Copy article

Government's flagship plan to tame zero-hours contracts could "plunge exams into chaos"

ended 04. June 2026

HR's biggest professional body has warned that the Government's flagship plan to tame zero-hours contracts could backfire and push even more people into insecure work.

On 2 June 2026 the Department for Business and Trade opened a major consultation on how to deliver new rights under the Employment Rights Act 2025. Qualifying workers would get guaranteed hours based on the hours they regularly work, reasonable notice of shifts, and compensation when shifts are cancelled, cut or moved at short notice.

The CIPD isn't convinced it will land as intended. Ben Willmott, its Head of Public Policy, said the rules are "likely to be extremely complex and challenging to comply with, particularly for small firms or those with fluctuations in demand." His sharpest warning: if compliance is too hard, "employers will simply find other ways to achieve workforce flexibility… relying more on self-employed contractors and fixed term contracts, for example, potentially resulting in more rather than less insecure employment." He also cautioned it could hurt young people and students who use zero-hours work to fit jobs around study.

Worker advocates see it differently. Alice Martin, Head of Research at the Work Foundation at Lancaster University, called it "an important step towards strengthening protections for workers in insecure employment." She points to scale: more than 1.2 million workers are now on zero-hours contracts — the highest since records began — up 91,000 in a year, with a record 401,000 relying on them as their main full-time income despite no guarantee of hours or earnings.

Crucially, the Government is not banning zero-hours contracts, acknowledging students and carers value the flexibility. It's still seeking views on the detail that will decide everything: the reference period used to calculate guaranteed hours, how regularly someone must work to qualify, how the rules hit agency workers, and what counts as "reasonable notice." The consultation closes on 25 August 2026.

We'd like your views:

  • Is the CIPD right that this drives employers toward contractors and fixed-term deals — or is that just resistance to giving up cheap flexibility?
  • Whose side are you on: the worker who wants guaranteed hours, or the small business owner who says they literally can't predict next week's rota?
  • If "reasonable notice" needs caveats for sickness, demand spikes and no-shows, does the right to notice end up meaning anything at all?
  • Be honest — has your own organisation already started moving people off zero-hours and onto something else ahead of this?
  • Should young people and students get a carve-out, or does that just recreate the two-tier insecurity the reforms are meant to fix?

5 responses from the Newspage community

Copy all

Star Quote
Copy

Editor
Kate Underwood
Founder & Chief People Strategist at Kate Underwood HR and Training
I spent over a decade in hospitality, so I've seen zero-hours from both sides of the pass. The student wanting Fridays off for exams, and the owner staring at a half-empty diary, praying the sun comes out. Both real. Both right. That's why the CIPD warning rings true. Pile enough complexity onto a small firm, and it won't fight you; it'll just sidestep you. Push the rota too hard and out come the contractors and fixed-term deals, the very insecurity these rules are meant to cure. Plug one leak, spring three.
But let's not pretend zero-hours has been a charity. With 401,000 people leaning on it as their main income and no promise of a single shift, "flexibility" has done a lot of heavy lifting for one side. Here's the bit no law can fix. You can legislate guaranteed hours, but you can't legislate guaranteed demand. Get "reasonable notice" right, and it's real progress. Get it wrong, and you've just rebranded the problem. The detail here isn't the boring bit. It's the whole game.
Copy

Editor
Matthew Knight
Chief Freelance Officer at Freelancing.Support
Many businesses, large and small, are already responding to increased NI contributions and stronger protections for employees by moving away from perm roles, towards contractors and freelancers.

Whilst this consultation looks to protect precarious workers, in practice there's a risk of simply redistributing roles into self-employment - where there are already no guaranteed hours, no sick pay, no holiday entitlement, and where policy still treats it as a lifestyle choice rather than the only option for many.

We risk employers further abdicating any responsibility towards the people they lean upon to deliver their profits, reducing investment in training, supporting early-careers talent or wellbeing at work.

Whilst increased protections are welcomed, we need to recognise the large number of people who already face limited or no protections or support systems - and design rights and protections around the person, not the type of contract.
Copy

Editor
David Stirling
Independent Financial Adviser at Mint Wealth
From a mortgage adviser’s perspective, predictable income matters. While zero-hours contracts offer flexibility, they can make it harder for workers to prove affordability and access competitive mortgage deals. If these reforms lead to more people receiving guaranteed hours and more stable earnings, that's likely to strengthen their borrowing position and improve financial security. The risk, however, is the one highlighted by the CIPD: if employers respond by shifting workers onto contractor or short-term arrangements, many could find themselves facing even greater hurdles when it comes to getting a mortgage.

The success of these reforms will ultimately be measured not just by employment rights, but by whether they create genuinely more secure incomes that help people build long-term financial stability and achieve homeownership.
Copy

Editor
Michelle Lawson
Director at Lawson Financial
People are having to get more creative to make ends meet. Some applicants already have multiple income streams and like flexibility too and not all of them are acceptable for mortgage applications if there isn’t sufficient history or stability. Once upon a time you were either employed or self employed- there are so many options and complications as things have been tinkered over time. In the current climate, businesses are closing due to rising costs and regulation- easing this solve a multitude of problems and get things moving again.
Copy

Jackie Ward
Founder at TreeHuggery
Exams could be plunged into chaos by this policy. Many of the exam invigilators are on zero hour contracts – with hardly any work for 10 months of the year and then the potential to be working full-time in May and June. It is not workable.