Major changes to zero hours and low hours work are due to reshape employment law across Great Britain from 2027. For Scotland, the reforms matter because insecure work remains part of retail, hospitality, care, education support, tourism and seasonal employment, but many businesses also rely on flexibility to manage demand.
Workers on zero hours and low hours contracts are due to gain new rights to guaranteed working hours under the Employment Rights Act 2025, with the main protections expected to take effect in 2027.
The Act will require employers to offer qualifying workers a contract reflecting the hours they regularly work over a reference period. Workers will not be required to accept the offer if they prefer to remain on a zero hours or low hours arrangement. The reforms will also introduce rights to reasonable notice of shifts and compensation where shifts are cancelled, moved or cut short.
The change is intended to tackle one sided flexibility, where employers can vary work at short notice while workers carry the financial risk. But in Scotland, where retail, hospitality, social care, tourism and seasonal rural employment all use variable hours, the detail of implementation will decide whether the reform improves security without removing legitimate flexibility.
Employment law is reserved to Westminster, so the new rules will apply in Scotland as part of Great Britain wide reform. That makes the debate important for Scottish employers and workers even though the legislation is not made at Holyrood.
Zero hours contracts have long divided opinion. For some workers, they offer useful flexibility around study, caring responsibilities, health conditions or second jobs. For others, they mean unpredictable income, difficulty planning childcare, weak bargaining power and uncertainty over whether enough paid work will be available from week to week.
The UK Government’s stated aim is not to remove all flexibility, but to end exploitative zero hours arrangements. Its factsheet says workers will be able to reject guaranteed hours and remain on a zero hours contract if they wish. That distinction is important. The reform gives workers a right to greater security, but does not force every worker into fixed hours against their preference.
The practical detail is still developing. ACAS says the guaranteed hours right for zero hours and low hours workers will come in 2027, as will compensation for cancelled, moved or shortened shifts. Government implementation material also points to consultation on zero hours protections before the rules are brought fully into force.
For businesses, the difficulty will be administration and demand planning. Employers may need to track hours across reference periods, make repeated guaranteed hours offers, manage workers who decline offers, and forecast staffing levels more carefully. Sectors with seasonal peaks or uneven demand are likely to watch the consultation closely.
Retail has been the most vocal business concern. The British Retail Consortium says retail is the UK’s largest private sector employer, with around three million jobs and a further 2.7 million in supply chains. It has warned that badly designed guaranteed hours rules could reduce entry level and flexible roles, particularly for young people, students and workers who value part time flexibility.
Those warnings should be treated seriously, but not uncritically. The BRC is a trade body representing retail employers, and its argument reflects employer concerns about cost, flexibility and staffing. Trade unions and worker advocates have taken the opposite view, arguing that predictable hours are essential for financial security and that too many workers have carried the cost of employer flexibility for too long.
Scotland has a direct interest in both sides of that argument. Official statistics have shown tens of thousands of workers in Scotland on zero hours contracts. In February 2025, the Scotland Office cited figures showing 77,000 workers in Scotland on zero hours contracts, while ONS continues to publish regional data on zero hours contracts through its EMP17 Labour Force Survey dataset.
The number has fluctuated over time, but the political issue is consistent. Scotland’s fair work agenda has placed emphasis on security, respect, opportunity and effective voice at work. CIPD’s Working Lives Scotland 2025 report lists avoiding inappropriate use of zero hours contracts and exploitative working patterns as part of fair work.
For Scottish high streets, the timing is sensitive. Retailers are already dealing with wage costs, energy costs, weak footfall in some areas and pressure from online shopping. Scottish Retail Consortium evidence to Parliament has described flat retail sales, underwhelming footfall and strong cost pressures. A reform that increases employment security but adds complexity will therefore land in a sector already under strain.
That does not mean the reform should be abandoned. It means it needs to be designed with care. A student working irregular hours in a shop, a parent seeking predictable part time income, a hospitality worker facing cancelled shifts, and a small employer managing seasonal demand may all experience the same law differently.
The best outcome would be a system that distinguishes between genuine worker choice and insecurity imposed by the employer. If someone wants flexible casual work, the law should not make that impossible. If someone is regularly working predictable hours while being kept on a zero hours contract, the law should allow them to convert that reality into greater security.
Businesses should not wait until 2027. Scottish employers using zero hours or low hours arrangements should audit who works regular patterns, where shifts are cancelled at short notice, how seasonal peaks are managed, and whether tiered guaranteed hours could work without losing operational flexibility. Workers should also understand that the new right is expected to be an offer, not an obligation to accept.
The reform is likely to remain contested until the regulations are finalised. For Scotland, the question is practical rather than ideological: whether employment law can reduce insecure work without closing the door on the flexible jobs that some workers still choose and some businesses still need.
