If Labour do ban zero hours contracts

[dollybird]

Will dodgy employers just offer a four hour contract? Or will there be a minimum number of hours? What if the employer/employee genuinely only needs/wants less hours? And what about bank contracts in the NHS?

Sorry for all the questions! It sounds like a good idea, but can't help thinking there will be pitfalls.

I actually thought they had been banned except for "bank" style jobs already.
I looked at retail jobs a few years back and thet were all pretty much "4 hour" ones - which isn't exactly much better though 🤔🙁

I'm on a casual contract rather than zero hours - the difference being I can turn down work if i want. Maybe that's what NHS bank staff are on too? I guess most places will just switch from zero hours to casual if that's still allowed? Or make it a low number of hours?

I thought you could still turn down work on a zero hours contract?

The contracts offered should all include enough hours to earn at least a minimum monthly wage.

Less hours should be available as an "opt out" option.
That's the only way forward!

@dollybird that's a really interesting question. As a retired civil servant, I'm quite well versed in the "unintended consequences"of a policy. Most (every?) Policy has at least one.

Yours are potential consequences that I'll draw to the attention of my favoured candidate at the upcoming election. There are ways round this, I'm sure. But they need to be thought through and included in any future legislation.

So can someone tell me the fundamental differences between casual and zero hours? I think I'm on a casual contract as opposed to a zero hours contract, I work in a school, only get paid the hours i work, accrue and get paid holiday pay monthly, dont get paid sick pay and dont get paid during the holidays, i work the same hours every-week for the whole school year.

I'm casual and it's a massive ball ache. No idea when/if I'll get work. I don't know the difference between that and zero hours. Thought it was the same.

What about events staff, staff at football stadiums, sporting events, the staff at wedding venues, Christmas staff at all supermarkets, hospitality venues, postmen and women,
Exam invigilators and marking staff

The newly retired who just want a few hours when they need a top up of pension funds to pay for a new car, or boiler, or holiday
I am def planning only working when I feel like it once semi retired, I don’t want a permanent contract of even just four hours a week then. I don’t intend to work in the summer months

I don’t think it will work,

Labour's original proposals were quite "radical left wing", but have been revised and will be quite different in the manifesto. Some say they have been "watered down" while others think they have injected a dose of realism or pragmatism.

The proposal to ban ALL zero hour contracts is now to ban EXPLOITATIVE zero hour contracts. Definitions are apparently still being discussed.

The proposal for ALL workers rights to apply from day one will now still allow a probationary period for performance. Flexible working from day one for all workers will retain the "except where it is not reasonably feasible" exception.

Ending "Fire & Rehire" practices is still policy.

Removing the age bands for the minimum wage is still policy, and they promise to tighten up rules on jobs with travel time (such as care workers who visit homes). They promise a "genuine living wage", but so do the other parties and none of the parties have given further details.

"Removing unnecessary restrictions on trade union activity" is still policy, but they have not said what these are or how far they will go.

They have said nothing about tightening rules on unpaid internships - a cynic might suggest that this is because MPs and the media are big users of this.

The original policy was to bring all these changes in during the first 100 days of winning the election, but I think they are backing away from this. If they win I think they will introduce an employment bill in some form within 100 days, but it will not contain all the final proposals - some will require further work before they become law.

I run an agency so I am concerned. I've had most of my staff for over 5 years and they are PAYE but in effect zero hours. We of course pay pension & until lately holiday pay but that has just changed back too. None of our staff wanted to accrue holiday pay in the first place. They are all on around £20-£25 per hour and for most it's their 2nd job or they are mums and just want a few hours a week with no obligation to work school holidays etc.

Banning zero hours contracts in all forms would potentially mean not being able to turn down work for the whole of the Summer hols, for example, and would negatively impact parents especially single parents.

Yes, they sound the same to me, too. DD works in a pub kitchen, and her hours vary week to week in number and when they are. She doesn't get holiday or sick pay. I don't think she has an actual contract though.

It's worked ok for her while she's been at college, but while she looks for a FT, more 'career' type job, it would be good if she could have a contracted number of hours, and holiday pay.

What could happen is so many hours a year, which get used by say by Easter, so then become a zero hours one in all but name.

Needs to be hours per week or at worst per month.

I think the difference between casual and zero hours is one of power.

In casual you can turn down work if not convenient, no problem.

In zero hours in theory you can turn down work, but those contracts tend to be in areas where turning down work then leads to not being offered more, so people worry about turning it down.

At least that is my impression.

I pay 1200 people a week. All on zero hour contracts.

We are construction labour supply, we move people around left right and centre and they also go off to work for other agency's on other projects. They absolutely do not want a fixed hour contract. It works in some industries.

When i paid retail, we tried to get rid of the ZHC's and offered everyone a contract equiv to the average they worked a week, we had a 90% turn down rate! They wanted the freedom of ZHC's

The uproar we had when law changed from paying rolled up holiday to actually accruing holiday to book off was quite intense too. (i know its slipped back now)

I’m a Labour but do agree this well intentioned aim needs to be thought through.

It’s similar to the ban on fire and rehire - if you ban it (and it’s unclear quite how you would), employers will just fire, without the rehire. Fire and rehire is a - admittedly sledgehammer - way of avoiding job losses.

Is that not a minimum hours contract that already exisists??

So what has labour said re zero hours??

I agree. There's a need for "casual" or "zero hours" work. Lots of places need a variable number of workers for variable numbers of hours on random days, either for things likes events, or seasonal work, etc. We really can't legislate to prevent that, nor should we even try!

What I do think is needed, though, is some kind of protection when it becomes regular and habitual. I.e. where someone, say, 9 out of 10 working days, works 7 hours, then it defaults to being a "proper" 7 hours per working day contract. That will stop warehouses, supermarkets and food outlets from randomly cancelling "normal" working days leaving the worker with no wages for a day they'd usually expect to work.

It shouldn't really be that difficult for the politicians and senior civil servants to find a way of protecting the regular/habitual workers whilst still allowing for the genuine casual/occasional scenarios.

BUT, what is also needed is a complete reform of the ambiguous and often crazy rules around false "self employment" as despite efforts over the past 25 years, it's still as prevailent and nonsensical as ever. Brown started 25 years ago with his crazy IR35 rules which have just caused untold damage to some industries and not tackled the real problem. We've still got huge numbers of people "pretending" to be self employed (aided and abetted by employers wanting to evade their employment responsibilities such as pensions, sick/mat pay, redundancy etc)., and I think that's a much more pressing (but harder) problem that needs addressing.

The UK needs to look at the long-standing German model of the 'minijob'.

It's a bit like a zero-hours job, but it is tax-free and comes with protections and a maximum number of hours so helping people to earn who have studies, caring responsibilities, another job with income that needs topping up.

Helps prevent exploitation and tax issues associated with zero-hours jobs, and brings more people into the workforce who otherwise face obstacles due to not being able to work full-time or needing flexibility etc.

I work zero hours and whilst would welcome a review and some changes to them abolishing them altogether worries me.
I like the flexibility of zero hours as I can make sure I have the school holidays off and also work around my husband hours so we don’t have to pay childcare and also work at all as childcare hours are not long enough to cover our shift patterns in nhs.
I do think though as I regularly work at least 100hrs a month sometimes more I should have more employment rights light sick leave and notice of change of shift or cancellation of shifts etc and also for the intent of applying for mortgages etc an indication of how many shifts they can offer me.
I also don’t get the London weighting and they also pay the regular staff better pay rates than me so I do feel some changes are needed. But not abolishing altogether.

That sounds far too sensible for the UK to adopt 😄

I know right?
The UK would rather threaten those who would benefit from a properly established mini-job scheme with removal of their benefits, repaying carers allowance or perhaps even conscription if they are young enough.

Shit! I'm an agency/bank health care professional. It works well for me, I don't have to do nights, and I can choose not to work when I want to. I can go on holiday in school holidays!

Have no fear, no-one will apply this to the NHS. The NHS runs on agency/bank/locums, would collapse without them. My local ITU was fully staffed by undervalued doctors on £80 per hour one evening last week. Not a single doctor on the normal rota.

Absolutely agree with this.
So many people (employers and employees) benefit from zero hour contracts.

If @jcyclops post is correct, good to hear they have seen sense.

The thing is, though, that if there were no locum/contractor slots, those doctors would have to take a "proper" job instead, assuming they needed an income! As it is, plenty of "professional" locums are kind of abusing the system by only working as locums/contractors at a much higher hourly rate, for their own benefit. We need a balance. The occasional locum/bank/contractor shift is absolutely fine and a necessity to cover gaps, but people shouldn't be allowed to work 100% that way.