Guaranteed hours for all
It's time to ensure contracts provide enough guaranteed hours for a decent standard of living.
Usdaw is calling on the government to deliver real guaranteed hours for everyone - not a system full of gaps that can be exploited.
What's the issue?
Plans to give workers security and stability with good guaranteed hours contracts are under threat.
The Government has launched a consultation on its guaranteed hours plans but the threshold is far lower than expected.
Usdaw is clear this proposal falls far short of Labour's manifesto commitments to make work pay - that promised everyone would have the right to contract that reflects the number of hours they regularly work.
Many Usdaw members work over and above their contracted hours every week to boost their pay, but these additional hours can be removed at any time by their employer.
Original government proposals aimed to do away with this uncertainty. For example, someone regularly working 30 hours a week would be able to get a contract for that length, providing stability and security - helping to secure mortgages or loans, for example.
The Government's new preferred option will limit who can apply for a guaranteed hours contract to workers contracted between 8 and 20 hours a week. This means workers contracted above or below this threshold will be excluded from the right - therefore it will not deliver the security all workers need to meet their bills, get a mortgage or plan ahead.
8 out of 10 Usdaw members want their contract to reflect the number of hours they work each week.
No worker should be left outside of the right. Everybody should have a right to a contract that reflects the actual hours they work, if they want it.
What are the risks of the current threshold proposal?
- Leaves too many workers without protection
- Allows employers to to manipulate hours
- Undermines the promise of secure work
What does this mean in practice?
Jane works 30 hours every week - but her contract is 21 hours.
Because she's above the threshold:
- She has no contract that reflects the hours she actually works
- Her employer can cut her hours at any time
Amina works 30 hours too - but her contract is 18 hours.
Before the law starts:
- Her employer cuts her shifts to avoid giving her a better contract, for example, 20 hours
- She's left struggling to pay her bills
People finding themselves in Amina's situation are more likely to be women, disabled and Black and minority ethnic workers - meaning that the threshold will have a disproportionate impact on workers with those protected characteristics.
This isn't security - it's uncertainty.
Why does this matter?
A threshold system would:
- Create two tiers of workers
- Encourage unfair treatment
- Hit women, disabled and Black workers hardest
What needs to happen?
Give all workers the right to a contract that reflects their real hours:
- No threshold
- No loopholes
- No exclusions
- The initial reference period should be 12 weeks, with subsequent reference periods every 12 weeks (a longer subsequent reference period or any breaks between reference periods would be easy for employers to manipulate using AI and algorithmic shift management software)
- There should be no requirements on 'working regularly', beyond a simple average of the hours worked during the reference period, and there should be no category of workers excluded from the right.
Our message
Guaranteed hours must mean guaranteed hours for everyone.
Anything less risks failing the workers this policy is meant to protect.