It’s been a torrid time for businesses built on casual labour.
This week Will Shu, the US founder of restaurant delivery service Deliveroo, has been forced to defend a London trial of controversial pay-per-delivery contracts that will see couriers switch from £7 per hour plus £1 per delivery to a flat rate of £3.75 per drop. The new deal was no better than #slaveroo, workers insisted, laying down their bikes and posh lunch orders in protest.
Then it was billionaire Mike Ashley’s turn. Two months after the controversial Sports Direct founder let slip that staff at a warehouse in Shirebrook lost out on the minimum wage thanks to controversial ‘security searches’ (where colleagues rifle through handbags at the end of a shift to check for thieves) the high street retailer has agreed to pay an estimated £1m in back payments. Only three weeks ago, MPs condemned the “Victorian-era” conditions for staff in Ashley’s empire, 90% of which also exist on unpredictable zero-hour contracts.
Quietly in the background, Amazon is working on the UK arm of Flex, recruiting ad-hoc amateur drivers to deliver parcels in their spare time – a scheme that has already been labelled as exploitative by US critics for its erosion of employment rights.
So why do we allow multimillion-pound conglomerates, or any business, to put staff on these zero-hour or ad-hoc contracts?
Only recently, New Zealand outlawed the practice after a grassroots campaign by the Unite union. The bill, which requires companies to guarantee a minimum number of hours per week, “encourages fair and productive workplaces without imposing unnecessary compliance costs on employers in general,” said Michael Woodhouse, the country’s workplace relations and safety minister.
It’s not hard to understand why some employers would oppose such a move here. Having the utmost flexibility allows them to maximise efficiency, cutting costs on quiet days and bulking up on busier ones. Hours can be dangled like carrots to keep workers on their toes if they want a shift the following day. And poor performers can be quietly sidelined from the shop floor without the need for any messy paperwork.
For staff, this flexibility can have its plus side. In theory, at least. They should be able to turn down hours without rebuke and fit shifts in and around outside commitments. And for teens or students saving up a few pennies in the holidays, that can be ideal.
But there are those who rely on the next shift to pay the bills or put food on the table. Who need to know their hours for the next week or month to organise childcare. And who feel unable to take on a second (more reliable) job as turning down last-minute hours is rarely without repercussion.
A blanket ban may not be the answer. But as major employers – including many in fmcg and retail – dream up new, creative ways of doling out job offers without fixed hours or salaries, it’s crucial workers’ rights aren’t simply brushed aside. We need to clarify exactly what we expect from employers. And we need to do it fast.
No comments yet