Hubbry Logo
Zero-hour contractZero-hour contractMain
Open search
Zero-hour contract
Community hub
Zero-hour contract
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Zero-hour contract
Zero-hour contract
Zero-hour contract
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

A zero-hour contract is a type of employment contract in United Kingdom labour law, between an employer and an employee whereby the employer is not obliged to provide any minimum number of working hours to the employee.

In 2015, employers in the UK were prohibited from offering zero-hour contracts that prevented employees from also working for a different employer at the same time. In September 2017, the UK Office for National Statistics estimated that there were over 900,000 workers on zero-hour contracts, 2.9% of the employed workforce.

In the UK, zero-hour contracts are controversial. Trade unions, other worker bodies and newspapers have described them as an exploitation of labour. Employers using zero-hour contracts include Sports Direct, McDonald's and Boots.

Definition

[edit]

A "zero-hour contract" is a type of contract between an employer and a worker according to which the employer is not obliged to provide any minimum working hours and the worker is not obliged to accept any work offered.[1] The term "zero-hour contract" is primarily used in the United Kingdom.

The employee may sign an agreement to be available for work as and when required, so that no particular number of hours or times of work are specified.[2]

Under U.K. law a distinction is drawn between a "worker" and an "employee," an employee having more legal rights than a worker.[3] Whether a person working under a zero-hour contract is an employee or a worker can be uncertain; however, even in cases where the plain text of the zero-hour contract designates the person as a "worker" courts have inferred an employment relationship based on the mutuality of obligation between employer and employee.

Zero-hours contracts provide basic social security benefits, including maternity/paternity pay, holiday, and health insurance. A zero-hour contract may differ from casual work.

History

[edit]

In the United Kingdom, under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, workers operating under a zero-hour contract on stand-by time, on-call time, and downtime must be paid the national minimum wage for hours worked. Prior to the introduction of the Working Time Regulations 1998 and the National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999 zero-hour contracts were sometimes used to "clock-off" staff during quiet periods while retaining them on site so they could be returned to paid work should the need arise. The National Minimum Wage Regulations require that employers pay the national minimum wage for the time workers are required to be at the workplace even if there is no "work" to do.[4][5] In the past, some employees working on a zero-hour contract have been told that they are required to obtain permission of their employer before accepting other work, but this practice has now been banned under UK legislation enacted in May 2015.[1][6]

In Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher, the UK Supreme Court delivered a judgment on workers employed under a zero-hour contract. Lord Clarke held, at paragraph 35, that in employment relations which are characterised by inequality of bargaining power, the written terms of a contract may not in truth represent what was the contract in law.

In March 2015, the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015[7] received royal assent. On a date to be appointed, s. 153 of the Act will amend the Employment Rights Act 1996, so that exclusivity terms in zero-hours contracts will no longer be enforceable, and regulations may specify other circumstances under which employers may not restrict what other work zero-hours workers can do.

Statistics

[edit]

As of September 2017, the Office for National Statistics estimated that there are over 900,000 workers on zero-hours contracts (2.9% of the employed workforce),[8] up from 747,000 the previous year, with over 1.8 million such contracts (as some people may have more than one contract),[9] with a further 1.3 million where no hours were worked.[10] Some commentators have observed that the number of such contracts may be under-reported, as many people may be confusing them with casual employment,[11] and may not be reporting them as temporary.[12] The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD), based on a poll of 1,000 workers, reported in August 2013 that as many as 1 million workers in the United Kingdom, 3–4% of the workforce, work under the terms of a zero-hour contract.[13] Based on a survey of 5,000 of its members, Unite, Britain's largest labour union, estimates that as many as 5.5 million workers are subject to zero-hour contracts, 22% of those employed privately. The survey, conducted by Mass 1, showed that zero-hour contracts were more prevalent in northwest England, among young workers, and in agricultural work. Often workers said that holiday pay was illegally denied,[13] and in most cases sick pay as well. The National Farmers Union, which represents farmers, supports zero-hour contracts as offering needed flexibility for tasks such as harvesting.[14]

According to the CIPD research, about 38% of those employed under zero-hours contracts considered themselves to be employed full-time, working 30 hours or more a week. While 66% of those on zero-hours contracts were happy with the hours they worked,[9] 16% felt they did not have an opportunity to work enough hours. About 17% of private employers used zero-hours contracts while they were used by 34% of non-profits organisations and 24% of public employers. Zero-hours contracts were frequently used in hotels, catering and leisure (48%), education (35%) and healthcare (27%).[13]

For domiciliary care workers the incidence was reported to be as high as 55.7% of all workers during the period 2008–12.[15]

In 2011, zero-hours contracts were in use in many parts of the UK economy:[16]

  • in the hotels and restaurants sector, 19% of all workplaces (up from 4% in 2004)
  • in the health sector, 13% (up from 7%)
  • in the education sector, 10% (up from 1%)

Employers

[edit]

Zero-hour contracts are used in the private, non-profit, and public sectors in the United Kingdom:

  • Sports Direct, a retailer, has 90% of its workers on zero-hour contracts[17]
  • In August 2013, The Guardian reported that J D Wetherspoon, one of the UK's largest pub chains, has 24,000 staff, or 80% of its workforce, on contracts with no guarantee of work each week.[18]
  • 90% of McDonald's workforce in the UK – 82,000 staff members – are employed on a zero-hour contract. According to a McDonald's spokesperson all work is scheduled in advance with no employees being "on call" and meets the needs of workers who desire or need a flexible schedule.[19] In 2016, the store trialled offering the chance to move off zero-hour contracts but over 80% of staff chose to remain on them.[20]
  • A major franchise of Subway also uses the contracts, which state, "The company has no duty to provide you with work. Your hours of work are not predetermined and will be notified to you on a weekly basis as soon as is reasonably practicable in advance by your store manager. The company has the right to require you to work varied or extended hours from time to time." Subway workers are also required, as a condition of employment, to waive their rights to limit their workweek to 48 hours.[17]
  • Burger King franchisees and Domino's Pizza operations in the UK extensively use zero-hour contracts.[21]
  • The Spirit Pub Company has 16,000 staff on zero-hour contracts.[19]
  • Boots UK has 4,000 workers on zero-hour contracts.[19]
  • Buckingham Palace, which employs 350 seasonal summer workers, also uses them.[22][13]
  • The National Trust, a nonprofit organisation which manages extensive historic sites and nature preserves in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, which must deal with variable weather, uses zero-hour contracts but at the same benefits and pay as permanent employees.[13] The Tate Galleries also use zero-hour contracts.[6]
  • All non-management staff at Curzon and Everyman cinema chains are on zero-hour contracts.[23]
  • Cineworld, a leading cinema chain, uses zero-hour contracts for 3,600 people, about 80% of its workforce, and Stephen Wiener, the founder, stated in August 2013 that he will continue using them.[24]
  • CeX[25]

The Workplace Employment Relations Survey conducted by the government of the UK in 2004 and 2011 shows that the proportion of workplaces that have some employees on zero-hours contracts has increased from 4% in 2004 to 8% in 2011. The survey found that larger companies are more likely to use zero-hours contracts. 23% of workplaces that have 100 or more employees used zero-hours contracts in 2011, compared to 11% of those with 50–99 employees and 6% of those with fewer than 50 employees.[26]

Controversy

[edit]

In the UK, zero-hour contracts are controversial. British business leaders have supported them, stating that they provide a flexible labour market.[27] It is argued they may suit some people such as retirees and students who want occasional earnings and are able to be entirely flexible about when they work.[28] It has been reported that 60% of people on zero-hour contracts are happy with the hours they work.[29] Trade union groups and others have raised concerns about exploitation and the use of such contracts by management as a tool to reward or reprimand employees for any reason, meaningful or trivial. They also raise concerns about how workers can adequately assert their employment rights or maintain decent employment relations.[30] A Channel 4 documentary broadcast on 1 August 2013 claimed that Amazon used "controversial" zero-hour contracts as a tool to reprimand staff.[31]

Workers subject to zero-hour contracts are vulnerable to exploitation as they may be denied work at any time for any reason, including declining to respond to a demand to work. A refusal to work in any one instance for any reason can result in a prolonged period of lack of work.[32] Due to the uncertainty of the workers' schedules, zero-hour contracts present problems for workers with children due to the difficulty of arranging child care. The rapidly growing use of zero-hour contracts was the subject of a series of articles in late July 2013 by The Guardian and as of 2013 was of concern to Parliament.[33] Vince Cable, the business secretary of the government, considered closer regulation of the contracts but ruled out a ban.[34] Labour MPs Alison McGovern and Andy Sawford campaigned to ban or better regulate the practice.[17]

In 2016, several UK chains that had been using zero-hour contracts announced that they would phase them out during 2017. These included Sports Direct and two cinema chains, Curzon and Everyman.[35] However, Cineworld, another leading cinema chain that also owns Picturehouse, has come under scrutiny for continuing to use the contract format, with the Ritzy living wage protests at London's Ritzy Cinema especially prominent.[36]

In 2020, a campaign called Zero Hours Justice was set up. Led by Ian Hodson, president of the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union and backed by Julian Richer, it was launched with the aim of ending zero hours contracts.[37][38][39]

Praise

[edit]

The Institute of Directors, a chartered organisation of British business leaders, has defended the contracts as providing a flexible labour market, citing the lack of flexibility in Italy and Spain.[17] Jacob Rees-Mogg MP has also argued that they benefit employees, including students, by providing flexibility, and could provide a route into more permanent employment.[40]

Elsewhere in the world

[edit]

Casual labour contracts in Canada can have "no guaranteed minimum hours",[41] place "no obligation on the employer to provide work", and pay can be "pro rated in line with hours worked".[42][better source needed]

In 2015 in New Zealand, the television show Campbell Live revealed that large corporate hospitality companies such as Burger King and McDonald's, KFC, Starbucks, Pizza Hut, Carl's Jr. (all under Restaurant Brands), Sky City and Hoyts, all use zero-hour contracts to reduce costs.[43][better source needed] On 9 April, Restaurant Brands agreed to do away with zero-hours contracts.[44]

A bill outlawing zero-hour contracts in New Zealand was unanimously passed on 10 March 2016 and went into effect on 1 April.[45]

Zero hours contracts have been banned in the Republic of Ireland since 2018, with limited exceptions.[46] Employment Regulation Orders in place in multiple industries, for example Security[47] guarantee minimum paid hours if an employee is rostered for below a specified number of hours per shift and require minimum notice of rostered hours.

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Zero-hour contract

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A zero-hour contract is a form of casual agreement, most commonly used in the and select other countries, under which an employer offers no guarantee of minimum working hours and compensates the worker only for time actually performed, while the employee remains available on call. These contracts facilitate variable demand in sectors like and retail but differ from standard arrangements by lacking obligations for regular shifts or predictable income. In the UK, zero-hour contracts accounted for approximately 3.4% of total in 2023, equating to over 1 million workers, with prevalence surging from negligible levels in the early amid rising demand for flexible labor. Usage is highest in accommodation and services, where nearly 29% of the operates under such terms, often appealing to students, caregivers, or those seeking supplementary income. Empirical surveys indicate that a majority of zero-hour workers perceive advantages in work-life balance and job autonomy over traditional roles, with many retaining the same employer for over a year despite the arrangement's flexibility. Critics highlight risks of income volatility and exploitation, linking zero-hour arrangements to heightened financial stress and reduced labor market participation due to scheduling uncertainty, as evidenced by experimental studies on pay variability. Proponents counter that these contracts expand employment opportunities in fluctuating industries and align with preferences for non-committal work, though regulatory reforms—such as bans on exclusivity clauses—aim to curb potential abuses without eliminating the model. Legally, zero-hour contracts remain permissible in the UK with worker protections like holiday pay accrual, but they are prohibited or severely restricted in nations including Norway, France, and Germany, reflecting divergent views on balancing flexibility against job security.

Definition and Characteristics

Core Elements

A zero-hour contract constitutes a form of agreement under which the employer commits to no minimum number of paid hours, instead offering shifts or work on an basis as needs arise, while the worker retains the right to accept or decline such offers without breaching the contract. This structure establishes a casual, flexible lacking guaranteed or hours, yet it implies an ongoing relationship where the worker agrees to be potentially available for contact regarding opportunities. Despite the absence of fixed hours, workers under zero-hour contracts receive core statutory protections equivalent to those of other casual or part-time workers, including payment at or above the national for all hours actually worked, accrual of paid proportional to hours performed (typically 5.6 weeks per year, pro-rated), and entitlements to rest breaks and itemized pay statements. Additional , such as maternity or paternity pay, may apply if qualifying thresholds are met, though classification as a "worker" (common in these contracts) rather than an "employee" limits access to benefits like redundancy pay unless specified otherwise in the agreement. Zero-hour contracts are distinguished from pure casual or "as-needed" engagements by their emphasis on a standing contractual obligation for potential ongoing availability, fostering a pool of workers who maintain readiness for repeated offers rather than isolated, discrete assignments with no expectation of recurrence. In contrast, casual work often involves one-off tasks without an enduring mutuality of obligation, potentially excluding pay for downtime between gigs, whereas zero-hour arrangements accrue rights based on cumulative service despite variable hours. This differentiation underscores the zero-hour model's reliance on voluntary acceptance amid implied preparedness, though legal enforceability of refusal penalties varies by contract terms and must comply with prohibitions on exclusivity clauses since the , Enterprise and Employment Act 2015. Workers on zero-hour contracts in the are entitled to the National Minimum Wage for all hours actually worked, calculated in the same manner as for other workers. This includes payment at or above the applicable hourly rate for time spent performing duties, with no distinction based on the contract's lack of guaranteed hours. They also receive statutory holiday entitlement of 5.6 weeks per year, pro-rated according to hours worked, with pay calculated based on average over the prior 12 weeks, excluding non-working weeks. Additionally, qualifying workers—those earning over the earnings trigger (currently £520 per pay reference period) and under the qualifying earnings band—are subject to automatic enrolment in a scheme, irrespective of type. Employers have no general legal to compensate workers for periods of availability when no work is provided, unless the explicitly stipulates otherwise; time merely "on call" without active does not count as for purposes. Workers retain the right to refuse offered shifts without facing dismissal, demotion, or other detriment, as zero-hour arrangements do not impose a to accept work. In the case of Royal Mencap Society v Tomlinson-Blake UKSC 8, the ruled that sleep-in shifts for care workers count as only for periods when the worker is awake and engaged in duties, not during sleep, thereby excluding asleep time from National Minimum Wage calculations unless interrupted by active work. This decision clarified that availability alone, even in required presence scenarios, does not trigger full pay obligations, though it has prompted subsequent NMW claims for unlawful deductions in similar contexts.

Historical Development

Origins and Early Adoption

Zero-hour contracts trace their origins to longstanding traditions of casual labor in the , where workers were engaged on an as-needed basis in industries characterized by fluctuating demand, such as docks and seasonal , dating back to the late . These practices involved informal arrangements without guaranteed hours, often leading to irregular employment patterns that contributed to poverty and inefficiency, as documented in early social investigations by figures like Charles Booth and . Formalization of such contracts as zero-hour agreements gained traction in the late 1980s, evolving from these casual systems into explicit employment terms that emphasized employer flexibility without minimum hour commitments. The shift toward widespread early adoption coincided with labor market deregulation under Thatcher's Conservative government (1979–1990), which sought to combat persistent high —reaching 11.9% in 1984—by reducing rigidities imposed by trade unions and prior regulations. Key reforms included the Employment Acts of 1980 and 1982, which curtailed union powers and secondary , alongside the abolition of the Dock Labour Scheme in 1989, effectively reversing mid-20th-century "decasualisation" efforts aimed at stabilizing irregular work. This policy environment promoted zero-hour contracts as a tool for enhancing labor market flexibility, allowing employers to adjust staffing to economic conditions without fixed obligations, though such arrangements remained niche prior to the 1990s. Initially prevalent in sectors with inherent variability, such as , , and retail, zero-hour contracts saw limited uptake, comprising less than 1% of the workforce before the , reflecting their alignment with seasonal or unpredictable workloads rather than broad application. While subsequent directives on atypical work, like the Part-Time Work Directive (1997), influenced member states toward protections for , the UK's opt-outs—particularly from elements of the Directive (1993, implemented 1998)—preserved domestic flexibility, enabling the continuation of zero-hour practices without mandatory guarantees. This regulatory stance underscored the UK's prioritization of deregulation over harmonized EU standards during the early phase of adoption.

Growth and Policy Shifts

The prevalence of zero-hour contracts in the surged following the , with the number of workers on such arrangements rising from approximately 100,000 in 2000 to over 800,000 by late 2013, according to Labour Force Survey estimates. This expansion paralleled growth in low-skill service sectors like , retail, and care, where employers cited demand variability—exacerbated by post-recession economic uncertainty—as a driver for adopting flexible staffing models over fixed-hour commitments. Early 2010s scrutiny from trade unions, who highlighted risks of income unpredictability, prompted calls for regulatory intervention and the development of voluntary industry codes emphasizing fair notice of shifts and exclusivity clause avoidance. However, empirical surveys indicated substantial voluntary participation, particularly among students (over 40% of zero-hour workers) and part-time employees seeking supplemental or flexible hours without full-time obligations. The (2010–2015) responded with a 2013–2014 review and consultation receiving over 36,000 submissions, which found insufficient evidence of systemic exploitation to justify banning zero-hour contracts outright. Instead, it prioritized transparency reforms, mandating clear contract disclosure and prohibiting "exclusivity" clauses that barred workers from other , while endorsing their role in accommodating atypical labor needs in expanding gig-like service roles. This approach aligned with data showing average weekly hours of 25 among zero-hour workers, often matching preferences for work-life balance in non-core .

Prevalence and Empirical Data

Usage Statistics

In the , approximately 1.03 million people were employed on zero-hours contracts as their main job during April to June 2024, equating to 3.1% of the total workforce. By early 2025, this number had risen to around 1.17 million workers, representing about 3.4% of all employed individuals, marking a record high following steady growth from pre-pandemic levels. Prevalence is notably higher among younger workers, with 11.6% of those aged 16 to 24 on zero-hours contracts in 2024, compared to lower rates in older age groups. This demographic pattern aligns with broader trends showing elevated usage among part-time employees, though absolute numbers have fluctuated without a clear post-2019 decline. Empirical data indicate that zero-hours roles exhibit turnover rates approximately 25% higher than fixed-hour positions, based on labor market analyses of job duration and separation. Conversely, these vacancies attract 25% more job applications per opening than permanent roles, suggesting sustained worker interest despite the variability.

Sectoral and Demographic Patterns

Zero-hour contracts are most prevalent in sectors characterized by variable demand and shift-based work, such as accommodation and food services (hospitality), where 28.8% of the workforce was employed under such arrangements in 2025. followed with 16.8% usage in the same year, reflecting needs for on-call staffing in residential and community settings. Retail and also show notable adoption, driven by seasonal fluctuations and part-time scheduling, while and exhibit low reliance, under 5% in most estimates, due to requirements for consistent production or client-facing commitments. Demographically, zero-hour contracts disproportionately affect younger workers, with approximately 478,000 individuals aged 16-24 on such terms in 2025, representing about 13% of that age group's employed population. Women are 1.2 times more likely than men to hold these contracts, often aligning with childcare responsibilities or flexible preferences. Ethnic minorities are overrepresented, comprising one in six zero-hour workers despite forming one in nine of the overall , linked to entry-level roles in high-usage sectors and migration-related flexibility demands. Surveys indicate that many in these groups, particularly students and part-time seekers, value the arrangements for accommodating studies or other commitments, with zero-hour workers reporting superior work-life balance and wellbeing compared to permanent employees. Following , zero-hour contract usage temporarily declined in demand-sensitive sectors like due to reduced operations, but rebounded post-2021 as recovery emphasized flexible staffing. platforms such as saw parallel growth in variable-hour work, though these typically operate via rather than formal zero-hour contracts, blurring lines with traditional models while appealing to similar demographic segments seeking supplemental income.

Economic Rationale and Benefits

Flexibility for Employers

Zero-hour contracts provide employers with the operational flexibility to adjust workforce size and hours in response to fluctuating , avoiding commitments to fixed hours or guaranteed pay during low-activity periods. This arrangement enables precise matching of labor supply to real-time needs, particularly in sectors with seasonal or unpredictable workloads such as and retail, where employers can summon workers only as required without incurring idle-time costs. By eliminating obligations for minimum hours, these contracts lower fixed labor expenditures, allowing firms to minimize liabilities when demand dips and scale up efficiently during peaks. For small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), zero-hour contracts reduce entry barriers to hiring by curtailing upfront recruitment and training investments, as employers maintain an on-call pool of available workers rather than committing to permanent roles amid uncertain cash flows. This facilitates easier access to entry-level labor in low-skill markets, potentially mitigating by enabling quicker job creation without the risks of overstaffing. Empirical models of frictional labor markets indicate that such flexible arrangements prevent higher joblessness, as their absence would leave certain workers—estimated at 3-4% in affected segments—outside the due to mismatched preferences for variability. Research from the London School of Economics demonstrates that the flexibility of zero-hour contracts compensates for elevated turnover rates by drawing larger applicant pools: job postings for these roles attract approximately 25% more candidates than equivalent permanent positions, easing challenges in competitive, low-skill sectors. This influx offsets churn, as the absence of hour guarantees appeals to a broader range of potential hires seeking variable scheduling, thereby enhancing employers' ability to fill vacancies rapidly and sustain operational responsiveness.

Advantages for Workers

Zero-hour contracts provide workers with scheduling flexibility that facilitates better accommodation of personal commitments, such as or caregiving, leading to reported improvements in work-life balance. According to a 2022 CIPD analysis of UK Working Lives survey data from 2019–2021, zero-hour contract employees experience less work-life conflict (19%) compared to other employees (25%), attributed to the ability to separate work and non-work time more distinctly. This flexibility appeals particularly to groups with variable availability, including students and parents. For instance, 23% of full-time students aged 16–24 in the UK are employed on zero-hour contracts, allowing them to supplement income around academic schedules without fixed commitments. Similarly, workers with caring responsibilities or fluctuating health conditions report voluntary selection of such arrangements to match unpredictable needs, with 80% expressing satisfaction with their specific contracts. Worker satisfaction metrics further indicate that zero-hour arrangements meet preferences for many, countering predominant insecurity concerns. CIPD data shows 62% job satisfaction among zero-hour workers, nearly matching the 66% for other employees, while a 2013 YouGov survey of over 2,500 UK workers found zero-hour employees equally satisfied overall and more content with hours flexibility than the national average. Empirical examples, such as McDonald's 2021 trial offering guaranteed hours, reveal a majority of affected workers opted to retain zero-hour flexibility, underscoring choice-driven uptake. Additionally, job postings for zero-hour roles attract 25% more applicants than equivalent permanent positions, signaling perceived value in the adaptability for supplemental or entry-level employment. These patterns hold despite lower adjusted hourly pay (6% less after controlling for job characteristics), as the trade-off favors autonomy for select demographics over guaranteed hours.

Broader Labor Market Effects

Zero-hour contracts form a key component of the United Kingdom's flexible labor market, which has been associated with relatively low rates compared to . For instance, the UK's overall unemployment rate stood at 4.7% in the second quarter of 2025, below the average of around 6%, with (ages 15-24) at approximately 12% in the UK versus an EU rate of 15% as of December 2024. This flexibility, including zero-hour arrangements, facilitates rapid matching of labor supply to demand fluctuations, particularly in sectors like and retail, thereby sustaining higher employment levels amid economic volatility. Macroeconomic models and empirical analyses indicate that zero-hour contracts generate net positive welfare effects through expanded job creation, outweighing income volatility for a minority of workers. A computational general equilibrium model simulating a ban on such contracts predicts a 2 to 2.7 rise in within low-wage labor segments, as employers reduce hiring due to heightened fixed costs. Similarly, frictional labor market simulations reveal that these contracts enable workforce participation for about 4% of workers who would otherwise exit the market without flexible options, boosting aggregate without displacing standard contracts. While some studies note mixed outcomes, the dominant mechanism operates via lowered entry barriers for firms facing , leading to greater overall labor utilization. The prevalence of zero-hour contracts also underpins growth in the , which contributed £20 billion to economic output in recent years, equivalent to the sector's impact. This expansion, comprising about 1.4% of total , relies on the absence of guaranteed hours to scale operations dynamically, with limited evidence of systemic exploitation; for example, only around 6% of work contracts lack minimum hour guarantees, and enforcement data suggest breaches are not the norm across audited cases. Such arrangements thus support broader market efficiency by accommodating variable workloads, correlating with sustained low despite critiques of individual-level risks.

Criticisms and Empirical Challenges

Insecurity and Income Volatility

Workers on zero-hour contracts face earnings from variable hours, which experimental data shows can diminish labor supply even when expected pay remains equivalent or higher. A 2020 experiment by the Institute for Social and Economic Research (ISER), involving 301 low-income, working-age participants, simulated zero-hour-like conditions with a 50% chance of work availability across 26 rounds of real-effort tasks; this reduced participants' willingness to work by 15-30 percentage points compared to certain-hour scenarios. Low-income individuals exhibited stronger aversion, opting out of uncertain options despite opportunities for double pay rates. In practice, this aligns with high hour variability in sectors like domiciliary care, where zero-hour arrangements predominate and shifts fluctuate based on client demand, exacerbating income instability for affected workers. Income volatility under zero-hour contracts complicates financial planning, as irregular earnings hinder verification of stable required by lenders. Workers often encounter barriers to securing mortgages, loans, or rentals due to the challenge of proving consistent pay, with parliamentary evidence highlighting cases where such proof is deemed "difficult, if not impossible." This issue is compounded for those reliant on zero-hour work as their primary , limiting access to despite average earnings histories that might otherwise qualify. Certain studies associate zero-hour contracts with heightened stress and adverse outcomes, including poorer self-reported mental , though effects vary by individual circumstances like contract choice and . Analysis of longitudinal data from 2017 found young adults on such contracts at elevated risk for poor compared to permanent employees, independent of socioeconomic controls. A review of 17 studies identified consistent links to stress in eight cases, particularly among involuntary users, but noted moderation where contracts were selected for flexibility or paired with higher hourly rates. These correlations do not imply causation for all holders, as factors such as preexisting vulnerabilities influence outcomes.

Allegations of Exploitation

Critics allege that zero-hour contracts enable employer overreach through practices such as requiring workers to remain on-call without compensation or cancelling shifts at short without penalties, thereby shifting operational risks onto employees. The (TUC), a federation advocating for worker protections, has highlighted cases where hundreds of thousands remain on such contracts for years, interpreting prolonged use as evidence of rather than choice. However, parliamentary submissions and employer surveys indicate these patterns are not uniformly exploitative, with many arrangements reflecting genuine demand fluctuations in sectors like and care, where fixed commitments would be impractical. Wage suppression is another focal point, with zero-hour workers earning a median hourly rate of approximately £10.68 compared to £15.69 for those on fixed contracts, a gap of about 32% that proponents of reform attribute to imbalances. This disparity, however, aligns with selection effects in low-skill, entry-level roles predominant among zero-hour users, such as accommodation and services, where baseline pay is structurally lower regardless of contract type; the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) notes that zero-hour pay averages 57% of non-zero-hour equivalents in some datasets, but cautions against isolating without accounting for occupational sorting. Higher annual turnover rates, around 30% in affected sectors like social care, further suggest mismatches or voluntary exits rather than systemic , as trapped workers would exhibit lower mobility. Empirical indicators of are limited, with data showing high voluntary retention—most zero-hour workers stay with the same employer for over a year—and 25% more job applicants for such roles than fixed positions, implying perceived net benefits over exploitation. While isolated non-compliance exists, such as exclusivity clauses barring secondary work (affecting a minority per CIPD findings), broader compliance with legal terms predominates, distinguishing demand-driven flexibility from widespread ; consultations affirm that zero-hour correlates more with sector volatility than enforced .

Evidence on Worker Preferences

A 2022 survey by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) found that 62% of zero-hour contract employees reported satisfaction with their jobs, compared to 66% of employees on other types, with zero-hour workers exhibiting higher reported work-life balance and scores. Additionally, 80% of zero-hour workers expressed satisfaction with their arrangements, though analyses claim around two-thirds prefer guaranteed hours. These figures indicate that while not universal, a majority derive net utility from the flexibility, particularly among students, caregivers, and those with variable personal commitments who prioritize over predictability. Labor market dynamics further evidence voluntary preference: zero-hour roles receive approximately 25% more job applications than comparable permanent positions, suggesting workers weigh flexibility benefits against risks like income volatility. Retention supports this, with two-thirds of zero-hour workers remaining with the same employer for over 12 months, implying low involuntary exit rates and satisfaction sufficient to sustain engagement. Experimental confirms aversion—workers facing a 50% chance of zero hours are 15-30 percentage points less likely to accept work even at double pay rates—but real-world participation implies such aversion is often offset by implicit premiums, scheduling control, or alignment with transient life stages, as higher applicant volumes and voluntary uptake persist. Critics emphasizing exploitation overlook these patterns, where elevated turnover partly reflects transitions to superior opportunities rather than dissatisfaction, and media amplification of outlier cases—often from advocacy-driven sources—contrasts with aggregate satisfaction metrics treating zero-hour arrangements as a rational market signal of diverse worker needs. Business-oriented analyses, such as those from the Institute of Directors, frame sustained demand and supply as evidence of mutual gains from flexibility, underscoring that preferences vary by demographics like age and sector, with empirical job satisfaction not markedly inferior despite theoretical risks.

Regulatory Responses

UK Framework and Enforcement

Zero-hour contracts in the fall under the , which provides foundational protections for workers irrespective of the absence of guaranteed hours, including entitlement to the National Minimum Wage for all hours worked and statutory paid annual leave accruing from the first day of engagement. The Regulations 1998 further apply, granting rights to rest breaks during shifts and, where opted into, limits on average weekly working hours, ensuring basic safeguards against excessive demands even in variable arrangements. These entitlements underscore that zero-hour engagements operate within a structured legal environment, not unchecked discretion, with workers classified as such retaining core statutory rights akin to those in more stable roles. Exclusivity clauses prohibiting workers from accepting other employment were prohibited under section 27A of the , as amended by the Exclusivity Terms in Zero Hours Contracts (Unenforceable Terms) Regulations 2015, which took effect on 26 May 2015; any such terms are void, and workers cannot suffer detriment for seeking alternative work. The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service () offers guidance on equitable implementation, advising employers to specify in contracts that no work is obligatory, to allocate shifts fairly without , and to avoid using zero-hour terms for permanent core functions, thereby promoting transparency and mutual flexibility. Enforcement occurs primarily through civil mechanisms, with affected workers able to pursue remedies via tribunals for violations such as unpaid wages, denied holidays, or retaliatory detriment, following initial internal resolution or early conciliation; tribunals can award compensation or order compliance, addressing issues like sham to evade obligations. This tribunal-based system, supplemented by oversight for compliance, maintains accountability without rendering the contract type inherently precarious under baseline law.

Recent Reforms and Debates (2010s–2025)

In December 2013, the government under Business Secretary launched a consultation on zero-hours contracts following a of their and impacts, which closed in March 2014 after receiving over 30,000 responses. The rejected outright bans, citing that such contracts provided mutual flexibility in sectors with variable , and instead led to targeted measures like the 2015 ban on exclusivity clauses that prevented workers from taking alternative employment. Usage of zero-hours contracts subsequently rose, with reported numbers increasing by 75% from 2013 levels by 2022, amid ongoing scrutiny from unions and policymakers. The Labour government's Employment Rights Bill, introduced to on October 10, 2024, marked a significant escalation in reforms by targeting "exploitative" zero-hours practices. Key provisions include a "right to request" guaranteed hours for zero-hours and low-hours workers who have regularly worked a qualifying pattern over a 12-week reference period, requiring employers to offer a reflecting average hours to avoid one-sided variability. The Bill also prohibits employers from reverting qualifying workers to zero hours after providing guaranteed ones without just cause, extends measures to agency workers via a separate consultation, and mandates written statements detailing terms from day one of . Implementation for zero-hours reforms is slated for late 2026 or 2027, pending parliamentary passage and secondary legislation, with the Bill undergoing Lords amendments as of September 2025. Debates surrounding highlighted tensions between enhancing worker security and preserving labor market flexibility. Proponents, including Labour and unions like the TUC, argued the changes would benefit over 1 million workers—92.5% of whom on zero-hours contracts in recent data would qualify for guaranteed hours—by curbing patterns of long-term irregular work, as evidenced by TUC analysis showing many such workers remain with the same employer for over a year. Business groups and employer representatives countered that mandatory guaranteed hours could deter hiring in fluctuating industries like and retail, increasing fixed costs and administrative burdens, with parliamentary testimony noting reforms (linked to zero-hours shifts) as posing the largest negative impact on businesses. Critics, drawing on economic modeling, warned that restricting zero-hours availability might elevate by reducing entry-level opportunities, as such contracts facilitate quick matching in frictional markets without net welfare improvements for workers overall. Empirical evidence underscores trade-offs in these reforms: while zero-hours roles correlate with volatility and 11 points higher likelihood of short-notice scheduling, they attract 25% more job applicants than equivalent permanent positions, signaling demand for their flexibility despite lower and higher turnover. Surveys of zero-hours workers from the indicate slightly higher and work-life balance compared to standard contracts, suggesting not all view them as inherently detrimental. Post-reform pilots or analogs, such as sector-specific guaranteed hours trials, have shown mixed uptake, with some workers opting to retain zero-hours for variable preferences, implying that universal mandates could diminish the voluntary flexibility driving their persistence in low-wage sectors. These findings imply reforms may bolster security for irregular workers but risk contracting overall opportunities, particularly without of spillover wage suppression from zero-hours usage.

International Comparisons

Adoption in Other Countries

In Ireland, zero-hour contracts are permitted under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997, which defines them as arrangements requiring availability without guaranteed hours, though empirical studies indicate their prevalence remains limited compared to the United Kingdom. Similarly, Canada employs casual labor contracts as functional equivalents, where workers are engaged without minimum hour guarantees and called upon as needed, particularly in sectors like retail and services, with provincial variations in regulation but no federal prohibition. New Zealand saw widespread adoption of zero-hour contracts prior to 2016, often in and retail, but legislative reforms under the Employment Standards Legislation Act, effective April 1, 2016, effectively banned them by prohibiting requirements for availability without corresponding guaranteed minimum payments or reasonable hours offers. In the United States, direct zero-hour contracts are uncommon due to the prevalence of doctrines allowing flexible scheduling, with on-call arrangements serving as analogs where workers must remain available without pay unless called in, subject to Fair Labor Standards Act interpretations on compensable waiting time determined case-by-case. Australia utilizes casual employment as a close variant, entitling workers to a 25% loading premium in lieu of leave but imposing award-based restrictions that generally preclude pure zero-hour rosters without minimum shift provisions or conversion rights after consistent hours. Adoption remains negligible in countries with rigid labor frameworks, such as and , where statutes prohibit zero-hour arrangements by mandating shared economic risk and minimum employment security, reinforced by strong union influence and dismissal protections. This rigidity correlates with elevated rates—reaching 25% in versus alignment with overall rates in more flexible systems like Germany's—highlighting barriers to entry-level hiring.

Policy Variations and Outcomes

In , the Relations Amendment Act of 2016 prohibited pure zero-hour contracts by mandating guaranteed minimum hours for employees with predictable patterns of work, aiming to curb employer-driven scheduling uncertainty. Empirical analysis post-reform found a decline in the prevalence of casual and non-standard arrangements, but no significant adverse effects on overall employment levels or rates within 12 months of implementation. Ireland's approach retains flexibility in "if and when" contracts—functionally akin to zero-hour arrangements—while imposing safeguards such as compensation for workers reporting for duty without available shifts and bans on exclusivity clauses preventing supplementary employment. A 2016 government study identified these contracts' persistence in sectors with fluctuating demand, like , attributing usage to non-standard hours and variability rather than exploitation, with no evidence of widespread displacement to formal alternatives. Cross-country data reveal that jurisdictions permitting greater contractual flexibility, such as the UK and US, correlate with elevated employment-to-population ratios—often exceeding 70% in the UK—compared to more prescriptive EU frameworks averaging closer to 65-70%, where rigid guarantees may deter hiring in entry-level roles. This flexibility facilitates access for marginalized groups, contributing to lower NEET rates in flexible systems; for example, UK youth NEET stood at around 11% in recent years versus EU averages nearing 13-15% in regulated states. Simulations from frictional labor market models indicate that outright bans elevate by 2-2.7 percentage points in low-wage segments and may spur informal arrangements, as employers evade regulations through undeclared work without resolving underlying income volatility. Such outcomes underscore that while restrictions enhance formal protections, they often fail to boost job creation or security absent complementary measures like demand-side incentives.

References

  1. https://www.gov.uk/contract-types-and-employer-responsibilities/zero-hour-contracts
  2. https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/datasets/emp17peopleinemploymentonzerohourscontracts
  3. https://www.statista.com/statistics/407833/share-zero-hour-contracts-industry/
  4. https://www.cipd.org/en/about/press-releases/110822-cipd-zero-hours-contracts-research/
  5. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/feb/03/most-zero-hours-workers-with-same-employer-for-more-than-a-year
  6. https://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/files/working-papers/iser/2020-10.pdf
  7. https://ogletree.com/international-employment-update/articles/june-2019/norway/2019-05-20/norway-new-legislation-prohibits-zero-hour-contracts/
  8. https://igloballaw.com/news-and-events/employment-law/zero-hours-contracts/
  9. https://www.acas.org.uk/zero-hours-contracts
  10. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/zero-hours-contracts-guidance-for-employers/zero-hours-contracts-guidance-for-employers
  11. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06553/
  12. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/26/part/11/crossheading/exclusivity-in-zero-hours-contracts
  13. https://www.cipd.org/globalassets/media/knowledge/knowledge-hub/guides/zero-hours-contracts-guide-web-2021_tcm18-10706.pdf
  14. https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2018-0160
  15. https://historyandpolicy.org/policy-papers/papers/flexible-employment-and-casual-labour-a-historical-perspective-on-labour-ma/
  16. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-19592412
  17. https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/app/uploads/2014/08/A_Matter_of_Time_-_The_rise_of_zero-hours_contracts_final_1.pdf
  18. https://www.cipd.org/globalassets/media/knowledge/knowledge-hub/reports/zero-hours-contracts-report-aug-2022_tcm18-110465.pdf
  19. https://journals.openedition.org/rdctss/2557
  20. https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/articles/contractsthatdonotguaranteeaminimumnumberofhours/april2018
  21. https://www.ilo.org/media/417816/download
  22. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-24017011
  23. https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/articles/contractsthatdonotguaranteeaminimumnumberofhours/mar2017
  24. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-crackdown-on-zero-hours-contract-abusers
  25. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/zero-hours-contracts-consultation-closes-with-over-30000-responses
  26. https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06553/SN06553.pdf
  27. https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/work-foundation/news/marked-increase-in-the-use-of-zero-hour-contracts-as-figures-hit-117-million
  28. https://www.statista.com/statistics/414981/employees-with-zero-hours-contracts-share/
  29. https://www.statista.com/statistics/398569/share-of-employed-population-zero-hour-contracts-age/
  30. https://www.lse.ac.uk/news/latest-news-from-lse/j-october-2024/zero-hour-contract-jobs-have-lower-wages-and-higher-turnover-but-the-flexibility-attracts-more-applicants
  31. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/67e429cf2621ba30ed9776d1/zero-hours-contracts.pdf
  32. https://www.statista.com/statistics/398509/number-of-employees-zero-hours-contracts-age/
  33. https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/news/new-analysis-reveals-uk-continues-to-fall-behind-rest-of-world-as-zero-hour-contracts-reach-record-numbers-and-its-young-people-bearing-the-brunt
  34. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jun/13/zero-hours-contracts-trapping-women-of-colour-on-low-pay
  35. https://www.britsafe.org/safety-management/2024/working-in-precarious-times-the-gig-economy-and-zero-hours-contracts
  36. https://academic.oup.com/economicpolicy/article/34/99/369/5524663
  37. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014292123002611
  38. https://cirano.qc.ca/files/publications/2022s-04.pdf
  39. https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/126748/1/dp2039.pdf
  40. https://yougov.co.uk/society/articles/7967-zero-hour-contracts-unfairly-demonised-and-oversim
  41. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn02800/
  42. https://www.facebook.com/socialeurope/posts/-in-december-2024-the-youth-unemployment-rate-was-150-in-the-eucountries-with-th/1066534005514915/
  43. https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/less-or-more-zero-zero-hours-contracts-uk
  44. https://docs.iza.org/dp14979.pdf
  45. https://www.bristol.ac.uk/efm/media/workingpapers/working_papers/pdffiles/dp22763.pdf
  46. https://standout-cv.com/stats/gig-economy-statistics-uk
  47. https://www.cipd.org/globalassets/media/knowledge/knowledge-hub/reports/2023-pdfs/2023-cipd-gig-economy-report-8453.pdf
  48. https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/48422/html/
  49. https://www.onlinemortgageadvisor.co.uk/income-types/mortgages-for-people-on-zero-hour-contracts/
  50. https://cls.ucl.ac.uk/being-on-a-zero-hours-contract-is-bad-for-your-health-new-study-reveals/
  51. https://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/sites/default/files/2022-12/MHF_ZHC-Report_Plain-English_Summary.pdf
  52. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjir.12773
  53. https://www.tuc.org.uk/news/tuc-hundreds-thousands-workers-stuck-zero-hours-contracts-years-end
  54. https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/50107/html/
  55. https://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/news/2018/september/social-care-sector-zero-hour-contracts-high-turnover-and-mainly-british
  56. https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/making-work-pay-the-application-of-zero-hours-contracts-measures-to-agency-workers/consultation-on-the-application-of-zero-hours-contracts-measures-to-agency-workers-web-accessible-version
  57. https://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/article/1904983/two-thirds-zero-hours-workers-employer-year-more-tuc-finds-%25E2%2580%2593-ban-solution
  58. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/18/section/27A
  59. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2023/02/24/banning-zero-hours-contracts-may-not-work-but-regulation-can-help-make-jobs-less-precarious/
  60. https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/politics/zero-hour-contracts-rayner-starmer-b2206250.html
  61. https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/analysis/employment-rights-bill-timeline-autumn-2025-onwards
  62. https://www.acas.org.uk/employment-rights-bill
  63. https://www.lewissilkin.com/en/insights/2025/03/13/employment-rights-bill-unpacked-will-guaranteed-hours-guarantee-flexibility-for-both-parties
  64. https://www.bevanbrittan.com/insights/articles/2025/zero-hours-contracts-and-the-employment-rights-bill/
  65. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10334/
  66. https://www.shoosmiths.com/insights/articles/will-employers-be-able-to-use-zero-and-low-hours-workers-going-forwards
  67. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/sep/29/more-than-1m-uk-workers-to-gain-more-rights-under-employment-bill-says-thinktank
  68. https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-09-16/debates/596EC3F7-5C45-4242-BFED-41CB0C81B4D0/EmploymentRightsImpactOnBusinesses
  69. https://www.cipd.org/uk/views-and-insights/thought-leadership/insight/views-on-zero-hours-contracts/
  70. https://www.cipd.org/globalassets/media/knowledge/knowledge-hub/reports/zero-hours-contracts_2013-myth-reality_tcm18-10710.pdf
  71. https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/100538/1/nd_gg_sm_march_2019.pdf
  72. https://enterprise.gov.ie/en/publications/publication-files/study-on-the-prevalence-of-zero-hours-contracts.pdf
  73. https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/employment-rights-and-conditions/contracts-of-employment/zero-hours-contracts/
  74. https://ebsource.ca/casual-contract-in-canada/
  75. https://timewellscheduled.com/blog/canadian-employment-law-for-retail-businesses-updated-2022/
  76. https://www.mbie.govt.nz/business-and-employment/employment-and-skills/employment-legislation-reviews/employment-standards-legislation-act
  77. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/11/zero-hour-contracts-banned-in-new-zealand
  78. https://webapps.dol.gov/elaws/whd/flsa/hoursworked/screenEr80.asp
  79. https://sprintlaw.com.au/articles/minimum-weekly-hours-for-casual-employees-australian-employers-guide/
  80. https://www.fairwork.gov.au/starting-employment/types-of-employees/casual-employees
  81. https://www.globalworkplaceinsider.com/2016/09/what-rights-and-protections-are-there-for-workers-on-zero-hours-contracts-in-germany/
  82. https://www.robert-schuman.eu/en/european-issues/260-labour-in-france-and-germany-opposite-strategies
  83. https://izajoels.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-9012-2-18
  84. https://wol.iza.org/news/new-zealand-bans-zerohours-contracts
  85. https://www.tuc.org.uk/blogs/ban-zero-hours-contracts-victory-irish-unions
  86. https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/gla_migrate_files_destination/Current%2520Issues%2520Note%252045.pdf
  87. https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/economic-bulletin/focus/2022/html/ecb.ebbox202108_02~0b5bde72b4.en.html
  88. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Statistics_on_young_people_neither_in_employment_nor_in_education_or_training
  89. https://www.esr.ie/article/view/2574/773
  90. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/264154/1/2022_02_docdt_eco.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.