But what about those who benefit from zero hour contracts? Their voice was largely quashed during the discussion of the abolition of the zero hour contract. Students, workers with more than one job and those with other full time commitments are often graced with some much needed flexibility that a zero hour contract provides. It is a means through which people can earn money without being tied to a set number of hours every week. In some cases, it means that these people are able to choose their working hours, enabling them to uphold a healthy balance between working and their other full time commitments.
An obvious example is that of the student, who is already overworked in some cases. Students are notoriously short of cash and through working a few hours a week, are able to build up funds for food, heating and perhaps having a healthy (boozy) social life without having to worry quite as much about the looming student loan demon. Despite the plethora of problems it can cause for other people, it still stands that a zero hour contract has the potential to provide a solution to a study/work balance.
Obviously, I am playing devil's advocate here and I do recognise that scrapping zero hour contracts will benefit the majority. However, I believe it is important to consider the implications that a motion such as this can have. I also think I am sightly biased: if I was not a student and did not see the benefits of zero hour contracts for someone like me, I doubt that I would be writing this.