In the dynamic world of retail, two seasoned experts, Glynn Davis and Matthew Valentine, go head-to-head each month. With sharply contrasting opinions, they dissect the hottest retail topics.

This month, they spar over…zero hours contracts!

Brace yourself for a riveting exploration of a strategy that’s reshaping the retail landscape.

Get ready for Glynn Davis and Matthew Valentine’s clash of perspectives in this edition of “Retail Face-Off.”

The pros by Glynn Davis:

Zero-hours contracts are one of the more contentious areas of retail that in stereotypical fashion pitches the down-trodden employees against the fat cat employer squeezing all they can out of their workforce.

Things are never quite as black and white of course. While there have no doubt been employers who have taken advantage of such working practices there are also many reputable companies employing thousands of people who value highly the flexibility of zero hours contracts. Under the arrangement employers are not obliged to provide any minimum working hours while workers are not obliged to accept any work offered.

For younger people the upside of zero hours is obvious – it provides the flexibility to earn some money in their spare time while studying. For other youngsters such working arrangements provide the opportunity for them to develop their side-hustles while still having a regular income.

The other grouping that embraces this mode of employment are older people who have retired but want to work a few hours per week to top up their pensions. They want to work a little but only when it suits them. During these times when many retailers are having trouble filling vacancies the sizeable group of retirees out there represents a potentially rich seam that could be tapped into but it only works when they are offered great flexibility with the hours they work.

The negative perceptions of zero-hours contracts include: constant swapping of rotas; the numbers of hours offered moves up and down like a yo-yo; and employees are penalised when they turn down the hours put forward to them. The reality for the majority of workers is that their hours are scheduled well in advance and they are not put in the difficult position of being ‘on call’.

Such has been the predictability of zero hours contracts for many people, according to earlier research from the CIPD, that about 38% of those employed on such contracts considered themselves to be employed full-time, working 30 hours or more a week. While 66% of those on zero-hours contracts were happy with the hours they worked.

There has been recent talk of changes being brought in that would ban zero hour contracts but this could be detrimental to unemployed people if it results in employers being deterred from taking them on in a more formalised format. The Institute of Directors recently undertook a survey that found as many as 80% of business leaders believe that zero hours contracts can play a valid role in the labour market. You could argue that they would say that wouldn’t they. But what 49% of them also say is that they believe zero-hours contracts require some reform in order to safeguard the interests of employees. This certainly does not include an outright ban of the practice.

Although there have been protests at many employers for their use of zero-hours contracts, including at McDonald’s, it was interesting to see that when the fast food company undertook a trial recently that offered employees a chance to move from zero-hours to guaranteed minimum hour contracts it only saw 20% of staff take up the opportunity. There are plans to extend the policy to the whole of the UK.

The cons by Matthew Valentine:

Retailers often talk of loyalty, and how they strive to earn the loyalty of their customers. Discounts, points, special offers, even simple politeness, can all make a difference here.

The more enlightened retailers will talk of how they try to engender loyalty from their staff too, by treating them well or paying them better. This is great news. But there is one huge red flag.

If retailers want – or expect – loyalty from staff yet employ them on zero hours contracts, they are kidding themselves. They will get no loyalty from such staff.

Expecting your staff to be available for your needs without any consideration of theirs? And then expecting their loyalty too? Jog on, as I heard a teenager telling their occasional employer recently.

Even young workers who are new to the workplace will very quickly tire of not getting as many shifts as they expect, or of suddenly being ‘offered’ [meaning ‘expected’] the chance to drop their plans and work at short notice. Stories abound of workers losing shifts to people who are friendlier with managers, or being pressured into taking shifts they don’t want for fear of losing shifts they do want.

So on the level of simple decency, zero hours contracts are plain nasty. But they make little business sense, either.

Staff in retail – and in hospitality, another big user of zero hours contracts – are vital to the functioning of a business. They are the point of contact between company and customer, the literal face of a brand. Does any company really want that face to be resentful?

Even if they are professional enough to leave their resentment at home, these zero hours staff engage with their employers on very specific terms of minimum commitment, as stipulated by the employer. That goes both ways, and staff offered poor wages and a zero hours contract at one retailer have very little incentive not to leave and take any better offer. Even just the promise of slightly higher pay makes it worth leaving for pastures new.

Any minimal benefit gained by offering less commitment to your employees is negated every time you have to find a new one. And even that has become harder: companies across the UK are currently facing a shortage of staff.

So perhaps one upside to a pressured jobs market will be the end of the zero hours contract. It can’t be ditched fast enough.