Just a Job?

A recent focus on the use of zero-hour contracts has resulted in such working arrangements being singled out by the Government as an especially unfair form of employment.

Yet, our research shows that zero-hours contracts (and precarious and flexible work in general) seem to meet the needs of many employees and employers. For young people in particular – who encompass a large proportion of those workers on these types of contracts – the onus should be on ensuring a better understanding of employment rights, that necessary progression and training is available, and that barriers to permanent employment are overcome, rather than an outright ban of any type of working arrangement.

As the young people who responded to our survey and took part in our focus groups indicated, precarious work serves a purpose when there is a recognition that flexibility works both ways, when such jobs are ‘stepping stones’ to later career advancement, and when they feel that they are able to voice their concerns to their employers. For many young people from disadvantaged backgrounds, such ‘micro jobs’ can be their first experiences of work, and can lead to longer, full-time employment. A ban on zero-hour contracts, therefore, risks focusing on the precise terms of the employment contract rather than the spirit in which such employment relationships are conducted.

In addition, while much research has been done on why employers choose to use (and benefit from) precarious contracts, little analysis exists on why young people might actively seek to engage in this kind of work. As such, this paper seeks to shed light on young people’s experiences of precarious work at a national level. It uses a combination of polling techniques, data analysis, and insights from charity partners to shed light on the challenges and opportunities precarious work presents to young people between 16-34 years of age. The paper also examines whether – for young people in particular – early career choices can become ‘sticky’, and thus hard to move away from. Reflections on precarious work and what it means for these young people (either positive or negative) can lead to lifelong associations on what work is about, what purpose it serves, and ultimately how rewarding it becomes.

On the back of these findings, we recommend seven areas where government, employers, and employees should consider reforms (see full recommendations on page 33):

1. New employee rights implemented by the Better Work Agency should encompass the precarity of all contracts, rather than focusing on banning zero-hour contracts.
2. Medium sized companies and above should be expected to issue an annual report, setting out the measures they are taking to tackle precarious work. Small-sized companies who publish similar metrics should receive accreditation for complying with fair employment measures.
3. New limits should be enforced to ensure there is a maximum amount of time a young person can be in a precarious contract with an employer.
4. The ONS should expand the definition of underemployment to understand the real scale of underemployment in the country.
5. Universal Support should be expanded to include those young people who are underemployed or on precarious work contracts.
6. Regional Industrial Strategic Councils should foster and facilitate best practice in schools meeting their obligations under the Baker Clause, ensuring that pupils have the best access to advice and information regarding vocational post-16 and post-18 opportunities.
7. Preparedness for work and employment education skills should be included as a key judgement in Ofsted inspection reports for secondary schools.