Dr. Michelle O'Sullivan:

When we look at the possible rationale for zero hour work, there are usually two reasons given. Those reasons are only given by the employer's organisations. They say some workers want these types of if-and-when contracts. They particularly cite young people and women with caring responsibilities. In response, civil society organisations that represent women and young people are very much in disagreement with that statement. They feel that while those groups may want flexibility, they do not want unpredictability. The other rationale that is often given is similar to the one the Deputy mentioned. It is that some employers may not be able to operate without staff doing zero hour work. To that we say there are times when there can be unpredictable demand but we see it is a poor reason for having total flexibility for workers. Having a banded hour contract provides some level of flexibility. It does not say people have to have a particular number of hours but zero hour contracts mean total flexibility. Internationally, it is considered to be the far end of the continuum of precarious work; it has all the most significant traits of that kind of work. The issue was probably mentioned in a previous committee debate by Marguerite Bolger. If we introduce legislation that imposes lesser regulation or responsibility on some types of businesses, there is the problem of creating a two-tier set of regulations or protections for people and that will not necessarily tackle the problem of precarious work.