Why Is the Government Targeting Zero-Hour Contracts? They’re a Win for Workers and Employers

For two-and-a-half years I, as many teenage boys do, worked as a pot washer (later graduating to a bartender) and whilst it wasn’t the most glamorous job, it worked well for me.

This was whilst I was at college, allowing me to earn a decent chunk of cash alongside my studies, before I started my role as an apprentice journalist.

I was lucky to have such a lenient boss, who organised shifts via a WhatsApp group and was pretty laid-back when it came to swapping and cancelling working hours.

There are obviously issues with these zero-hours contracts – they can lead to exploitation and offer little job security, especially for those with more responsibilities than a 17-year-old student.

On top of this, employers offering such contracts are not required to give sick pay or any notice before termination.

But as I see it, this is more of an issue with the company rather than the contract.

I enjoyed a good relationship with my employer and never had an issue with my shift allocations, but I understand how problems could arise if this soured.

However, there are some benefits that come with a zero-hours contract, such as no obligation to give notice, which came in handy for me when I landed a job opportunity that required me to move to London in a week.

Read Next: Should I get a 35-year mortgage and try to overpay – or a 25-year one instead?

Danae Shell, co-founder of employment law support firm Valla, says: “Used well, these contracts can offer genuine flexibility. But mutual flexibility is essential.

“Workers need to understand their rights, and employers must ensure they’re classifying and treating their workforce correctly. It’s about making flexibility work fairly for everyone involved.”

According to the Office for National Statistics, as of March 2025, approximately 1.17 million people are employed under a zero-hours contract.

The UK Government introduced the Employment Rights Bill in October 2024, which is currently at the report stage in the House of Lords, to combat, among other issues, some of the more negative aspects of zero-hours contracts.

It looks to force employers to offer a minimum number of guaranteed hours (though employees can choose to remain on a zero-hours contract) after a certain period of work, as well as providing compensation if shifts are cancelled last minute.

Whilst this is certainly beneficial for employees, some industries, like the hospitality industry, rely on these contracts to keep their businesses going.

Having worked in a restaurant for over two years, I know the financial struggles that many are experiencing, and the ability to cut or increase labour costs to match customer numbers is vital to their survival.

But I seem to be in the minority in liking zero-hours contracts, with a poll by the Trade Union Congress in August 2024 revealing that 84 per cent of zero-hours contract workers would prefer regular hours of work.

Maybe the difference in opinion is determined by age and level of independence.

Living with my parents, having virtually no outgoings and spending my weekdays at college, my shift patterns – or lack of them – worked perfectly for me.

But I can see the other perspective, that if you’re relying on a zero-hours contract to provide a stable income, it can become pretty stressful.

Still, I think that the Government’s bill could have significant consequences, especially for industries that rely on these flexible contracts.