According to the Government 'A Zero Hours Contract' is a type of Employment Contract where the Employer does not guarantee the Employee any hours of work. It reminds me of an outmoded time best forgotten when labourers stood outside the Employment Office waiting to be picked by a prospective Employer in a van. A practice commonly used after WWII and well into the 1950s, yet still prevalent today.
So what's changed?
Quite a lot, actually. Because although work systems might be made smarter, the problem remains the same. The Elephant under the table barely even shifts perspective and opportunities might be lost due to either lack of resources, motivation or impetus to do anything to change an outmoded idea. For workers standing in the dole queue, there is never any guarantee of finding work despite waiting for hours in the dole queue. Not long ago, workers had to clock-in and clock-out, and it seems the idea has transitioned into staff now required to swipe digital electronic cards, for security purposes to account for how many people are in the building, including filling in their timesheet on their computer and a score of other reasons. For many Employers who may be seen to exploit their workers by paying the barest minimum wage, A Zero Hours Contract is still a form of slave labour. The fact the Government increased the minimum wage in the 2021 Budget to £9.50, effective from 1 April 2022; with the Apprentice Rate rising to £4.81 is outstanding. However, on its own, this increase doesn't go far enough to cushion low-income workers against that 9% rise in inflation. It's disproportionate and rather blasé, simply put, it just seems like a sweetener to show everyone the Government is on track in making changes that will please the majority; but hasn't actually tackled the Elephant under the table from the core. In short, it’s a problem that will keep coming back until it is fully dealt with.
Consider a family of five managing on an income of £11,500 a year. How would they cope? Where a Hospital Porter earns on average £18,545, and a Care Assistant on Zero Hours earning £6000 a year; which is less than the minimum wage, and is at the bottom of the barrel ⸺ shows a clear imbalance in how the production of services and output is measured.
Ethically, this is a clear scandal if there ever was one, because many Agency and Casual Health Workers are employed on a 'Zero Hours Contract'. And given that Care Workers play a vital role in looking after the elderly and the most vulnerable in our communities, shouldn't they be a top priority? Surely it's about time the Government addressed this issue as a matter of urgency. On a broader scale, the fact that our nurses were at the forefront during the Corona Virus Pandemic, saving lives, working more than 72-hour shifts with lousy pay ⸺ only to receive a 1% increase in Pay in the last Budget, was totally unprincipled and unfair and only reinforces the sense of urgency in getting this right in the next Budget.
To clarify, there are two issues here. The first is the fact the minimum wage doesn't go far enough to offer qualitative remuneration measured against the current rate of inflation of 9% and of course, the fact it's disproportionate to any wage below £25K. Meaning that, workers within a certain pay grade, will still feel the pinch of the high standard of living and the dear cost of goods and services.
The second issue is that The Zero Hours Contract often fails to provide sufficient work for workers to live on. Not forgetting the fact that in some situations there might be a personal bias between some employees and employers who might say, favour others and give them more work.
Reform on The Zero Hours Contract seems to be slow and does not seem to counter the effects of the economic growth in mechanisation. And it’s hardly surprising that given the chance, many workers on The Zero Hours Contract seldom if ever petition for a hard change on account this type of contract does have its advantages and is particularly favoured by Self-Employed Contractors who prefer to work flexible hours, and often have other family commitments. For students, single working parents and or unskilled professionals, The Zero Hours Contract seems to be the only option. In fact, long-term workers on a Zero Contract enjoy the same privileges as Contracted workers, depending on a company's ethics.
Under the Law or should I say, contractually, ‘The Zero Hours Contract’ is a non-legal term used to describe many different types of casual agreements between an employer and an individual. This means the Rights of an Employee could be compromised and in some instances, there is no legal basis in which to prove 'Breach of Contract' should anything go wrong. Significantly too, in some instances, Employees have no Union Protection and neither are they covered individually under the company's Employees Third Party Indemnity Insurance since this is not a legal requirement.
Why, might I ask, is this still allowed to happen?
To be fair, some organisations prefer it, and the significance here is that in some instances, the advantages of its applications and uses far outweigh the disadvantages. In the first instance, for many Employers engaged in seasonal work, Zero Hours Contracts might offer them the added security of being able to attract casual workers only during busy periods, without the worry of meeting the full legal obligations as required by Law. Specifically, since these are invariably classified under 'Casual Contracts', the term 'Casual Workers' is not defined in employment law. And to be clear, this simply means that 'the status' of individual workers and 'the rights and protections' available to them in Law, will be determined by the nature of the working relationship that exists with the employer'.
References:
Commentaires