Currently working for a company full time employee at a contracted 30hours a week, which I'm struggling with. I went into the job thinking it's more stable, bigger pay etc but in fact I'm really struggling to keep it. This is due to a number of reasons but the biggest being the hours that I do (not agreed to do) 3-10pm every day and or a sleeping, feels like your constantly in work through the days your husbands, friends, family etc are home, I have no say in this matter, and feel threatened to hand any work back. I get 2 days off a week weather that being 2 consecutive or 2 here and there. I used to work for an agency, and right now would do anything to go back. The freedom is there, and not so much stress on the care workers looking after other people and not themselves. The only difference is your gaurentee hours with a company, that's not to say they will be happy hours. I have been at my company now 8 months going on (probabtion nearly up) and I feel like I've done nothing but become ill over work

I assess Housing Benefits & I find it's hard for people on zero hour contract to budget because their income fluctuates so much. They never know what their hours are going to be from week to week and they suffer by not knowing what they need to pay towards their rent on a week by week basis and get themselves in a muddle. Its an unfair system.

Thorn Lighting (Zumtobel Group) Spennymoor, County Durham Hi I have worked for the above for a number of years, I am employed on a variable hour contract 24-48 hours which means I get no overtime until I have worked over 48 hours and also means I can be made to work 6 days a week with 48 hours’ notice from my employer. I have no input into the hours I am required to work. We currently have VHC (variable hour contract 24-48Hrs) workers, Agency workers (0-60Hrs) and Core workers (37.5 Hrs), all working the same hours and doing the same jobs with Agency workers earning an average of £60 less a week than Core or VHC workers. Core workers get time and a third for week day overtime and time and a half for Saturday morning overtime while VHC and Agency get single time for these days as it’s within their allocated hours. We have VHC workers who have been employed for many years yet they have no way of becoming Core workers but due to the lack of jobs in the local region have to settle for these one-sided contracts.

Employment status must only be decided in an employment court. Tax status will then be decided as a result of employment status. If an individual is taxed as an employee, then they must be entitled to employee benefits.

I retired from the NHS and now work self employed. The ability to control when or if I work fits my current life style. The recent changes HMRC have made to the right to claim travel and subsistence expenses have made a large hole in my income. I frequently travel over 2 hours from home meaning an overnight stay.

Me: Self employed but also work for various staffing/events companies to fill gaps in self employed earnings. 1. Some companies have been forced to treat us as PAYE by the government. I work for LOADS of companies, some of them only once or twice a year and they have thousands of staff on their books all dipping in and out. It makes tax returns unnecessarily laborious. If we are registered self employed and can prove it to the employer then let us be paid as such. 2. The balance is fairly good, although the practice of some companies is a bit unfair. I work for staffing companies, and their selling point is that they have thousands of staff to call on as and when they need them. So if a staff member drops out at quite late notice, they can fill that place easily. They should be able to anyway, it's their function. However, they can cancel jobs on us at very short notice after we have been booked for weeks, turning away other, sometimes better paid work in the meantime. The effect of late cancellation on us is much more damaging than for them and there is no compensation of any kind if it happens. You just don't earn that day/week and it's tough. 3. I like working flexible hours yes. It suits me. If I only had one employer and it was a zero hours contract then I would be worried, but then I wouldn't get myself into that position in the first place. I work on a job by job basis so it means I can pick and choose what I do and when. Unless i'm skint in which case I have to take anything available, but that's the choice i've made.

My status; Working as an IT consultant to the professional services, mainly legal industry. Employed by my own company, of whom I am the sole employee (a 'PSC' company). I typically work for multiple clients in any given month rather than on fixed duration contracts I enjoy the freedom and benefits that this type of working provides me. It seems, from the general public's point of view, that Government policy and focus has in the past been primarily on 2 issues with respect to non-permanent employee working. Firstly, on 'minimum' wage, zero hour/agency working. The focus is apparently on ensuring fair treatment of workers, which I laud and encourage. The second policy area seems to be on ensuring fair taxation occurs where hidden employment is suspected (the so called IR35 legislation, which heavily affects my business sector) and ensuring that the self/casually employed pay a fair share of tax. At present the approach by HMG, and therefore HMRC, seems to be that everyone is tainted by the actions of a small number of tax-avoiding individuals. This leads to a situation by whereby legislation constantly changes year on year (IR35 regulation, VAT flat rate scheme changes etc.) and is becoming ever more burdensome and difficult for small/sole businesses. Simplification of this burden would make it easier for people to form their own companies and focus on work instead of 'red tape'. I would strongly recommend the abolition of IR35 legislation and instead make PSC dividends subject to National Insurance (or similar) contributions in order to bring the increasing numbers of people such as myself more fully in line with employed workers. As mentioned, HMG policy appears to focus on these two areas, but as can be seen from the postings here, there is a wide spectrum in between the two. In my experience Government Departments and Executive Agencies have an innate and out of date lack of understanding of this spectrum and their policies and regulations are currently too inflexible to deal effectively with such a spectrum in the world of work. It is to be hoped that the initiative of the Select Committee Inquiry can transform into a more practical and less burdensome relationship between HMG and those whose employment is 'non-traditional'.

Agency's don't dictate working hours. Agency's dictate how much the worker 'earns'. This is based on how greedy they are and is dictated by the state of 'industry', where 'companies' would rather pay an agency £25 an hour and see people on site earn £15 an hour than have the 'responsibility' of having a temporary worker! ALL agencies still use pay role companies! In order to be paid an employee must use the agencies payroll company, it's not the agency funding the payroll company it's the employee! Having to pay to be paid, it's disgusting.

FLEXIBLE HOURS I worked as a security guard and received my postings by telephone on a weekly basis. There was no guarantee of hours but I always had plenty. Until I did something to offend someone at the company when they reduced my hours dramatically and posted me far from home. This abuse was stressful and could have been avoided with standard contracted hours that I would have much preferred. MAXIMUM HOURS I cannot work well when I am tired and inevitably make mistakes. I therefore feel very strongly that there should be stringent limits on maximum working hours. These limits should be AT LEAST as stringent as current ones. I do not want tired drivers on the road or tired doctors treating me if I am ill, for example.

I worked on a zero hours contract for 8 years, I also had no choice but to 'sign' away my rights to the working time directive. The longest time I spent on site was 23.5 hours, think about it, and then add a 2 hour commute each way. To say that there were accidents, and very poor adherence to rudimentary health and safety over that time was an understatement. There were fatalities (think about what it means to legally work any amount of hours - to say operating a vehicle is a workers own choice is not enough (if government has been allowed to take away workers rights then it should also bear a responsibility). I regularly worked 16 hour shifts, and I regularly had a couple of months a year earning approximately £100. There was no right to reply regarding how far you travelled to work or indeed the number of jobs you completed or received, as a result workers felt unable to complain about bad practice, as this would mean they would not receive any work the following month. Naturally this meant that bullying and bad practice was rife within the company, with a few notable exceptions. This kind of practice is likely to result in workers that are then less likely to function as independent members of society, this employer did not even pay it's own statutory sick pay, (it had to be claimed via the state, how would it be if all companies stopped doing that?) workers also do not qualify for a mortgage or good quality loans and this puts a massive burden back onto the state and away from business, as who can survive on £100 a month? Please do not use the flexible hours route to justify this, as plenty of companies already offer this way or working without undermining rights and responsibilities. This way of working may be suitable if you are a student but ultimately I have worked with companies who better negotiate flexible working without reducing workers rights, talk to those companies if that is what you really require for the workplace. This is merely a snap-shot of the repercussions this way of working has, I haven't even begun to touch on the long term effects to pensions, because if you are not supplying rights you are certainly not looking after employees pensions.