don't give the maximum 12 hours break between shifts. The staff are scared to decline shifts, because those who do don't get offered any more and they need the money while they're at college.

I think it's wrong that holiday pay is paid upfront. Most workers on ZHCs are on low incomes and can never afford to take the time off, because they've had to use the holiday pay to live on. Breaks from work are essential for health and wellbeing imo.

I can see that they're a great thing for those for whom they're not their main source of income, or who want to work now and again and then go off travelling or whatever, but in the race to the bottom when it comes to employment rights, they're a huge advantage to unscrupulous employers.

Lol, Funky, I gave it a moment's thought and realised I'd be wasting my energy.

Obviously they're fine for people who have no need for an income because they're teenagers living at home or they have another income source. If your zero hour contract is all that is paying your bills and rent then it's very obvious how vulnerable that leaves you. These aren't high paid jobs which would enable people to save for a rainy day. If they're suddenly not given any work they're screwed. There are also other knock on effects. If people are getting their 30 free hours of childcare and suddenly their hours are dropped they're no longer entitled to their childcare being paid and could end up in huge debt.

Some employers use them in place of actual contract. I had a zero hours contract but did the same hours every week. They did pay me sick pay and I did pay into a pension scheme.
However I didn't get holiday pay and they didn't contribute much to the pension.
So to all intents and purposes I was a normal employee but with fewer benefits.

In this scenerio it should be banned. I had to apply to HR for day off for a funeral like any employee would so I had no chance of saying' oh I'm zero hours so I'm not working that day'

Just rubbish.