I have reflected previously on the paradox that many Labour Councils feel justified in making use of “zero hours contracts”, despite the Labour Party with great moral indignation pledging to prohibit such arrangements if victorious at the General Election. A further aspect of the puzzle is what a ban would mean. So far as most people are concerned the objectionable aspect of such contracts was exclusivity. That was the condition that an employee agreed to be available throughout the week working for nobody else yet without any guaranteed minimum number of hours. A very one-sided flexibility. The workers at the beck and call of the boss class. Those of us who believe in capitalism in tooth and claw might point out that it was still a voluntary contract. If in practice it was not mutually advantageous then it would cease to continue. But that boat has sailed. That argument is of merely historical interest. The exclusivity was banned in 2015. We still have what are termed “zero-hours contracts” but these are now flexible workers where the flexibility is on both sides. The definition states:
“You do not have to give them work. They do not have to do work when asked.”
I put in a Freedom of Information request to the Mayor of London to ask if he uses them.
Here is the reply:
“When explicitly referring to the definition of zero-hour contracts above, there are currently 54 people whose terms align with this definition.
“This 54 mentioned refers to Peer Outreach Workers (POW); a group of young Londoners who volunteer to engage and gather the opinions of other young people in the capital.
“This is a voluntary role and is not intended as full-time employment. We recognise and value the time that these young people give, and they are therefore reimbursed for it. It is for administration purposes that their contracts are set up as such.”
It might be a “voluntary role” but it is not unpaid:
“Peer Outreach Workers are paid the London Living Wage (16 hours or under for those on benefits), these are flexible roles to provide experience and build skills.”
Their role is “to emphasize to decision-makers the importance of involving children and young people in policies and strategies.”
“The POWs motto: “We aspire to inspire”. The team’s main emphasis is currently on improving educational achievements and opportunities, much of this work focuses on young people who are not in education, employment or training.
POWs projects aim to tackle various issues that young Londoners face:
- Training and work experience
- Health, mental health and well-being
- Tackling youth crime
- Challenging discrimination
- Giving all young Londoners a voice.”
What will become of the POWs under a Labour Government? I suppose one option would be for them to be allowed to continue as genuine volunteers – completely unpaid. That is the sort of perverse outcome that state meddling often produces. I remember working at the Londoner’s Diary of the Evening Standard when the minimum wage was introduced. Previously teenagers coming in on work experience had been paid £20 a day as a token gesture. That was outlawed. The befuddled teenagers still came shuffling in often enough but were henceforth paid nothing – which was still perfectly legal.
A positive outcome might be the POWs get proper jobs instead of “co-designing The Children and Young People Participation handbook.” Just imagine if they became brickies, plasterers, painters, carpenters, sparkies and plumbers. We might have more houses to live in but fewer Children and Young People Participation handbooks to read. Yet this can hardly be the motive.
More significant could be the impact on the NHS. They use a large number of flexible workers or “bank workers” as they call them. They come under what is now designated a “zero hours contract.” There are plenty of Labour peers and former Labour MPs involved in running NHS Trusts that find such flexibility beneficial. What would be the cost (in lives as well as money) if a Labour Government disrupted them from continuing?
Rachel Reeves, the Shadow Chancellor, stated last week in her Mais Lecture:
“We will ban exploitative zero hours contracts, by giving all workers the right to a contract that reflects the number of hours they regularly work, based on a twelve-week reference period. But these changes will not stop employers from offering overtime or meeting short-term demand, such as in the build-up to Christmas or seasonal work in agriculture or hospitality.”
Every speech from Reeves or Sir Keir Starmer gets some such reference – perhaps given the lack of other specific policy proposals. But the existing arrangements are not exploitative. Further meddling would impair employment opportunities and not merely block economic growth by burdening the private sector but also make it harder for local government and the NHS to provide public services. These restrictions are effectively an unfunded public spending proposal. If they are such a good idea why haven’t Labour applied them where they already have the power to do so? Starner and Reeves should abandon them.
The post More Labour hypocrisy on zero hours contracts. The Mayor of London uses them. appeared first on Conservative Home.
Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: Harry Phibbs
This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, http://www.conservativehome.com and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.