According to the Office for National Statistics (2018) the number of zero hour contracts increased to 1.8 million in 2017 which represents 6% of all employment contracts. However, there has been criticism of their widespread use in the UK. Drawing on relevant academic literature, critically evaluate whether the use of zero hour contracts in employment in the UK is a good or a bad thing.
National statistics [2018]
Zero hour contracts are contracts where an employer is not obliged to provide regular work for the employee. Entitlement for a worker under a zero hour contract include: annual leave, sick pay, and rest breaks. In 2020 there were over 1.05 million people on zero hour contracts in the United Kingdom, compared with 896,000 in 2019. A lot of controversy surrounds the usage of zero hour contracts by UK employers. In zero hour contracts, businesses are not obliged to provide many benefits that it offers to full-time workers. Hence, this means you would not be able to claim for unfair dismissal, parental pay and leave, flexible working, or statutory minimum leave. However, zero contracts employment is a good thing because having workers on zero hour contracts is cheaper to employers than paying agency fees for temporary workers. From the worker’s perspective, a zero contract provides flexibility, with no ongoing requirement to accept the work offered by the employer; ideal if you are a student or have no set working requirements.
the U.S has held steady. It seems millions of U.S. Facebook users are either completely oblivious to Facebook’s recent mishaps, or they are simply not concerned. Overall, the platform has gained over five million DAU since the 2016 election. Further, a recent poll reports that more than half of Americans under the age of 53 are either against the regulation of tech companies or believe that any attempts at regulation would make no difference. Many regulatory advocates have responded to this data by arguing that Facebook users are suffering from a “privacy paradox” – understanding the value of privacy but failing to advocate for devices—such as legislation—that would better protect them. However, these regulatory advocates fail to understand the value that users derive from Facebook; they like having their family and friends, photo albums, and messaging all in one place. Most reasonable consumers understand that Facebook is a for-profit enterprise—one that has a legal obligation to maximize value for its shareholders. They understand that data collection and targeted advertising serve as the main drivers of profit which make Facebook’s valuable services possible. Naturally, users expect to be treated fairly, but it would be unrealistic for users to assume that the platform will never make mistakes as it continues to innovate.
Indeed, rather than quitting Facebook in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, it seems as though users responded by giving Facebook a chance to make improvements. The scandal’s relatively small effect on Facebook’s bottom line may be related to Facebook having a resilient “brand personality” such that users understand that it is an imperfect and evolving platform. Indeed, Facebook experienced an increase in engagement from U.S. users following the Cambridge Analytica scandal, as users went online to update their privacy settings.
However, U.S. users do quit Facebook. In fact, Hill Holiday’s recent survey of Generation Z found that more than one-half had switched off social media for an extended period of time and one-third had canceled all of their social media accounts. While 44% of respondents cited “time wasting” as the largest factor behind their decisions, 22% cited privacy concerns. Risk of declining user engagement, on its own, is enough to catalyze change at Facebook. A perfect example of this reality comes from Facebook’s recent attempt to change its model to emphasize posts from family and friends over news. In response to the changed model and Cambridge Analytica scandal, the market reproved the com