The document analyzes zero-hours contracts (ZHCs) in the UK, highlighting the increase in their usage from 1997 to 2014 and the accompanying public debate regarding their implications for job security and labor market flexibility. It discusses reasons why individuals opt for ZHCs, their levels of satisfaction, and the potential policy responses to address concerns surrounding exclusivity and equitable employment practices. Despite a critical public perception, the document suggests that the demand for ZHCs may persist due to changing workforce demographics and structural labor market issues.

1. Zero hours contracts – insecurity or
flexibility?
Ian Brinkley
Director, The Work Foundation

2. How many people on ZHCs?
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
People on ZHCs (individual responses) 1997-2014
People on ZHCs 1997-2014 and number of ZHC
contracts where work was offered in the survey
173 189
week (2013b)
250
583
622
1400
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1997 2011 2012 2013a 2014 2013b

3. Permanent and average tenure of employment 1993-2014
Share of permanent jobs 1993-2014
(% all in work)
Note: all figures April-June, seasonally adjusted. Total employees minus temporary employees as % of all
in employment. Source: Office for National Statistics
79.2%
81.5% 80.3% 79.2%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1993 2008 2010 2014
Average time spent in a job 1993-2013 (years)
Note: all figures annual average, time spent in current job with same employer.
Source: OECD
7.8
8.3
9
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1993 2008 2013

4. Workplace and workforce flexibility 2010-2014
Notes: all figures share of total employment UK, seasonally unadjusted. Working at home is 2011 Q1 to 2014 Q1, zero hours is 2010 Q4 to 2014 Q2.
Sources: Labour Force Survey, ONS and TWF estimates.
Workplace flexibility 2010Q4 2013Q4
Flexitime 11.0 10.5
Annualised contract 4.6 3.9
Term time working 5.3 4.7
Job sharing 0.7 0.6
Zero hours 0.6 2.0
On-call 2.2 2.0
4.5 week/9 day fortnight 1.0 0.9
None of above 75.3 75.9
Workforce flexibility 2010Q4 2014Q2
Part time employees 22.9 21.9
Temporary employees 5.3 5.4
Second jobs 3.8 3.9
Self-employed 13.7 15.0
Working at home (employees) 4.5 4.8

5. Why people take ZHCs and why some are
satisfied
Reason for taking ZHC work
IPSOS Mori Jan 2014 (N=464)
Could not
get regular
work, 28%
Main work
in
sector/occ,
13%
Family ,
24%
Fit with
other jobs,
18%
Prefer
variation,
17%
Why some people are satisfied with a ZHC
Note: some other reason includes being a student (1%) , caring
responsibilities (3%), health problem (3%).
CIPD November 2013 (N=213)
Like
flexibility,
44%
Retirement
related,
27%
Good
pay and
benefits,
Don't need
to work,
11%
7%
Some
other
reason,
16%

6. Job quality and worker engagement
Source: Zero Hours contracts: Myth and Reality CIPD November 2013 ( ZHC N= 456)
% agreeing All ZHCs
Will work more than contracted hours 58% 49%
Highly motivated by core purpose of organisation 53% 61%
Right work-life balance 58% 65%
Positive relationship with colleagues 82% 80%
Job as challenging as it could be 63% 64%
Opportunities to grow and develop 45% 43%
Satisfied with content of job role 60% 65%
Senior managers treat staff with respect 43% 45%
Good relationship with line-manager 64% 59%
Likely to recommend organisation as an employer 54% 52%
Employer does not treat them fairly 29% 27%
Frequently under pressure (every day/1-2 times a week) 41% 29%
Likely could lose job in current economic climate (Nov 2013) 18% 18%

7. The public debate on zero hours contracts
• Emerged in 2010, with most media coverage negative;
• Some see them as symbolic of everything wrong in an
increasingly insecure labour market;
• Others see them as an essential part of a flexible labour
market without which unemployment will increase;
• Growing but not universal consensus
- support for ban on “exclusivity” in ZHCs
- recognition that legislation is a blunt instrument
- recognition of important sectoral differences
- seen as part of a bigger problem (eg low pay)

8. Potential policy responses to ZHCs
Proposals Pros Cons
Ban on exclusivity Justified on equity and flexibility
grounds
May be hard to make water-tight
Don’t know if big problem for ZHCs
Other contracts also have exclusivity clauses
Individual right to request
conversion to regular
employment of some ZHCs
Would discourage unjustified use of
ZHCs
Less flexibility, more complexity and cost
Replaced by other forms of casual work
Most exploited will not make request
Complete ban Reduction in one form of casual
employment
As above
Major departure from UK policy and practice
Would reduce flexibility for individuals who
want/ need these sort arrangements
Change in public procurement,
esp social care
Many private sector employers would
welcome change
May reduce involuntary ZHC use
Higher costs for public funded social services
Could reduce voluntary ZHC use
Collective bargaining Flexible and voluntary approach
specific to sectors (eg NHS,
Universities, food processing)
Coverage weak in many sectors with high use
(hospitality, social care) or large numbers (retail)
Little appetite to strengthen CB role in economy
Better knowledge of rights
Codes of practice
Sectoral forums/codes
Reduce widespread ignorance of rights
of ZHCs and spread best practice
Opportunity to convene groups of
employers and others to look at ZHCs
as part of wider employment practices
Little traction with worst cases and more general
bad management practices
Not clear who will develop national and sectoral
codes or convene sectoral forums

9. Future trends
• Despite “toxic” public image, few signs that many
employers will reduce use of ZHCs;
• Public sector austerity means higher cost solutions to
end ZHCs in social care/NHS will not be fully funded;
• More pressure on employers from semi-legal/voluntary
codes, collective agreements, better informed workforce,
and public procurement to implement best practice;
• More people working beyond state retirement age and
students combining work and study may increase
“voluntary” demand;
• Return to “full employment” would increase more regular
job opportunities and reduce involuntary ZHCs.