It is disheartening to read that not only is Labour planning to further dilute its employee rights package but that it is doing so to appease businesses (Labour’s ‘new deal for workers’ will not fully ban zero-hours contracts, 1 May). Your article appeared online on May Day. You don’t have to wrap yourself in the red flag and sing The Internationale to recognise that having a motivated, educated and supported workforce is good for business, the economy and society.
Both the party and those in business lobbying for the changes are ignoring the lessons of recent history and are taking a depressingly narrow view of labour market flexibility and efficiency. The introduction of the minimum wage 25 years ago has been hailed as one of the great postwar economic policy successes. But at the time, business groups warned, wrongly, of mass job losses.
Today’s supposed business opposition to the plans reflects a zero-sum game and binary approach to business management, in which employment rights must hit the bottom line. Such thinking is a powerful factor in the UK’s seemingly endless productivity crisis. The impulse is to cut costs (including for labour) rather than long-term investment in people and planet. Such investment creates lasting value delivered by well-trained, motivated employees.
We have to stop fetishising numerical labour market flexibility (head count and costs) above a functional flexibility approach (requiring investment in people, with careful management).
Chris Rowley
Professor emeritus, Bayes Business School, City, University of London
• While I appreciate that employers need to be prevented from exploiting workers, I am strongly opposed to an outright ban on zero-hours contracts. I’m in my 50s and have a military pension that I top up with a part-time zero-hours job. If I was forced into a permanent fixed contract I would leave my job and not get another one. While I would be worse off financially, the flexibility afforded by my current arrangements are really important to me.
I may well be in a minority, but those shaping our future should remember that one size rarely fits all, and if they want to keep people like me economically active, then we should be free to choose how we are employed.
Perhaps a middle way would be for zero-hours contracts to be available to those of us over a certain age. This would prevent the young being exploited by unscrupulous employers, but maybe that would be seen as discriminatory.
Jason Lumley
Wokingham, Berkshire
• In my experience of working in HR for over 30 years, zero-hours contracts can be useful if drawn up correctly. They should offer employee not only the opportunity to refuse working the shift being offered by the employer, but also the ability to work elsewhere. Casual employment can offer flexibility to both parties. But I accept that some unscrupulous employers may have chosen to exploit their employees by only issuing such contracts.
Tony Leather
South Shields, Tyne and Wear
• Zero-hours contracts suit some people. Perhaps Labour should enforce a higher hourly rate for such flexible working – a zero-hours premium – that would encourage employers to assess their staffing requirements a bit more rigorously.
Michael Heaton
Warminster, Wiltshire
• Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
