Do you support the use of zero hour contracts?

0 hour contracts are good but employers should respect when they give them a particular set of hours for months/ years they shouldn’t suddenly drop the hours to nothing.

People should consider things such as mental health, disabilities and neurodiversities+ the type of work that people do when making people sign a contract.

There should be a limit on the number of people on 0 hours so a company cannot have all staff on the contract, just a few in a ‘bank’ contract to fill vacancies in essential services

Individuals should be given guaranteed hours unless they have specified that they want to be on a zero hours contract

Not mandatory, only zero hours contract for those who want it. Employee should not have to be on call

I’m most cases no as they don’t often have enough regulation but they can be helpful for some people - often younger people and students who just need some cash

this is a personal preference it should not be stopped but it should be optional all jobs should offer a minimum hours contract at least and then have the option for a zero hour contract for people who needs flexibility but are choosing at their own will there may not be hours for them

Don’t know what this means

i don’t understand this

Yes, with a higher minimum wage, no exclusivity clauses and other regulations to prevent employers who want the best of both worlds for themselves.

The workers all should contribute as much as they can and should control their own production. Abolish the minimum wage and make sure no rich or no poor exist

Yes but there should be a minimum number of hours someone has to do which can go up but never bellow.

Yes, but ban exclusivity caluses, gurantee a minimum number of hours and use it only for those seeking part time employment.

Yes but only for people aged 16-18 that have school or college so they they can focus ask for time of

Workers should be allowed zero hours contracts if that is what suits them, but companies should be banned from penalizing those who choose not to work when called, like bank staff.

Yes but make rules stricter to make companies follow contract and cannot fire a worker for following their contract

Yes, but only where the worker requests it. Zero hour contracts are beneficial to students and people living in different areas.

Yes, but only if the employee themselves requests for their fixed-hour contract to be changed to zero-hours. The employer reserves the right to refuse the request and keep the fixed-hour contract. If the employee no longer wants fixed-hours contract they are allowed to give notice in accordance with their existing fixed-hour contract.

I believe there must be some regulations as this will improve workplacement mental health issues etc without stress they would have to agree with the employee to allow them to be on call for specific reasons emergencies only use

More protection on workers rights and job security, force companies to remember it’s 0 hour both ways, you don’t owe them hours and the employees don’t owe you.

Yes, but employees should not be obliged to work hours offered at short notice. The contract should be beneficial to both parties, not just the employer.

I support it for students who work during the holidays but not for someone working to provide, for example, a family.

Again more complicated than yes or no. These are really helpful for students, but not if one depends on the income

Smaller companies yes because you have to pay for 2 sets of wages if someone is off ,but the larger companies should be able to take the hit.

Yes but that means if someone wants holiday or a sick day off - they should not be questioned as they have 0 hours on their contract. They can choose if they accept a shift or not. And if they accept it then they are then obliged to work the accepted shift

There are a few industries where it's impossible to guarantee hours. Zero hours contracts should only be allowed if this is proven to be the case for the specific role.

Yes - these are used in hospitality through the choice of our team who don’t want to have contracted hours. I think when used properly they serve a purpose, it’s bad employers that give them a bad reputation

I don’t think they should be abolished per say but I think the protection should be the same as any other contract.

Yes but allow within education sector as funding so poor and numbers and funding fluctuate you cannot guarantee jobs it allows for flexibility for employeee and employer to cover sudden educational needs

Yes as an option for people who may want this type of contract rather than a way of companies not employing people on contracts

Should never be the ONLY option as it keeps employees on the hook but with no commitment from the company.

Yes, but only for genuine ‘bank’ or casual workers. Limits should be set whereby a contract with average hours should be awarded after a set period

In some circumstances they suit the situation of employees and the organisation. I would not ban them but employees must have rights

No, and please use the correct term of flexible hours contracts. They are suitable in many situations.

Zero hours contracts can be mutually beneficial until they only benefit the employer. Policies should be put in place to protect the worker from receiving no income

ZHC can provide flexible work for those who need that flexibility. The problem is in the abuse of the contracts.

Yes - they are vital to keep students, single parents and others with requirements for lower working hours to have jobs

Zero hour contracts should only be allowed for small businesses in within a certain band of gross income.

No, but if it works for the person in question due to reasons they state then it should be looked into

Yes, but this needs to be regulated. If the person needs hours it needs to be changed but if they’re happy with part time or here and there hours then 0 hour is fine

Yes but only on a casual basis where it suits both employer & employee. Not for people who are expected to work all hours & be dropped when it suits the employer.

Yes, For those who find them helpful

I do not have enough knowledge on this.

Employers on zero hour contracts should receive 50% of minimum wage

no opinions on this

Yes, but it should be by mutual agreement

Ban exclusively clauses as a zero hours contracts should not inhibit the worker

Yes, subject to limited application to low-level and more seasonal roles

Works for some people but shouldn’t be imposed

Yes, but only if it is guaranteed that those of which have these contracts, especially young people, will not be given excessive hours and exploited for work

Depends on the size of the company

Should be banned straight away

Yes, if in the interest of both parties

Dunno what that means

Yes, but only for people who benefit from them the most (e.g. university students). In other circumstances, zero-hour contracts should be infrequently available.

Legislating zero-hour contracts is challenging. In some cases, such contracts can benefit both employers and employees, making it harder to distinguish when they are being misused. A possible solution could involve arbitration or introducing laws that limit how zero-hour contracts are structured, similar to how the Working Time Directive protects employees. For instance, making it illegal to offer such contracts in ways that exploit workers would provide clearer guidelines. Moreover, companies could be taken to court for unfair treatment, ensuring better protection for employees while maintaining flexibility where it's mutually beneficial.

Depends on each employee’s situation. Should be a binding contract for each employee and the company to ensure fair wages and satisfied requirements

There should be tighter laws around them to ensure people aren't being exploited, but I found being on zero hours contracts beneficial in some situations when I was younger, and know other young people who feel the same now, so think they serve a purpose.

Yes because there are freelancers and companies who benefit from the use of these contracts but this should be used ethically

I somewhat agree and somewhat disagree. I think that if it is a job that is being used just to get a little bit of extra money and you already have a job that you are securing it could be okay or if you are just a teenager looking for weekend or summer jobs as your first job, it would be okay, however I do believe that it is not okay to offer someone such as people who did not have access to education as a child or missed out on education because of abuse or difficult circumstances along with people who may have been imprisoned for something when they were young and gotten out therefore have…  Read more no education and will be less likely to be chosen for a job a zero hour contract as it lacks security and it may be the only job they have or can get. I also believe there should be tighter rules around the zero hour contract, so that less people are messed about and unjustly fired or laid off.

Yes but minimum wage should be in place and places of work should provide a minimum amount of hours weekly

Yes, if it’s down to personal choice, it can be very beneficial to some people if they don’t have set hours and can choose which days they want to work

Only where employees want them for flexibility, proper contracts should be available if the employee wants them.

Zeo hours should not be the only option for contracts so people don't get billed in to working stupid hours

Where they are used properly and work is ad hoc so it fits with the employees needs then yes, but if they are being used so that the work is regular but a 0 hour contract is used so the employee has different rights then no

Yes but only for those for whom zero hours is suited and make hourly wages higher so that it is more sustainable

There should be contract reviews in place for enhancing careers or finding out where the employee would like to take there employement, how much commitment to and from the company can be provided for a mutual benefit

I don't like them, but they have a place, they're just being abused. We should still ban exclusivity clauses and make the tax process easier on those with multiple jobs - no emergency tax codes that default to the max rate, etc.

Yes, but focus on improving employers ability to provide a supportive work environment and fair wage for their employees.

Yea but only for people who want flexible working roles who don’t need guaranteed hours and they should be entitled to the same benefits as a full time employee, like holiday and sickness depending on hours worked

Yes, but only if the employee had the ability to make decisions on when they work and the employer doesn’t have all the power

Yes but have it be a choice for those who require the flexibility and for the company if that flexibility works for them. But not for companies to take advantage of people on zero hour when it benefits them.

They should not be banned because I know from personal experience that there are situations where they benefit both sides. But they should be regulated to prevent abuse.

Ban restrictions to other employment, but zero hour contracts do work for some employees such as students

Yes if it exists to provide flexibility to a role but not if it means people can't be guarantee or at least have notice when there aren't going to be hours available for them

No, but companies should develop a system that can calculate hours worked to provide users with holiday pay or sick leave when required when a threshold has been hit.

People should be allowed to make their own choices, but laws need passing to give more rights to people who choose this way to work.

I think there should be more regulations around it, but know that 0 hours works well for some people that prefer less commitment

Yes but only for those seeking part time work and for industries such as tourism, hospitality where income is restricted to seasonal

No, they may be beneficial to those that have other commitments outside of work such as those studying at university

Yes but have to be paid or given a very good reason why not and why they have to take time off in the first place from the employer

Ban them in general except for people who specifically want them (for example, Bank only workers in hospitals).

Yes but people should be able to opt for either. I like my zero hour contract but others need more security.

Yes, but only if they pay a high minimum hourly rate to offset the insecurity of the work availability.

Yes because they are sometimes necessary for bank work, but not for industries and jobs where they are simply used for exploitation.

Yes, but only for short term assignments. Where a person has been on a zero hours contract for 12 weeks or more, they should automatically be offered a fixed-term or permanent contract

No, custom contracts with a minimum number of hours should be made instead, similar to the variety of creativr commons licences created for combinatory use.

Very split dependent on circumstance - Zero hour contracts are very helpful for both companies on a tight spot and so using agencies to find people that can fill in, and for people (students especially) who are part time to help fund their lives but unable to tie themselves into contracts. However, they are used manipulatively by companies who are keen to sign workers but use a zero hour contract to negate any power the worker has over hours per week or which shifts to work, and this even goes as far as termination without explicitly telling the employee by just providing no shifts to work indefinitely

Yes if the Zero hours contract isn't your main source of income. No if the zero hours contract is your main source of income. some minimum guarantee would be appropriate.

Yes ban exclusivity clauses, these can be useful for casual worker and people with some medical conditions

They can be very beneficial fir people who want casual work, but should not be used to exploit people in the way that they are.

Yes, as it’s beneficial to some freelance workers who are blending various types of pursuits and work.

Yes but only when they are utilised appropriately in sectors that require zero hour contracts (eg security staff) or as part of flexible working options and chosen by the employees as the most suitable contract for them. Abuse of zero hour contracts should be the focus rather than banning them all together.

Yes but used appropriately and contracts should be offered if an employee requests it after a period of time on set hours.

I do for flexibility etc but don’t think 0 hour contracts should impact things like applying for a mortgage

Yes when it comes to younger people who want more flexible hours but less so for people trying to make a living out of their job

Yes but only for those seeking part time employment and job adverts should be transparent at listing as to what is required

Yes for people who need the flexibility, but it should be ensured that people are not being exploited or discriminated against.

Yes, but ban exclusivity and ensure employment rights of standard, typical employment contracts are mandatorily included.