31 July 2013

By Sarah Glenister, IER staff

With a storm gathering in both the left and right-wing media this week over zero-hours contracts – which the coverage suggests are only ever met with repulsion from the public – you would expect some strong government promises and robust inquiries into the problem.

However, the response from the Liberal Democrats has been weak at best; and from the Conservatives? Nothing at all.

Nick Clegg today (31 July 2013) said that the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) is reviewing the issue over the summer – an announcement Business Secretary Vince Cable made last month. While this is a step in the right direction, we are cynical about the possible outcomes of this move since the Lib Dems seem to be dead against any outright ban. In fact, Stephen Lloyd, Liberal Democrat MP for Eastbourne and Willingdon and aide to Cable, said at a conference devoted to the issue earlier this month that he was opposed to 'over-regulating' the contracts if it meant businesses could not use them. Instead, he would like to see a "good code of practice", the Guardian reported.

With a low estimate suggesting at least 200,000 people in the UK are employed on zero-hours contracts – some think it could be double that – it is somewhat offensive that the only department in the Coalition even looking at the issue believes a few guidelines, and flimsy 'best practice' codes, have any chance of turning the tide. While Lloyd felt BIS should go further than its review and conduct a full study of the situation, it remains disheartening that Lib Dem attitudes continue to support the 'right' of employers to a precarious and desperate workforce (which they would describe as 'flexible').

When it comes to cleaning up their own house, it seems there has been some action to investigate the use of zero-hours contracts for Houses of Parliament staff, with the Independent scoring an exclusive on the launch of a review of the use of the agreements for Commons employees. A Freedom of Information request showed that 155 people currently employed by the House are on zero-hours contracts. However, the House seems to be sticking by its decision to recruit employees in this way, with a spokesperson telling the newspaper: "The variable business timetable of the House of Commons means that fluctuations in the level of demand in these areas can be considerable, so having a flexible workforce to supplement the core permanent staff is an efficient way to deliver services while making best use of public money."

Again, there's that word 'flexible'.

Meanwhile, the Conservative Party – no member of which even bothered to turn up to the latest Commons debate on the issue – has remained conspicuously silent on the subject.

The Institute of Employment Rights has long been highlighting that the UK already has an extremely 'flexible' – i.e. precarious – workforce, and that time and again it is workers who are forced to take the brunt of economic and market pressures rather than businesses, which in the blink of an eye can simply cut their workforce to a minimum until their profit margins start rising.

We ask, why is it always the workers who are expected to offer ultimate 'flexibility'? Does the Coalition not consider businesses to have any responsibility to their staff? To the economy? Our research tracking Coalition policies and backbench whispers since they first took power – displayed on the Coalition Timeline – shows there is no doubt that for the current administration, workers always come last.

The Institute of Employment Rights is working on a series of briefings and other publications to critically analyse zero-hours contracts from a range of angles, and offer recommendations on legal change.

Sign up to our weekly News Brief for updates.