The increased use of zero-hours contracts, which specify no minimum number of
working hours and the employer is not obliged to offer regular work, and agency
workers by employers is preventing young people from obtaining permanent jobs,
according to new analysis published by the TUC. The TUC report highlights some of
the particular problems that being employed on a casual or precarious basis may mean
for women, particularly the use of casual contracts to undermine rights such as
maternity pay and leave, the problem of organising childcare around non-set working
patterns and the impact of low and fluctuating pay on in-work benefits such as tax
credits. Employers argue that agency working and zero-hours contracts offer young
employees valuable job experience and a stepping stone into more permanent
employment. However, analysis suggests that younger employees are increasingly
trapped in insecure work, when they would really prefer permanent employment which
is more likely to provide access to training and workplace benefits, such as pensions
and leave entitlements [7].
Zero-hours contacts seem to have been widely used in industries such as tourism
and retail for some time. However, they are being used increasingly across a wider
range of sectors. Many teachers, journalists and lawyers are also on zero-hours
contracts. Certain groups of people are more likely to be on zero-hours contracts, such
as people under 25 or over 65 years of age [8].
Also, zero-hours contracts can be used to provide a flexible workforce to meet a
temporary or changeable need for staff. Examples may include a need for workers to
cover: unexpected or last-minute events (e.g. a restaurant needs extra staff to cater for
a wedding party that just had their original venue cancel on them); temporary staff
shortages (e.g. an office loses an essential specialist worker for a few weeks due to
bereavement); on-call/bank work (e.g. one of the clients of a care-worker company
requires extra care for a short period of time).
In brief, zero-hour contracts may be a dream for cost-cutting employers. But they
can be a nightmare for workers. Many people on zero-hours contracts are unable to
plan for their future and regularly struggle with paying bills and having a decent family
life. The so-called ‘flexibility’ these contracts offer is far too one-sided [9]. Staff
without guaranteed pay have much less power to stand up for their rights and often feel
afraid to turn down shifts in case they fall out of favour with their employer.
Furthermore, New Zealand has passed legislation banning zero-hour contracts, in
what is thought to be one of the first laws in the developed world to end the use of deals
criticised as exploitative [10]. It should be emphasized that Labour Code of Ukraine
provides for the following types of employment contracts: for an indefinite period of
time (permanent contract); for a definite period of time (fixed-term contract); for a
period of completing a specific task (article 23). A fixed-term contract is typically
concluded if this is justified by the specifics of the job, the conditions of its execution,
- 301 -