Modern labor markets increasingly prioritize flexibility, efficiency, and cost optimization. While these objectives may benefit organizations, they often come at the expense of worker security and dignity. One of the most controversial employment arrangements reflecting this imbalance is the zero-hour contract. This employment model has raised serious ethical, legal, and socioeconomic concerns across the globe. This article examines what zero-hour contracts are, their historical origin, where they are banned or restricted, and why they should be prohibited from a labor rights, safety, and sustainability perspective.

What Is a Zero-Hour Contract?

A zero-hour contract is an employment agreement in which the employer is not obligated to provide any minimum number of working hours. Workers are paid only for the hours they actually work and are often expected to remain available on demand without guaranteed income stability.

In practice, this means a worker may work full-time hours one week and receive no work the next, often without advance notice or compensation for standby time. Although classified as employment, the arrangement transfers nearly all operational and financial risk from the employer to the worker.

Origin of Zero-Hour Contracts

Zero-hour contracts originated in the United Kingdom during the late 1980s and early 1990s as part of broader neoliberal labor reforms and deregulation efforts. They were promoted as a solution for seasonal demand and short-term staffing needs, particularly in hospitality and retail.

Over time, their use expanded into healthcare, education, warehousing, logistics, and security services. This expansion exposed deep structural flaws, including exploitation, income insecurity, and weakened worker protections.

Countries That Have Banned or Restricted Zero-Hour Contracts

Growing concerns over worker exploitation have led many countries to ban or heavily regulate zero-hour contracts.

Countries That Have Effectively Banned Them

Ireland has largely prohibited zero-hour contracts under the Employment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, allowing them only in very limited and genuine casual circumstances. New Zealand fully banned zero-hour contracts in 2016, requiring guaranteed minimum hours and compensation for availability.

Countries with Strong Restrictions

The Netherlands requires employers to offer a fixed-hours contract after 12 months. Germany legally presumes minimum working hours if none are specified. France tightly regulates casual contracts and mandates minimum hours. Norway requires predictable schedules and written justification for on-call work.

Countries Where They Still Exist

Zero-hour contracts continue to exist in the United Kingdom and the United States under similar on-call or gig-based arrangements, although political and legal pressure for reform is increasing.

Why Zero-Hour Contracts Should Be Banned

Economic Insecurity and Income Instability

Zero-hour contracts prevent workers from predicting income, budgeting for basic needs, or accessing credit. This instability fuels poverty cycles, debt dependency, and long-term financial stress, ultimately undermining workforce productivity and economic resilience.

Psychological and Mental Health Risks

Unpredictable schedules contribute to chronic stress, anxiety, depression, sleep disorders, and burnout. Constant uncertainty is recognized as a psychosocial hazard under occupational health and safety frameworks.

Increased Workplace Safety Risks

From a health and safety perspective, zero-hour contracts increase accident risks because workers fear refusing unsafe tasks or reporting hazards. Irregular hours, fatigue, and inadequate training further elevate injury and fatality rates in precarious employment environments.

Power Imbalance and Exploitation

These contracts create a one-sided power relationship in which employers control income and hours while workers lack bargaining power. Refusing work often results in reduced future shifts, reinforcing silent coercion.

Violation of International Labor Standards

Zero-hour contracts conflict with International Labour Organization principles on decent work, predictable employment, and social protection. They contradict ILO Convention No. 122 on employment policy and Recommendation No. 198 on employment relationships.

Negative Impact on Social Systems

Workers on zero-hour contracts frequently rely on government welfare, lack pensions or health coverage, and contribute inconsistently to social security systems. This shifts economic responsibility from employers to the state, creating an unsustainable and unjust model.

Common Arguments in Favor of Zero-Hour Contracts and the Reality

Claims that workers prefer flexibility ignore the fact that flexibility without security is coercive. Arguments that such contracts help students or struggling businesses fail to justify systemic insecurity. True flexibility must include predictable income and worker protections.

Better Alternatives to Zero-Hour Contracts

Governments and employers can preserve flexibility through minimum guaranteed hours, compensated on-call arrangements, fixed-term or part-time contracts, advance shift notice requirements, and penalties for last-minute cancellations. These models balance operational needs with human dignity.

Conclusion

Zero-hour contracts represent a systemic failure in modern labor policy. Marketed as flexible and efficient, they erode worker security, compromise safety, harm mental health, and violate fundamental labor rights. Countries that have banned or restricted them demonstrate that economic competitiveness and fair employment can coexist. For a just, safe, and sustainable future of work, zero-hour contracts should be phased out and replaced with regulated, humane employment models.