Deborah Orr (A good job doesn’t have to be one for life, 10 September) greatly overstates the element of choice and autonomy that workers have over contractual arrangements such as zero-hours contracts (ZHCs) and so-called self-employment. The rationale for both transfers risk on to workers, in some cases to accommodate or avoid the “national living wage” (an hourly minimum which does not guarantee a living weekly wage). Both increase the power of employers and weaken that of workers. In the case of ZHCs, if workers do not make themselves available to employer demands, they will not be given the hours they need, and employers can dismiss workers at will by cutting their hours instead of having to go through formal dismissal procedures.
In homecare, where ZHCs are prevalent, many providers do not want to employ care workers on ZHCs, but have limited choice when they have to tender for contracts in a cash-starved social care system hit by local authority budget cuts. ZHCs mean that homecare workers may only be paid for the time they spend in clients’ homes – time for travel between visits, training and supervision, and gaps between visits, are unpaid. This is a return to unpaid care labour, largely by women; and Unison’s Ethical Care Charter, which some councils are now adopting, is designed to protect the quality of homecare as well as homecare workers, and not to “thwart” workers’ choice.
Similarly, “self-employment” is often bogus and hides unpaid labour. In parcel delivery, workers are paid by actual delivery (and not for non-delivery when those of us who order online are not in to receive parcels) and work 11- or 12-hour days to make a living and defray the costs of the vehicles they own or lease. If they are sick or want a holiday they have to pay the costs of “the employer” hiring an agency replacement – some rarely take holidays because of this. They may work alongside directly-employed workers with the same managers, but have no employment rights and can, again, be dismissed at whim.
Orr ignores the fact that choice is constrained, and this goes beyond the element of compulsion introduced by the benefits system. ZHCs might fit in with studying and childcare, but this is dependent upon (often working-class) students having to work because grants have been removed, to the detriment of their education, and upon (working-class) women having limited access to childcare or having to care for partners and older relatives. Young self-employed men might be happy to work 11 or 12 hours a day, but once they have children it denies them participation in childcare. By all means let’s move to a society where people have genuine choice over whether, when and for whom they work, and can balance work, care and leisure, and have a decent standard of living. At the moment we are in danger of normalising exploitation, and unfortunately Deborah Orr is playing into this.
Sian Moore
Professor in employment relations and human resource management, University of Greenwich
• Apart from discussing current zero-hours contracts with no mention of their intrinsic downsides – no holiday or sick pay – and the mandatory sideswipe at Jeremy Corbyn, Deborah Orr is right in the main thrust of her argument about a changing world of work. A release from a lifetime of unrewarding toil should present “an enormous opportunity to build a happier more resilient society”. Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams investigate the possibilities in Inventing the Future, welcoming full automation and introducing universal basic income, bringing about “a controlled dissolution of market forces … and a delinking of work from income”.
John Airs
Liverpool
• Deborah Orr misunderstands the position of trade unions on zero-hours contracts. We are all too aware that working people need genuine flexibility to balance work and caring responsibilities. But zero-hours contracts usually mean being at the beck and call of the employer. And parents cannot organise childcare at a moment’s notice simply because their employer texts to say they are needed at work.
We have spent years campaigning for, and winning, flexible working practices and rights for working people. There are other types of contract that allow flexibility for those wanting only a few hours of occasional work, but that do not open the door to the widespread abuse we see with zero-hours contracts. So we should not allow exploitative employers who impose zero-hours contracts to hide behind the excuse of some workers wanting flexibility. It’s a sham argument.
Even if the flexibility of a zero-hours contract suits a particular worker, they will find it impossible to assert their rights at work. If they make a complaint about mistreatment, such as sexual harassment or bullying, their work can simply be cut off in retaliation.
We need alternative contracts with proper guarantees of rights, and guaranteed minimum hours. That way there will be a fairer balance of power between workers and employers, as well as a balance between flexibility for those who want it, and security for those who need it.
Frances O’Grady
General secretary, TUC
• Deborah Orr paints a rosy picture of people on zero-hours contracts “teaching on a few yoga classes” and “doing up bits of furniture to sell on the internet”. Most of these contracts are about struggling to get some regular work and regular pay while being prevented from putting together any sort of “portfolio” of work with other employers. The notion that this equates with being one’s own boss is ludicrous. One may pay national insurance and complete a tax return, but the boss is still clearly the boss – they just neatly avoid having any responsibility for their employees.
Ms Orr castigates the unions and the left in general for having a romantic view of a “job for life”, which apparently she would see replaced with fragmentary insecurity and poverty. The left has always been opposed to the dull wage slavery she describes as well as pernicious, exploitative zero-hours contracts. This isn’t nostalgia and it isn’t just about opposition, it is about progressive democratic change towards a future where people have security in their lives and their roles within the community so that they have time to be fulfilled by things like yoga and carpentry.
To place Jeremy Corbyn’s plea for key industries such as railways being progressively publicly owned on a par with Theresa May’s regressive love affair with grammar schools is preposterous.
Richard Ashwell
Wolverhampton
• Deborah Orr’s article on zero-hours contracts isn’t all wrong, but I doubt many yoga teachers depend on such contracts. For many people, landing a steady job with a benign employer is not the best they hope for but an almost impossible dream. It’s a pity that mentioning such things gets people’s backs up.
The reliance of profitable companies such as Sports Direct on zero-hours contracts should never have been allowed, let alone facilitated by the state topping up people’s pay. One of the more pernicious aspects of zero-hours contracts is the way they enable lower and middle managers to manipulate workers’ hours and situations to suit themselves, even out of spite.
I learned about zero-hours contracts from young graduates who had worked as volunteers at the charity shop where I was assistant manager. I met them again when two of them had low-paid zero-hours contracts in retail. They found it hard to plan and pay for a weekend away together, let alone to settle and raise a family.
Exploited workers can’t afford to wait for an electable Labour party. Let’s hope some UK union or other can emulate the success of Unite in New Zealand (Surprise victory for workers: how New Zealand led the world by banning zero-hours contracts, 10 September). This wouldn’t necessarily damage the work-life balance of Airbnb landlords or furniture restorers.
Jan Dubé
Peebles, Scottish Borders
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
.png?w=600)
