An end to zero hours contracts may not be helpful to everyone in a gloomy jobs market
- Constantine Law
- Aug 6
- 3 min read
The most recent unemployment figures paint a grim picture as the number of those out of work last month hit its highest level in nearly four years. Even those in work may need to find additional income streams.
Graduates hard hit
Graduates fresh out of university are especially hard hit (recent data from job site Indeed shows that graduate job posts are down by 33% compared with last year)[1] and the news is awash with anecdotal horror stories of job seekers submitting hundreds of applications before securing work. However, a recent study by Boostworks[2] suggests that even those who manage to find a job could still be struggling financially. Only around a third of the Gen Zs surveyed believe they are fairly paid for the work that they do. This shows the difficulty many workers and employees are having trying to find jobs which can keep pace with rising living costs – jobs which now seem few and far between.
The study showed that 51% of Gen Z’s and 42% of Millennials are considering side hustles alongside their current jobs. The main driver of this decision being financial pressure and the need to find extra income streams to cope with rising expenses. However those looking for a second job to supplement their income may be unintended casualties of the government’s proposal to ban zero hours contracts. Although the intention is to bolster workers’ rights and provide the certainty of guaranteed hours, it may negatively impact those looking for additional but more casual, temporary work. We also need to consider students and those with caring responsibilities. These individuals are not seeking the formality of “guaranteed” hours, instead preferring to pick up roles and shifts as and when they are able.
For instance, let us consider a local supermarket at Christmas or any other popular holiday. Zero-hour contracts help employers who require additional help when sales picks up during the holidays. They do not have means to offer guaranteed hours throughout the entire year but just require temporary help for that month or two. A more rigid system would make it difficult for employers to hire individuals.
House of Lords opposition to proposal
The House of Lords last week, voted to amend the government’s proposal to ban zero hours. General Secretary of the TUC, Paul Nowak, is framing this as a class conflict: “the sight of hereditary peers voting to block stronger workers’ rights belongs in another century”[3]. But instead of pitching employers against employees, trade union leaders would be better placed to accept that one size does not necessarily fit all and look more carefully at those who are working in zero hours contracts. Of course, someone working on low pay in the care sector, for example, whose livelihood depends on them getting a certain number of hours per week should be protected, but the government needs to be careful to manage the needs of often younger employees entering the workforce who are seeking either a bit of extra income, or rejecting traditional work models in favour of a more diverse job portfolio.
If the government wishes to preside over a growth economy, they should ensure that it is easier, not harder to find work and policymakers must strike a balance between protecting workers and preserving flexible work for those who depend on it. Equally, employers need to start doing more to ensure employees are fairly compensated for the work they do.
Shauna Clarke is a Solicitor at Constantine Law.