IF YOU canvas opinion about zero hours contracts the almost universal response is that they are A Bad Thing, a way in which employers exploit workers.

The media tell us this, the Scottish Government tells us this, trade unions tell us this.

It is not true and the fallacy is actually harmful to those it seeks to protect.

The trade unions would have us believe that they represent workers as a whole but in fact they – perfectly correctly – represent only their own members.

Those who rage against zero hours contracts assume that the choice is between a zero hours contract with, as its name implies, no guaranteed hours of work and a contract which does have guaranteed hours in it.

Actually that is all too often not the choice, the real choice being between having a contract which is likely to provide you with some work and not having a job at all.

If you look at mainland Europe, where employment regulation makes flexible working hours contracts more difficult, there is a stark comparison between their unemployment rates and those in the UK.

In Spain, for example, the overall rate of unemployment is 21 per cent and the rate for youth unemployment there is 43 per cent, while the equivalent figures in the UK are five per cent and under 14 per cent.

Which is better?

A person who wants full-time work would generally prefer to be on a contract which automatically gave them a full working week than one which did not. But what about the person without a job? If a contract gives them the opportunity to get into work should they not have that option?

There is no doubt that an economy which allows employers and employees to create a range of flexible employment arrangements creates more jobs than one which does not.

A zero hours contract creates a framework within which employers can offer work and employees can accept or decline it. Surveys show the majority of those on zero hours contracts actually like the flexibility it gives them to accept or decline work as it is offered, so that they can better juggle an often complex work/life balance. What we ought to be concentrating on is not stamping out zero hours contracts, which actually create opportunities for work which would not otherwise be there.

What we do need to do is make sure, through decent wage rates as well as ensuring that income earned does not almost equal benefits withdrawn, that zero hours contracts work for both employer and employee.

Those companies misusing zero hours contracts by pretending that somebody is not a full-time employee when the facts show they plainly are should indeed be stamped on.

Zero hours contracts are used to their greatest extent in industries such as hospitality or retail where there are variable and hard to predict patterns of demand.

As consumers we increasingly expect to be able to buy goods and services whenever we want – Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm opening hours just does not make sense any more. The people who are actually driving the need for zero hours contracts are you and me.

The trend towards greater working flexibility for both employer and employee will only strengthen rather than decline and this can suit both companies and employees.

We should stop trying to harm those who need jobs the most by destroying the flexible employment framework which provides opportunity for them to work.

Zero hours contracts are not an inherently bad thing.

Pinstripe is a senior member of Scotland’s financial services community