Do you support the use of zero hour contracts?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don’t know what this means

No, remove the exclusivity clause and guarantee hours that is 16 hours or more.

Yes, but only in specific cases where it's a reasonable adjustment, such as where an individual has complex health needs and can only work ad hoc

it should require overtime pay for out of work use

Workers should be paid equally to constant employees to make up for the uncertainty.

Don’t know enough about to comment

Yes, but put zero-hours employees on a PAYE payroll rather than their having to register sel-employed, and ensure they are earning at least minimum wage

Fine for students or young workers who need flexibility

Yes, but only for industries where contracted hours are clearly anticipated

Yes, but ensure that anyone entering a zero hour contract is aware and has the choice to leave the contract at any time

Sometimes it's ok

If they have proper protection to the worker

Available as an option, everyone should be able to choose a contract with guaranteed hours

Its ok for people if they want a more flexible working pattern

Some jobs require that nature of hours but businesses should drive for contracted members

For second jobs

Yes, as long as employees are given greater help to tackle unjust uses.

Yes I do support but only offer to those who need the flexibility

Yes - but the employee should not feel pressurised

Work well for students but shouldn’t be used against people working full time hours

I think it's great for students and on an off workers to stay on the books rather than business taking the Mick out of the employee

Yes, but with fair opportunities to all contractors.

Not for students who want holiday work

payed for sick pay and hours worked, also maternity leave.

ONly for part time jobs

Yes, if that's what the employee wants

Yes, if you want strict hours you have strict hours if you want to go to work one day not go tomorrow you can do that Freedom of Choice

Yes, but only if the employee specifically requests it

People who want the ability to choose days and hours should be able to. Working parents.

only if the employee directly asks for one

Have to make a reasonable amount of money a year

should depend on the worker

Depends on the worker.

Depends on who is working

nuanced - some contractual work is based on seasonal activity and demand = not easy to rule either way

No, risk to certain people who may need more hours to help provide for themselves and their families

Yes so it’s a choice it should it be forced as long as it’s clear upfront

I honestly don't have an opinion

They work for some and not for others. However, I think they should pay for breaks.

Yes, if both parties are happy to

Yes, but only for bank workers

Ensure everyone has a minimum amount of hours

Only in cases where the employee chooses it.

Yes but only for people in education between the ages 18 - 25

There should be agreements of time that the employee should be called in, so that the employee wont get called in at 3 A.M

I'm in two minds about this. On one side, it's beneficial if you need the flexibility but on the other side, if you're a freelance worker (eg an actor) you need the stability/regular hours to pay the bills whilst auditioning, but then need the flexibility to be able to take an acting job and have a day job to come back to and not be left stranded with no way of paying for day to day living. So maybe it's less of a question of zero hours and more of a question of how flexible employers are - giving enough hours to live your life/having enough money but then having that time to enjoy it too and live your life how you want to.

Zero hours contracts should only be offered if the employee requests this first

Yes but a minimum time frame must given for rotas

Yes but only in regards to agencies as that is the nature of their work

No because part time and full time work already allow flexibility within hours also it’s more guaranteed work is not uncertain however if somebody is mentally or physically struggling than it should be like between the board and the person to figure out like that hours if they have a full-time job

Yes but they should only be by choice and not forced so you can’t not hire someone because they opt out.

Yes, but not as the standard. It should be for retirees or those looking for a little extra on the side

No, some companies have abused the use of zero-hour contracts. Some people working 3 jobs to just survive is no way to live. We need stable 39/42 hour contracts that people can depend on

I believe zero-hour contracts can be appropriate for genuinely casual work only, such as for those already in employment or in full-time education who want the flexibility to take on additional hours without relying on them as a main source of income.

I am concerned that zero-hour contracts are sometimes used inappropriately, where workers regularly work 20 hours or more each week but remain on a zero-hour contract. This can leave them vulnerable, as hours can be reduced to zero following disagreements or issues at work. This imbalance of power makes it difficult for workers to feel secure or treated fairly.

Yes - but only with ethical application. These contracts are vital for covering short term absences from e.g. teaching, nursing, doctors, social care and suit some who are partially retired and cannot commit to permanent full time work

The concept of the cobtract itself is fine, but it becomes a problem if people are struggling to find non zero hour contract jobs/when zero hour contracts dominate a certain industry or profession leaving people with no choice...

Yes, for those seeking part time such as students who may not always be available to carry out contracted hours (but still be given a guaranteed amount of hours during term time), and not at all for those seeking full time work.

I do, although you should be guaranteed the hours that are normal to you. If you only do a shift per month you shouldn't be guaranteed hours, but if you work 30 hours per week you should get those hours.

only people seeking part time, work may not always be available and they don’t know how much they will earn

I do not support them in theory, but I appreciate the need for both employers and employees to have one-off working needs. These need to be strictly regulated, and no employer would be allowed to rely on the same people more than once every 6 months (or similar). Also, there should be a 48 hour notice from both parties should the work not be able to happen.

Yes, but a company must eventually offer a substantive contract with a set amount based off average hours worked within a set amount of time (3 months?), to which the worker may accept or reject accordingly. If a worker then rejects and subsequently wishes to remain zero-hours they can do so. If they initially reject, allow workers to consult with their employer to request a substantive contract if they change their mind.

Yes, but only for those that have a hard time looking for a job, just been made redundant or those above retirement.

Only if employees choose to have a 0 hour contract and there should be a minimum amount of hours available if the employee wants them

Yes but it depends on the employees situation, For example if its a university student and they have a cousin working for a company and the cousin convinced his boss to hire his younger cousin to be a janitor on a 0 hour contract with half the minimum wage to make it fair then yes definetly. However its more complex then that and you need to be logical when someone wants a 0 hour contract and you need to know their situation. Its more on logic

No, people should be given minimum hour contracts of 16 or 30 hrs a week depending on wether you want part or full time work.

hmm I’d say a complex question.
Carona killed a lot of British people.
I hope this year will enable the world to get back to normal.
I’d also like to add god save the new English 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 king 🤴
warmest regards John s ballantyne x 😙
Dob march year 1980’s
Age currently the early gourties # just / whoop&yay (minor lol 😝)

Yes. Zero hour contracts are not the problem. It's the misuse of zero hour contracts to circumvent tax, legal, health and safety, and welfare responsibilities. It is a flexible form of employment, and intended to cover work within the gig economy. Misuse in fast food and retail sectors can be curbed by retroactively granting part or full time employment rights when there is demonstrable evidence of continuous engagement and reliance on an individual zero hour worker for the business to function. This decision does not need to be handled via traditional court pathways, it will use payroll…  Read more information and pattern detection instead. Employers are automatically notified when an employee is working to a regularised schedule on a zero hours contract. They have an opportunity to notify the government of unintended reliance on zero hours workers, and a framework to calculate the hidden cost to the individual in each incident. This fast tracks compensation while limiting duration of exploitation, whether intended or unintended. A refusal to settle leads to a financial investigation, and legal action on a per case basis.

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

i don’t understand this

Yes and people have to educate themselves on them, for some it works really well e.g Amazon delivery drives have flexible hours. Mike Ashley

Yes, but only if chosen as an option and the employee offered other low hour feasible contracts first I.e, 4 and 8

Yes, it's very useful for university and college students so they can choose their own hours to work.

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 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.

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

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