The workers' lot is not a happy one

More than 1 million British workers could be employed on zero-hours contracts, new figures released reveal, suggesting that British business is deploying the employment terms far more widely than previously thought. Employees on zero-hours contracts often get no holiday or sick pay and have to ask permission before seeking additional work elsewhere.

The latest numbers also call into question the accuracy of official data on the topic. Last week, the Office for National Statistics increased its estimate of the number of UK zero-hours workers by 25%, to around 250,000.

 Sports Direct employs around 20,000 of its 23,000 staff on the contracts. Pub group JD Wetherspoon has 24,000 of its staff – 80% of its workforce – on the terms. Buckingham Palace, which uses them for its 350 summer workers. The National Trust employs many of its seasonal workers on zero-hours contracts

Dave Prentis, general secretary of the trade union Unison, said: "The vast majority of workers are only on these contracts because they have no choice. They may give flexibility to a few, but the balance of power favours the employers and makes it hard for workers to complain."

Workers on zero-hours contracts are often only told how many hours they will work when weekly or monthly rotas are worked out, but are expected to be on call for extra work at short notice. They should be entitled to holiday pay in line with the number of hours they work, but do not qualify for sick pay. 17% of employers in the private sector made use of zero-hours contracts, considerably lower than the 34% of organisations in the voluntary sector and 24% in the public sector. Industries where employers were most likely to report at least one person on a zero-hours contract were hotels, catering and leisure (48%), education (35%) and healthcare (27%).

Meanwhile

The Labour Party claim that the start of an economic recovery will bypass most of the population by saying that working people are on average £1,350 worse off in real terms under David Cameron.

 The Labour Party  also pointed to new official figures showing that bonuses in financial and business services soared in April by 82% compared to last year. That represents an increase of more than £1.8bn to nearly £4bn and suggests bankers delayed their bonuses to take advantage of the government's cut in the top rate of tax which came into effect in April.

A YouGov by Labour shows 81%  believe that over the past year prices have grown faster than household incomes. Just 3% (and only 1% of women) believe that household incomes have grown faster than prices.

 Meantime

 The Government’s justification for its controversial “bedroom tax” has been debunked by new figures showing that up to 96 per cent of those affected have, in effect, nowhere to move.

The figures expose the false argument behind ministerial attempts to spin the move as ending the  “spare-room subsidy”, and confirm campaigners’ claims that it merely penalises poor people.

The policy means that tenants have their housing benefit reduced by 14 per cent if they have one spare bedroom, and 25 per cent if they have two or more spare bedrooms. Yet more than 19 out of 20 families  hit by the bedroom tax are trapped in their larger homes because there is nowhere smaller within the local social housing stock to take them.This is shown by figures provided by councils. More than half of those affected by the policy have a disability.

 Steve Turner, executive director for policy at Unite, said: “These figures show beyond any doubt that Iain Duncan Smith has been misleading the public. He tried to spin the bedroom tax as a way of managing housing stock, but in fact it is a cruel and callous attack on some of the most vulnerable people in our communities.”

The chief executive of Citizens Advice, Gillian Guy, said: “As long as this dire lack of housing options exists then the Government can’t reasonably tell people they have a choice about downsizing to a smaller home.”

Chris Goulden, head of poverty at the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, said: “It is very difficult to see how this policy can work without causing severe hardship, particularly as many of those affected are disabled people.”

Along with this, is this.

Raju Bhatt, a leading civil-rights lawyer, claimed the changes to legal aid could deny the poorest in society access to justice. Bhatt warns that it will now become far more difficult for those without money to get justice. He said “This Government is about class and it doesn’t like that to be exposed, it doesn’t like to be brought to account. But it is going to be one way or the other.”

The Government  aims to slash £220m a year from the legal aid budget. The cuts mean entire areas of civil law will no longer be eligible for legal aid, including divorces, immigration where the person is not detained, some employment and education law, personal injury and negligence, and debt, housing and benefit issues. Victims of domestic violence must now show medical evidence before they can get legal aid in family cases.