Ending ‘one-sided flexibility’ – are the government’s plans enough?

The proposed new rights to a guaranteed hours contract, fair notice periods for shifts, and compensation for short-notice cancellations could be hugely consequential for millions of UK workers. Particularly those on variable hours contracts, where work hours are not fixed and change based on business needs, fluctuating between an agreed minimum and maximum range (such as 0 to 35 hours per week).

We believe the government should be ambitious with this legislation: not just to provide a safety net for those experiencing the most extreme forms of insecurity, but setting a new standard of fair practice that can shift norms across the labour market.

There are four key design decisions to be made:

1. Who qualifies matters most.

The government proposes restricting the new rights to zero and low-hours workers, with a threshold somewhere between 8 and 20 hours a week – but Resolution Foundation analysis shows an 8-hour threshold would exclude around three-quarters of variable-hours workers, and even 25 hours would leave half uncovered. Anxiety about short-notice changes peaks precisely among those the low threshold would exclude: one in four workers on 16-30 hours report feeling anxious about unpredictable hours, compared to one in six at either end of the hours spectrum. A parallel risk is carving agency workers out of scope: TUC analysis shows they face identical scheduling pressures, despite often working regular patterns for the same employer for years.

We recommend setting the threshold at a minimum of 28 hours, extending notice and cancellation-compensation rights to all variable-hours workers regardless of the guaranteed-hours threshold, and minimising differences in treatment between directly employed and agency workers.

2. Loopholes can allow employers to work around the rights even where they formally apply.

The proposed 12-week reference period for triggering a guaranteed-hours offer risks being defeated if it requires extra hours in every single week – one quiet week and the threshold will never be met. While proposed minimum-hours conditions would exclude many zero- and low-hours workers altogether. Similarly, proposed exemptions from cancellation pay for causes like bad weather misread the point of the legislation: the question isn’t who caused the disruption, but who can better absorb it, and evidence from a comparable US state law shows opt-outs sharply undermine compliance.

We recommend a regularity threshold of no more than eight weeks within a rolling 12-week window, with no separate minimum-hours condition, and no exemptions from short-notice cancellation payments.

3. Even where rights apply and trigger correctly, the standards set will determine whether they mean anything.

Proposed notice periods range from one to four weeks; the Living Wage Foundation‘s Living Hours standard treats four weeks as best practice, while Resolution Foundation analysis suggests a two-week floor would already improve outcomes for three in four affected workers, matching the benchmark used in US Fair Work Week laws. On compensation, proposals range from 10–80% of pay or minimum wage for cancellations classed as short notice (one to seven days) – but US regulators have found percentage-based, sliding-scale penalties invite non-compliance because they’re neither a strong enough deterrent nor simple enough for managers to apply, prompting a shift in the US toward higher flat fees.

We recommend legislating a two-week minimum notice period, and replacing percentage-based penalties with a flat fee: 200% of arrears owed paid directly to the worker, plus a civil penalty of up to £100k for systemic non-compliance. The clearer and the more universal the framework, the more likely it is to change behaviour rather than simply to generate workarounds.

4. Rights are only as real as their enforcement.

The Fair Work Agency (FWA) taking on cancellation-payment enforcement is welcome, but leaving other measures to employment tribunals – where legal aid isn’t available and backlogs are severe – risks making them unenforceable for the workers least able to bring a claim.

We recommend giving the FWA adaptive statutory powers to extend its remit and adjust penalties over time. There is also a strong case for piloting time-limited devolved enforcement powers for a small number of combined authorities alongside the FWA, to allow for a proactive and innovative approach to enforcement. And Timewise’s own work shows the benefits of investing in sector-specific guidance and monitoring in the sectors – social care, hospitality, retail – where these rights will matter most.

Our work with employers in frontline sectors – from health, social care, and education, to retail, construction, logistics and our current project working with employers in leisure and other lower paid frontline sectors – shows that improvements in ‘Shift-Life Balance‘ that meet staff as well as operational needs can lead to improvements in absence, recruitment and retention. Getting this legislation right will demonstrate that good jobs and economic growth are not in tension – and that government has both the tools and the resolve to build them together.

Published August 2026

Timewise recommendations to Government

The full Timewise response to the Ending One-Sided Flexibility Consultation is available on request.
Key recommendations include:

• Set the eligibility threshold for the right to a guaranteed hours contract at a minimum of 28 hours a week to ensure that the legislation covers a high proportion of workers on variable contracts, in line with the government’s stated aim of ending one-sided flexibility. 
• Extend rights to fair notice and compensation for short-notice shift cancellations to all workers on variable hours contracts. 
• Minimise differences in application of the rights to directly-employed workers and agency workers.
• Set the regularity threshold at a maximum of eight weeks in a rolling 12-week reference period, with no minimum total hours requirement.
• Avoid exemptions or waivers that allow employers to avoid short notice cancellation payments in specific circumstances. 
• Legislate for a minimum of two-week advance notice periods, to ensure the legislation supports most workers on variable contracts and encourages better advance planning among employers.
• Introduce a strong set of penalties for non-compliance. We advocate a flat fee per change rather than a percentage of income since this is simpler to enforce. But of the options under consultation, we propose both a penalty payment to workers of 200% arrears owed, and a wider civil penalty of up to £100k in cases of systemic non-compliance. 
• Give the Fair Work Agency adaptive statutory powers, able to develop and improve enforcement over time and, in due course, extend beyond the right to payment for shifts cancelled, moved or curtailed at short notice, with legislation enabling it to adjust penalty amounts and sector scope as evidence of compliance, or unintended consequences, emerges.
• Pilot time-limited devolved powers for a small number of combined authorities to monitor and enforce the short-notice shift compensation right alongside the FWA, backed by matching record-keeping requirements and genuinely deterrent penalties.
• Apply the same proactive logic to the measures currently left to the employment tribunal system, where legal aid isn’t available and backlogs are severe, making it a route most affected workers cannot realistically access.
• Invest in sector-specific guidance and practical support in the sectors where these rights will bite hardest – social care, hospitality and retail - and monitor compliance and impact over time to inform further adjustment.