THE period since the start of the recession in 2008 has seen a growing casualisation of the British workforce, with a reduction in permanent employee jobs and a big increase in temporary, agency, casual, bogus self-employed and zero-hours contract jobs. 

These jobs are overwhelmingly low-paid, with most offering fewer rights than normal jobs, and are often the only kind of employment available for millions of particularly young, female and ethnic minority jobseekers. 

Zero-hours contracts are probably the worst feature of this casualisation, but the weakness of the recent coalition proposals on action against them shows that it has no interest in doing anything worthwhile to crack down on the widespread abuses from which growing numbers of workers are suffering.

The number of zero-hours contracts has rocketed in recent years, with the Office for National Statistics increasing its estimate of the number of such jobs from 250,000 in 2012 to 580,000 in 2013 and 1.4 million today. 

These contracts are now becoming commonplace in the caring services, in hospitals, in the retail and hospitality industries, in the security industry, in leisure and entertainment and in the arts and higher education. 

An estimated 160,000 home helps and carers are on these contracts and almost all non-managerial workers in Burger King, Domino’s, McDonald’s, Sports Direct and Subway are on them as well. 

And it’s not just traditionally low-paid sectors which are affected, as college lecturers, journalists and even lawyers are now among those who can find themselves on such contracts.

Employers are quick to praise zero-hours contracts on the grounds that they offer flexibility, not just to employers but to workers as well. 

They point out that some people with caring responsibilities often welcome them, as do some students who can earn some money working in petrol stations and elsewhere, while still being able to continue their education. 

Employers also boast that they are responsible for higher than expected rates of employment, with Neil Carberry of the CBI claiming: “It’s zero-hours contracts and other forms of flexible working that mean there are half a million fewer unemployed people than there might otherwise have been.” 

Yet it is the ability to exploit workers more effectively and to make more profit by cutting the wage bill and reducing employment rights which are the real attraction to employers.

But for workers it’s a different story. The contracts, as the name implies, offer no guaranteed hours of work. 

And while the coalition estimates that the average worker on them does 25 hours a week, many do less or sometimes no hours at all. 

This makes it impossible for many contract workers to have any kind of decent standard of living and, in addition, pay rates are also generally lower than those of other workers. 

Indeed, according to the Resolution Foundation, zero-hours contract workers earn an average of only £9 an hour, compared to an average of £15 an hour for those on ordinary contracts.

Some also come into work and find themselves sent home without pay because they are not required that day. 

And some who get on the wrong side of their manager or supervisor, or who turn down a shift because of another commitment, can find themselves being punished by being offered less work or none at all over the following period. 

Some workers also have “exclusivity” built into their contracts so, even if the employer is offering them no work, they are not allowed to work for anybody else either. 

Many home helps and other care workers who visit and help the elderly and sick also lose out by not being paid for all of their travelling time, as their employers do not consider this working time. 

But these are not the only problems because zero-hours contract workers often have fewer legal rights as well. 

With most such contracts, there is no obligation on employers to offer work and no obligation on the worker to accept it if offered. 

This means that there is no “mutuality of obligation” and, as a result, large numbers of those on zero-hours contracts are considered “workers” rather than “employees” and lose out on a large number of legal rights which employees enjoy. 

Although “workers” are covered by some employment laws, like the national minimum wage, the working time regulations — which guarantee the right to paid holidays — and the Equality Act, they are not covered by others. 

These include the right to claim unfair dismissal, the right to redundancy pay and the right to maternity pay and leave. 

In addition they have no right to a written statement of terms and conditions, itemised payslips, statutory minimum notice, unpaid time off to care for dependants, time off for antenatal care, time off for trade union activities and protection under the Tupe regulations, which protect the pay and conditions of workers whose employer changes through takeover or outsourcing.

When all of these disadvantages are added together, it is clear that zero-hours contracts are a thoroughly bad deal for the large majority of those working under them. 

This is increasingly being recognised but, when it comes to doing something about it, employers and most politicians are slow coming forward with solutions to the many abuses built into the contracts.

Coalition Business Secretary Vince Cable has commented on a “climate of fear” among some contract workers, often caused by threats to “zero down” their hours if they do not work when asked to, and has criticised the “exclusivity” clauses in some contracts. 

But when the coalition consulted earlier this year on what should be done, its policy proposals were so weak as to be meaningless. 

And when, in the Queen’s Speech, it announced legislation to tackle abuses, no details were given. 

Ed Miliband has called for the banning of “exclusivity” clauses, for compensation when shifts are cancelled at short notice and for workers to have proper contracts if they have worked regular hours for six months or more. 

The TUC has also highlighted the scandal of care companies refusing to pay travelling time and has called on the government to take action on the issue.

All of these are worthy aims but they are limited and, even if implemented, will still leave zero-hours contract workers in a bad place. 

However dock workers employed by SCA Logistics in Tilbury have gone for a more direct approach and have taken strike action to prevent the introduction of such contracts by their employer. 

This is an example for all of us and, even if we don’t take industrial action on the issue, there is still a lot union reps and members can do in their workplaces to stop the “Japanese knotweed-style” spread of zero-hours contracts which, if left to expand, will undermine all our rights.

It’s time for zero tolerance for zero-hours contracts! It’s time to step up our resistance to them and organise to kill them off. 

n Richard Lynch is a GMB rep in the union’s London Region. This article is written in a personal capacity.