Imagine it. Sitting round on the couch, waiting in anticipation for a call from your employer to see if you will get the hours you need to support you and your family. You can’t properly hang out with mates, you can’t spend an afternoon down at the shops, it’s hard to join a sports team or go to the gym. That’s all because you’re on your employer’s beck and call. Your life is in their hands.
That’s what you call a zero-hour contract. No hours are guaranteed hours but you’ve got to be on call for whenever your employer needs you. This debate in Parliament isn’t new, but it’s appeared again due to the the development of the Employment Standards Legislation Bill.
The aim of the bill is to ‘enhance protections for both employers and employees’ and one of the most contentious issues has been the inclusion of these zero-hour contracts. It’s been difficult for Michael Woodhouse, Workplace Relations & Safety Minister, to gather any support for the bill from outside the National Party. As it happens, National need the support of Labour to pass the bill.
Labour clearly have their concerns with the bill. Spearheaded in this instance by Workplace Relations Spokesperson Iain Lees-Galloway, Labour voted for the Second Bill to progress on Wednesday 2nd March. But they won’t vote for the bill to pass its third reading unless these come into place:
- Remove the ability for employers to keep employees on call with no permanent hours
- Employers cannot be able to cancel shifts at the last minute
The issue is divisive and has caused a lot of controversy. Labour argue that the government promised they would look into eliminating zero-hour contracts completely. There are some strong opinions amongst the industries where these zero-hour contracts are most common and this is the basis of National’s argument. For the fast-food industry in particular, some employers argue that they need the flexibility to make sure all shifts are filled. But this flexibility from the employer’s side could make the employee’s life very inflexible. Labour want to guarantee that workers will actually have some hours, and enough money to cover weekly expenses. At at the time Critic went to press, both National and Labour were in the process of discussing changes to the bill before it goes to its third and final reading.
You could argue it’s a case of ideology: being employer friendly vs. employee friendly, and that’s where the heart of the issue might lie. Give the workers their rights or help the employers manage their businesses easier? That’s the debate. Now it’s time to put the conflicts aside and for parliament to solve it.