Should Zero Hours Contracts Be Abolished?

While zero hours contracts have rightly come under scrutiny for their abuse by bosses, the numerous benefits that they offer to many workers in the economy mean abolishing them entirely would be a mistake.

Freedom of Extra Work - If someone is working in one job and fancies or needs another job to earn some extra cash, a zero hours contract can help them find a range of employment at a time of their choice. This flexibility that zero hours contracts offer is incredibly useful for many workers who may want multiple jobs to earn a living or want to balance work with other commitments such as childcare or health treatment. Thus, abolishing this kind of work would reduce employment flexibility, making it harder for many workers to make employment suit them.

Abolishing this kind of work would reduce employment flexibility, making it harder for many workers to make employment suit them

Further Opportunities - Sometimes, a company may only offer a zero hours contract because a fixed-term contracts is outside of their budgetary constraint. However, businesses who care about their employees will notice the hard grafters and may reward them with a better contract. In this way, workers who wouldn’t otherwise have earned a fixed-term contract can prove themselves to employers, improving their financial situation and potentially, their future employment prospects.

Improving Your CV - Any experience you get in any job has some value and may lead to better job opportunities in the long run, especially for young people and those who have little existing experience. When applying for future jobs, employers will favour those without gaps in their employment so filling these gaps with a zero hours job is better than being out of work. Therefore, denying people this opportunity denies them valuable employment experience that will allow them to fit into the job market more easily in the future.

Despite the many benefits that zero hours contracts offer, they are generally harmful to those who are on them because of the insecurity they provide, the lack of flexibility they offer for most and the lack of rights these workers have.

Insecure Jobs - Only a very small minority of those on zero hours contracts are in temporary work with only 7% being with their employer for less than three months. This suggests that the overwhelming majority are in these jobs because they are the only ones available to them rather than because they are looking for flexibility. Just 9% of respondents to a TUC poll said they took the job for work-life balance. Therefore, zero hours contracts are a symbol of job insecurity rather than job flexibility.

Lack of Flexibility - Despite common arguments that zero hours contracts are good for balancing work with other commitments, they actually leave people with very little flexibility. These employees don’t know when they’ll have to work, meaning they have to be on call all the time. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that those with zero hours contracts are generally financially insecure, meaning they may have to turn down social or leisure activities to ensure they can always work when their employer offers it.

Zero hours contracts are a symbol of job insecurity rather than job flexibility

Poor Conditions and Rights - Those with zero hours contracts have worse working conditions and rights than those with fixed-term contracts. For example, nearly half of employees don’t compensate them if they cancel work within 24 hours and they are less likely to have a voice to express concerns at work. Again, this is a product of their likely insecure financial position that means they are liable to be penalised by bosses if they challenge their behaviour. Therefore, abolishing these contracts would be a step forward for ending worker insecurity.