Workers most likely to fall behind on bills at risk of being left behind by government's zero-hours reforms - IPPR
|
Workers without fixed hours who regularly work 2030
hours a week are 73 per cent more likely to fall
behind on bills than comparable fixed-hours workers Government
proposals risk excluding these workers from new guaranteed-hours
protections IPPR calls for guaranteed-hours rights to cover workers
contracted for 30 hours a week or less Workers without
fixed hours who regularly work between 20 and 30
hours a...Request free trial
Workers without fixed hours who regularly work between 20 and 30 hours a week are 73 per cent more likely to be behind on bills than comparable workers on fixed-hours contracts, according to new analysis by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR). People on these contracts can see their hours, and therefore their income, change from week to week, making it harder to budget and keep up with essential costs. The government plans to tackle exploitative zero-hours contracts through a new right to guaranteed hours and predictable shifts, giving workers greater certainty over their hours and pay and supporting the wider ambition to raise living standards. The legislation will cover workers with contracts that guarantee a low number of fixed hours per week, but who regularly work more. Ministers are consulting on where to set a "low-hours threshold", between eight and 20 hours. Anyone with contracted hours that exceed the threshold will be excluded, even if they also consistently work additional hours. IPPR's analysis suggests this approach risks missing many of the workers most exposed to financial hardship. The strongest link between variable hours and falling behind on bills is found among people regularly working 20 to 30 hours a week, a pattern not seen in other weekly-hours groups analysed. The think tank is calling on ministers to set the threshold at 30 hours so that the reform delivers on its core purpose of reducing income insecurity and raising living standards. At that level, ministers would have a clear case that the policy is reaching the people it was designed to support. A 30-hour threshold would cover around six in 10 workers with non-fixed hours, compared with just under half who would be covered under a 20-hour threshold. As a share of the overall workforce, coverage would rise from around 10 per cent of employees to 13 per cent. Workers who would be brought into scope by a higher threshold are particularly concentrated in retail and public services. Among workers with non-fixed hours who regularly work 20 to 30 hours a week, 32 per cent work in wholesale and retail and 31 per cent in public services. IPPR argues that extending protections in this way would still retain flexibility for employers to adapt to changing demand. Costs on business should be small if the policy formalises hours people are already working, while employers would remain free to offer overtime above guaranteed hours. Similar reforms have been introduced in the Netherlands, Ireland and Norway, with no evidence of a reduction in economy-wide demand for workers. Joseph Evans, research fellow at IPPR and co-author of the research, said: People can be working close to full-time hours and still have no certainty about what they will earn from one week to the next. That one-sided flexibility leaves workers carrying the financial risk and makes it much harder to budget, plan or keep up with household bills. Ministers are introducing vital protections against exploitative zero-hours contracts. But there is a risk that an eight-to-20-hour threshold would exclude workers who are at greater risk of falling behind on bills. Setting the threshold at 30 hours would deliver a huge boost to the living standards of people who need it most. It would ensure that new employment rights deliver the breathing space' that the Prime Minister wants for households struggling with the cost of living. ENDS NOTES TO EDITORS
|