Roger Clements argues against the government’s consultation regarding zero-hours contracts with agency workers
When I think about the government’s recent launch of a Consultation on Reforms to Zero-Hour Contracts for Agency Workers, I cannot help but agree with many of the comments made by industry leaders. However, I have my own concerns.
Neil Carberry, from the Recruitment and Employment Confederation(REC), correctly pointed out that agency jobs are a key route to employment. Like Crawford Temple, of Professional Passport I agree that the consultation could be lacking in understanding the complexity of today’s workplace.
It seems that the Employment Rights Bill, and proposed changes to zero hours contracts, are based on the idea that these contracts must be bad. From where I am sitting, this is missing the bigger picture.
When used correctly, zero-hours contracts offer flexibility to both employers and employees, especially in sectors such as retail and hospitality where shifts are unpredictable and workers have multiple employers.
This setup allows many to be flexible in balancing different jobs and commitments. I find it unrealistic to assume that everyone will benefit from a rigid and predictable structure.
In principle, the idea of a guaranteed number of hours sounds good for workers. Organisations that depend on indirect or agency workers are not always able to offer that level of predictability.
Employers choose this category of workers because they want flexibility, and to be able to adjust their workforce to meet demand. Forced to provide guaranteed hours, employers may over-hire or over-predict staffing requirements, which could lead to financial consequences. The employer may have surplus workers. This raises the question of where the extra funds will come from to cover the cost.
In practice, it could put employers into a tough position and force them to either abandon this dynamic and impactful staffing model or discourage them from ever using it. These reforms, instead of addressing the core issue, may just push employers towards full-time employment, reducing flexibility and opportunities for many temporary workers.
“Forcing employers to provide guaranteed hours could lead to an over-hiring of staff or over-estimating staffing requirements, which in turn could have financial implications”
Uncertainty about who is responsible for penalty or cancellation payments is another aspect of the consultation which concerns me. Who will be responsible for cancellation or penalty payments? Will it the employer, or the agency. It is important to ask this question because predicting the staffing requirements is not always within the agency’s control, especially if they do not manage the schedule directly. The agencies will have to factor in these costs into their contracts if they are made responsible for them. This will increase the cost for employers.
This consultation seems to me like an overly aggressive approach in addressing a niche issue, namely, the exploitation of zero-hours contract. Although I am in favor of cracking down on unfair practices, we must not lose sight the larger picture. These reforms could undermine the dynamic nature of modern workers, who require flexible and well-regulated agency jobs. It is time for a more nuanced, thoughtful approach that protects employees without restricting the flexibility many employers and workers find essential.
Subscribe to our weekly HR news and guidance
Every Wednesday, receive the Personnel Today Direct newsletter.
Personnel Today has the latest HR job openings.
Find more Human Resources Jobs
