Originally Posted by
opel80uk
I've heard this argument trotted out numerous times, but it's a fallacy. It is true that perhaps that company took on the contracts because it could be done via zero-hours contracts, but if zero-hour contracts were banned, are you suggesting that the work wouldn't get done, by someone else, somewhere else, using conventional contracts? Is the work such that only zero hour contracts permits the work, and if they were banned the jobs wouldn't exist to carry out the same work elsewhere, albeit not with that particular company? I say that implication is nonsense.
And whilst a zero hour contract may suit you perfectly, it is clear that for far too many people they can be, and in many cases are, exploitative and one sided. It's for that reason that New Zealand, hardly a bastian of social awareness, has banned them. And the UK should (although of course won't) follow suit.