Zero-hours contracts: What are they as research shows an increase in over-50s on them?
More than 300,000 workers over the age of 50 are employed on zero-hours contracts, according to new research.
An analysis of official figures by campaign group Rest Less found that the total number had increased from 190,000 a decade ago.
It said people aged 50 or over make up 26% of the entire zero-hour contract workforce. Combined, the under-25s and over-50s make up 66% of the total zero-hour contracts workforce, it added.
Stuart Lewis, chief executive of Rest Less, said: 'Ahead of significant proposed changes to the structure of zero-hours contracts, our analysis paints a picture of the growing prevalence of insecure work amongst older workers.
'The fact that we've seen a 58% increase in over-50s on zero-hour contracts over the past decade reflects both the changing nature of work and the increasing pressure on older workers to accept less secure employment arrangements.
'We know that for some, zero-hour contracts can offer highly flexible working arrangements that enable people to fit work around other life commitments. For others, they are the only option available to older workers who can find themselves shut out of standard employment opportunities due to age discrimination."
He said they were concerned that some older workers currently on zero-hours contracts could be at risk of unintended consequences from the policy change, adding: 'We are concerned that some employers will stop offering zero-hours contracts entirely which could make it more difficult for older workers to find flexible work in the future, potentially forcing them into other shadow employment arrangements with even less protection.'
The government website says: "Zero-hours contracts are also known as casual contracts. Zero-hours contracts are usually for 'piece work' or 'on call' work, for example for interpreters."
It adds that this means workers are "on call when you need them", that you "do not have to give them work", and that they "do not have to do work when asked".
The Acas website says zero-hours contracts can be: "a flexible option for both employers and workers", adding, "For example, if the work is not constant or is 'as and when'."
The general understanding is that an employer doesn't have to provide minimum working hours, but equally the employee doesn't have to take work offered if they don't want to.
Acas gives examples as bank work in the NHS, care work, delivery driving, gig economy work, hospitality work and warehouse work.
Zero-hours workers are entitled to statutory annual leave and the National Minimum Wage in the same way as regular workers, the government website says.
Employers can't stop an zero-hours worker from getting work elsewhere, and workers can ignore a clause in their contract if it bans them from looking for work or accepting work from another employer.
Campaigners are concerned that zero-hours contracts offer little job security or guaranteed income, predictable income, leading to difficulty accessing benefits and other impacts on the worker's personal life.
The system is thought by many to create a power imbalance, with workers feeling pressured to accept shifts amid fear of losing them in the future, and the potential for employers to exploit workers.
The government's Employment Rights Bill proposes changes to zero-hours contracts that are hoped to make them fairer, including guaranteed hours, notice perios and compensation if shifts are cancelled or changed at short notice.
The bill was published in October 2024 but may not come into effect until 2026 or later.
In the wake of the report from Rest Less, a Bus and Trade Department spokesperson said: 'Our Employment Rights Bill will ensure workers can have flexibility that suits them as well as their employer by giving people the right to a guaranteed hours contract. Those who want to remain on their current arrangement can do so.
'These measures are not about restricting choice, they are seeking to end exploitative zero-hour contracts. We are committed to ending one-sided flexibility to ensure workers who want to have more predictability are able to.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
11 hours ago
- Yahoo
Who would be a Chancellor? Rachel Reeves faces some horrible decisions next week
The Chancellor will have some tough decisions to make when dishing out the cash in next week's Spending Review. But handing out money is usually easier than raising it. And raising money later in the year will be the bigger challenge and will probably result in the Chancellor announcing some tax hikes. When the Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, announces the details of her Spending Review next Wednesday, it will sound as though she's increasing the amount of money the government is spending on public services and future investment projects. But the total amount of government spending was already set in the Chancellor's Spring Statement in March. Back then, she decided the government would spend £1.4 trillion on average in each of the next five years. That's equivalent to 44% of GDP, is higher than the average of 40% of GDP in the five years before the pandemic and is unlikely to be increased in the Spending Review. Incidentally, these numbers are bigger than the average tax receipts of £1.3 trillion, or 41.5% of GDP, anticipated over the next five years. That explains why the government is expecting to borrow an average of £90bn each year, or 2.8% of GDP, to fill the gap. Instead of altering the total amount of money the government will spend, the Spending Review will determine what the money is spent on. This means the Chancellor has to make some tricky decisions on how much to spend on the NHS, defence, welfare and all the other public services. Given the sheer size of the NHS budget and the growing importance of defence, increases in those areas will result in meagre increases elsewhere. The Spending Review won't, however, address the bigger issue, which is that the Chancellor will probably have to find more money later in the year. The pressure to increase total amount of government spending has grown since it was set in March. The recent public sector pay deals, the plans to restore some winter fuel payments and soften other benefit cuts, and the clamour to scrap the two-child benefit cap could mean that government spending needs to be £8bn higher than currently planned in five years' time. And the government's new migration policy (which may mean fewer people are paying taxes than previously expected) and the recent rise in the government's borrowing costs may result in the gap between government spending and tax receipts being an extra £10bn bigger in five years' time. That's an additional £18bn that may need to be found from somewhere. That would rise to £36bn if the government needed to meet its 'ambition' to raise defence spending from 2.5% of GDP to 3.0% of GDP before 2030. And it could rise to £46bn should the Office for Budget Responsibility judge that the UK's rate of productivity growth will be a bit lower than it currently believes. That would mean the economy doesn't grow as fast as expected and, as a result, tax receipts would be lower than projected and government spending would be higher. In other words, to avoid breaking her own fiscal rules and to maintain the current buffer against those rules, in the Budget this autumn the Chancellor may need to raise an extra £18bn to £46bn. She can do this in three equally unappealing ways. First, she could cut other forms of government spending, although this will jar with the government's aims to improve the provision of public services. Second, she could bend her fiscal rules to allow her to borrow more, but this may just increase government spending if it results in the financial markets charging the government a higher interest rate. Third, she could raise taxes, but to fill a hole as large as £18bn to £46bn the Chancellor may need to break her pre-election pledge to not raise income tax, VAT and National Insurance for employees. To limit the fallout, the Chancellor may opt for a bit of all three. It's unclear what this would mean for the economy as it would depend on the mix of the changes in spending, taxes and borrowing. But it is clear that the hardest decisions for the Chancellor lie further down the line and may involve raising taxes for households. Paul Dales is Chief UK Economist of research consultancy Capital Economics.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
University granted £1.5m to set up dental school
A training centre in Lincolnshire offering courses in dental hygiene and therapy will open in 2026. The University of Lincoln has been granted funding of £1.5m to establish the facility. Vice chancellor Prof Neal Juster said it was "a first step towards training dentists themselves". The funding has been approved by the Greater Lincolnshire Combined County Authority (GLCCA), with Mayor Andrea Jenkyns saying the award was "great news for residents". Prof Juster said the county was "known as a dental desert" and he hoped to get to a full dental school training dentists one day. When it opens in September 2026 the new Lincolnshire Institute of Dental and Oral Health will be part of the University's Medical School. It will accept around 30 students in its first year and will teach a new BSc in Dental Hygiene and Therapy alongside a foundation course designed to help dental nurses and other healthcare professionals retrain and upskill. The funding has come from the government's Shared Prosperity Fund which was handed to the GLCCA to distribute. Meeting for the first time since last month's local elections and chaired by Mayor Dame Andrea Jenkyns, it voted unanimously to award the money. Dame Andrea said she recommended the funding was approved and was "really pleased to get this project off the ground". At the same meeting councillor Ingrid Sheard was voted in as deputy greater Lincolnshire mayor. Sheard is an elected Lincolnshire County Council member for Spalding Elloe for the Reform UK party. Listen to highlights from Lincolnshire on BBC Sounds, watch the latest episode of Look North or tell us about a story you think we should be covering here. Long queues as dentist offers NHS places 'I was living on soup, porridge and painkillers' Dentist closures 'heartbreaking', says councillor First NHS dentist for five years in seaside town 'County will lose dental desert tag' - health boss University of Lincoln Greater Lincolnshire Combined County Authority
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Will Miliband deliver higher energy prices but still not hit net zero?
Ed Miliband is at odds with the Chancellor over how much money his department will receive in the rest of this parliament. Rachel Reeves is finalising her spending plans for the next four years, to be announced next week, and has told her colleagues that they will not all get what they want. Indeed, apart from protected budgets like the NHS and an increase in defence spending, paid for out of the overseas aid budget, all Whitehall ministries face a hit if the Chancellor is to avoid putting up taxes. But Mr Miliband is in a quandary because he has pledged to decarbonise the electricity grid by 2030. His difficulty is that this timetable lacks any credibility. A report from the House of Lords industry committee says it will require 'building more energy generation and network infrastructure at a faster pace than Great Britain has managed in recent years'. The committee suggests Mr Miliband could make his sums work through so-called 'zonal pricing'. Peers say this would enable better use of existing capacity and reduce the amount of grid – ie pylons and other connectors – thereby circumventing planning battles in the countryside. This would involve splitting the single energy market into regions with the price determined by supply and demand within each area. It would mean increasing bills in London, the South East and the Midlands, where renewables are in short supply, while they would fall in Scotland because of its plentiful wind farms. The likelihood, therefore, is that Mr Miliband will miss his targets while putting up the electricity bills of millions. That should go down well at the next election Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
