Cost analysis of Government’s Guaranteed Hours scheme pilloried
The Government has published a cost analysis of its proposed Guaranteed Hours scheme, which has been met with disdain by the British Retail Consortium (BRC).
The scheme will see workers on zero-hours or low-hours contracts, who consistently work regular hours over a 12-week reference period, being offered a contract guaranteeing those average hours.
Employees can decline the offer if they prefer zero-hours flexibility, but employers must re-offer at future intervals if regular hours continue.
The employer must also give reasonable notice for shifts and pay financial compensation if a shift is cancelled or altered at short notice.
The only exemption to the proposed scheme is if the work is genuinely temporary, short-term cover, or seasonal.
“The scale of these costs raises serious questions about whether the Guaranteed Hours reforms will actually deliver value for workers, with the cost to employers appearing hugely disproportionate to the benefits for employees,” said the BRC’s chief executive, Helen Dickinson in reaction to the cost analysis.
“These estimates also only tell part of the story, as retailers will have to fork out hundreds of millions of pounds to update their HR and payroll systems.
“These costs could not come at a worse time. Retailers have already been forced to make difficult decisions following the £6.5bn increase in employment costs over the past two years from higher National Insurance Contributions and the National Living Wage, on top of the additional costs businesses will face from other measures in the Employment Rights Act,” she continued.
“Adding further costs when youth unemployment is soaring risks being a hammer blow to young people’s job prospects, at precisely the time businesses across the country need to be creating more opportunities.
“The Government should focus on tackling genuinely insecure work without punishing responsible businesses or undermining the availability of the flexible jobs that so many workers value.”
