Roger Clements argues that the government’s consultation on zero-hours contracts for agency workers fails to balance worker protection with workforce flexibility
As I reflect on the recent government’s launch of a consultation on reforms to zero-hours contracts for agency workers I can’t help but agree with some of the comments raised by industry leaders, but I also have my own concerns.
Neil Carberry from the Recruitment and Employment Confederation (REC) rightly pointed out that agency work serves as a vital route to employment for many. However, like Crawford Temple of Professional Passport, I share the view that the consultation may fall short in its grasp of the complexities of today’s workforce.
Agency workers and zero-hours
Government consults on zero-hours measures for agency workers
Impact of Employment Rights Bill published as consultations launched
The Employment Rights Bill and the proposed changes to zero-hours contracts seem to stem from the notion that these contracts are inherently bad. But from where I sit, this misses the bigger picture.
Zero-hours contracts, when used appropriately, offer much-needed flexibility for both workers and employers, particularly in sectors like retail and hospitality, where shifts can fluctuate and workers often have multiple employers.
For many, this setup provides the agility to balance different jobs and personal commitments. To assume that a rigid, predictable structure will benefit all is, in my opinion, unrealistic.
The idea of guaranteed hours, in principle, sounds like a positive move for workers. However, organisations that rely on agency or indirect workers are rarely equipped to provide that level of predictability.
The very reason employers turn to this workforce category is for flexibility and the ability to scale their workforce up or down depending on demand. Forcing them to guarantee hours will likely lead to over-hiring or over-predicting staffing needs which, in turn, could have financial consequences. Employers may end up with surplus workers, which raises the question: where will the additional funds to cover this come from?
In practice, this could put employers in a difficult position potentially pricing them out of the market or discouraging them from using this impactful and dynamic staffing model altogether. Instead of addressing the root issue, these reforms may simply push employers toward full-time hiring, reducing the flexibility and opportunities that many temporary workers currently rely on.
Forcing employers to guarantee hours will likely lead to over-hiring or over-predicting staffing needs, which, in turn, could have financial consequences”
Another aspect of the consultation that concerns me is the lack of clarity around who will be responsible for cancellation or penalty payments. Will it be the employer or the agency? This is a crucial question as predicting staffing needs is often beyond the control of the agency, especially when they are not directly managing the work schedule. If agencies are held responsible for these payments they will inevitably need to price that risk into their contracts, driving up costs for employers in the long run.
From my perspective, this consultation feels like a heavy-handed approach to addressing a niche problem, namely the exploitative use of zero-hours contracts. While I support efforts to crack down on bad practices, it’s important not to lose sight of the bigger picture. The dynamic nature of the modern workforce requires flexible, well-regulated agency work, and these reforms risk undermining that. A more thoughtful, nuanced approach is needed – one that protects workers without stifling the flexibility that many employers and employees find essential.
Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance
Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday
Latest HR job opportunities on Personnel Today
Browse more human resources jobs
