Yesterday was a public holiday (except in Scotland, where they have more important things to think about), but it seems the party never takes a holiday. It chose a wet and windy Bank Holiday Monday to announce that Vince Cable was crowd-sourcing loopholes in zero hours contracts. He is specifically concerned about those that require an employee to work exclusively for the one employer, even though no work is guaranteed.
Vince is launching a consultation and inviting employers, unions and individuals to point out those weasel words and dodgy clauses which could enable an unscrupulous employer to exploit employees, for example, by offering minimal hours, rather than zero hours, but still demand exclusivity.
Vince Cable is quoted as saying:
We are tightening the screws on rogue employers who try to abuse workers on zero hours contracts. We are looking closely at any potential loopholes that could arise from a ban, to ensure that these are closed off and no one can get round the new law. We are also ensuring there is access to justice for workers treated unfairly.
* Mary Reid is a contributing editor on Lib Dem Voice. She was a councillor in Kingston upon Thames, where she is still very active with the local party, and is the Hon President of Kingston Lib Dems.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
High Fell leaflet watch (2)
No, Leave didn't win the Brexit referendum because of Northern working class voters
Two new Makerfield by-election polls gives Burnham 5 and 12 point leads
Reform under water
Geoffrey Payne
Richard Whelan
David Raw
Tom Reeve
13 Comments
Zero hours and those unpaid researchers, internships etc. All should be outlawed but how many unpaid full time staff do you employ / use in libdems
Government is a major source of the problem with zero hours contracts.
According to government policy:
1) One cannot refuse a job – even one offering a zero hours contract – without losing one’s benefits;
2) Once one accepts a zero hours contract, one can no longer claim unless one actually works fewer than 16 hours a week
3) If one works more than 16 hours in a week, benefits are cancelled and one has to re-apply each time one’s hours drop below 16 hours.
If the system was more flexible, so that one could remain signed-on but notify the benefits office on a weekly basis if one was not eligible that week, zero hours contracts would be far less problematic. It’s the interplay with the benefits system that makes them such a nightmare.
In focusing on zero hours contracts we miss another particularly unscrupulous issue with employers who offer part time employment with as little as 8 hours work per week but with no regular hours and the footnote “must be flexible” which in effect rules out a great deal of workers who want/need part time work to fit around being a student/parent or carer but are excluded because they can commit themselves to a small amount of hours but not available to them at anytime in the week.
Tom you are right.
With real time reporting to HMRC there should be no need for the employee to report hours worked. The employer should already do it. This does not address the issue of staff being monthly paid in arrears though. For someone coming off benefit a zero hours contract is not a job. It may be a job, but it may not. If an employer wants to have the advantage of operating using zero hours contracts perhaps they should be responsible for helping to sort out the issues which flow from them.
This sounds good and the one hour pay for 40 hours of exclusivity is a loop-hole I have identified in the past. However, it is important that only the exclusivity loophole is tackled and not the contracts as a whole. Banning Zero hours completely is unworkable.
I agree with Eddie. It’s the exclusivity that is the problem, not the zero or few hours. There are many areas of employment where people want the flexibility of being able to take work as and when it suits them eg supply teaching or bank work for a hospital. This only becomes an issue if the contract a) bans them from working for anyone else or b) requires them to take all work that is offered.
Of course, the way these contracts are treated by the benefits system is a real cause for concern, as Tom points out.
Exclusivity is extremely valuable to an employer. If I’ve tied up all the cleaners in a town on exclusive contracts, even with zero guaranteed hours and so with minimal cost to me, then my rivals can’t bid for new work because they haven’t got any workers, and I can win cleaning contracts at higher rates while paying lowest possible wages for actual hours worked.
If exclusivity is part of a contract, then I’d recommend that hours not worked due to exclusivity be paid for at the same rate as hours actually worked.
The problem with Zero Hours Contracts is that there are no hours unworked that could be paid for Richard.
@David Evans
The problem is that there can be 37.5 hours unworked, every week! Don’t think that employers don’t get up to tricks like I described. Competition exists. A workforce can be a scarce resource whose capture can provide competitive advantage that improves profits – at everyone else’s expense.
There are times when zero hours contracts can be acceptable – for instance working on nursing banks where where and when a person works comes from mutual consent. The problems come when a person is compelled to take up a zero hours contract, when a person is not allowed to work for others at the same time as holding a zero hours contract, when a person is prevented from turning down a set of hours offered.
Thanks Mary. If anyone knows the situation regarding welfare sanctions and exclusivity that would also be useful. No one should have to accept an exclusive contract without remuneration.
Regards
Richard and few others are right, it is the flexibility and exclusively that are critical elements of these contracts as these clauses effectively control a persons unpaid time.
Personally, I don’t see quite what the problem Vince and the finest legal minds have in framing appropriate legislation. Although a belts and braces approach would be to ensure that premiums for exclusivity are paid weekly/monthly in advance.
Finally, I would suggest Vince’s department publishes the draft law and puts out a prize to the person/team who can find a way round it – ie. adopt the mechanism used to find security flaws in software and to locate prior art in getting a patent overturned…
I agree with Eddie Sammon, A Social Liberal and Mary Reid. Zero hours contracts can be beneficial for the employee. Particularly at the start of your career where you’re trying to get good experience and work but employers might be reluctant to take you on full time because perhaps work volumes are uncertain / volatile. It’s abuse of zero hours contracts that needs to be tackled – particularly exclusivity clauses, being forced to take work offered and the like.