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.

Discussing this with my dc tonight. Zero hour contracts are how they have been able to work part time during university. Am really hoping they won't be axed completely.

Zero hour contracts are ideal for some people. We have a casual employee who will do an odd week here and there when it suits us and him. We had a graduate on zero hours doing labouring until he got his "proper" job. My student dc has a zero hours contact, which suits her and she still gets pro rata holiday pay.

What I never understood is why people can't have 20, 30 or 40 zero hours contracts at once. Or can they and I am misinformed ?

@SerendipityJane because in theory you should be available at the drop of a hat to come in to work.
Turn down a shift at Job A because you've got a shift at Job B and you're on the naughty list at A.

So it is as I expected heads the employers win, tails you lose.

Not really surprised.

@SerendipityJane yep pretty much.

Not 20, obviously, but my dd (a student) currently has 3 jobs on zero hours contracts.
It all depends on the employer.
Plenty of employers use them fairly, to everyone's advantage, it's just - as ever - things that work well don't hit the headlines.

Because they all want you for the same 6 hours on Saturday night and you're not allowed to turn any of them down.

I wonder if there's a way of distinguishing between the casual jobs (eg my son does lifeguard shifts as and when offered and it suits him) and exploitative zero hours which should be proper shifts eg retail jobs where it used to be perfectly possible to give people fixed shifts every week and extra if they wanted, but now apparently is impossible to give people the same shift each week.

I love my zero hours contract jobs. If I'm available I'll pick up a shift. If I'm not I won't. I already work full time so I don't want to be committed to more.
I do event work. There is no other way of staffing it.

I think there's still a large amount of jobs that will be casual, almost like self employed but you get holiday pay, SSP etc. it's a different type of contract as it's not called 'zero hours' but it amounts to the same thing.
Then there's project based work, where parts of it are only paid on completion of a particular task.
I guess they can also offer a short contract of only a month, with say, 5 hours?
I'll bet they will find ways round it. There are some industries and jobs where it will still be just as dodgy and precarious. I hope it does improve things but I'll believe it when I see it.

I thought zero hours contracts worked both ways, ie you can turn down a shift but they are not obliged to offer you any. And it's that fear of not being offered shifts that makes people not turn them down when offered.

No, that's a "casual" contract if the employee can turn down work with no repercussions @dollybird.

I think DD must have a 'casual' contract then, although she rarely turns down work, but they have accommodated her college classes etc. I don't think she's ever signed a contract, and she doesn't get holiday or sick pay.

As far as I know everyone accrues holiday.,

You certainly do on a casual contract.

Because they all want you for the same 6 hours on Saturday night and you're not allowed to turn any of them down.

That's simply not true as a blanket statement.
I'm not saying there aren't employers who act like that, but there are also many who don't.

It's like saying "hairdressers don't pay tax" because you happen to know someone who does their friends' hair for cash and that particular person doesn't pay tax.

I don't know any business that is only open for 6 hours on a Saturday night.

All my dc have worked in zero hours contract jobs and they have always been able to turn down shifts they don't want. That said, they are good employees, and generally have taken the job because they want to earn the money. I know they have also worked with various people who rarely take shifts, won't 'take turns' in doing the shift no-one wants, and it soon becomes clear who that person is.

The material difference between a "casual" contract and a "zero hours" contract is that the employee is under no obligation to take the shifts offered. It's not my opinion, it's the law.

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

THIS. I specifically asked my MP this and this is what they said. They would be stupid to ban them completely because many staff I employ WANT zero hour contracts because they like the flexibility and despite offering them permanent contracts they dont want them and have turned them down so it would be stupid to ban them completely. Not all employers who have them are greedy and horrible. Many staff actually prefer them.

There’s no obligation to take shifts under a zero hours contract, though of course I’m sure there’s pressure to do so. But until Labour change it, the Government’s position is that casual and zero-hour contracts are the same thing:

www.gov.uk/contract-types-and-employer-responsibilities/zero-hour-contracts

I stand corrected.

My opinion is based on what the CAB told my nephew when he had concerns about his employment situation.

They already did it in Ireland
www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/employment-rights-and-conditions/contracts-of-employment/zero-hours-contracts/