Major recruitment firms, including Adecco, Hays, Randstad, and Manpower, have expressed strong opposition to government proposals to ban zero-hour contracts for agency workers. The companies have described the reforms as “unworkable” and warned that the changes could have unintended consequences, including reduced hiring levels and an increase in self-employment.
The government’s proposed reforms, part of the Employment Rights Bill, aim to enhance job security by requiring employers to offer guaranteed hours to workers currently employed under zero-hour or low-guaranteed-hour contracts. However, recruitment firms argue that the measures could disrupt the labour market and reduce the flexibility many workers value.
In a letter to Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds, leaders from the recruitment industry outlined their objections to the proposed changes. They highlighted the critical role zero-hour contracts play in sectors such as retail, hospitality, and logistics, where fluctuating demand requires a highly adaptable workforce.
“Zero-hour contracts provide vital flexibility for businesses and workers alike,” said a spokesperson for Adecco. “Many individuals choose these contracts because they suit their personal circumstances, whether that’s balancing work with education or caregiving responsibilities.”
The Recruitment & Employment Confederation (REC) has also raised concerns, warning that making agencies or end hirers responsible for offering guaranteed hours could lead to operational challenges and increased costs.
The proposed ban forms part of the government’s broader strategy to address job insecurity and improve working conditions for the UK’s nearly 900,000 agency workers. A government spokesperson defended the plans, stating, “We are committed to ensuring fair and predictable working conditions for everyone, especially those in precarious employment. These measures aim to provide agency workers with the stability they deserve while maintaining flexibility in the labour market.”
The government has launched a consultation to gather feedback from stakeholders, including recruitment firms, unions, and workers, to refine the proposals and ensure their effectiveness.
The proposed ban has been well received by workers’ rights groups and unions, who argue that zero-hour contracts often leave employees vulnerable to exploitation. The Trades Union Congress (TUC), a long-standing critic of these contracts, has hailed the reforms as a step toward greater fairness in the workplace.
“Zero-hour contracts trap too many workers in a cycle of insecurity, with no guaranteed income and little control over their schedules,” said Frances O’Grady, General Secretary of the TUC. “We need reforms that protect workers and provide the stability they need to thrive.”
Advocates have also pointed out that zero-hour contracts disproportionately affect women, ethnic minorities, and younger workers, who are more likely to take on these roles due to limited alternatives.
The debate over zero-hour contracts underscores the challenges of balancing the flexibility businesses need with the job security workers deserve. Recruitment firms argue that any restriction on zero-hour contracts risks limiting opportunities for temporary work, which is essential for some workers.
Proponents of the ban counter that providing predictable hours and fair pay is crucial for building a sustainable and equitable labour market. They also point to examples in other countries where similar measures have been successfully implemented without significant disruption.
As the government’s consultation period continues, the outcome of this debate will have wide-reaching implications for businesses and workers alike. While recruitment firms warn of potential risks, advocates see the proposals as a much-needed step toward addressing long-standing inequalities in the labour market.
The final decision on whether to implement the reforms will likely depend on how effectively the government can balance these competing priorities.