Zero-hours reforms should exclude agency workers, says APSCo

Zero-hours reforms should not apply to agency workers, according to the Association of Professional Staffing Companies (APSCo).

The trade body for the professional staffing sector is calling for the exemption as it brands current proposals “not fit for purpose”.

In its response to the government’s consultation on the reforms, it warns guaranteed hours for agency staff are both unwanted and impractical for employers, recruiters and the workers themselves.

APSCo believes that, should the plans go ahead, fixed-term agency work should be excluded. It also suggests limiting applicability by either the task or hourly rate. Alternatively, an opt-out provision should be available to individuals with appropriate “no detriment” protections.

Tania Bowers, global public policy director at APSCo, said: “The proposals outlined in the zero-hours consultation aren’t deliverable and will have a detrimental impact on access to critical temporary resources in highly skilled professions. This jeopardises crucial services in the likes of healthcare, education, construction and other sectors that are already facing significant staff shortages.”

Since agency workers are called upon to fill unexpected resourcing gaps, such as supply teachers being required in cases of staff sickness, she believes that the very nature of how these workers are engaged is unpredictable by nature.

Bowers added: “The proposals simply aren’t workable for every scenario – and I’d argue that there isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution to this issue.

“There needs to be the recognition that temporary workers in the highly skilled and highly paid segment of the labour market don’t need the same protections as those that are exposed to exploitative zero-hour contracts. Any future plans must account for the fact that guaranteed hours can’t, and in some cases shouldn’t, be offered due to the nature of the work.”

APSCo has also reminded the government that agreements between agency workers and employment businesses are not exploitative zero-hours contracts and shouldn’t be brought in to the Act as a result, according to Bowers.

She highlighted that a clear difference between exploitative zero-hours contracts and agency work is well-regulated through Employment Agency Standards, Agency Worker Regulations, the Conduct Regulations and the Employment Agencies Act.

“It is also fundamental that definitions such as ‘genuinely temporary’ are consulted on before the Act is passed along with the timeframes proposed. A 12-week contract period is far too short within the context of professional sectors where six-month agreements are the norm,” Bowers insisted.

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

Email(Required)

OptOut

From time to time, we will send you emails about selected products, events and services from Personnel Today and OHW+ - but you can choose to opt-out at any time. If you do not wish to receive these emails, please tick this box.

Name

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Δ

Recruitment and resourcing opportunities on Personnel Today

Browse more recruitment and resourcing jobs