Labour To Ban Zero Hours Contracts.

[webbo3]

https://news.sky.com/story/ministers-step-up-bid-to-end-exploitative-zero-hours-contracts-13216757

Hypocrisy from Labour again.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1022913/Labour-Party-conference-zero-hour-contract-below-national-living-wage-contract-workers

[jourdain2]

Hammer and nut again.  When my children were small I worked as a Supply teacher for years so I could be flexible - I could be at home if they were ill, for example.

Others will have other reasons to want zero hours.

Problem comes when you are ready to work full time and you can't because you are cheaper on hourly.  That area could perhaps be looked at.

[naomi24]

In fairness they hire the venue.  They don't organise the staffing.

[webbo3]

Agree, but they would need to ensure this never happens which could cause them problems

[jackthehat]

There is a difference between wanting a zero hours contract and being forced to accept one.

That's the area which needs addressing.

[Hymie]

The Labour government does not propose to ban zero-hours contracts per se, but exploitative zero-hour contracts – which begs the question, what is an exploitative zero-hours contract?

 

I know of at least one ‘fulfilment’ warehouse operation (having the same name as a large rain-forest in South America), that employs staff on zero-hours contracts under which they are not guaranteed any work hours, but are prohibited from taking other employment.

Clearly this is exploitative.

 

Although retired, I have agreed a zero-hours contract with my employer whereby I work (sometimes from home) as and when required – but reserve the right not to (I don’t need the money).  I might work anything from 10 - 50 hours a month; is this contract exploitative?

[barry1010]

You are allowed to name Amazon.

According to the Financial Times, June 2024

"Amazon, for instance, does not use zero-hours contracts. It has recently introduced a flexible contract option which guarantees a minimum of 80 hours per month, with employees able to pick their shifts."

https://www.ft.com/content/8f0ead65-2165-4a37-88e1-b2d2d98b5f80

[THECORBYLOON]

A condition in a zero-hours contract forbidding work for another employer is not enforceable.

[Peter Pedant]

 is this contract exploitative?

no you have just said you dont need the money so exploitation is going to be pretty damn hard

[New Judge]

"Clearly this is exploitative."

No it isn't. The same as you - they don't have to do it.

[nailedit]

//There is a difference between wanting a zero hours contract and being forced to accept one.

That's the area which needs addressing.//

 

If this was my post, JTH would have been best answer....

[youngmafbog]

Really not sure how they will do this.  For many (one of my daughters loved them) they are useful, for others not so good.

The problem lies with JTH's post, which I think sums it up perfectly, but to solve that without unintended consequences is not going to be easy.

[New Judge]

I think the only issue that needs addressing (and which needs legislation) is that people who begin a job under a "normal" contract should not be forced to accept a zero hours contract during their employment.

Other than that, nobody is being forced to accept zero hours contracts. If they don't like the idea, it is open to them o decline the job.

"...but to solve that without unintended consequences is not going to be easy."

All it needs is legislation to prevent employers making a change to "zero hours" for somebody they already employ. But this government won't be happy with that. They will want to control what they consider to be "evil and vicious Dickensian" employers  and there will be consequences which mean that those who enjoy zero hours arrangments won't be able to do so.