text: Intermediate 
  More than one million British workers might be employed on zero-hours contracts, a new poll shows. This suggests that British businesses are using the controversial employment contracts far more than previously thought.
  After the results  which come from a poll of more than 1,000 employers by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD)  people began asking the government to launch a full inquiry into the use of the contracts. Recently, many organizations  from retail chains to Buckingham Palace  have been criticized for hiring staff but offering no guarantee of work and pay each week. Employees on zero-hours contracts often get no holiday or sick pay and have to ask permission before looking for additional work elsewhere.
  The CIPD found that 38% of zero-hours contract workers describe themselves as employed full-time, typically working 30 hours or more a week. One-third of voluntary sector employers use the contracts and one in four public sector organizations.
  Peter Cheese, from the CIPD, said: There does need to be a closer look at what is meant by a zero-hours contract. And this needs to consider both the advantages and disadvantages for businesses and employees.
  Retailer Sports Direct recently became the focus of controversy on zero-hours when it was reported that the company employs around 20,000 of its 23,000 staff on the contracts. The retailers use of the contracts was followed by details of many other companies using the contracts, including cinema chain Cineworld and Buckingham Palace, which uses them for its 350 summer workers. Pub group J D Wetherspoon has 24,000 of its staff  80% of its workforce  on zero-hours contracts.
  Vidhya Alakeson, from the Resolution Foundation, added: If its true that there are around one million people on zero-hours contracts, then that would be a substantial portion of the workforce  this could no longer be dismissed as an issue affecting only a tiny minority.
  Unions and poverty campaign groups have accused employers of pressuring staff into signing the contracts so that they can avoid their responsibilities and reduce staff bene ts.
  Dave Prentis, of the trade union Unison, said: The vast majority of workers are only on these contracts because they have no choice. They may give  exibility to a few, but the contracts favour the employers and make it hard for workers to complain.
  Workers on zero-hours contracts are often only told how many hours they will work when weekly or monthly rotas are created, but are expected to be on call for extra work at short notice. They should get holiday pay, but they do not get sick pay.
  The charity National Trust, which employs many of its seasonal workers on zero-hours contracts, said it offered the same pay and bene ts to those workers, pro rata, as full-time staff, but needed some workers to be on more  exible contracts.
  We believe zero-hours contracts are essential in our organization, as we are very weather-dependent, a spokeswoman said. Its important to be able to reorganize staff rotas quickly to respond to the weather and zero-hours contracts allow us to do this.
  Politician Chuka Umunna said the contracts should be the exception to the rule. While some employees welcome the  exibility of such contracts, for many, zero-hours contracts leave them insecure and unsure of when work will come, he said.
  Some people have argued that the  exibility of zero-hours contracts may have allowed the UK to avoid higher levels of unemployment during the economic crisis.
  Figures from the poll suggest that 17% of employers in the private sector use zero-hours contracts, considerably lower than the 34% of organizations in the voluntary sector and 24% in the public sector.
  Industries where employers were most likely to have at least one person on a zero-hours contract were hotels, catering and leisure (48%), education (35%) and healthcare (27%).