Just as Labour governments are prone to cater to even the more extravagant wishes of trade unionists, so their National counterparts can find it difficult to resist the over-the-top whims of employers. In both cases, the outcome is often lamentable, whether due to unintended consequence or obvious unfairness. Into the latter category fall zero-hour contracts, a product of employment relations law designed to meet employers' craving for maximum workplace flexibility. Now the Government finds itself having to backtrack on such contracts.
As much was confirmed this week by the Workplace Relations and Safety Minister, Michael Woodhouse. Not so long ago, he was far more equivocal, saying a ban on such contracts would be an overreaction. Now, he concedes action is required. Two factors probably explain the Government's change of heart.
The first is the publicity generated by employees' eventually successful fight against such contracts at Restaurant Brands, the company that owns KFC, Starbucks, Pizza Hut and Carl's Jr. This highlighted the imbalance in a situation that requires employees to be available for work but does not guarantee a set number of hours. Workers have no certainty about wages from week to week, and financial planning becomes an impossibility.
Zero-hour contracts are common in the fast-food and service industries. Companies like McDonald's, Burger King and Wendy's still use them. Young and vulnerable workers are particularly affected. Probably among these are the offspring of National Party voters who are working in fast-food outlets while, say, in tertiary study. A message about the implicit unfairness of their lot will have reached the Beehive.
Mr Woodhouse insisted initially that there should be no rush to reform because zero-hour contracts could be valid in certain circumstances. That may be so with casual agreements involving university students, where it suits either party to be able to say yes or no to work. In that situation, the balance is equitable. But this can hardly be used as a justification for maintaining the practice in circumstances where the balance is clearly unfair.
