What good is banning zero-hours contracts if workers still don’t know what they’ll earn next week?
That is the question ministers need to answer as concerns grow over how Labour’s promised reforms to insecure work will operate in practice. When Labour pledged to tackle exploitative zero-hours contracts, millions of workers welcomed the announcement. After years of uncertainty, many hoped it would mark a genuine shift in the balance of power at work. The principle sounded straightforward: if a worker regularly works certain hours, their contract should reflect those hours. No more contractual fiction. No more employers demanding flexibility without offering security in return. No more workers left guessing how much money they will take home at the end of the month.
However, as details emerge about how the reforms may be implemented, an uncomfortable question is beginning to surface. Are we actually ending insecure work, or are we simply changing the language used to describe it?
For years, zero-hours contracts have become the symbol of workplace insecurity. The criticism has always been simple. Workers are expected to remain available for work, yet employers are under little obligation to provide predictable hours or a stable income. The consequences extend far beyond the workplace. Workers struggle to budget, families struggle to plan, childcare arrangements become difficult to organise and mortgages become harder to obtain. Entire lives are built around uncertainty. This is why so many workers welcomed Labour’s commitment to act.
Yet the deeper issue has never been the label attached to a contract. The real problem has always been insecurity itself. That is why the debate surrounding eligibility thresholds for guaranteed-hours contracts matters so much.
On the surface, discussions about thresholds and qualifying periods sound dry and technical. In reality, they could determine whether the reforms succeed or fail. Trade unions have warned that depending on where ministers set the threshold, large numbers of workers could find themselves excluded from the very protections they were promised.
Consider a typical retail worker. Let’s call them Sam. On paper, Sam has a contract guaranteeing twenty-one hours of work each week. In reality, she regularly works thirty hours or more. Those additional hours are not a luxury. They are not occasional overtime that provides extra spending money. They are the hours that pay the rent, cover household bills and put food on the table.
The difficulty is that many of those hours remain dependent on management discretion. They can be reduced, rearranged or withdrawn altogether. The contract presents one picture of Sam’s working life, while the reality presents another. And workers do not live their lives according to what appears on paper. They live according to the hours they actually work and the income they actually receive.
This is the concern many unions are raising. If employers simply move workers from zero-hours contracts onto short-hours contracts while continuing to rely on substantial additional discretionary hours, much of the insecurity remains intact. The terminology changes. The worker’s experience does not. The headline announces reform, but everyday life carries on exactly as before.
Workers did not vote for a new description of insecurity. They voted for greater security. They voted for predictable incomes, stable employment and contracts that reflect reality. They voted for a system that would allow them to build a future with confidence rather than uncertainty.
Security at work is about far more than the number printed on a contract. It also affects confidence and workplace culture. Imagine challenging unfair treatment, reporting bullying or raising concerns about safety while knowing that a significant proportion of your income depends on additional shifts being allocated by management. Some workers will still speak out. Many others will think twice. Not because they lack courage, but because they have responsibilities. Rent must be paid. Children must be fed. Bills continue arriving regardless of workplace disputes.
This is why secure contracts matter. Employment rights are not merely legal protections; they are practical tools that help balance power between employers and workers. Without that balance, insecurity can quickly become a means of control.
To be fair, the Government deserves credit for recognising that the existing system is failing too many people. For years, workers have carried the burden of flexibility while employers have enjoyed most of the benefits. The intention behind reform is welcome. But intentions alone do not improve people’s lives.
Ultimately, the success of these reforms will be judged by a very simple standard. Do workers feel more secure? Can they rely on their income from one month to the next? Can they arrange childcare, plan family finances and look ahead with confidence? Can they challenge poor treatment without fearing the loss of essential hours?
If the answer is yes, then the reforms will have delivered meaningful change. If the answer is no, Britain will simply have replaced one form of insecurity with another.
The principle should not be controversial. If someone regularly works thirty hours a week, their contract should reflect thirty hours a week. If someone’s livelihood depends on those hours, those hours should not be treated as optional.
That is not a radical demand. It is common sense.
For too long, flexibility has operated as a one-way street. Employers received certainty while workers absorbed the risk. A fair labour market requires a better balance than that. Security at work should not be a privilege enjoyed by the lucky few. It should be the foundation of decent employment for everyone.
By Maria Camara
