Trade unions are urging Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds to ensure that upcoming legislation on zero-hours contracts remains robust, warning that current government proposals may fail to meet Labour’s original manifesto commitments. Union leaders are seeking urgent reassurances as they combat what the TUC describes as “scaremongering” from various business groups.
The primary concern stems from a government consultation document that suggests limitations on who would qualify for new guaranteed-hours contracts. Union representatives argue that these proposed thresholds could effectively exclude a significant portion of the workforce from the intended protections.
Key Union Concerns and Criticisms
- Usdaw: General Secretary Joanne Thomas emphasized that the right to a contract reflecting actual hours worked is essential for basic fairness, stating, “It must apply to everyone up to and including full-time workers. We absolutely cannot have loopholes that make this meaningless.”
- GMB: Ross Holden, head of policy and research, warned that without a major policy rethink, the legislation risks being “watered down” if union concerns are not given sufficient weight.
- Unite: The union criticized a proposed “regularity requirement,” with a spokesperson stating, “If the government was attempting to create a right which virtually no workers could qualify for or be able to enforce – they could not have done a better job.”
The government’s Employment Rights Act aims to eliminate “exploitative” zero-hours contracts, though implementation is not scheduled until next year. A consultation document previously suggested an upper hours threshold—potentially ranging from 8 to 48 hours—which would disqualify workers whose existing contracts already meet that level, regardless of the actual unpredictability of their shifts.
Business groups have pushed back, citing government estimates that the most comprehensive version of the policy could cost firms up to £2.9bn annually. The British Chambers of Commerce described the potential impact as a “further hammer blow” for struggling businesses. However, TUC assistant general secretary Kate Bell countered that these estimates assume employers lack the “creativity and experience” to adapt their business models. Bell noted that the same government data indicates unpredictable shifts cost one in three zero-hours workers approximately £3,000 a year in lost stability.
Jonathan Reynolds, who returned to the role of business secretary during a reshuffle last month, faces this issue as the consultation period closes next week. A government spokesperson stated that while no final decisions have been reached, officials are actively consulting with groups including GMB, Unite, and Usdaw to ensure the reforms function effectively in the real world. The spokesperson reaffirmed the government’s commitment to ending exploitative practices where workers bear the financial risk of unpredictable earnings. The report also notes that but the zero hours changes are not due to be implemented until next year, and many details have yet to be thrashed out, the Act has already become law. The report also notes that published when Keir Starmer was still at No 10, included an upper hours threshold, a consultation document. The report also notes that kate Bell, the assistant general secretary of the TUC, said that 40% of the upper costs estimate was made up of the compensation employers would have to pay out for cancelling workers’ shifts at short notice. The report also notes that “That assumes no behavioural change by employers,” she said. The report also notes that these reforms will give workers in every postcode greater income security and predictability of hours.”.
Comments