Catriona, 37, a mother of two from Glasgow, lives a life dictated by a phone that might never ring.
For three years, Catriona has worked as a domiciliary care assistant in Glasgow, travelling across the city to provide essential home care to elderly residents. On paper, she is on a zero-hours contract. In reality, she says her week can be an unpredictable jigsaw puzzle. She is usually scheduled for 30 to 35 hours a week, a breakfast run starting at 7am, a midday lunch shift, and an evening dinner round ending at 9pm.
The schedule is only half the battle. Catriona’s biggest problem is the total lack of financial predictability, which makes budgeting for her seven-year-old and 11-year-old children "nearly impossible".
Last week, my hours were suddenly slashed from 32 down to just eight because a local authority care package changed," she said. "How am I supposed to buy groceries or pay the rent when my income can drop by 70% without warning? I am constantly stressed, and my children feel that anxiety."
Scots 'exploitation' jobs soar 20% despite Labour ban pledge
Knife crime hits eight-year high as prevention programme funding significantly cut
Today the Herald reveals that the number of Scots working on what are considered by trade unionists as “exploitative” insecure job contracts has soared by more than 20% in a year despite a Labour pledge to ban notorious zero-hours jobs.
The increase means 95,000 people in Scotland are now working without guaranteed hours, with the total jumping by 16,000 in just 12 months. The latest figures show the number rising from 79,000 between April and June last year to 95,000 in the same period this year — meaning the increase has happened during Labour’s first full year in government.
The figures will pile pressure on ministers to deliver on a pledge that was repeatedly made before the election, after the STUC accused employers of fuelling insecurity and demanded that Labour deliver its promised employment rights “in full, without delay or dilution”.
Zero-hours contracts allow employers to keep staff on call without guaranteeing paid work, shifting business risk directly onto the employee. In social care, where local authority funding and patient needs fluctuate, companies can use these agreements as a financial buffer.
When a care package is reduced, the loss is passed straight to the worker, whose income can drop instantly with no requirement for notice or severance pay.
This instability is made worse by fragmented scheduling and short-notice cancellations. Care workers often have visits cancelled mid-shift without pay for their time or travel, while having a handful of working hours spread across a 14-hour window prevents them from taking on a second job.
Because refusing last-minute requests risks "silent firing"- where managers simply stop offering future shifts – workers are left trapped in hyper-availability without any guaranteed earnings to budget for basic living costs.
And Catriona says her dilemma is worsened by last-minute cancellations. She sometimes receives text messages from her employer cancelling an afternoon care visit just 30 minutes before she arrives, leaving her stranded without pay or compensation for her travel time. Because her remaining hours are scattered throughout the day, she says she cannot realistically take on a second job to patch the financial hole.
Catriona is now joining the growing chorus of workers, trade unions, and campaigners calling for a total overhaul of the system.
