The Government is planning to restrict zero-hour contracts by guaranteeing workers a minimum number of hours per week. Under the proposed legislation, companies would have to pay workers for shifts that have been “cancelled, curtailed or moved at short notice”.

, lower paid workers argue this move will protect their income. So, are zero-hours contracts exploitative or essential in modern Britain? ,

Zoë Grünewald: Zero-hours contracts let employers off the hook

Here comes the usual chorus of business leaders, dusting off their concern for the worker just in time to defend the contracts that exploit them. This time, the argument is that zero-hours contracts are good for British workers because they offer flexibility. Let’s test that.

Some workers, like students, carers or those juggling other commitments, do want irregular hours. But the problem with these contracts is the imbalance of power. An employer can cancel your shift due to a slow week and pay you nothing with barely a shrug. In theory, a worker can also refuse a shift, but in practice, their employer may respond by no longer offering work altogether. And that worker has no flexibility when it comes to paying their rent or bills until business picks up. Therein lies the trick of these contracts: the risk of a bad week gets transferred from the “risk-taking” business to the employees who can least afford it.

If a company wants genuinely casual labour, there are still ways to provide that. Part-time contracts, variable shifts and annualised hours all offer more security for the worker while giving businesses everything they claim to need, apart from the right to offer their staff nothing at all. Which is exactly why they’re fighting it – because every other model requires a business to absorb some of the unpredictability it shifts onto its workers. Zero-hours contracts let them off the hook.

Peter Cardwell: It’s common sense, not exploitation

Small businesses have been hammered in recent years: minimum wage increases; lockdowns; Brexit-inspired European worker flight; rising prices and more red tape via the Employment Rights Act. And now the Government’s plan on restricting zero-hours contracts could cost businesses nearly £3 billion.

Show me the pub that doesn’t need to occasionally send a barman home because it’s quiet. The hairdresser that can afford to pay someone to sit around for an afternoon when there is no one wanting a cut and blow dry. Many employees like the flexibility of zero-hours too, manoeuvring shifts around childcare or fluctuating study. Forcing wealth creators to pay workers for shifts curtailed or cancelled will just put more businesses out of business. Zero-hours contracts aren’t exploitative; they’re just common sense.

Instead of posturing, the Government should listen to the numerous employer bodies objecting to this plan. They know the reality of running a business in this economy.

Emily Watkins: Protections should not come at the cost of flexibility

Apart from a stint in an office during my early 20s, most of my working life has been in the spirit of zero-hours contracts – if there were contracts in place at all. So while I know first-hand that such arrangements can be a nightmare, I also know the benefits offered by flexibility.

As a student working at endless cafes and restaurants, I experienced all flavours of exploitation – ah, the stories I could tell you! But suffice to say, unpredictable hours were the least of my worries. On the contrary, they suited my unpredictable lifestyle: between university assignments and late-night parties, I was more likely to be delighted than dismayed when a shift was cancelled last minute – meanwhile, I relished the opportunity to down tools and take off weeks at a time, whether that was to attend to a thesis or a spur-of-the-moment trip.

While I hung up my waitress apron years ago, I’ve continued to value workplace elasticity as a freelancer; it’s been priceless, especially while my son is a baby. But although this set up works when it works, there’s no question that the status quo leaves ample room for worker exploitation; capitalism ensures that power will always be with an employer rather than an employee, and it’s right that protections are implemented to correct that imbalance. It’s also crucial, though, that flexibility isn’t lost in the rush to firm up arrangements where looseness benefits all parties.