Close to 600,000 workers or 2 per cent of the workforce are employed on a zero-hours contract. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

We should reform zero-hours contracts, not ban them

Abuse needs to be addressed, but we must maintain flexibility for employers and workers.

There is still much that we don’t fully know about zero-hours contracts – contracts that do not guarantee any hours of work. Estimates about the number of people working on zero-hours contracts vary significantly and the jury is out as to whether their use is cyclical (driven by years of economic downturn), structural (a permanent feature of the labour market) or both. But there is already enough evidence of misuse to create a strong case for action on certain fronts to improve security for workers, while rejecting an outright ban. Our new report, Zeroing In, puts forward a set of recommendations for the reform of zero-hours contracts, including, but going beyond, a ban on exclusivity clauses already suggested by the government.

The latest estimate from the Office for National Statistics is that close to 600,000 workers or 2 per cent of the workforce are employed on a zero-hours contract. Health and social care, hospitality and administration account for over 50 per cent of these workers. Zero-hours contracts are intended to offer flexibility to employers and workers. Employers can quickly change their staffing levels at no cost and workers can work when they choose, helping to balance family and other commitments. However, in reality, a quarter of those on zero-hours contracts work a fixed pattern of hours each week; a third of employers expect workers to be available for work at all times; and four out of ten zero-hours workers would like to work  more. Flexibility for employers too often comes at the expense of workers.

To address this imbalance, anyone who has been employed on a zero-hours contract for at least a year and works a relatively consistent pattern of hours should have the right to a fixed-hours contract, if they choose. Under these circumstances, zero-hours contracts are not being used to respond to changes in demand. Workers are simply being denied employment rights to which they are entitled, such as Statutory Sick Pay and paternity and maternity leave. Introducing this right after 12 months rather than 12 weeks, as has been suggested, recognises that employers need time to plan how best to use their staff.

We should also extend the right to a set of employment terms to all workers not just employees. This would help to address the fact that anecdotally many people who take up a zero-hours contract do not know they have no guaranteed hours  until their hours are cut and are frequently not aware of their entitlements. In addition, Acas should work with business representatives and unions to set out a good practice guide to increase employer awareness of how to use zero-hours contracts fairly and more funding should be available for enforcement to proactively clamp down on employers who misuse these zero-hours contracts.

This is a deliberately cautious approach, seeking to address abuse, while maintaining flexibility for employers. As the recovery strengthens and the data on zero-hours contracts becomes clearer, we will need to keep the situation under review. If improvements are not forthcoming, a stronger, more statutory approach could be justified.

Vidhya Alakeson is deputy chief executive of the Resolution Foundation

Wikipedia.
Show Hide image

Daniel Hannan harks back to the days of empire - the Angevin Empire

Did the benign rule of some 12th century English kings make western France vote Macron over Le Pen?

I know a fair amount about British politics; I know a passable amount about American politics, too. But, as with so many of my fellow Britons, in the world beyond that, I’m lost.

So how are we, the monolingual Anglophone opinionators of the world, meant to interpret a presidential election in a country where everyone is rude enough to conduct all their politics in French?

Luckily, here’s Daniel Hannan to help us:

I suppose we always knew Dan still got a bit misty eyed at the notion of the empire. I just always thought it was the British Empire, not the Angevin one, that tugged his heartstrings so.

So what exactly are we to make of this po-faced, historically illiterate, geographically illiterate, quite fantastically stupid, most Hannan-y Hannan tweet of all time?

One possibility is that this was meant as a serious observation. Dan is genuinely saying that the parts of western France ruled by Henry II and sons in the 12th century – Brittany, Normandy, Anjou, Poitou, Aquitaine – remain more moderate than those to the east, which were never graced with the touch of English greatness. This, he is suggesting, is why they generally voted for Emmanuel Macron over Marine Le Pen.

There are a number of problems with this theory. The first is that it’s bollocks. Western France was never part of England – it remained, indeed, a part of a weakened kingdom of France. In some ways it would be more accurate to say that what really happened in 1154 was that some mid-ranking French nobles happened to inherit the English Crown.

Even if you buy the idea that England is the source of all ancient liberties (no), western France is unlikely to share its political culture, because it was never a part of the same polity: the two lands just happened to share a landlord for a while.

As it happens, they didn’t even share it for very long. By 1215, Henry’s youngest son John had done a pretty good job of losing all his territories in France, so that was the end of the Angevins. The English crown reconquered  various bits of France over the next couple of centuries, but, as you may have noticed, it hasn’t been much of a force there for some time now.

At any rate: while I know very little of French politics, I’m going to go out on a limb and guess the similarities between yesterday's electoral map and the Angevin Empire were a coincidence. I'm fairly confident that there have been other factors which have probably done more to shape the French political map than a personal empire that survived for the length of one not particularly long human life time 800 years ago. Some wars. Industrialisation. The odd revolution. You know the sort of thing.

If Daniel Hannan sucks at history, though, he also sucks at geography, since chunks of territory which owed fealty to the English crown actually voted Le Pen. These include western Normandy; they also include Calais, which remained English territory for much longer than any other part of France. This seems rather to knacker Hannan’s thesis.

So: that’s one possibility, that all this was an attempt to make serious point; but, Hannan being Hannan, it just happened to be a quite fantastically stupid one.

The other possibility is that he’s taking the piss. It’s genuinely difficult to know.

Either way, he instantly deleted the tweet. Because he realised we didn’t get the joke? Because he got two words the wrong way round? Because he realised he didn’t know where Calais was?

We’ll never know for sure. I’d ask him but, y’know, blocked.

UPDATE: Breaking news from the frontline of the internet: 

It. Was. A. Joke.

My god. He jokes. He makes light. He has a sense of fun.

This changes everything. I need to rethink my entire world view. What if... what if I've been wrong, all this time? What if Daniel Hannan is in fact one of the great, unappreciated comic voices of our time? What if I'm simply not in on the joke?

What if... what if Brexit is actually... good?

Daniel, if you're reading this – and let's be honest, you are definitely reading this – I am so sorry. I've been misunderstanding you all this time.

I owe you a pint (568.26 millilitres).

Serious offer, by the way.

 

Jonn Elledge edits the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric, and writes for the NS about subjects including politics, history and Daniel Hannan. You can find him on Twitter or Facebook.

0800 7318496