Zero-hours contracts have come under the spotlight and following The Work Foundation study published last week exploring the rise in use of the contract has been met with mixed response.

Zero-hours contracts are essentially a casual arrangement between an employee and employer where there is no guarantee on the part of the employer to offer a set number of hours to work, or requirement of the employee to work them. Historically this has worked for people wanting to work flexible hours, for example a student wants to work 5-10pm 3-4 days per week. They can work additional hours if they are available but can also turn work down when they need to study. This has also enabled organisations who require flexibility to tap into an otherwise unavailable workforce.

Zero-hours contracts are utilised by some of the UK’s biggest employers such as JD Wetherspoon, McDonald’s and Buckingham Palace where seasonal workers are crucial for the success of the business. Industries such as retail, hospitality and the nursing profession utilise casual staff and have done for years without any major concern. However, Sports Direct were recently exposed for having its 20,000 part-time workers on zero-hours contracts but the real issue is they also prevent them from working other roles elsewhere. In effect, restricting their ability to earn.

The economic climate has undoubtedly placed pressure on organisations and job seekers. Organisations clearly need flexibility but they also want loyalty. Job seekers are happy to give loyalty on the basis they are given the hours to actually work. The worrying question is: do 20,000 Sports Direct ‘part-time’ employees feel they have no other option than to agree to the terms of their employment contract? Sadly the answer appears to be yes – any work, regardless of how unguaranteed it is, is better than none.

It would be a mistake to ban zero-hours contracts. It would penalise a significant amount of organisations and its employees who rely on this type of arrangement. The Work Foundation report found that while 25% of people on zero-hours contracts would like to work more hours, 75% are happy with the hours they work. Sports Direct should be penalised and made to change their policy towards casual employees. They cannot dictate to people where they can and cannot work if they do not guarantee them work themselves. Restricting someone’s ability to earn a living is wrong, and banning zero-hours contracts would have the same effect for many people.

Noreen Curtin is Associate Director in Manchester.