howard mcsweeney1 wrote:The above graph is rendered meaningless when we take into account people averaging 10 hours per week on zero hours contracts in recent years.
I'd hate to let any facts get in the way Howard BUT:-
The results from the November 2016 survey of businesses indicated that there were 1.7 million contracts that did not guarantee a minimum number of hours, where work had actually been carried out under those contracts. This represented 6% of all employment contracts. The equivalent figures for May 2016 were 1.7 million and 5%. The number and percentage of contracts that did not guarantee a minimum number of hours are unchanged compared with a year earlier (November 2015), however, the number of businesses making some use of these contracts fell.
According to the LFS (Labour Force Survey) the number of people employed on “zero-hours contracts” in their main job, during October to December 2016 was 905,000, representing
2.8% of all people in employment. This latest estimate is 101,000 higher than that for October to December 2015 (804,000 or 2.5% of people in employment). [U]In recent years, increases in the number of people reporting to the LFS that they were on a zero-hours contract were likely to have been affected by greater awareness and recognition of the term “zero-hours contract”. [/U]This latest annual change may also have been affected in this way but it is not possible to estimate the extent.
People on “zero-hours contracts” are more likely to be young, part-time, women, or in full-time education when compared with other people in employment.
On average, someone on a “zero-hours contract” usually works 25 hours a week. Around one in three people (32%) on a “zero-hours contract” want more hours, with most wanting them in their current job, as opposed to a different job which offers more hours. In comparison 9% of other people in employment wanted more hours.