ZHCs are the epitome of worker exploitation

OVER the last decade very many workers have had to accept zero-hour contracts (ZHC) and even if employers’ assertions that they offer flexibility rings true in a minority of cases the arrangement is symbolic of an increasingly insecure labour market and shows how the balance of power has swung very much to the employers’ advantage.

Typically, a ZHC demands that a worker be available at all times and at very short notice. They also mean that an offer of work can be withdrawn at short notice. As there is no guarantee about how many hours a worker can expect or when that work might be offered, the domestic planning needed to sustain a stable family environment seem at least precarious if not almost impossible. Essentially, an employee is expected to offer the same flexibility as a machine, to be turned on and off as required and at a moment’s notice.

An Irish version of these contracts is known as an “if and when” deal and 10% of those working in the community care sector are on those contracts. It estimated that 5.3% of employees in Ireland — about 100,000 people — have constantly varying working hours. Most of those offered ZHCs earn the minimum wage — €9.15 an hour — so unless they get something approaching a full week’s work they may be entitled to welfare support which means the public purse is subsidising companies using ZHCs. The inequity and unsustainability of this arrangement was recognised by New Zealand’s parliament in recent days when it voted unanimously to ban the practice.

Last November Minister for Business and Employment Ged Nash commissioned a report on ZHCs with a view to regulating the practice to protect workers and employers. Though that process is incomplete and now falls to the next government to implement or ignore it was expected to recommend some basic protections. A ban on employers offering less than three continuous hours of work and rules to prevent workers from being called into work or having scheduled work cancelled by employers at very short notice were anticipted. It was also expected that employers would have to give individuals at least 72 hours’ notice of being called into work and at least 72 hours of cancellation of work. At present they only have to give 24 hours notice. These are, by any standard, pretty basic protections.

Earlier this week a record growth figure of nearly 7% was reported. This very welcome achievement will encourage workers and unions to try to recover some of the ground lost over recent years. That process is already well under way in some sectors but the escalating transport dispute in Dublin shows how fraught and divisive this process can be.

We seem to be on the cusp of a period of political instability and it would be tragic if that absolutely avoidable situation was exacerbated by a bout of fractious industrial relations. Unions and employers have obvious roles to play in preventing this. Unions need to be realistic and employers need to accept that exploitation as epitomised by ZHCs is unacceptable and that workers cannot be treated with such cold indifference. If they don’t we may have to follow New Zealand’s lead.