Zero Hours

Zero hours jobs stink. Thus sayeth Barbara Ellen, in the Groan.

Perhaps this would be a good time to recover myself and outline why so many people find zero-hours contracts unfair, the short answer being that, usually, they are unfair. While a modicum of flexibility suits some people – students who need to study, people with other jobs – the system is rigged in the employer’s favour, to the point where any notion of mutual benefit becomes risible.

Following the usual partisan rant, she gets to the heart of the problem – and, yes, there is one. However, zero hours is precisely what self-employed people do. I have no guarantee of minimum hours from any of my clients. Although one did try but I refused, precisely because I want the flexibility. Zero hours suit me because I want to be able to refuse work should I so desire, to take holidays when it suits me not the client and to work part-time if I choose. Zero hours are ideal and work well. So, no, the principle does not stink. The principle is a good one for those of us who need or desire flexibility as Ellen realises.

The majority of zero-hours workers are on minimum wages, have next to no rights, nor any control over their working hours, while often being saddled with exclusivity clauses that stops them seeking work elsewhere.

And that is the  problem. Not zero hours, but exclusivity contracts. Do something about that and the problem is solved. If those on such contracts can seek work with a number  of employers, they will be able to work enough to earn a living, while allowing employers a degree of flexibility. After all, my profession is a prime example of why a large proportion of us are self-employed contractors. There isn’t enough work for one employer to keep us busy, so we spread ourselves around. It works for us and it works for the employer, but no one is saddled with an exclusivity contract (that I  am aware of).

So, no, the problem is not zero hours, it is restrictive and unfair clauses that prevent people touting for work elsewhere. All of my clients are aware that I work for a number of providers and that they have to book time in my diary on a first come, first serve basis. Yes, there is a risk that one of them would drop me if they cannot get me when they want me, but that is a risk we take in doing business.

Edited to add: As Old Geezer notes, the coalition banned exclusivity clauses but it hasn’t yet entered into law. Ran out of time, I presume… Anyway, the next parliament could just finish the job, so there isn’t really a problem apart from the usual leftist band-wagon jumping.

11 Comments

  1. They are abused. My son was held to ransom by a tinpot tyrant. No hours this week, will make next week, have an opinion I will punish you, agree with me I will reward you. Wife, young family and no idea what earnings will be week to week. Applying for and cancelling benefits week to week dependant on hours, trying to do the right thing and being kicked in the gonads for it. There is a world of difference between being a freelance / self employed person with desirable skills and being a bullied bottom of the pile worker trying to provide for your family.

    • I worked for a year for Sainsburys. The contract was for 21 hours, which they stopped shortly afterwards in favour of 16 hour contracts. Similar enough, though. They expected people to top it up with overtime as and when. Sometimes, I said “yes” sometimes “no”. It wasn’t a problem if I refused, they just asked me again next time around. That some employers abuse the system does not negate the arrangement as a whole.

      • I would also add that the flexibility gave me the opportunity to rebuild my training work, so all in all, I found such arrangements worked in my favour. I am not alone in this.

  2. XX All of my clients are aware that I work for a number of providers and that they have to book time in my diary on a first come, first serve basis.XX

    It does not work with a large firm.

    They want you “on call” virtually 24/7, and if you say “No,” “That’s YOU laddie, off to the bru with you!”

    The most zero contracts I have seen/heard of, you have to be ON SITE for the full work period, even if their is bugger all to do. No pay until there IS something to do, then back to the canteen to wait. So it is a full time job, with full time rules, but paid by the minutes worked.

    Self employed is a totaly different kettle of fish.

    • It may be different in Germany, but you come into work because there is work to do, so you get paid (at Sainsburys, we had to clock on, for fuck’s sake. I’ve never felt so fucking humiliated). The best way to manage these is to have a number of part time arrangements. My sister did something like this for a while, as I did for a period of time back in the eighties (so this isn’t some sort of new phenomenon). Students do it because the flexibility suits them. Likewise for those who need flexibility with their child care arrangements. It’s the exclusivity clauses that was the problem. Take that away and there is no reason not to have a range of options. And, as employment levels start to rise, the balance of power shifts to the employee.

  3. Can someone help me? In what way is a grown adult in the UK compelled to accept a zero hours contract or exclusivity clauses if they don’t want to?

    • There isn’t one. That said, if it’s that or benefits, one may well choose it rather than sign on. So it’s a Hobson’s choice. With a greater skill set, those choices improve somewhat. The problems occur when someone has a limited skill-set and has limited choices and the employer chooses to exploit that vulnerability. Exclusivity clauses are an abuse of the system. I would never sign one. Sainsbury’s didn’t tie me down to them and quite right, too. I made no secret of the fact that I was rebuilding my training work while working for them and they were fine with it.

  4. No we really do not want Government writing any more into employment contracts – they already write enough.

    But if you don’t like a contract, don’t sign it. If enough people did not accept a certain restriction then such clauses would be removed. If they are still there, enough people accept them.

    Zero hour contracts are for the convenience of both parties. The employer has somebody ‘on call’ thus a readily available labour supply as and when needed; the contractee is guaranteed work when the employer needs them.

    Freedom to be on call for multiple employers is obviously going to result in conflicts.

    • Freedom to be on call for multiple employers is obviously going to result in conflicts.

      Hardly unmanageable, though. A valuable employee can use this to their advantage, and why not?

  5. I am currently looking after my mother who has morning and evening visits from care workers. These girls are all on zero hours contracts, in actual fact zero hours some days would be welcomed with open arms. They all want flexibility, they are mothers and grandmothers who need income without being tied to set shifts. It works, as long as the exclusivity clause is removed it will continue to have a part to play in this complicated world.

Comments are closed.