- Jersey has much higher rate of zero-hours workers than the UK
- One in ten Jersey staff on flexible terms – compared to one in 50 in mainland
- Deputy Geoff Southern has criticised report into zero-hours – calling it ‘shoddy’
- Poll: Does the law on zero-hours contracts need to be changed or is it fair?
ONE in ten Island workers is on a zero-hours contract compared to around one in 50 in the UK, a new report has shown.
The report published by the Social Security Department on Wednesday into the use of the controversial contracts – which do not offer any guarantee of regular work – revealed that ten per cent of Islanders, or 5,500 workers, are on zero-hour contracts, compared to 2.3 per cent in the UK.
Deputy Geoff Southern, who proposed that the review take place, has criticised the report, calling it ‘skimpy’ and ‘shoddy’, adding that it had ‘failed to address any of the serious issues’ about the misuse of zero-hour contracts. He has now said that the Health and Social Security Scrutiny Panel, of which he is a member, should take on the review and address the areas that were missed in the report.
In a States-approved proposition in 2013, Deputy Southern called on the Social Security Minister to undertake a review of the use of zero-hour contracts with the view to bringing legislation to ‘restrict the misuse’ of such agreements if necessary.
The report, which outlines a code of practice for the use of the contracts, stated that one of the main problems caused by zero-hour agreements was that fewer workers were granted employment benefits such as pension and sick pay.
Deputy Southern said: ‘They have assumed that issuing a code of practice is sufficient but a code of practice is only as good as those who wish to adhere to it. There is no enforcement or policing there.
‘It needs proper research and I will probably suggest to the Scrutiny Panel that we do the research that they haven’t done, which is to look into if they are being abused.
‘I am very disappointed that they have not dealt with the issues. They are trying to avoid any improvements to the Employment Law. I think they have deliberately chosen to avoid the issues.’
However, the report has been seen as a welcome step in making employers aware of their responsibilities.
Social Security Minister Susie Pinel said that she was pleased that ‘more information is now available to Jersey employers to make it easy for them to check that they are using the right type of contracts and reverse any poor practice’.
Meanwhile, Malcolm Ferey, chief executive of the Citizens Advice Bureau, said: ‘I hope that the employers see that the contract that they give has to be suitable.
‘It is important and empowering for employers to have that guidance.
‘The report says that the vast majority of people on zero-hour contracts are either very or fairly satisfied, which is important to remember. If you want the flexibility of work, then there will be some disadvantages, and some have said they are concerned about things like sick pay.
‘A lot of time and effort has gone into this report and it is useful in setting out the terms on which zero-hour contracts should be used.’
THE charged rhetoric about zero-hours contracts has tended to polarise the debate. Too many see these controversial arrangements as right or wrong.
That black-and-white approach is unhelpful, particularly in the midst of a UK general election campaign characterised by half-truths, simplistic sloganeering and petty point-scoring.
In Jersey, as elsewhere, there are pros and cons associated with zero-hours contracts for both employers and employees.
In 2013, the States adopted a proposition to investigate the extent of the use of zero-hours contracts and to examine their impact. Based on the findings, the Social Security Minister agreed to bring forward any new legislation deemed necessary.
Yesterday, Deputy Susie Pinel published a report – there will be no new law, a decision which has angered Deputy Geoff Southern, who today dismissed the report as ‘shoddy’.
In an Island in which 79 per cent of businesses (5,195 companies) employ fewer than five people, it would be very damaging to the economy to impose one-size-fits-all policies taken off the UK peg when it comes to employment law – the regime must be fair and proportionate.
The report pulls together already-published data which shows that 76 per cent of 5,861 people with zero-hours jobs were very or fairly satisfied with the arrangement. They cited flexibility as a significant plus point because they can work when they want. They liked only having to commit to ‘occasional hours’.
However, almost half of those on zero-hours contracts (46%) said that a lack of pension and employment benefits was a ‘problem’.
The report is illuminating, but it fails adequately to answer the question at the heart of the debate – are the contracts being abused? That is a question of law and not something which can be judged through self-assessment questionnaires like the Annual Social Survey, the source of much of the data relied on in the report.
A significant percentage of Islanders employed on these contracts are working in manual jobs. Many may not speak good English or have the ability to challenge their employers – particularly when jobs are not as plentiful as they once were.
Simply issuing employers with a guide on the appropriate use of zero-hours contracts is not enough. It is not yet time to lock this issue away in a drawer marked resolved.
