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 think employees on them need more protection, but an outright ban would penalise those for whom they work well.
My best friend has an auto-immune disease which fluctuates in severity. She had to leave her full-time job as she was too ill to be reliable, but due to the nature of her condition she's not entitled to DLA/PIP because some of the time she's well enough to work. She now has two zero hours contracts which mean she is able to work when she's feeling well enough (and she is terrific at her job so she is always offered work) but if she needs a day or two to rest or recover then she can take it without jeopardizing her employment.

I am on the fence on zero hour contracts. On the one hand I can see they are massively damaging and they should not be the norm.

But an outright ban would be damaging for students looking for work, as well as semi-retired who want a few hours here and there to top up their pensions but don't want to be, or can't be, committed to the same hours every week or indeed to work every week at all.

I'm not sure what the answer is, except that 20 years ago we managed to have fixed contracts and casual hours for those who wanted them, so would guess it's lazy and greedy employers who are trying to exploit their workers. Retailers for example have no reason to use them except for holiday and sickness cover, it should be very easy to have fixed shifts.

YABU, I had one as a student which enabled me to work in the holidays only which was great. However, for people working 40 hours a week with zero protection... YADNBU