The Association of Professional Staffing Companies (APSCo) has raised concerns over the government’s proposed reforms to zero-hour contracts, describing them as ‘unsuitable’ for agency workers.
The Employment Rights Bill aims to tackle zero-hour contracts, which are widely criticised as exploitative, by introducing guaranteed hours in certain circumstances, as well as the right to reasonable notice of work schedules. Workers will also have the right to compensation if shifts are cancelled at short notice.
In its response to the public consultation, APSCo argued that the reforms should exclude agency workers, as guaranteed hours are impractical for this segment of the labour market. APSCo has recommended that if the government proceeds with zero-hour contract reforms, specific adjustments should be made to protect the flexibility and practicality of agency work.
Tania Bowers, Global Public Policy Director at APSCo, said, “The proposals outlined in the zero hours consultation aren’t deliverable and will have a detrimental impact on access to critical temporary resources in highly skilled professions. This jeopardises crucial services in the likes of healthcare, education, construction and other sectors that are already facing significant staff shortages. Hirers use agency workers to fill unexpected gaps in resources, such as staff sickness, which means that the very nature of how these workers are engaged is unpredictable and needs to be.
“An education supply staffing business, for example, can’t predict what resources will be needed on a Monday morning, so how are they meant to offer guaranteed hours to supply teachers? The proposals simply aren’t workable for every scenario – and I’d argue that there isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution to this issue.”
The Unique Needs of Agency Workers
Among the measures proposed by APSCo, there is the exclusion of fixed-term agency workers from the regulations; a limit to the applicability of reforms based on either hourly rates or the nature of the task or role; the introduction of a worker opt-out option, accompanied by specific safeguards.
“There needs to be the recognition that temporary workers in the highly skilled and highly paid segment of the labour market don’t need the same protections as those that are exposed to exploitative zero-hour contracts,” Bowers said. “Any future plans must account for the fact that guaranteed hours can’t, and in some cases shouldn’t, be offered due to the nature of the work.
“We have reminded the Government that agreements between agency workers and employment businesses are not exploitative zero hours contracts and shouldn’t be brought in to the Act as a result. There is a clear difference between exploitative zero hours contracts and agency work that is well-regulated through Employment Agency Standards, Agency Worker Regulations, the Conduct Regulations and the Employment Agencies Act.
“It is also fundamental that definitions such as ‘genuinely temporary’ are consulted on before the Act is passed along with the timeframes proposed. A 12-week contract period is far too short within the context of professional sectors where 6-month agreements are the norm.”
Alessandra Pacelli is a journalist and author contributing to HRreview, an HR news and opinion publication, where she covers topics including labour market trends, employment costs, and workplace issues. She is a journalism graduate and self-described lifelong dog lover who has also written for Dogs Today magazine since 2014.
- Alessandra Pacelli
- Alessandra Pacelli
- Alessandra Pacelli
- Alessandra Pacelli
