Zero Hour Contracts

[oaksoft]

It's simply the economic reality of the world we live in just now.

If there is a labour shortage, you get good working conditions. If there is a labour surplus - as there is now - you get poor working conditions. Especially for low paid unskilled work.

Why is that? Because there's 20 people for every 1 of these jobs. Employers will simply say if you don't like it, leave, we can replace you instantly. It's not in the employers interest to provide favourable conditions to unskilled workers because it costs them money.

Until the economy improves conditions for workers will only get worse.

They are getting away with this because they are being allowed to get away with it.

If the Tories saw workers as people rather than objects they'd stop this abuse overnight.

The vast majority of businesses in the UK MUST be based here. If the government legislated for this it would end overnight.

[Stuart Dickson]

How can I make this simple for you?

We do NOT have 1 million students on this country.

Many of that number support families.

I've already explained why a person supporting a family would take a zero hours contract.

Your talk about refusing shifts is also cloud cuckoo land.

In many industries as pointed out above, refusing a shift means you can be removed from the list of staff and not offered further work.

Other problems include people turning up for a shift and then finding the company has changed it's mind.

As for your son being "suited" to this type of work? Come back when he's getting no hours offered, earning nothing and being continually messed around as I've described above and I guarantee he won't be singing its benefits from the rooftops.

Come back when he's had to tolerate that for 3 months and tell us how great it is.

As for the bit I've highlighted in your post? As I've already explained this is a very common occurrence in zero hour contracts.

The point is Oaksoft, it's just as likely to happen in a fixed hours contract as well. Part time workers and temporary workers tend to get messed around no matter that type of contract they have.

As I also showed many of these students and workers on zero hour contracts will be being double and maybe even triple counted. My son has three zero hour contract jobs, so he must be 3 of your 1m. How many others are in the same position working in bars, in the care industry, doing additional work within healthcare, or in much of the retail sector?

[oaksoft]

The point is Oaksoft, it's just as likely to happen in a fixed hours contract as well. Part time workers and temporary workers tend to get messed around no matter that type of contract they have.

As I also showed many of these students and workers on zero hour contracts will be being double and maybe even triple counted. My son has three zero hour contract jobs, so he must be 3 of your 1m. How many others are in the same position working in bars, in the care industry, doing additional work within healthcare, or in much of the retail sector?

I agree with that first sentence but at least those workers have SOME basic employment rights.

That's all I'm asking for here. All workers should have the same basic rights.

You also mentioned that nobody would give up benefits for work like this.

There in a nutshell is the problem with this type of work. We need work (and you've asked for this repeatedly) which gets people off benefits.

This is work which keeps them trapped on benefits and keeps them dependent. By definition it's bollox work.

Students are not the concern here and whether it benefits them or not is irrelevant.

People trying to get off benefits very much is the real issue and this type of work doesn't help.

BTW you'll probably realise that people on zero hour contracts allows the government to get them off the dole figures allowing the Tories to claim unemployment is falling. We need an end to this political nonsense and allow people access to work with decent conditions and a living wage. If you have to start massaging figures to show you are dealing with the problem then chances are that you are failing to solve anything.

[Lex]

They are getting away with this because they are being allowed to get away with it.

If the Tories saw workers as people rather than objects they'd stop this abuse overnight.

The vast majority of businesses in the UK MUST be based here. If the government legislated for this it would end overnight.

So you think the way to kick start the economy is to further regulate business and put more red tape in place when hiring workers? Thank goodness the government doesn't see it that way.

More employment regulation means less jobs, particularly in a recession. If employers they were forced to give out longer contracts and pay people when they were off sick or on holiday they will simply hire less people.

The reason people take zero hour contracts is because it's better than their alternatives, which is probably nothing at all. Until unemployment goes down this will not change. For workers conditions to improve the unemployment rate must go down, over regulation when it comes to hiring will make that rate worse not better.

[Howard Hughes in BlueSuedeShoes]

That last sentence betrays yet again your complete lack of understanding of the problems many people face in real life.

In your wee world, everyone has a choice in these matters.

According to the report today nearly 1 MILLION people are stuck on these contracts.

Not all of those can be students as we don't have anywhere near that number of students in the country.

If those estimated figures are remotely correct it is, on the face of it, good evidence that the scheme is being abused and it needs urgent investigation.

BTW people with families will take ANYTHING on offer if the alternative is to sit at home and take mindless abuse from people like you about how they are simply shirkers. This means many are forced into work which comes with no employment rights at all.

Yet is depressingly predictable.

[oaksoft]

So you think the way to kick start the economy is to further regulate business and put more red tape in place when hiring workers? Thank goodness the government doesn't see it that way.

More employment regulation means less jobs, particularly in a recession. If employers they were forced to give out longer contracts and pay people when they were off sick or on holiday they will simply hire less people.

The reason people take zero hour contracts is because it's better than their alternatives, which is probably nothing at all. Until unemployment goes down this will not change. For workers conditions to improve the unemployment rate must go down, over regulation when it comes to hiring will make that rate worse not better.

Without workers you have NO BUSINESSES AT ALL.

Remember who creates the wealth.

It certainly isn't the likes of Alan Sugar.

It's the thousands of underpaid put upon stressed out workers who make him his wealth by being prepared to work for virtually f**k all and tolerate one guy at the top creaming millions from their direct efforts.

Without workers Alan Sugar would be struggling by like everyone else.

You should never forget that.

The argument that workers should accept being screwed because of "the economy" isn't really an argument based on anything other than a justification to treat people like scum.

Edited August 5, 2013 by oaksoft

[zurich_allan]

There are quite a few miconceptions on this thread, too many for me to pick up and comment on in one post, however - to correct a couple of the main ones:

1. It doesn't matter if a contract is zero hours, 5 hours or 37 hours - as long as you are legally classed as an 'employee' then you have a legal entitlement to holiday pay so long as you have worked for 12 hours without a break of a full working week, your basic entitlement is an average weekly wage based on the amount of hours you have worked in that 12 week period. This is not optional, but a clear entitlement.

2. Employment rights are not based on the number of hours in your contract (zero or otherwise), they are based only on a combination of your true status as a worker (so whether you are an employee, an independent contractor etc.), and your length of service.

3. Someone, somewhere in the thread said something about not blaming the Government for writing crap laws with loopholes, and instead get the courts to look to interpret them in line with what is actually intended. This is already the case with the courts and always has been. They do not look to the letter of the statute - the letter of the statute is taken into account, but they also take into account what the intention / will of the parliament.

4. Yes, fees for employment tribunals have been brought in - which is entirely against the whole rationale for the existence of the tribunals in the first place (which is supposed to be able to provide open and accesible justice that is unrestrictive and meant to rebalance the uneven distribution of power held between the employer and employee (i.e. the employer usually holds all the cards and these tribunals are supposed to help the employee). However, you can, and always have been entitled to take employment matters through the ordinary civil court channels, as an alleged breach of an employment contract is still simply a breach of contract in a civil sense, albeit a special type of contract. On the flip side though, unless it is a small claim (which it might be), then you would have to shell out for a lawyer, but then as that seems to be the way that the tribunals are going also, there's not really any disadvantage in doing this now...

[Lex]

Without workers you have NO BUSINESSES AT ALL.

Remember who creates the wealth.

It certainly isn't the likes of Alan Sugar.

It's the thousands of underpaid put upon stressed out workers who make him his wealth by being prepared to work for virtually f**k all and tolerate one guy at the top creaming millions from their direct efforts.

Without workers Alan Sugar would be struggling by like everyone else.

You should never forget that.

The argument that workers should accept being screwed because of "the economy" isn't really an argument based on anything other than a justification to treat people like scum.

Talk about missing the point. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about and have got yourself into a lefty rage with f bombs and CAPS LOCK. Relax and come back when you've read an economics book.

EDIT - It's also interesting you mention Alan Sugar. I wonder what his employment rights were when he saved up to buy a £50 van before starting his own business and becoming a self made millionaire. Yet he's part of the problem? Jeez, what are you a communist? Should we all earn the same?

Edited August 5, 2013 by Lex

[oaksoft]

Talk about missing the point. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about and have got yourself into a lefty rage with f bombs and CAPS LOCK. Relax and come back when you've read an economics book.

EDIT - It's also interesting you mention Alan Sugar. I wonder what his employment rights were when he saved up to buy a £50 van before starting his own business and becoming a self made millionaire. Yet he's part of the problem? Jeez, what are you a communist? Should we all earn the same?

He's not a self made millionnaire FFS!!!

He's a millionnaire because he persuaded thousands of people to do the work for him.

This is simple stuff Lex. Why aren't you getting it? Do you really think Alan Sugar handmade every Amstrad in his shed?

[Lex]

He's not a self made millionnaire FFS!!!

He's a millionnaire because he persuaded thousands of people to do the work for him.

This is simple stuff Lex. Why aren't you getting it? Do you really think Alan Sugar handmade every Amstrad in his shed?

You don't understand basic economics do you?

[oaksoft]

There are quite a few miconceptions on this thread, too many for me to pick up and comment on in one post, however - to correct a couple of the main ones:

1. It doesn't matter if a contract is zero hours, 5 hours or 37 hours - as long as you are legally classed as an 'employee' then you have a legal entitlement to holiday pay so long as you have worked for 12 hours without a break of a full working week, your basic entitlement is an average weekly wage based on the amount of hours you have worked in that 12 week period. This is not optional, but a clear entitlement.

You've lost me here. You mention employment rights at 5 hours and then talk about needing 12 hours first. Which is it? If it's 12 hours ON AVERAGE then that is very easy for an employer to get around. You also still have the problem of an employer refusing to give further hours to someone who turns down a shift. If the Agency is bypassing the Mutuality of Obligations then it may even be that these people are classified as Self Employed but I'm unsure about that.

2. Employment rights are not based on the number of hours in your contract (zero or otherwise), they are based only on a combination of your true status as a worker (so whether you are an employee, an independent contractor etc.), and your length of service.

Subject to the qualifying hours above?

3. Someone, somewhere in the thread said something about not blaming the Government for writing crap laws with loopholes, and instead get the courts to look to interpret them in line with what is actually intended. This is already the case with the courts and always has been. They do not look to the letter of the statute - the letter of the statute is taken into account, but they also take into account what the intention / will of the parliament.

It was me who said that. Your point is well taken but the current system is not flawless. If it was we wouldn't be seeing Starbucks taking the piss out of our tax laws.

4. Yes, fees for employment tribunals have been brought in - which is entirely against the whole rationale for the existence of the tribunals in the first place (which is supposed to be able to provide open and accesible justice that is unrestrictive and meant to rebalance the uneven distribution of power held between the employer and employee (i.e. the employer usually holds all the cards and these tribunals are supposed to help the employee). However, you can, and always have been entitled to take employment matters through the ordinary civil court channels, as an alleged breach of an employment contract is still simply a breach of contract in a civil sense, albeit a special type of contract. On the flip side though, unless it is a small claim (which it might be), then you would have to shell out for a lawyer, but then as that seems to be the way that the tribunals are going also, there's not really any disadvantage in doing this now...

I've answered some of your points in red above for ease.

[oaksoft]

You don't understand basic economics do you?

No wonder Sugar needs all those bedrooms in his 8 mansions.

He must be knackered working 29 hours a day in those Chinese sweatshops making all those things he sells.

You'll be telling me next that he used all his own money and didn't risk someone else's investment to make his millions.

Tell you what Lex, you've certainly made me laugh tonight. Thanks bud.

Edited August 5, 2013 by oaksoft

[zurich_allan]

Sorry Oaksoft, a typo as a result of having to type in a hurry (my tea was going to be out in 2 minutes, and you don't want to upset a 6 month pregnant woman and be late!!) - in 1. it should have read "as long as you have worked for 12 consecutive weeks without a break of a full working week"

So even if you only worked one hour in a week for one of the 12 consecutive weeks, that's still enough for holiday purposes.

In 2. it doesn't matter how many hours you have worked - all that are important are your legal worker classification (if not explicit in a contract then it can be decided by a court or tribunal), and length of service (some rights and protections are automatically acquired due to classification, and others are only acquired or added on through passage of time).

For 3. you absolutely have my agreement. The courts are by no means perfect (far from it), but they do have a pretty big degree of flexibility when it comes to interpretation of statutes. This is mainly because some statutes can be on the books for an incredibly long length of time without being reviewed, abolished or superseded. It's quite complex, but in those circumstances (when faced with a piece of legislation that could be 30, 50, 70, even 100+ years old), the courts have a remit of interpreting old laws in light of the current will of parliament and contemporary acceptable norms. This is most commonly carried out when the courts are reading old legislation that prima facie appear to breach either EU law (and as a result a hige amount of employment legislation), Human Rights laws, or other international laws, as well as some areas of criminal laws.

[Lex]

No wonder Sugar needs all those bedrooms in his 8 mansions.

He must be knackered working 29 hours a day in those Chinese sweatshops making all those things he sells.

You'll be telling me next that he used all his own money and didn't risk someone else's investment to make his millions.

Tell you what Lex, you've certainly made me laugh tonight. Thanks bud.

A simple yes would have been enough, thanks for confirming your ignorance on the subject to the forum by having another daft rant again though.

[oaksoft]

Sorry Oaksoft, a typo as a result of having to type in a hurry (my tea was going to be out in 2 minutes, and you don't want to upset a 6 month pregnant woman and be late!!) - in 1. it should have read "as long as you have worked for 12 consecutive weeks without a break of a full working week"

So even if you only worked one hour in a week for one of the 12 consecutive weeks, that's still enough for holiday purposes.

In 2. it doesn't matter how many hours you have worked - all that are important are your legal worker classification (if not explicit in a contract then it can be decided by a court or tribunal), and length of service (some rights and protections are automatically acquired due to classification, and others are only acquired or added on through passage of time).

For 3. you absolutely have my agreement. The courts are by no means perfect (far from it), but they do have a pretty big degree of flexibility when it comes to interpretation of statutes. This is mainly because some statutes can be on the books for an incredibly long length of time without being reviewed, abolished or superseded. It's quite complex, but in those circumstances (when faced with a piece of legislation that could be 30, 50, 70, even 100+ years old), the courts have a remit of interpreting old laws in light of the current will of parliament and contemporary acceptable norms. This is most commonly carried out when the courts are reading old legislation that prima facie appear to breach either EU law (and as a result a hige amount of employment legislation), Human Rights laws, or other international laws, as well as some areas of criminal laws.

Thanks for clarifying.

Pregnant wife? Been there - fully understand

[zurich_allan]

Thanks for clarifying.

Pregnant wife? Been there - fully understand

Indeed - best not take the risk!!

[beyond our ken]

Saddest sight? Sadder would be the same guys sitting at home unwilling to have a go.

Why are they "obvious experienced workers"? Sounds to me like their skills are obsolete and they need to retrain.

That's not uncommon.

these guys were mature, smart, clean and out and about at 07:30

retrain to clean the streets? do me a favour

[oaksoft]

these guys were mature, smart, clean and out and about at 07:30

retrain to clean the streets? do me a favour

When you are desperate you don't have the luxury of looking down on certain types of work.

Work is work and it's always mentally better than nothing.

I'm not really sure what your point is here.

Are you suggesting they are somehow better than those who clean streets? Based on them being clean and awake at 7.30am ?

Here's another way of looking at it.

They start by cleaning the streets.

Then they get promotion to supervising others after a year or two.

If they have a good enough attitude that should be easy to achieve - probably sooner.

A successful period supervising leads to perhaps area manager within another 3 years.

So in 4 years they've retrained and are in management earning a decent whack.

How could that possibly be considered sad?

I'd urge anyone in that position to take the broader view.

Been there myself with a degree. It doesn't need to be permanent. Wasn't for me but it did take 18 months.

When I got the better job part of the reason I was hired was that I'd proven I could graft when the chips were down.

You'd be amazed how few people have that character and how valuable it is as a result.

If I'd sat at home for those 18 months I'd probably still be there now.

[oaksoft]

I have a couple of relief staff on a zero hours contract, simply as back up in an emergency.

They get the same rate as regular staff, and pro-rata holiday pay based on hours actually worked.

Both have jobs elsewhere and are happy to take an odd shift here and there.

Surely that is better than having to use an agency and end up with unknown quantities who have no knowledge of the people they are caring for?

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Black & White Army mobile app

Presumably this is a charity though that you are talking about and not a profit making business.

That makes a difference as people understand charities are all about caring for people.

Profit making businesses trying to screw over their staff are another matter altogether.

In the news today one zero hour "employee" was saying he was told he had no employment rights for 2 years and was then told he was no longer needed just before the two years were up. This is going to need looking into and it sounds like government has cottoned onto this abuse judging by the news.

[exiledfan]

Employers don't have it easy either. Agency working directives now mean that you need to offer pay parity and same bonus rights holidays etc after 12 weeks work in a set period as full time staff (unless Swedish deregation is used by the agency).

Zero hours can allow employers to manage peaks in volume and grow business which maintains full time employment for others.

If a company had 100% of its workers on zero hours morally I think it's wrong, however if a flex of the work force is on it then I understand the commercial need.

[Kendo]

I wonder if unemployment would increase if the government stopped this practise?

Would the people who are currently on these contracts be making zero money?

Would the companies offering these contracts reduce their workforce or increase it?

Not sure I like the idea but I can see the plus side as well as the negative.

[oaksoft]

Employers don't have it easy either. Agency working directives now mean that you need to offer pay parity and same bonus rights holidays etc after 12 weeks work in a set period as full time staff (unless Swedish deregation is used by the agency).

Zero hours can allow employers to manage peaks in volume and grow business which maintains full time employment for others.

If a company had 100% of its workers on zero hours morally I think it's wrong, however if a flex of the work force is on it then I understand the commercial need.

I agree. In which case they should be paid a basic retainer and a higher rate of pay when they do actually work to compensate them for what they are losing.

That's how it works in IT with freelancers.

[oaksoft]

I wonder if unemployment would increase if the government stopped this practise?

Would the people who are currently on these contracts be making zero money?

Would the companies offering these contracts reduce their workforce or increase it?

Not sure I like the idea but I can see the plus side as well as the negative.

Business would squeal because business is greedy.

They squealed about NMW, they squealed about the EU social charter and they'll squeal about this too.

Fundamentally none of the above measures made any difference to profits margins or unemployment figures so it's hard to believe this would either.

[Kendo]

Business would squeal because business is greedy.

They squealed about NMW, they squealed about the EU social charter and they'll squeal about this too.

Fundamentally none of the above measures made any difference to profits margins or unemployment figures so it's hard to believe this would either.

Perhaps after they stopped squealing they would pay people off cause they had less money and couldn't afford the wages. A wee bit like a team I support.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

For every worker (student) who manages multiple zero hours contracts there are many more (mainly non students) who cant afford to take the risk, i.e. they cant take a second zero hour contract as it would affect their ability to work at short notice with the first.

The government takes about cutting red tape for business - its spin for cutting workers rights and safety laws in order to generate more profit for their donors and boys club chums