Following the publication of the consultation document “Ending one-sided flexibility: reforms of zero hours and similar contracts”, we sought input from several of our clients to understand the impact.
Published: 28 September 2026
Authors: Simon Fennell
Following the publication of the consultation document “Ending one-sided flexibility: reforms of zero hours and similar contracts”, we sought input from several of our clients to understand the impact which the proposed reform of zero hours and similar contracts would have on their business operations. We collated their views and concerns into a formal response to the consultation: see here
In this article, we summarise the key themes included within our response.
The risk of unintended consequences
Whilst the clients we spoke to broadly supported the policy aim of giving workers greater certainty, there were clear concerns that the proposals could reduce genuine flexibility, increase the administrative burden on employers and make some current business models unsustainable. If these new rules are to be a success, it is critical that the government finds the right balance between protecting vulnerable workers and maintaining genuine business flexibility.
Flexibility is essential in sectors with fluctuating demand
Many of the employers we spoke to rely on flexible labour because demand for the service they provide varies due to seasonality, weather conditions, customer demand, staff absences, short-notice customer changes and recruitment gaps. Retail, hospitality, logistics, entertainment venues and platform-style businesses are particularly vulnerable to such fluctuations. Any new regulations in terms of offering guaranteed hours contracts or providing notice of shifts must make exceptions for such fluctuating demand if these businesses are to remain sustainable.
The current concept of ‘temporary need’ set out in the consultation was seen as unrealistic because it does not apply where the employer has permanent staff carrying out the same work. In practice, many businesses require extra workers during peaks while also having permanent employees doing similar work all year round. A clear message from our response was the need for more flexible treatment of seasonal sectors, particularly retail and hospitality.
Preference for a higher hours’ threshold for guaranteed hours offers
Our clients were generally in favour of a higher threshold — at or above 20 hours — before a guaranteed hours offer is required to be made. They are concerned that a lower threshold would generate repeated offers that many workers may reject, creating an administrative burden without providing any meaningful benefit. In a similar vein, our clients felt that short reference periods, particularly 12 weeks, risk capturing temporary peaks and producing artificial results. A 26-week or preferably 52-week reference period was favoured to reflect the true pattern of work across seasonal cycles.
Administrative burden is a major concern
A recurring theme across all the businesses that we spoke to is that employers would need to track individual reference periods, hours worked, offer obligations, rejections, exceptions and compliance records if the new rules are not targeted in a meaningful way, significantly increasing the administrative burden on employers. Indeed, many clients anticipate needing changes to payroll and workforce management systems and potentially recruiting additional resource just to monitor compliance.
Rejected offers should pause future obligations
One particular point that was noted amongst our clients was the apparent need to make repeated guaranteed hours offers even though previous offers might have been rejected by the worker. We therefore suggested that where a worker rejects a guaranteed hours offer, the employer should not have to make another offer for at least 12 months, to avoid repeated unnecessary administration.
Reasonable notice of shifts: one week may work, but exceptions are needed
Many of our clients supported one week for the presumed reasonable notice because they operate weekly rotas. However, what was clear from our discussions is that exceptions are needed where short-notice changes arise from factors outside the employer’s control, such as sickness absence, weather, customer cancellations or short-notice demand changes.
Compensation for cancelled or moved shifts should be limited
The general feeling amongst those businesses we spoke to was that the requirement to pay compensation should only arise where less than 48 hours’ notice of a shift is given. They generally supported having one compensation level only, calculated as a percentage of what the worker would have earned, with 10% favoured as a proportionate level. Again, exceptions should be included where changes are genuinely caused by circumstances outside the employer’s control.
Risk of fewer opportunities for flexible workers
A clear message coming from our discussions is that if the thresholds within the new rules are too low, reference periods too short or notice requirements too onerous, employers may move away from flexible labour, use smaller pools of workers on longer hours, introduce more technology or redesign operating models. Rather than kick start our economy, this could reduce flexibility and opportunities for the workers the reforms aim to protect.
What happens now
The consultation closed on 25 August 2026, and the government will now review all the responses it received before publishing its intended position in relation to these reforms. We will provide a further update as soon as the government’s response is published. In the meantime, if you would like to discuss these reforms further, please contact Simon Fennell.