Using zero-hour contracts responsibly

In the run-up to the General Election, some commentators portrayed zero-hour contracts negatively, as a way for employers to extract labour without any reciprocal commitment.

But actually, zero-hour contracts are extremely useful for SMEs who need to source workers quickly and easily with minimal lead time, and their flexibility is also of benefit to employees who have other non-work related responsibilities, such as parents who are able to change their availability in line with demand.

The issue: ‘exclusivity clauses’

The biggest problem with zero-hour contracts is the use of ‘exclusivity clauses’. These prevent workers from seeking employment elsewhere. Employees bound by one of these contracts are only paid when working for that one employer, creating a potential ethical mis-step for businesses using such clauses to tie-in workers for long term agreements. If the worker is contractually excluded from supplementing their work, they are likely not to be able to afford to pay their own living expenses.

Ethically responsible contracts

Rather than dumping zero-hour contracts however, the Federation of Small Businesses suggest that employers minimise the use of exclusivity clauses, or remove them altogether. These modified zero-hour contracts retain the same flexibility that is desirable for employers and employees – with the added bonus that they provide extra room for manoeuvre by both parties as they seek the resources or pay they need to balance work and budget for business success.

Such new-style zero-hour contracts, without exclusivity clauses, are not only ethically responsible (which reflects well on a business that offers them as a potential employer, and so could attract a higher calibre of freelancer), but are a win-win for workers and SME owners alike.