To think zero hour contracts should be banned

[Pamplemousecat]

In my view they are useful and lucrative only to the employers. Though they profess to offer flexibility for employees , the vast majority suffer poverty due to unpredictability of hours and wages. They are a way of creating modern day slaves.

I used to do office temp work during school and uni holidays on a zero hours contract. It wouldn’t work for me now but at the time it was great- when I wanted 2 weeks off to go on holiday it wasn’t a problem and I could pick and choose my hours. They are great for people, like students, that want to work casually and don’t have to worry about financial commitments. However, I do agree they are overused and some employers use them to avoid giving their staff proper benefits and employment rights. More regulation is definitely needed.

Not at all sams. It’s not personal, I just don’t think anyone’s convenience is more important than another’s existence. A guaranteed 40hrs on minimum wage is still a quality of life that no ft worker deserves, but it does at least provide stability.

A single person or a couple both on the typical zero hours jobs won’t ever be able to budget, or arrange childcare, or ever plan anything.

Perhaps the solution for lower paid jobs is to allow a small % of staff to be on a contract that averages say 10hrs per week over a month, and if it regularly goes higher then the employee has the right to a greater number of contracted hours, with a standard cash penalty paid to the employee if they are suddenly sacked at that point unless the employer can prove beyond all doubt it was unrelated to demanding a changed contract.

Same again for 16hrs, where any regular increase gives a legal right to demand a change of contract.

Lucrative work could remain as zero hours. And areas such as nursing could also if they can prove that all bank staff are picking and choosing their hours and can indeed do ft hours if they want, rather than the employer picking and choosing.

I have two people I employ, and I could easily get away with offering zero hours and a lower wage to a few people to cover each role. It’s a rural area and local jobs are in high demand. I’m also happy to believe some people looking for a second income were put off by the fact they weren’t zero hours, despite otherwise being family friendly.

But in all honesty I couldn’t look myself in the mirror knowing someone was living in perpetual poverty and instability just so I could make a saving. And whilst I might sympathise that perhaps some people might need to arrange their lives around fixed hours, they’re already at a greater advantage than someone depending on the income.

I’m also amazed at how so many employers can be so bloody callous. I couldn’t live with treating two people that way, let alone if I had the wealth of many company directors and share holders and I was inflicting that excuse for a quality of life on hundreds or thousands of people. I can only surmise they are sociopaths.

I work in a 9-5 role that wouldn't work with zero hour contracts so i'm not too familiar with them, but i'm interested in which professional roles they would be good for except hospitality/emergency services?

Surely you wouldn't work in such sectors (except govt as the benefits are good) and would choose your career accordingly?

My daughter just left uni and in a zero hour contract job,. Incredibly hard for her to rent her own property, she wants to move back to where she went to uni so actually commutes 40 miles to work.. Most landlords don't want zero hour tennants understandably, also she finds when work is not too busy she gets sent home as it's cheaper to keep the younger staff there who are on minimum wage... Some days she doesn't even earn her travel expenses..

Yes they are fine if you work them as a second job etc but incredibly hard to make a life for yourself on them...

Regardless of how you feel about them,surely everyone would/should agree that better regulations are need so most people can benefit,not just the ones who already are better off.

You should not be forced to take one or face benefits sanction, and benefits should become sufficiently flexible that if an employer has no hours then the employee is able to access benefits.

Good point @maddening

I voted YABU but with some clarification. I think their use should be much more limited.

I know people who've got a main job 3 days a week and then take some zero hours contracts on by which they can top up to 5 days if and when convenient. It suits them well.

I'd be more bothered about changing laws and rules on unpaid internships where in demand industries manage to have young graduates doing a full time job for free. If there is a full time job of work, it should be a job. That bothers me more.

They were great for me to work around school hours and if I couldn't work one week then I didn't do it.

I'd lose money and be worse off if zero hour contracts were banned, so obviously, I don't want to see them go because it's extra work that I can fit around my main job.

There may be a need to better regulate how they are used, but people are also unrealistic about the sort of life they can expect to have on a zero hours minimum wage contract. They aren't there to provide the main source of income for a family with children and a family sized home. We shouldn't take them away from the people that they do work well for because others are expecting too much.

I've been greatly misled on my zero hour contracts 😶 I always assumed it was employers could choose how many hours to offer you as and when they needed it and you just kinda had to accept it and work them.
I don't really have anything to add, as I agree that it doesn't work for everyone and there should be better regulations (and maybe better explanations!) but I think getting rid of them wouldn't be useful for a chunk of society who rely on them for their own reasons.

A zero hour contract would be perfect for me.

They aren't there to provide the main source of income for a family with children and a family sized home.

So if you need to provide that and they’re all that’s on offer, that’s a problem, no?

We shouldn't take them away from the people that they do work well for because others are expecting too much.

How is it expecting too much to expect the job you are forced to take(or your benefits get sanctioned) or it's the only one you're able to get (for various reasons) to pay enough to survive.

Since when it's I need a home,some food, clothes and ideally heating/electric for me and my kids too much?

How removed from reality are some people?

So if you need to provide that and they’re all that’s on offer, that’s a problem, no?
It would depend on the nature of the job

Some places are using zero hours instead of part time when the hours are there in order to have a hold over employees. They're exploitative by nature and probably are the sort of company who also wants to avoid sick pay, maternity pay etc.

Equally, some jobs (e.g. peripatetic music teachers, bank staff for nurseries etc) or hours (eg wanting school hour work only) work well on zero hours because the person holding the zero hour contract is happy with the flexibility that is offered. That's not exploitative.

If someone needs to provide for their family then whether the only thing on offer is zero hours is reasonable or not depends on the job.

I can't imagine it really suits many people. The only people I can imagine it suiting is those for whom it is some extra money but they don't really need it (in which case I'm not sure why you'd be doing a 0 hours contract). But it's just not possible to pay bills/rent on it, and impossible for people with caring responsibilities if they are penalised for not taking offered shifts. Will never forget watching a prog about a local authority housing dept where there was a very hard working older lady who was facing homelessness as she'd fallen behind on her rent because the only job she could find, in hotel cleaning, was zero hours and it simply did not cover her expenses. She needed to be kept on a constant salary - it may be convenient for the hotel to only call when they need her, but people need to know what to expect each month.

I'm self employed and busier in Summer and early Winter. I also have a zero hours casual job which tides me over the slower periods. No set hours - Shifts are offered, I can take them or not. I don't want to work fixed days/times, not even on a part-time basis. I like working flexibly, I like being able to go on holiday with no worries about having to book annual leave or being unable to go as a colleague is going away at same time. It fits around my self-employment.

We have college and uni students too where I work. They're glad of a job they can do outside term-time and during any other spare time they may have.

Last weekend I did a massive declutter at home. Knew I'd be tired so didn't take shifts for following Monday and Tuesday. Not everyone prefers set work patterns.

I'm against full-time zero hours contracts tho. It's exploitation. I've also seen some jobs advertised as 'casual' then reading the job description it's set hours, sometimes 35+hours. Not 'casual' at all

Yanbu, I used to work for sports direct on a zero hours contract. I had no say in the hours at all, flexibility was only for the benefit of the shop.

The problem is that it’s most jobs at the lower end of the market. It’s all very well saying nobody should depend on them, but the fact is that as well as the lack of choice, we’ll always have people and jobs that require no skills or very little. And whilst there’s no argument that an unskilled factory worker or retail worker aren’t entitled to demand the same quality of life as a consultant, if they’re working ft they should be able to pay for their basic living costs with exactly the same stability.

Not to mention jobs like carers where it very much does require skill.

The privilege and complete lack of awareness of reality in pretending it is a choice for the majority is astounding. There’s no excuse for being so oblivious.

Several years ago when I was a single parent I swapped to a zero hours contact because it suited me.
I was working at the same place, and my pay was enhanced to cover holiday/sick pay.
When the Working Time Directives came out I kept myself updated.

It was obvious when they came out that a lot of companies would spend a fortune on lawyer's to see what they can get out of.
A trend I am now seeing is people being told that they have to be self employed, when actually legally they don't

YABVVVVU
I love all three of my zero hours jobs on top of my freelancing.
Having to commit to set hours would feel like slavery to me. I like variety and not having to sweat over childcare in the school holidays.
A lot of my work is seasonal so I know I can stock up on work for a couple of weeks and then have a nice quiet week of gardening and baking.
It's not for everyone, but that doesn't mean it should be banned completely.

They’re great for employees who want them. The problem arises when they’re foisted onto employees who’d much prefer to have a stable job with benefits, but can’t get one because it’s cheaper for the employer to stick people on zero hours. I previously had a job where I was technically on a zero hour contract but they conveniently asked me to do the same hours every week. It should have been a proper job but then I’d have been entitled to pesky things like maternity leave and redundancy etc.

The problem may be then that 'basic living costs' means different things to different people. For some, it will be being able to rent a decent room or small flat as a single person, and for others it will be enough to provide for a family with children.

nails good point but I was thinking more of the budgeting issues, rather than the inequality of the benefits system and the housing crisis. Basically I think two ft workers should be able to pay rent on a home of the same standard as social housing, bills, food, a cheap holiday and some disposable income etc. And a single ft worker with dc should also have a predictable income so top ups can bring their income up to provide the same quality of life. Ditto a single person in a one bed flat or nice house share.

If the tax system is paying top ups to low income workers it should be to subsidise a better quality of life, not to subsidise tight fisted employers so their staff are raised from destitution level to deprivation.

Where I work we employ about 6 bank staff on zero hours contracts, out of a workforce of around 35 people.
They have all, at one time or another, been asked to apply for permanent posts that were being advertised. They all have refused.
These contracts work for them, and for the company. Banning them would mean 5 people would be out of a job, and we would have to close for the day of staff went sick,as we would have no one to cover at short notice, in an industry where minimum staffing numbers is the law.