Why zero-hours contracts could be here to stay in new blow to workers' rights
Flagship plans by the Government to halt zero-hour contracts in the workplace have been scuppered by peers in the House of Lords.
The House of Lords backed by 264 to 158, majority 106, a move to change the legal requirement for an employer to offer guaranteed hours to an employee's right to request the arrangement.
Peers went on to inflict a further blow on the Labour front bench in supporting by 267 votes to 153, majority 114, a measure to exempt employers from having to make a payment to a worker if a shift was cancelled with at least 48 hours' notice.
The defeats came as the Employment Rights Bill, which has already been through the Commons, continued its passage through the upper chamber.
The changes made by peers to the draft law paves the way for a parliamentary tussle, known as 'ping-pong', where the legislation is batted between the two Houses until agreement is reached.
The proposed workers' rights reforms also introduce new restrictions on 'fire-and-rehire' processes when employees are let go and then re-employed on new contracts with worse pay or conditions.
In addition, the Bill strengthens trade unions and gives workers certain 'day one' rights, such as sick pay, paternity leave and the right to request flexible working.
Proposing his alternative to the proposed zero-hours provision, Liberal Democrat Lord Goddard of Stockport acknowledged the need to tackle the 'exploitative' use of the practice that left workers in 'precarious employment circumstances'.
But he added: 'That said, our amendment reflects that shared objective, while offering a more practical and balanced view.
'The amendment changes legislation from an obligation to offer guaranteed hours to a right to request them.
'Furthermore, it maintains that when a such request is made, the employer must grant it.'
He added: 'Our amendment seeks a fair balance, protecting workers from exploitation while preserving the flexibility which is crucial for many industries to function.'
But opposing the move, Labour peer Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill, a former assistant general secretary of the Trades Union Congress, warned: 'I very much fear that it undermines the purpose of the Bill, which is trying to deal with the problem of zero-hours contracts.'
She said: 'What the amendment doesn't take account of is the imbalance of power in workplaces and the characteristics of employees who are working on zero-hours contracts.'
Arguing those on zero-hours contracts were 'the least empowered workers', Lady Carberry added: 'So the right to request guaranteed hours in those circumstances is not a real right at all.
'And then how many of those workers, vulnerable as they are, might come under pressure not to press for guaranteed hours
'This formulation of the amendment leaves open the path to some of those worst employers to make sure that they don't end up offering guaranteed hours to workers on zero-hours contracts.'
However, Tory shadow business minister Lord Sharpe of Epsom said: 'It makes no sense to require employers to offer guaranteed hours to employees who don't want them.
'The Government appears to misunderstand or simply disregard the autonomy of the individual worker.
'Imposing this administrative burden, especially on small employers, to calculate and offer guaranteed hours where they are neither wanted nor needed, is an unnecessary and unavoidable cost.
'We therefore strongly support the right to request amendment proposed by Lord Goddard which better respects worker choice and employer flexibility.'
Responding, business minister Baroness Jones of Whitchurch said: 'We believe the duty to make a guaranteed offer should lie with the employer.
'This is the best way to ensure that all qualifying workers benefit from the right guaranteed hours when they want them.
'If a worker on an exploitative zero-hours contract had to request the guaranteed outcome, they may feel less able to assert their right to those guaranteed hours, and they would lose out as a result.
'It's quite right to highlight the imbalance of power in the workforce for these individuals, and this is particularly true when workers take up a new job.'
She added: 'A right to request model could create undesirable barriers, making it especially difficult for vulnerable workers on exploitative zero-hours contracts to access their right to those guaranteed hours, especially as many workers are younger and often in their first job.
'As the Bill is currently drafted after receiving an offer from the employer, qualifying workers will be empowered to make a decision based on their individual circumstances.
'If a worker wants to retain their zero-hours contract, as many will, they can do so by rejecting the offer.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
29 minutes ago
- Spectator
Reform's motherland, Meloni's Italian renaissance & the adults learning to swim
First: Nigel Farage is winning over women Does – or did – Nigel Farage have a woman problem? 'Around me there's always been a perception of a laddish culture,' he tells political editor Tim Shipman. In last year's election, 58 per cent of Reform voters were men. But, Shipman argues, 'that has begun to change'. According to More in Common, Reform has gained 14% among women, while Labour has lost 12%. 'Women are 'more likely than men… to worry that the country is broken.' Many of Reform's most recent victories have been by women: Andrea Jenkyns in the mayoral elections, Sarah Pochin to Parliament; plus, there most recent high profile defections include a former Tory Welsh Assembly member and a former Labour London councillor. What makes Reform's success with women all the more remarkable is that it appears organic; 'we haven't forced this' says Farage. So why are women turning to Reform UK? Tim Shipman and Sarah Pochin MP join the podcast to discuss. Next: is Italy experiencing a renaissance? From Italy, Owen Matthews argues that Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has revived her nation. While he says that Italy has been 'suffering from the same economic malaise' as the rest of Europe, the macroeconomics covers up the true affordability of the country. Espressos cost €1.20, pizzas are no more than €10, and rents in even the swankiest areas are 'laughably' cheap compared to Britain. Plus, Owen sees none of the 'media catastrophisation' over issues like immigration, social cohesion and militant Islam that appears to grip the UK. So how has Meloni done it? To discuss, Owen joined the podcast alongside Antonello Guerrera, UK & Westminster correspondent for the Italian newspaper Repubblica. And finally: one in three British adults cannot swim This week, Iram Ramzan provides her 'notes on' learning to swim saying, 'it's humiliating to admit that at 37' she can't. She's not alone though – one third of British adults cannot swim, and the proportion appears to be rising. Iram highlights the disparities between different communities; 76 percent of South Asian women for example cannot swim 25 metres. Iram joined the podcast to discuss further, alongside fitness professional and entrepreneur Elle Linton who also learnt to swim in her thirties. Plus: what small error led Rachel Johnson to get a telling off from Noel Gallagher? And Max Jeffery reports from court, where the Spectator and Douglas Murray have won a defamation claim brought against them by Mohammed Hijab. Hosted by William Moore and Lara Prendergast. Produced by Patrick Gibbons.
The Independent
29 minutes ago
- The Independent
Harvard scientists say research could be set back years after funding freeze
Harvard University professor Alberto Ascherio's research is literally frozen. Collected from millions of U.S. soldiers over two decades using millions of dollars from taxpayers, the epidemiology and nutrition scientist has blood samples stored in liquid nitrogen freezers within the university's T.H. Chan School of Public Health. The samples are key to his award-winning research, which seeks a cure to multiple sclerosis and other neurodegenerative diseases. But for months, Ascherio has been unable to work with the samples because he lost $7 million in federal research funding, a casualty of Harvard's fight with the Trump administration. 'It's like we have been creating a state-of-the-art telescope to explore the universe, and now we don't have money to launch it,' said Ascherio. 'We built everything and now we are ready to use it to make a new discovery that could impact millions of people in the world and then, 'Poof. You're being cut off.'' Researchers laid off and science shelved The loss of an estimated $2.6 billion in federal funding at Harvard has meant that some of the world's most prominent researchers are laying off young researchers. They are shelving years or even decades of research, into everything from opioid addiction to cancer. And despite Harvard's lawsuits against the administration, and settlement talks between the warring parties, researchers are confronting the fact that some of their work may never resume. The funding cuts are part of a monthslong battle that the Trump administration has waged against some the country's top universities including Columbia, Brown and Northwestern. The administration has taken a particularly aggressive stance against Harvard, freezing funding after the country's oldest university rejected a series of government demands issued by a federal antisemitism task force. The government had demanded sweeping changes at Harvard related to campus protests, academics and admissions — meant to address government accusations that the university had become a hotbed of liberalism and tolerated anti-Jewish harassment. Research jeopardized, even if court case prevails Harvard responded by filing a federal lawsuit, accusing the Trump administration of waging a retaliation campaign against the university. In the lawsuit, it laid out reforms it had taken to address antisemitism but also vowed not to 'surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.' 'Make no mistake: Harvard rejects antisemitism and discrimination in all of its forms and is actively making structural reforms to eradicate antisemitism on campus," the university said in its legal complaint. 'But rather than engage with Harvard regarding those ongoing efforts, the Government announced a sweeping freeze of funding for medical, scientific, technological, and other research that has nothing at all to do with antisemitism.' The Trump administration denies the cuts were made in retaliation, saying the grants were under review even before the demands were sent in April. It argues the government has wide discretion to cancel federal contracts for policy reasons. The funding cuts have left Harvard's research community in a state of shock, feeling as if they are being unfairly targeted in a fight has nothing to do with them. Some have been forced to shutter labs or scramble to find non-government funding to replace lost money. In May, Harvard announced that it would put up at least $250 million of its own money to continue research efforts, but university President Alan Garber warned of 'difficult decisions and sacrifices' ahead. Ascherio said the university was able to pull together funding to pay his researchers' salaries until next June. But he's still been left without resources needed to fund critical research tasks, like lab work. Even a year's delay can put his research back five years, he said. Knowledge lost in funding freeze 'It's really devastating,' agreed Rita Hamad, the director of the Social Policies for Health Equity Research Center at Harvard, who had three multiyear grants totaling $10 million canceled by the Trump administration. The grants funded research into the impact of school segregation on heart health, how pandemic-era policies in over 250 counties affected mental health, and the role of neighborhood factors in dementia. At the School of Public Health, where Hamad is based, 190 grants have been terminated, affecting roughly 130 scientists. 'Just thinking about all the knowledge that's not going to be gained or that is going to be actively lost," Hamad said. She expects significant layoffs on her team if the funding freeze continues for a few more months. "It's all just a mixture of frustration and anger and sadness all the time, every day." John Quackenbush, a professor of computational biology and bioinformatics at the School of Public Health, has spent the past few months enduring cuts on multiple fronts. In April, a multimillion dollar grant was not renewed, jeopardizing a study into the role sex plays in disease. In May, he lost about $1.2 million in federal funding for in the coming year due to the Harvard freeze. Four departmental grants worth $24 million that funded training of doctoral students also were cancelled as part of the fight with the Trump administration, Quackenbush said. 'I'm in a position where I have to really think about, 'Can I revive this research?'' he said. 'Can I restart these programs even if Harvard and the Trump administration reached some kind of settlement? If they do reach a settlement, how quickly can the funding be turned back on? Can it be turned back on?' The researchers all agreed that the funding cuts have little or nothing to do with the university's fight against antisemitism. Some, however, argue changes at Harvard were long overdue and pressure from the Trump administration was necessary. Bertha Madras, a Harvard psychobiologist who lost funding to create a free, parent-focused training to prevent teen opioid overdose and drug use, said she's happy to see the culling of what she called 'politically motivated social science studies.' White House pressure a good thing? Madras said pressure from the White House has catalyzed much-needed reform at the university, where several programs of study have 'really gone off the wall in terms of being shaped by orthodoxy that is not representative of the country as a whole.' But Madras, who served on the President's Commission on Opioids during Trump's first term, said holding scientists' research funding hostage as a bargaining chip doesn't make sense. 'I don't know if reform would have happened without the president of the United States pointing the bony finger at Harvard," she said. 'But sacrificing science is problematic, and it's very worrisome because it is one of the major pillars of strength of the country.' Quackenbush and other Harvard researchers argue the cuts are part of a larger attack on science by the Trump administration that puts the country's reputation as the global research leader at risk. Support for students and post-doctoral fellows has been slashed, visas for foreign scholars threatened, and new guidelines and funding cuts at the NIH will make it much more difficult to get federal funding in the future, they said. It also will be difficult to replace federal funding with money from the private sector. 'We're all sort of moving toward this future in which this 80-year partnership between the government and the universities is going to be jeopardized,' Quackenbush said. 'We're going to face real challenges in continuing to lead the world in scientific excellence.'
Reuters
30 minutes ago
- Reuters
China rare earth exports slid in July after hitting peak in prior month
BEIJING, Aug 7 (Reuters) - Rare earth exports from China slumped 23% in July after hitting a record a month earlier, customs data showed on Thursday, although the preliminary data is too incomplete to draw firm conclusions about Beijing's commitment to speed up shipments. The world's largest producer of rare earths exported 5,994.3 metric tons in July, down 23% from June, when exports hit the highest level since at least 2014, data from the General Administration of Customs showed. China's rare earth exports are being closely scrutinised after Beijing agreed to a series of deals with the United States and Europe to increase shipments and ease the export licensing system imposed in April in retaliation for U.S. tariffs. However, it is difficult to draw conclusions from Thursday's data release, which does not distinguish between the different rare earths and related products, some of which are not restricted. The data is also very volatile and double-digit swings in either direction are common. A fuller breakdown, including exports of rare earth magnets will be released on August 20. Magnet exports to the U.S. and Germany surged last month. They are essential to the automotive, electronics and defence industries. Even as the United States, Europe and Australia introduce or consider financial support for alternative rare earth producers, China is quietly tightening its control over the sector. Last month it issued its first 2025 rare earth mining and smelting quotas without the typical public statement. For the first seven months of the year, China's rare earth exports totaled 38,563.6 tons, up 13% from the corresponding period in 2024.
