Misused zero hours contracts ‘indefensible’
3 min read
Ahead of his debate on the subject later today, Conservative MP Richard Bacon calls for the often ‘systematic exploitation’ of zero hours contracts to be addressed.
During the General Election the controversial issue of ‘zero hours contracts’ – a form of contract in which workers have no guaranteed hours and agree to be potentially available for work – was briefly in the spotlight. A casual listener who was asked to remember the sound bites would probably say: “Labour will ban zero hours contracts” and “the Conservatives don’t want to be anti-business”.
Scrape away the rhetoric and the similarities become clearer. Labour’s manifesto actually said: “Labour will ban exploitative zero hours contracts” [my emphasis] while the Conservative manifesto promised to “take further steps to eradicate abuses of workers, such as non-payment of the Minimum Wage, exclusivity in zero-hours contracts and exploitation of migrant workers”.
Employer organisations tend to stress the role which zero hours contracts play in helping businesses to meet fluctuating demand, arguing that these contracts play a key role in keeping people in jobs. Trade union campaigners emphasise how the financial insecurity of those on zero hours contracts limits their ability to access loans or rent property, and that because workers on such contracts are not defined as ‘employees’ they do not qualify for most employment rights.
What struck me about the issue was how frequently voters mentioned it to me, unprompted, often while talking about their grown-up children entering the work force. In one election debate in a church, a member of the audience explained how his son travelled to Norwich each day to work in a retail outlet. On arrival at the shop he would be told to go and sit in the store room. Later in the morning, if it got busy, he would be called out on to the shop floor, for which he would be paid. Then he would be ordered back to the store room to wait for his next slice of paid work later in the day.
Such arrangements are indefensible – and are almost certainly illegal already, since the law states that ‘time workers’ must be paid at least the National Minimum Wage when they are on standby at or near the place of work and are required to be available. But who will make sure the law is enforced when there is such an imbalance of power between one young employee and a big retail chain?
I met a young man earlier this week who was delighted with the flexibility which his zero hours contract gives him but who also said to me: “What you cannot do is take someone’s time and then not pay them for it”.
In a welcome step, the government is accelerating its ban on so-called ‘exclusivity clauses’, in which employers who cannot provide stable hours are nonetheless preventing workers from going to another company, but in the domiciliary care sector I believe there is still what amounts to systematic exploitation.
Ministers should set up a working group to keep a beady eye on this issue, so that if the need for further changes is proven they will be able to act swiftly.
PoliticsHome Newsletters
Get the inside track on what MPs and Peers are talking about. Sign up to The House's morning email for the latest insight and reaction from Parliamentarians, policy-makers and organisations.