Sunderland MP slams ‘zero-hour’ contracts

Julie Elliott

Julie Elliott

A WEARSIDE MP has condemned the Government for failing to tackle controversial ‘zero-hours’ contracts.

Business Secretary Vince Cable has announced a new consultation on the contracts, which tie workers to an employer but do not offer guaranteed hours of work.

The Government will seek views on whether a change in the law is required to ban so-called exclusivity clauses which prevent staff from working elsewhere even when they have not been given any work.

But Sunderland Central MP Julie Elliott accused the Government of time-wasting.

She said: “Having long campaigned to get the Government to act to end the abuses of zero-hours contracts and stop vulnerable workers being exploited, I am very disappointed at the announcement today.

“They have now launched a consultation, having already held a review – how much more evidence does this Government need before they act to stop the exploitation of a million workers in this country?

“A Labour Government would ban employers from insisting zero-hours workers be available even when there is no guarantee of any work, stop zero-hours contracts that require workers to work exclusively for one business and end the misuse of zero-hours contracts where employees are in practice working regular hours over a sustained period.

“We need to build an economy that works for working people because a recovery that only benefits a few at the top is not only unfair, but also unstable.

“Hard-working people should feel confident and secure at work; ending the exploitative use of zero-hours contracts is an integral part of achieving this.”

Mr Cable said zero-hours contracts suited some people because of the flexibility they offer.

He said: “We believe they have a place in today’s labour market and are not proposing to ban them outright, but we also want to make sure that people are getting a fair deal.

“Employers need flexible workforces and people should have the choice in how they work. But this shouldn’t be at the expense of fairness and transparency.”





Back to the top of the page