A zero-hour contract gives you maximum scheduling flexibility and gives your worker zero income security. The employer offers work when available; the worker can accept or decline. Whether that’s innovative labor flexibility or institutionalized precariousness depends on which side of the contract you’re on — but most employment law systems outside the UK have made up their mind: they’ve banned or severely restricted them.
The UK remains the primary market where zero-hour contracts are widespread. An estimated 1.1 million workers were on them as of 2023, concentrated in hospitality, retail, and care sectors. UK law gives zero-hour workers the same statutory rights as other employees — minimum wage, paid holiday pro-rated to hours worked, rest breaks — but no guarantee of hours or income. The UK government has signaled reforms under the Employment Rights Bill, which would give workers the right to request guaranteed hours after a qualifying period.
Other jurisdictions have already acted. Ireland’s Employment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2018 requires employers to provide banded-hours contracts after 12 months that reflect actual hours worked. New Zealand banned zero-hour contracts outright in 2016. Most EU countries effectively prohibit them through minimum-hour requirements — the Netherlands mandates minimum hours in employment contracts, and France’s CDI (permanent contract) framework assumes a standard workweek. Australia doesn’t use the term but has “casual employment” with a 25% loading to compensate for the lack of leave entitlements and job security.
Why It Matters for EOR
For international hiring through an EOR, zero-hour contracts are rarely relevant. EOR engagements almost always involve fixed-term or indefinite contracts with specified hours and compensation. The EOR model is built around predictable employment relationships, not on-demand labor.
If you need casual or variable-hour arrangements in a foreign market, your options are country-specific. An EOR might suggest a contractor arrangement — but that opens classification risk if the working relationship looks like employment (regular hours, single client, integration into your team). Oyster and other providers can advise on compliant alternatives, but the answer is usually the same: define minimum guaranteed hours in the contract and manage scheduling flexibility within that framework.
Trying to replicate a UK-style zero-hour arrangement in a jurisdiction that doesn’t support it will get the contract voided or reclassified. The safer approach is a part-time contract with minimum hours that reflect your actual needs. If you genuinely can’t predict hours, you likely need a contractor — with proper classification analysis to confirm it’s defensible.
For the UK government’s guidance on zero-hour contract rights and upcoming reforms, see GOV.UK: Zero-hours contracts.
For practical use of this concept, see EOR vs PEO explained and remote jobs by country.
Further Reading
- Hiring in the United Kingdom: zero-hour contract rules and worker rights — The UK is the primary market where zero-hour contracts are common, with an estimated 1.1 million workers on them.
- Contractor vs. employee: why variable-hour arrangements create classification risk — Zero-hour arrangements can blur the line between casual employment and contractor status, creating compliance exposure.
- Hiring in the Netherlands: minimum-hour requirements and employment protections — The Netherlands effectively prohibits zero-hour contracts through mandatory minimum-hour provisions in employment law.
- EOR comparisons
- Read Deel review
- EOR vs PEO explained
Was this page helpful?
Tell us or send a correction.