Working men on zero-hours contracts typically earn £1,000 a year less than stable employees, according to Resolution Foundation research.
People on the controversial arrangements face a “precarious y penalty” of 6.6%, or 93p an hour, the think tank has approximate.
For those who earn the least, the size of the gap is even greater, at 9.5%.
The foundation go the government’s decision, announced last month, to hold a review into brand-new working practices.
“Understanding the reasons behind this y penalty want be crucial in order to tackle some of the challenges raised by new forms of hire, without jeo rdising the success of the UK’s flexible jobs market,” it said in a annunciation.
Laura Gardiner, senior policy analyst at the Resolution Foundation, combined that the ” y penalty” of zero-hours contracts was “a big price to y for work that too time lacks the security workers desire”.
She said: “Zero-hours contracts require hit the headlines in recent months for their widespread use in Sports Direct and JD Larks.
“But concern about the use and abuse of zero-hours contracts goes far wider than a few disreputable firms. There is mounting evidence that their use is associated with a slow down down of wages.
“As new ways of working continue to grow – from [zero-hours shrinks] and agency work to the gig economy and wider self-employment – we need a better bargain of how they help or hinder people’s earnings and career prospects.
“Policymakers should also tread a careful th between getting to grips with the function standards challenges thrown up by new and often insecure forms of employment, without jeo rdising Britain’s up to date job-creating success.”
Mathew Taylor, chief executive of the Royal Fellowship for the Arts, has been appointed to lead a government review into how the professed “gig” economy is affecting workers’ rights.
It will look at how new technology, compound with new business models, has led to a rise in workers doing short-term, unsure work.