Ministers in Westminster laid out detailed proposals last week that would require employers to offer guaranteed hours to staff currently working flexible or zero-hours arrangements. The intent is worker protection. The retail industry's response was blunt: don't regulate flexibility out of existence.
The British Retail Consortium, which represents retailers employing around three million people across the UK, has warned that the draft rules fail to account for how shift-based businesses actually operate. Retail demand is volatile — it spikes at weekends, drops mid-week, surges at Christmas and school holidays. The ability to flex staffing up and down is not an abuse of workers; for many smaller operators, it is how they stay solvent. The BRC has called on the UK Government to rethink the scope and implementation timeline before the Bill passes into law.
The Employment Rights Bill, currently moving through Parliament, is one of the most significant pieces of employment legislation in a generation. According to analysis by the Federation of Small Businesses, small and medium-sized employers could face compliance costs running into thousands of pounds per business — particularly those in hospitality, retail, and care, where flexible staffing is structural rather than incidental. The FSB has separately called for a longer implementation window and lighter-touch rules for businesses below a certain headcount.
For Scotland specifically, the picture is complicated by devolution boundaries. Employment law remains reserved to Westminster, meaning Holyrood has limited room to soften or adapt the rules for Scottish businesses even where the Scottish Government might wish to. Scottish Chambers of Commerce has previously noted that policy divergence between Westminster and Holyrood on business regulation creates uncertainty for employers operating across the border. What happens in Parliament applies here whether it fits Scottish conditions or not.
The workers' side of this argument is not trivial. Zero-hours contracts have been used exploitatively in some sectors — offering no income security while demanding availability. The TUC and individual unions have long argued that guaranteed hours are a basic standard of decency. The argument is not whether to protect workers; it is whether the mechanism proposed is precise enough to protect vulnerable workers without dismantling the flexible arrangements that many workers actively choose. A student working two shifts a week at an Edinburgh café and a warehouse worker kept on-call with no income guarantee are legally identical under a blanket rule, but their situations are not.
The consultation window is still open, and industry bodies are pressing hard for amendments. The timeline for implementation, the threshold at which the rules kick in, and the definition of what constitutes a genuine guaranteed-hours offer are all still in play. Scottish SME owners with part-time or flexible staff should be watching this closely — and making their views known through Business Gateway Scotland or the Scottish Chambers of Commerce before the window closes.