Zero Hours

I’ve touched on the principle of zero hours contracts before. I don’t see them as a problem per se. I’m self-employed and have several clients. Not one of them guarantees me work. When things get a bit light, I go seeking more clients. So, effectively, I have a number of zero hours contracts and it suits me. The last thing I would want is for the state to interfere in the arrangement.

My problem with zero hours contracts as they stand is not that it allows flexibility, because that’s a good thing, It’s the exclusivity clauses, which it seems, are now subject to a crackdown. While I don’t generally approve of state interference in what should be a contract between two parties, it is a move in the right direction. If an employer cannot guarantee a reasonable amount of work on a regular basis, the individual should have the absolute right to seek alternative work to fill the gap. The problem, therefore, is that the contracts being agreed were inherently unfair on one party – the weaker party.

Business Secretary Vince Cable said “unscrupulous” firms had abused the flexibility offered by the contracts.

It’s a shame that it has taken legislation to resolve it – but, occasionally, it is the place of the state to step in. This is one of those rare occasions. After all, how many poorly paid employees are going to have the means to take action against an employer because their contract is unfair? And, how many of them can just walk away from such a contract and find an alternative?

The Government received more than 36,000 responses to its consultation, with 83% in favour of banning exclusivity clauses.

For once, the government has consulted and acted upon the response. Well, maybe pigs can get themselves airborne once in a  while…