The Musicians’ Union's 2017 Education Report (http://bit.ly/2Dn1scn), released in September 2017, described the broad experiences of England's workforce of peripatetic music teachers, drawing on information provided by our members. One specific area it covered was the use of zero-hour contracts, something we are regularly contacted about.
One recent example is a member who contacted us about an illness which affected her mobility. She had been teaching for two different music services, both on zero-hour contracts. Both services were supportive over her illness, with one negotiating with her schools for a ground-floor teaching space to be made available for her. Everything was fine until a new staff member at one school, who was not briefed about the situation, and did not see the need to provide a ground-floor space. This led to the member having to renegotiate a previously agreed reasonable adjustment, with the unfortunate result that the school became impatient and cancelled her teaching.
Due to the terms of the agreement between the school and the music service, this was not a contractual breach, and the member lost a significant chunk of her income with no financial safety net or alternative work offered. At the same time, the member's other music service became slower at processing her timesheets – a common aspect of working under a zero-hour contract – leading to a particularly late payment which coincided with the loss of work at the other music service. This led to her being unable to pay her rent, resulting in her eviction from the rented property she was living in – a truly horrific experience.
These are among the unforeseen consequences of the insecurity associated with precarious contracts. But why should such contracts be in use at all? The government's 2011 National Plan for Music Education makes plain that music education is a right for all, arguably equating it with healthcare and other rights. This means that the front-line providers of music education – instrumental and vocal teachers – should be offered secure employment on established terms and conditions. In this member's case, her pupils will have experienced a break in their continuity of learning, and both the school and the music service will have lost out too.
VALUE JUDGEMENT
The MU has concerns about what the widespread use of zero-hour contracts says about the value currently placed on peripatetic music teachers. The government advises that ‘zero-hour contracts are usually for “piece work” or “on call” work, for example interpreters’. It goes on to state that zero-hour workers are there for when you need them, don't have to be given work, and don't have to do work when asked. It also mentions that zero-hour contracts are also commonly known as ‘casual contracts’.
Are peripatetic teachers really ‘casual’ workers? The answer, usually, is no. These teachers are mostly required to be in the same place every week to teach the same students, and cannot easily decline work without risking fewer offers of work in the future. Rather than providing an ad hoc service as interpreters might, they are, in the main, a permanent fixture of the schools where they teach. The zero-hour contracts used to engage them are primarily designed to be advantageous to music services and schools, rather than serving the real purpose of a contract, which is to enshrine the terms of what should be a beneficial arrangement for both parties.
It is the MU's view that peripatetic teachers should ideally be on employed contracts which include the standard employed benefits such as holiday pay, sick pay and pension contributions. Instrumental and vocal teachers are typically required to demonstrate a high level of commitment, which undermines any notion that their contribution is at all casual. But more than this, we should surely want to attract the most talented individuals to deliver music education to young people, which is hard to do when zero-hour contracts are so prevalent.
None of this is to suggest that legitimate self-employment or even zero-hour working cannot exist in specific genuine situations. But as a sector, we need to be honest with ourselves about how we are treating instrumental and vocal teachers who work for music services. If it looks like employment, it should be employment, which for the MU means ending precarious contracts for peripatetic teachers and reintroducing ideas such as job security, career progression and appropriate professional status.
