Labour’s calls for a ban on zero hours contracts have received divided opinion.
The debate on the appropriateness of these contracts has enraged ever since shadow health secretary Andy Burnham called for them to be scrapped on ‘The Andrew Marr’ show last weekend.
Adding her view, employment lawyer Syma Spanjers told hrmagazine.co.uk pointed that many employers and employees found these working arrangements highly useful.
She said: “As well as benefits for employers, many employees enjoy the flexibility of zero hour contracts if they cannot commit to a fixed number of hours per week, perhaps due to family commitments or because they are studying or retired but keen to have occasional work.”
Those looking to start a franchise might agree that zero hours contracts often make sense for businesses navigating through economic uncertainty. These arrangements, which allow businesses to send employees home unpaid if there is no work available, can prevent start-ups from losing money due to over-staffing.
However, freelance journalist Paul Mills has argued that zero hours contracts leave too many employees in limbo and at risk of being unable to make ends meet.
Writing for guardian.co.uk, he said: “While zero-hour contracts prove convenient for students and part-timers, the reality is that these groups make up the minority of the workforce. For most workers, it proved to be a myth that zero-hour contacts translate to greater flexibility.”