Unions worry Labour’s plan for zero-hours contracts may break manifesto pledge
Trade unions have warned the prime minister, Andy Burnham, that Labour's plans to restrict zero-hours contracts risk falling short of the party's manifesto commitment. Union leaders, including from Usdaw, the GMB and Unite, are pressing the business secretary, Jonathan Reynolds, for reassurances after a government consultation document proposed limits on who would qualify for new guaranteed-hours contracts, which they fear could leave the policy "meaningless" for many workers.
The Employment Rights Act, aimed at ending "exploitative" zero-hours contracts, is already law, but the relevant changes are not due until next year and key details remain unsettled. A consultation floated an upper hours threshold, possibly set anywhere between 8 and 48 hours, above which workers would not qualify for the new right, while Unite separately criticised a proposed "regularity requirement" it says would exclude many. Business groups have seized on government estimates that the most expansive version of the policy could cost firms up to £2.9bn a year, though the TUC's Kate Bell countered that this assumes no adaptation by employers and noted that unpredictable shifts already cost a third of zero-hours workers around £3,000 annually.
- Unions fear Labour's zero-hours contract reforms may not match manifesto pledges
- Proposed hours thresholds and "regularity requirement" could exclude many workers
- Business groups warn of up to £2.9bn annual cost; TUC disputes the assumptions
New here? Start with this
Trade unions are warning Andy Burnham and business secretary Jonathan Reynolds that Labour's plans to curb zero-hours contracts could fall short of what the party promised before the election. At issue is the Employment Rights Act, which is already law and aims to end contracts seen as exploitative, but the detailed rules on how it will work are still being decided and are not due to take effect until next year.
The sticking point is who would actually qualify for the new "guaranteed hours" contracts, which are meant to give workers more predictable shifts and pay. A government consultation has suggested capping eligibility at an upper limit of working hours, somewhere between 8 and 48, and has also floated a "regularity requirement" for shift patterns, both of which unions such as Usdaw, the GMB and Unite fear would leave many workers still without protection.
The debate matters because it pits the cost to businesses, estimated by the government at up to £2.9bn a year in the most far-reaching version of the policy, against the financial hit already faced by zero-hours workers, who research suggests can lose around £3,000 a year to unpredictable scheduling. How the government resolves these details will determine how many workers the new law actually benefits.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Union leaders argue that the whole point of ending zero-hours exploitation was to give the lowest-paid, least secure workers a guaranteed, predictable income, and that carving out upper hours thresholds or strict regularity tests risks handing employers an easy route to keep large numbers of staff outside the new right altogether. They point out that unpredictable shifts already cost a third of zero-hours workers around £3,000 a year, so watering down the policy would betray a clear manifesto pledge and leave the most vulnerable workers no better off than before the law changed. For them, fidelity to the original commitment matters more than accommodating employer concerns that may simply reflect resistance to any new obligation.
The case against
Ministers and business groups counter that turning a broad principle into workable law requires sensible boundaries, since applying guaranteed-hours rights indiscriminately, including to those who only occasionally work variable shifts, could impose costs estimated as high as £2.9bn a year on employers already adjusting to other new duties. They argue that thresholds and a regularity requirement are not a betrayal of the pledge but a pragmatic way to target help at those who genuinely rely on unpredictable work while avoiding unintended burdens on businesses and roles where flexibility suits both employer and worker, such as students or those with second jobs. On this view, a carefully calibrated scheme is more likely to survive contact with reality than an unqualified one that could prompt firms to cut hours or roles altogether.