Would a Labour Government be more socialist than the current Conservative one? Very much so, if Labour’s promise to do for England what it has done for Wales is to be believed – with disastrous consequences. CCHQ should be making this point all day every day. On the other hand, as Steve Baker MP has spotted, there are issues such as wider home ownership, and an increased role for private health care, where Labour promises to be less socialist.
We have some reassurance that there will not be further big increases in tax and state spending. But part of the balance is that Labour does need to include something to motivate their core socialist supporters. One item routinely included in speeches by Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves, the Shadow Chancellor, is a pledge to ban zero-hours contracts.
The aspect of these contracts that people objected to, the exclusivity, was banned in 2015 anyway. That was the arrangement where an employee would be available for work for a particular company all the time, not work for anyone else, and not have any guaranteed minimum number of hours. That sounds pretty unreasonable – though I suppose those who signed up for it must have found it advantageous in practice. Anyway, the point is the law has already been changed to stop this.
The official definition of such contracts now is:
“They are on call to work when you need them. You do not have to give them work. They do not have to do work when asked.”
Labour’s policy document states:
“Labour will end ‘one-sided’ flexibility and ensure all jobs provide a baseline level of security and predictability, banning exploitative zero-hours contracts and ensuring everyone has the right to a contract that reflects the number of hours they regularly work, based on a twelve-week reference period.”
It seems to me that flexibility is already mutual. Labour’s change would really be a war on casual workers.
Still, they obviously feel that even the current revised policy is still exploitative and that tougher rules are morally justified. But why wait for a Labour Government? Why don’t they implement where they are already in power?
I asked, via Freedom of Information requests, for details of how many staff Labour councils employ on zero-hours contracts. Among those Labour councils (and councils with Labour in coalition) I got the following numbers for their staff on zero-hours contracts:
Bradford 1,171
Oxfordshire 1,110
Trafford 965
Gateshead 949
Derby 948
Inverclyde 917
Powys 808
Kirklees 701
Medway 659
Pembrokeshire 629
Leicester 628
Coventry 604
Blackburn 570
Sefton 522
Telford and Wrekin 510
Wandsworth 477
Monmouthshire 444
Calderdale 424
Lambeth 438
Reading 330
Southampton 279
Havering 267
Middlesbrough 248
Darlington 244
Swindon 241
Islington 220
Hull 217
Thurrock 213
Chorley 207
Sunderland 177. Protested definition.
Barnsley 175
Oldham 169
Wolverhampton 162
Bury 156
Warwick 152
Brighton and Hove 147
Redbridge 141
Warrington 131
Merton 115
Cheltenham 97
Gedling 97
Liverpool 88
The response from Sunderland Council stated:
“The council does not employ people on zero-hour contracts, rather we have Permanent Variable Hours (PVH) Contracts in which the employee is employed on the same terms and conditions of employment and benefits as everyone else, pro rata to the numbers of hours they actually work. Under our PVH contracts, employee and employer have equality of obligation in the offer and acceptance or decline of working hours.”
That arrangement sounds to me as if it does count as a zero-hour contract under the current definition and would be too flexible to be legal under Labour’s proposal “that reflects the number of hours they regularly work, based on a twelve-week reference period.”
Bradford Council responded:
“Bradford Council currently has 1,171 workers on the system that fall within the definition above. We call these ‘casual’ workers as opposed to ‘zero-hours contracts’.”
That’s fine with me. But evidently not with the Labour Party.
Let us suppose Labour is elected and implements its policy. What would the impact be on local government? I think it would push up costs. Either there would be more regular staff employed on fixed hours, often with nothing to do. Or there would be more expensive agency staff.
Perhaps councils would be forced to scale back the services they offer. Remember that councils don’t just empty the dustbins but have a wide array of duties. The response from Merton Council gives a clue:
“We currently have 115 people who do not have regular contracted hours and are active on our HR/Payroll system. Many of these roles are very short term or seasonal in nature (e.g. summer sailing instructors). The short-term nature of these needs is the key driver in the use of casual arrangements like this. These are casual workers that we call on when needed, and they are not restricted from working for any other employers.”
Reading Council said:
“The council currently has 330 workers engaged on Casual contracts. Workers on Casual contracts are offered work on an “as required” basis and are under no obligation to accept any work offered. The majority of our casual workers work on a sessional basis in our Theatres, Libraries, Museum, supporting events in our Town Hall and with election duties.”
I suppose the more entrepreneurial zero-hours employees could become self employed and set up their own companies and work as contractors. But then their employee rights – such as holiday pay or a notice period – would not be enhanced but lost. Realistically, some of those casual worker employees currently on “zero-hours contracts” would cease working altogether.
The current legal framework for casual employment is reasonable. Flexibility is not “exploitative” but of mutual benefit. What would be the cost to the economy? Would it really help the poor or would there be myriad unintended consequences? How much extra cost would result for the public sector, including local government? How would Labour fund that extra spending?
But most of all, doesn’t it show the stonking hypocrisy of the Labour Party that they are denouncing in such sanctimonious terms the working arrangements that so many of their own councils are applying?