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.

It depends on the circumstances. If it is to avoid paying a regular wage, it's wrong. But if the work is genuinely sporadic and unpredictable, and the person is free to decline, I don't see the problem.

Worked them as my first job while in uni. Boss was a prick. Happy to stress he didn't have to offer you hours but expected you to accept all the shifts he offered you or would punish you the following weeks with zero shifts "as you were unreliable and not a team player" so no real flexibility.

He expected his employees to give him all the benefits à full time employee does but completely non-reciprocal

He also refused to pay a number of girls SMP as they were not employees but private contractors until one took him to a tribunal, then he tried to skirt the issue by using gossip and other employees to tell who was pregnant before they officially told him so he could reduce their hours and claim they didn't qualify in order to avoid paying them.

They shouldn't exist. Zero stability, how do you pay a mortgage or rent without knowing your income month to month

Everyone I know IRL on zero hours contract is told what shifts they will be working with little notice and if they decline a shift, they are generally fired. It’s a horrible system.

No ban, they work for some. Tweak legislation, yes.

There have always been similar jobs.

At uni in the 90s I did night work for £3 an hour. If you were late they reduced the whole weeks wage to £2 per hour.

There should probably be some tweaking.

National Express has them for their call centre which is mostly staffed by students. They HAVE to do one shift a month, amd they can do as many or as few shifts outside that.

They offer incentives to do extra shifts eg working a bank holiday gets you paid for two days.

I have relatives in Cornwall where there is a lot of seasonal work, so employers can offer summer placements,say a 2 month contractor a zero hours contract that means you will work full time over the summer months and not at all in the winter.

It also works well for students who are transferring their contract between their home and uni locations.

There should be, IMHO an annual review of hours and a fixed payment eg you are expected to work 20 hours so you will be paid at least 20 hours a week. I'm still processing what I mean but for the employee it would be a guaranteed income.

I think that in certain sectors of the economy there should be a minimum hours, at least per month. A shop will need a certain level of staff to provide their service which can be predicted. There should also be a minimum period of notice for shifts to be cancelled.

I agree that zero hours contracts stipulating that the worker must do hours offered but the employer doesn't have to provide them are deeply unfair; as are situations where employers deliberately keep regular staff on zero hrs to prevent them from accruing employment rights.

However, as has been pointed out at many points over this thread, 'classic' casual/bank/zero hrs contracts are essential for industries like health and social care where demand can fluctuate, and shifts must be covered. And they are also popular with many workers. Where I work we would love to increase our proportion of permanent staff, but we rely heavily on students and young people who simply refuse them when offered. These are often people working very regular shifts so it gets bizzare at times.

Sometimes a casual worker wants a reference for a rental agency/mortgage provider saying how many hours a week they are contracted to work. We explain the answer is zero. "But I normally work x hrs every week they say!" "Yes you do. So why don't we write a permanent contract with those hours on, then we can do the reference?" "Oh no - not a permanent contract. I don't want to have to do them every week!"

Banning them is a sledgehammer approach. They don’t suit everyone but they do suit quite a lot of people. It’s a regular point of contention with MIL who wants them completely banned. DS(17) is a qualified swim coach with his local swim club. With constant changes to training times, unforeseen pool closures, short notice galas etc, zero hour contracts allow the club to keep fees as low as possible and they are very flexible about swapping shifts. DS is getting great work experience. MIL thinks he’s being exploited. He’s really really not.

I work a contracted job and have a zero hours contract at another. It’s the only way I can work around the kids. I can take school holidays off when I need to, work extra if I need to and it’s the only way to avoid ridiculous childcare costs.
I was working another job (alongside this one) and the cost of childcare halved my wages. I had to leave.
That zero hours contract is a lifeline for me and many like me. So yes, you are being extremely unreasonable and haven’t thought your opinion through properly.
There are enough low paid contracted jobs out there for those who want them.

There are enough low paid contracted jobs out there for those who want them

That’s bollocks frankly

This is an interesting discussion. Five years ago I left a full time secure job to undertake part time 'self employment' (gig economy employment) and a little contracted part time work. I took on another gig economy type job and now have a zero hours contract for another job.

Tax is a bit of a nightmare. I self assess for the self employment, my contracted post is considered to be my main job and this is taxed accordingly and my zero hours contract is considered to be an additional job, so this will be taxed at basic rate.

I have pro-rata holiday and sick pay for the contracted work; I am not sure about the zero hours and I have no sickness or holiday pay (unless I sort this out myself) for the self employment.

Zero hours may offer some autonomy, but there is often (in my experience) tacit pressure from the employer for individuals to take on more hours than they are perhaps happy with and there is no guarantee that there will be as much work as the employee would like. The company that offers me the zero hours contract is also reluctant to consider paying travel expenses or any additional costs.

So, perhaps as additional employment, zero hours do have their place. However, the insecurity of income and time may make them less than ideal as a main or only job.

I personally had never had issues with 0 hour contract. i had it in most jobs before moving up and never suffered lack of hours. If anything I was getting too many.
It's the same for my friends.

However, I would be naive to believe that there are no shitty employers... 0 hour contracts shouldn't be banned imho, but there should be some kind of regulation around how they are used.

I am freelance and due to the unpredictable nature of my job, a zero hours contract would work very well for me.

Fully accept that they are however horrendous for many.

My daughter has a job at the moment that is a zero hour contract. She has been on the way to work before and they've rang and said she's no longer needed. She has also arrived at work to do a 8-5 shift and been sent home at 2. This doesn't suit her very well as she is currently trying to get through her driving test. She has to keep cancelling lessons as she hasn't got enough money to pay for them.
I think it depends on the employer massively. As she can't pick and choose her hours like other people have said. She booked time off to go to a festival in August. They didn't give her any shifts the week before or after this time off. In her contract it also states if she has time off sick she has to get a doctors note. It seems very one sided in their favour to me.

Ok well sounds as though the key is ensuring that the contracts state a minimum guaranteed period of work and in that vein more protection for the employee. I do hear those of you who say it works for you and benefits your families. I think it’s the greedy employers who take advantage of their position when someone is totally reliant on their wages we have to watch out for. It’s just plain cruel in my view to say to someone that they can’t refuse work but they aren’t guaranteed. What kind of life is that for someone? Living off fresh air and being expected to be on call 24/7. That has to change surely

I think there is some confusion about 0 hour contract. I've never known someone to be on call 24/7. Isn't that actually illegal? Not even on call in general. Yeah, if place is short staffed, you get a call, but you can say no to covering the shift

I think there is some confusion about 0 hour contract. I've never known someone to be on call 24/7. Isn't that actually illegal? Not even on call in general. Yeah, if place is short staffed, you get a call, but you can say no to covering the shift
There are a lot of places where saying no to the shift would mean you don't get any more shifts in the weeks after or you only get the shittiest shifts. So yes technically you can say no and they won't sack you but you will pay for it in other ways.

they shouldn’t be banned. I know 4 people on them and they love it

I think these contracts have a time and a place but should not be used as standard.

My partner worked on these contracts for about 10 years and it was brilliant. We always had time and money to do fun things.

They shouldn’t be banned but they should be monitored and challenged if not suitable.

My daughter loves her zero hours contracts! She is at uni so can work as a d when she is available and say no if she is offered a shift at an inconvenient time. She earns a very good hourly rate (more per hour than I get in a school office) and the company’s clients often ask for her specifically

Just read that back and it sounds like she’s doing something odd... she isn’t, you know if you are at a shopping centre and people in branded shirts are handing out free samples of shampoo, or soft drink, etc. that’s the sort of thing she does....as well as manning stands at expos etc.

I believe in Australia you have to pay at least 25% more than minimum wage if you employ someone on a 0 hours basis.

Seems like an ideal solution to me.

Ken Loach"s new film is about the gig economy

twitter.com/SWMYfilm/status/1174380573600735232?s=20

I had a 0 hour contract with a well known restaurant chain. I worked on average 50 hours a week. No holidays either as our holiday pay was broken down into our hourly wage. This was my sole form of income for just me. I ran my flat on it, paid my bills etc. So no, not just a top up wage.
It was terrifying knowing my employer could just not give me hours one week, or to know that if times were tough, I'd lose hours and couldn't do anything about it. The only reason I got regular hours was because I worked very, very hard, was very dedicated and used my own laptop and phone to do my job. They employed loads of students however who loved the ability to pick up and drop hours at their leisure though.
Other than managers, the whole venue ran on 0 hour contracts

I think this really depends what life stage you are in.
I had one as a student and I loved it, it worked much better than the fixed hour contract I had had.
It wouldn't have worked when I wanted a mortgage.
It would be okay as a second income now.
It isn't a one size fits all.