logo
More than 1m people still on zero-hours contracts despite Labour pledge to crack down on ‘exploitative' practice

More than 1m people still on zero-hours contracts despite Labour pledge to crack down on ‘exploitative' practice

Yahoo13-05-2025
More than one million people in the UK are on zero-hours contracts, new data has revealed, despite Labour's pledge to eliminate the 'exploitative' contracts last year.
Some 1.17 million people were on zero-hours contracts, meaning that they are not guaranteed any minimum working hours by their employer, between January and March of this year.
The only period on record when more people in the UK were on zero-hours contracts was between April and June of 2023, when 1.2 million workers were in such roles.
Labour ushered in a plan to offer guaranteed working hours as part of its Employment Rights Bill, which is currently being scrutinised in the House of Lords.
As a result, experts expected that bosses would shy away from zero-hours contracts; but in fact, the opposite has happened, with a 12.5 per cent increase in the past year.
'The law is likely to be passed later this year, and we had expected to see the start of a long-term decline of zero-hour contracts in the UK,' said Rebecca Florisson, analyst at the Work Foundation.
'But this marked increase may signal some employers are resistant to dropping zero-hour contracts ahead of new legislation being introduced.'
The figures are a concern, with the UK seeing 106,000 fewer employees on the payroll compared to the previous year, according to new ONS statistics.
Around 130,000 more people have been employed via zero-hours contracts in the first quarter of this year than were last year.
This makes up 3.4 per cent of the total UK workforce, according to the latest Labour Force Survey.
'Many workers are currently trapped in these unstable jobs as they have limited choices to find other forms of employment, and often have to trade security for much-needed flexibility to manage their health or their childcaring responsibilities,' explained Ms Florisson.
One in four of these workers – 291,000 people – are working fewer hours than they'd like, the data shows, and are either seeking more hours, an additional job, or a new job with longer hours.
Some people are drawn to zero-hours contracts due to their temporary nature, but the majority (67 per cent) of people on these contracts have been with their employer for over a year; and some for 10 years or more.
Women are more likely to be employed in this way than men, and concerningly make up 81 per cent of the growth in zero-hours contracts in the past year.
'The growth in zero-hour contracts is likely to impact groups facing structural inequalities in the labour market,' warns Ms Florisson.
'Zero-hour contract work is often concentrated in lower paid sectors like retail and hospitality, and our previous research has shown that women, young and older workers are more likely to be in routine and semi-routine jobs in these sectors.'
Young people aged 24 and under are most likely to work on zero-hours contracts, and also more likely to be in education while working.
But hundreds of thousands of people in older age groups also work on 'unstable' contracts, including 321,000 people aged 50 and above.
Research from the Work Foundation at Lancaster University also suggests that three in four people working zero-hours contracts are in 'severely insecure' work.
'This means they face a worrying mix of financial and contractual insecurity, which also limits their rights and protections,' says Ms Florisson.
The East Midlands sees the highest proportion of workers on zero-hours contracts, at 4.7 per cent of all people in employment; a jump from 3.7 per cent the previous quarter.
A package of labour reforms was introduced in the Employment Rights Bill last year.
As part of the bill, zero-hour contracts without the offer of work will be banned, and guaranteed hours will be set by the number worked in a 12-week period.
The bill passed in its third reading by a majority of 233 votes, and is undergoing scrutiny in the House of Lords.
A timeline for implementation is not yet set, but the majority of reforms are not expected to take effect until at least late 2026.
'Employers report that their labour costs are increasing due to the rise in the National Living Wage and the National Minimum Wage and the increase in employer National Insurance Contributions,' said Ms Florisson.
'In that context, it is possible that employers will continue using zero-hour contracts for as long as they can as a way to balance out resourcing demands and increasing costs.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Another tantrum from the Labour backbenches is inevitable
Another tantrum from the Labour backbenches is inevitable

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Another tantrum from the Labour backbenches is inevitable

In common with many parents across the country, here's a conversation that I have with my young daughter on a semi-regular basis (bear with me, this will take on some political relevance eventually). Me: "So it's 15 minutes until your bedtime, you can either have a little bit of TV or do a jigsaw, not both." Daughter: "Ummmm, I want to watch TV." Me: "That's fine, but it's bed after that, you can't do a jigsaw as well." Fast-forward 15 minutes. Me: "Right, TV off now please, bedtime." (Pause) Daughter: "I want to do a jigsaw." Now replace me with the government, the TV and jigsaw options with axing welfare cuts and scrapping the two-child cap, and my daughter with rebellious backbenchers. Politics latest: That is the tension currently present between Downing Street and Labour MPs. And my initial ultimatum is the messaging being pumped out from the government this weekend. In essence: you've had your welfare U-turn, so there's no money left for the two-child cap to go as well. As an aside - and before my inbox fills with angry emails lambasting me for using such a crude metaphor for policies that fundamentally alter the lives of some of the most vulnerable in society - yes, I hear you, and that's part of my point. For many in Labour, this approach feels like the lives of their constituents are being used in a childish game of horse-trading. So what can be done? Well, the government could change the rules. Altering the fiscal rules is - and will likely remain - an extremely unlikely solution. But as it happens, one of Labour's proverbial grandparents has just popped round with a different suggestion. A wealth tax, Lord Neil Kinnock says, is the necessary outcome of the economic restrictions the party has placed on itself. Ever the Labour storyteller, Lord Kinnock believes this would allow the government to craft a more compelling narrative about whose side this administration is on. That could be valuable, given one of the big gripes from many backbench critics is that they still don't really understand what this prime minister stands for - and by extension, what all these "difficult decisions" are in aid of. The downside is whether it will actually raise much money. The super-rich may have lots of assets to take a slice from, but they also have expensive lawyers ready to find novel ways to keep their client's cash away from the prying eyes of the state. Or, of course, they could just leave - as many are doing already. In the short term, the future is a bit easier to predict. If Downing Street is indeed now saying there is no money to scrap the two-child cap (after heavy briefing in the opposite direction just weeks ago), an almighty tantrum from the backbenches is inevitable. And as every parent knows, the more you give in, the harder it becomes to hold the line.

Another tantrum from the Labour backbenches is inevitable
Another tantrum from the Labour backbenches is inevitable

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Another tantrum from the Labour backbenches is inevitable

In common with many parents across the country, here's a conversation that I have with my young daughter on a semi-regular basis (bear with me, this will take on some political relevance eventually). Me: "So it's 15 minutes until your bedtime, you can either have a little bit of TV or do a jigsaw, not both." Daughter: "Ummmm, I want to watch TV." Me: "That's fine, but it's bed after that, you can't do a jigsaw as well." Fast-forward 15 minutes. Me: "Right, TV off now please, bedtime." (Pause) Daughter: "I want to do a jigsaw." Now replace me with the government, the TV and jigsaw options with axing welfare cuts and scrapping the two-child cap, and my daughter with rebellious backbenchers. Politics latest: That is the tension currently present between Downing Street and Labour MPs. And my initial ultimatum is the messaging being pumped out from the government this weekend. In essence: you've had your welfare U-turn, so there's no money left for the two-child cap to go as well. As an aside - and before my inbox fills with angry emails lambasting me for using such a crude metaphor for policies that fundamentally alter the lives of some of the most vulnerable in society - yes, I hear you, and that's part of my point. For many in Labour, this approach feels like the lives of their constituents are being used in a childish game of horse-trading. So what can be done? Well, the government could change the rules. Altering the fiscal rules is - and will likely remain - an extremely unlikely solution. But as it happens, one of Labour's proverbial grandparents has just popped round with a different suggestion. A wealth tax, Lord Neil Kinnock says, is the necessary outcome of the economic restrictions the party has placed on itself. Ever the Labour storyteller, Lord Kinnock believes this would allow the government to craft a more compelling narrative about whose side this administration is on. That could be valuable, given one of the big gripes from many backbench critics is that they still don't really understand what this prime minister stands for - and by extension, what all these "difficult decisions" are in aid of. The downside is whether it will actually raise much money. The super-rich may have lots of assets to take a slice from, but they also have expensive lawyers ready to find novel ways to keep their client's cash away from the prying eyes of the state. Or, of course, they could just leave - as many are doing already. In the short term, the future is a bit easier to predict. If Downing Street is indeed now saying there is no money to scrap the two-child cap (after heavy briefing in the opposite direction just weeks ago), an almighty tantrum from the backbenches is inevitable. And as every parent knows, the more you give in, the harder it becomes to hold the line.

Any breakaway party should be called ‘Farage assistance group'
Any breakaway party should be called ‘Farage assistance group'

Yahoo

time3 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Any breakaway party should be called ‘Farage assistance group'

A breakaway party to the left of Labour should be known as the 'Farage assistance group', former Labour leader Lord Neil Kinnock has said. Lord Kinnock told Sky News's Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips that any 'splintering' would 'only be of assistance to the enemies of Labour'. Speaking on Friday, Jeremy Corbyn said that 'discussions are ongoing' about the shape of a prospective new political party, after Zarah Sultana said she was quitting Labour to 'co-lead the founding' of a new outfit with the ex-party leader. Ms Sultana, who lost the Labour whip in the Commons last year, said the project would also include other independent MPs and campaigners. Lord Kinnock, who led Labour between 1983 and 1992, told Sky: 'I understand they're having a bit of difficulty over thinking of a name. 'In a comradely way, I'd suggest one. It would be the 'Farage assistance group'.' He said that a 'division' in the 'anti-right-wing vote can only assist the parties of the right, the Conservatives, especially now under Mrs Badenoch and under Farage, the Reform party'. 'So the splintering… offered by a new party of the left… can only be of assistance to the enemies of Labour, of the working-class – the people who have no means of sustaining themselves other than the sale of their labour by hand and by brain – and can only be of benefit to the egos of those who are running such a party,' he said. It comes as Labour are trailing Nigel Farage's Reform UK in the polls. On Friday, the Home Secretary appeared to shrug off Ms Sultana's announcement of a new party, and on Sunday, the Education Secretary said that 'some of those involved' had 'checked out' of the Labour Party some time ago. 'Now it's for them to forge their way forward,' she said. 'But what will determine the next election is whether people really see in their lives, in their families, in their communities, the difference a Labour Government has brought.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store