I worked in this way when DC were younger as a lone parent I could be flexible and work extra hours during term time and 0 hours or very few during holidays
Now as a charity CEO I offer it as an option to people who don’t want regular hours if they are a student, carer, run another business, have multiple jobs, child care issues etc - we would all be disadvantaged if this is brought in

I agree in principle with zero hour contracts.
But they need to have more rules and regulations put in place to ensure that employers don't take the piss.

And those that want the zero hour contracts need to realise that their need for flexibility make see them overlooked for available hours.

It all depends on the contract.
A zero hours contract where you have no control over your hours but are expected to be available at all times (eg: retail) is different to a casual contract where you can say no to hours offered or can say you'll only work certain days/times (eg: bano staff/supply teacher).
The latter allows you flexibility and the option of juggling two jobs whilst the former is more like being employed full-time but without the guarantee of any actual work.

I’m in Ireland and they are banned here as such, there are several rules in place around them. There are only allowed in certain situations. see link.
www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/employment_rights_and_conditions/contracts_of_employment/contracts_without_specific_working_hours_zero_hours_contracts.html#lcc62d

I agree with you. My DH had one for his holiday job while at uni. Meant he didn't have to faff around with leaving / being hired back when he went back to uni.

I had a perm contract with a retail business at the time. I had to transfer back and forth throughout the year. I was also on a 4 hour contract and expected to do tons of overtime. I might have got paid holidays, but only for 4 hours a week.

They can be great for lots of people but they do need some rules to ensure people aren't exploited via them.

Because they are used far more widely than you describe, for jobs for which they aren't really appropriate, when those employees have no bargaining power either at the outset to say they want a fixed minimum number of hours or, when the job starts, to agree the hours when they'll be working. My understanding is that employers use them as well to evade various obligations to employees.

It's also not as simple as 'get another job', as if it's advantageous for an employer to use them for a particular type of role, then it's likely that all similar roles in the area offered by different employers will use a zero hours contract to remain competitive- it becomes a race to the bottom.

They combine the worst of all worlds, and banning them wouldn't affect anyone negatively because there are other contractual ways of achieving flexibility over hours worked.

How can you plan anything, when at any point your income could fall to zero, when that is not your choice and you had no say in that? That's why they need banning.

The problem with them is that when they work like they were designed to, they benefit both company and employees but they are heavily abused by employers who want people available at all hours at the drop of a hat but won't guarantee work if they need it.

If they aren't banned (and I don't think they should be on balance) they do need some regulation reform on them.

I know so many people who have had to take these jobs because the job centre has pushed for them to. And then they're stuck being unable to afford to make rent, pay utility bills, never mind food and transport to get to the job when it wants them. Finding a better job is something they all continuously attempt, but not everyone can do, or have the qualifications for, more secure jobs.

Great for those of you needing a top up but I can't imagine anyone without more means than the people I know, being able to make zero hours work.

I worked as a bank nurse for a few years when I didn't really know what I wanted to do career-wise, (effectively a zero-hour contract, employed directly by the hospital Trust but no "base" and no contracted hours - I could pick and choose when and where I worked, obviously providing they had uncovered shifts). I had a few places where I regularly worked and they would sometimes text me and ask me to work shifts for them (ended up getting a permanent job in one of them). The added benefit of this was I could try different specialities and I did end up working somewhere that I would never have even considered applying for if I hadn't done shifts there already (a speciality that no-one really knows anything about and hasn't got a clue about what we do).

Like someone else said, I think it depends on what you are doing and my experience was probably very different to someone in retail or hospitality.

@Speedweed but what if you want to be able to drop that income to nothing.

For my DH his holiday job was lots of fun and paid really well. Uni was over 3 hours away so he couldn't do that job during term time. The business was a tourist attraction so needed more staff in school holidays. Students on zero hours were great for that. They didn't need to train a whole ton of new people every holiday and the students had the confidence that a job was there for them in the holidays.

There will be some circs they are allowed, it is just about not being able to demand exclusivity without guaranteeing pay. Agencies/bank staff will still exist. Casual work is important in the economy.

But companies will not be able to rip people off.

Why would you be in favour of companies exploiting workers?

They'll just recontract. It is really not complicated.

This.

I've worked both above examples and they are very different. Currently working a zero hour and the flexibility to work more or less hours on whichever days I choose suits my current circumstances.
But I have previously worked retail where I was expected to be available all day every day for the few hours they threw my way at short notice with no option ever to say I'm not available so not possible to take on another job to try to increase my earnings.
That type of zero hour should be banned.

effectively a zero-hour contract, employed directly by the hospital Trust but no "base" and no contracted hours - I could pick and choose when and where I worked, obviously providing they had uncovered shifts This is NOT what would be banned.

I expect far more employees are served badly by the rise of zero contract employment than those who find it helpful, so I would support banning them. However, if there is a way to pass legislation that means they can remain for the minority who do find them beneficial then of course may that happen.

They work really well for a lot of employers and employees. I would jump for the chance of 0 hours where I am now.

I had a job where management forced the department to get rid of them (looked bad on the books), all the 0 hours staff left rather than apply to go permanent, they were good and experienced staff who worked mostly regular hours but needed flexibility.

The problem isn't the contract, the problem is people who need a fixed hours contract working those jobs. The solution is already there in the right to request flexible working, those regulations would cover requesting less flexible working.

@carefullycourageous but then you lose length of service which can be very important in terms of employment protections.

You can also find yourself in a cycle of fire and rehire during which contract terms can be changed without consultation.

My dd has one and it's shit.

Ok she is a sixth former and doesn't have bills but she has been offer 3 shifts in 5 weeks now and her employers seem to just dish out shifts to the favoured ones.

She is going for more interviews again

Not worth the hassle.

Tell me you're privileged without telling me you're privileged.

They will end up being unpopular after the Brazel V Harpur ruling for holiday pay soon as if an employer wants to avoid paying masses of holiday pay they’ll have to terminate and rehire all the time which is a massive administrative burden.

You don't get employment protection on zero hours anyway, really, because they can just give you zero hours. I don't see how fire and rehire is a risk when it is zero hours anyway. They can just not fire and rehire.

Honestly the unions have been fighting this for years, I think we all know work was better in the 'olden days', these contracts are exploitative.

They are used by far too many employers to demand 7 days a week, 12 hours a day (or more) complete flexibility. For a minority they work well, for the majority they leave them vulnerable and not actually able to refuse shifts. If I refused a shift at a well known pub chain, I had my hours slashed in return. It's a nightmare for childcare.

I agree with you OP.

It is ridiculous to ban a really sensible, practical, flexible and helpful way of employing people which benefits both employers and employees, because there are a number of employers who abuse it.
Try looking at bringing in regulations that curtail the poor practices.
That said, there are employer and Managers who are really poor employers or managers whatever the contract.

Sledgehammer and nut come to mind.
It is back to the looking at a situation in one place and assuming it is the same all over, when it clearly isn't.

They are extremely exploitative.

The 'flexibility' is usually only for the employers.

Ever worked on a zero-hours contract and declined a couple of shifts?? They often 'punish' you by giving you zero hours.

Ditto anyone who makes any kind of complaint.

Been there.

Precisely.

There are too many people who want people treated this way, it seems.